Loading...
Agenda and Minutes 2010-03-17 City of Northampton Community Preservation Committee 210 Main Street, City Hall Northampton, MA 01060 Community Preservation Committee DATE: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 TIME: 7:00pm PLACE: City Council Chambers, 212 Main Street (BEHIND City Hall) Contact: Fran Volkmann, Chair, Community Preservation Committee Franv@comcast.net Tom Parent, Vice Chair, Community Preservation Committee ParentBridge@hotmail.com Sarah LaValley, Community Preservation Planner slavalley@northamptonma.gov (413) 587-1263 Agenda  Public Comment  Chair’s Report  Minutes February 3, 2010 o March 3, 2010 o  Meetings With Applicants 7:15-7:45: Northampton Community Music Center o 7:45-8:15: Childs Park o 8:15-8:45: Upper Roberts Meadow o 8:45-9:15: Conservation Fund o  Draft Contract Review Look Park Recreation o Broad Brook Invasive Removal o  Other Business For additional information please refer to the Community Preservation Committee website: http://www.northamptonma.gov/cpc/ Community Preservation Committee Minutes March 17, 2010 Time: 7:00 pm Place: City Council Chambers, 212 Main St. Members Present: Tom Parent, Fran Volkmann, Joe DeFazio, Lilly Lombard, Downey Meyer, Don Bianchi, David Drake, Brian Adams. Staff Present: Sarah LaValley Chair Fran Volkmann called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm. Public Comment There was no public comment. Chair’s Report Fran reminded people to register for the May 8 CPA Conference. Fran reminded CPA members to take the mandatory online ethics training. Fran noted that the CPA projected state funding match for 2010 is slightly higher than expected, at about 33 percent. Minutes – February 3, 2010 The minutes were unanimously approved as presented. Minutes – March 3, 2010 The minutes were unanimously approved as presented. Meetings With Applicants Fran let applicants know that they can make opening statements if desired, atnd then move into questions from the Committee. Northampton Community Music Center Jason Trotta, NCMC, Roger Cooney, Wright Builders Fran asked about the Center’s fundraising efforts. Jason replied that a capital campaign was launched when the building was first ready to be occupied that generated about $600,000 from a variety of donors. Jason has a high level of confidence that the project can be completed with other levels of funding. Roger provided an overview of the project, including mold mitigation, insulation, filling in of former boiler pit, and new windows. There is no hazardous waste at the site. Fran noted that one of the funding criteria is public support, and that will have to be demonstrated if the project is funded. Jason replied that support letters from board members have been provided, and he can seek more from parents and students. Downey asked how the project cost would change if phase 2 was conducted for general purpose renovation, instead of specialized music rooms. Roger did not have an exact figure, but noted that much of the work would still need to be done, including insulating the basement from sound on upper floors and for fire. Many of the mitigations and upgrades are critical to any renovation of the space. Jason added that it made sense to conduct phase 1 with a corresponding vision for phase 2. Childs Park Northampton Community Preservation Committee Minutes 1 March 17, 2010 William Dwyer, Childs Park Foundation. William provided a description of the project. The Pond has been in the park for many years. Dredging has been pushed to the bottom of the funding list due to other projects, but the Park would like to revitalize it. Fran asked how the Park is funded. Bill replied that an annual endowment from the Annie Childs Trust is received, and some modest fundraising is also conducted. 2/3 of annual income generally goes to staffing, but income has been down over past few years. Don asked about public benefit from the pond dredging. Bill replied that there are several different areas within the park, including lawn, paths, the frog pond, and the duck pond. Dredging would restore that section of the park, and goldfish could also be added. Tom asked about the $1o00 remaining cost that was not applied for from CPA. Bill replied that will come out of the Park’s operating budget. Lilly noted that demonstration of public support is helpful to the Committee when considering a grant application of any size. Support letters weren’t included in the application. Bill noted that some of the board of directors indicated that they will be sending support letters. Brian asked about plans for future dredging. Bill replied that more frequent maintenance will be planned. Upper Roberts Meadow Dee Boyle Clapp, Dave Herships, Barbara Pelessier, Friends of Upper Roberts Meadow Dee stated that the project has been a labor of love and very difficult, but the Friends have learned a great deal about the areas wildlife and history. The BPW did not vote to provide a support letter, but several city councilors have indicated support Councilor Gene Tacy, Ward 7 noted that dam safety became a concern in Massachusetts when the wooden dam in Taunton was at risk of failure. Pumps were brought in to keep the dam from bursting and the surrounding area was evacuated. Changes in dam safety protocol were brought about because of this potential failure, and all dams were then declared ‘high hazard.’ The Chesterfield Road Dam was built into bedrock and is very stable, and has a great deal of historic significance. He does not have a lot of confidence in the previous hydropower potential study because it wasn’t done by hydrologists. Gene provided the Committee with pictures of dam in low flow, and blueprints from 1883. Dee noted that the dam’s floodplain was calculated with the full retaining potential of the reservoir, but the dam impoundment currently contains a lot of sediment and contains less than half that amount of water. Dee noted that the Friends have been fundraising to conduct a detailed hydro assessment, and are currently halfway to the fundraising goal. Gene noted that a cost investment into hydropower will produce a return, but the return timing is different for each dam. Fran noted that the Friends’ CPA application is for historic preservation, so funding will be used to preserve the dam. However, if hydropower is possible it provides some assurance that the dam will remain in place. Long-term preservation has to be a consideration of the CPC Dee noted that return on investment is relatively long for this dam. A powerhouse would need to be installed, most of which would be underwater and not visible. A connection from the powerhouse to the dam would also need to be made. The powerhouse would hopefully be able to look historic. Dave stated that a FERC permit will need to be applied for; it would create an economy of scale for the City to apply for all 7 hydro-potential dams in city at once. Dee noted that a FERC application is very expensive, however there are lots of volunteers available. Mass Energy Collaborative could potentially supply additional funding once a certain number of kilowatts are reached, so there is a potential for lots of savings on the initial consultant’s estimate. Don noted that the DPW hasn’t been receptive to the ideas in the application, and asked how the study proposed achieves the end goal of determining if there’s an alternative to removing the dam. Dee replied that the Friends of Upper Roberts Meadow are not engineers, and try not to present potentially incorrect information. However, other engineers have indicated that potential repair and reinforcement projects are feasible. Northampton Community Preservation Committee Minutes 2 March 17, 2010 Dave stated that the dam provides one of the most scenic areas of the city, and feels it should be saved on that benefit alone. David asked about the dam’s flow. Dee stated that the only available flow data is what was presented in GZA’s Phase 2 report, at Mill River gaging stations. Dee Noted that GZA’s wildlife impact study was very brief and needs to be completed. Dave added that the dam area is within the jurisdiction of NHESP, and the agency would need to comment on a breach. Don clarified DPW’s requirements for the dam to remain: A hydro study is required to demonstrate that hydro generation can pay for dam maintenance in the long term. There is a possibility that this study could be interpreted differently by Friends and DPW, so no progress has been made. Dee suggested that recent ‘green’ initiatives will also help generate support for the project. The Friends haven’t had the time so far for a lot of public education, but anticipate that people will get behind it. Tom asked whether the DPW is under time pressure from the state. Dee replied that the Office of Dam Safety requires forward movement, which can include fundraising, although several extensions have already been granted. Local politicians have offered to speak with DCR, but that would need to be at the City’s request. Brian asked when the hydro study will be complete. Dee replied that an engineer with whom the Friends’ have been in contact would be able to come out at the end of May, so the study will not be complete for the current round of CPA funding. Brian asked who owns the abutting land. Dee replied that the water department owns some, as well as private individuals. Some are in process of obtaining conservation restrictions. Dee invited Committee members to visit the dam with a hydro consultant this Friday. David asked whether this consultant could be a potential to be hired if funds are awarded. Dee indicates that he could be. Gene noted that impending stretch code as part of the Green Communities Act wouldn’t have nearly as much financial impact if adopted as the installation of hydropower on municipal dams. Conservation Fund Kevin Lake, Conservation Commission Chair Kevin provided an overview of the importance of the conservation fund and how it’s contributed to conservation acquisitions and protection of land in Northampton. Having funds readily available often allows for purchases that would not otherwise be possible. The Committee reviewed past expenditures from the Fund. Sarah clarified that the fund is not a predevelopment fund, but is a fund established expressly for acquisition-related projects. Conservation funds are established by Mass General Law, and at the local level by City Council. The CPC looked at how funds had been spent, and suggested that they may want to consider in the future what CPA funds in the conservation fund are eligible to be used for. Draft Contract Review Look Park Recreation Tom distributed a letter the Committee received from the National Guard indicating support of the dredging portion of the project. Sarah presented draft conditions with changes to accommodate the timing concerns of the National Guard. The Committee approved a contract that allows $25,000 to be spent on studies needed for permit applications, prior to any assurance being required of dredging funds or commitment from another source. Broad Brook Invasive Removal The Committee approved a contract with some changes to accommodate the amended project. Northampton Community Preservation Committee Minutes 3 March 17, 2010 Other Business Marble Brook/Nonotuck Land Fund project: Fran spoke about Marble Brook, and noted that a stewardship plan has been prepared as the CPC intended, although this was not included in the CPA contract conditions. Fran noted that it’s important to know the purpose of a CR, as they can take many shapes depending on whether they are meant to protect watersheds, wildlife, or simply prevent development. The Committee agreed that they should consider CRs in more detail when they involve CPA funds. Fran suggested, and the committee agreed, that the CPC have 3 special topic sessions over the next year: Conditions for land protection grants Public access to information relative to CPA funds Housing first and Housing Partnership priorities Fran noted that it can sometimes be important to have discussions by people who aren’t applicants. Other future agenda items include: Minutes, priorities for use of staff time, website, and predevelopment fund specifics. Tom let the Committee know that he will not be able to attend the next CPC meeting, and provided his preliminary opinion of each project. : The meeting adjourned at 9:45 PM Northampton Community Preservation Committee Minutes 4 March 17, 2010