Loading...
Agenda and Minutes 2008-04-16 Community Preservation Committee Agenda DATE: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 TIME: 7:00 PM PLACE: City Council Chambers, 212 Main Street (BEHIND City Hall) Contact: Jack Hornor, Chair, Community Preservation Committee Jack@JackHornor.com Fran Volkmann, Vice Chair, Community Preservation Committee Franv@comcast.net Bruce Young, Community Preservation Planner byoung@northamptonma.gov (413) 587-1263 Agenda Public Comment ?? Approval of Minutes for 03/01/2008, 03/12/2008 and 03/19/2008 ?? Fiscal Update ?? Chair’s Report ?? Report on meeting with Mayor Higgins ?? Review of decision-making process used for the initial funding cycle ?? Review of April 1, 2008 Eligibility Determinations, including ineligibility determination ?? for the Historic Northampton proposal (please see CPA website for current eligibility forms) Discussion of decision-making process and timeline for the second funding cycle ?? For additional information please refer to the Community Preservation Committee website: http://www.northamptonma.gov/gsuniverse/httpRoot/comm/ 1 MINUTES Community Preservation Committee Date: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 Time: 7:00 pm Place: City Hall, 212 Main St., Council Chambers Members Present: Jack Hornor, Fran Volkmann, George Kohout, Don Bianchi, Tom Parent, John Andrulis and Craig Della Penna (pending appointment) Staff Present: Bruce Young, Community Preservation Planner John Frey, Community Preservation Planner Jack Hornor opened the meeting at 7:00 pm by welcoming Craig Della Penna as the pending appointee representing the Historical Commission. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Jack Hornor presented the draft minutes from March 1st, 12th and 19th, 2008 for approval. Upon motion by Fran Volkmann to approve all minutes, seconded by John Andrulis, all members voted in favor. 3. FISCAL UPDATE Jack Hornor stated the balance available in the CPA account is $1,649,604.04. This figure reflects the Mineral Hills appropriation, but not the other projects recommended at the last meeting. Minus all recommended projects the balance is ~$670,000. 4. CHAIR’S REPORT MEETING TIME ?? Jack Hornor opened discussion regarding general meeting time going forward. He questioned whether the CPC would prefer to begin at 6pm. ?? Fran Volkmann stated Mason Maronn has trouble getting to meetings before 7pm. ?? George Kohout mentioned he prefers to have time for dinner before coming to the meeting. He would like to keep the 7pm start time. 2 ?? John Andrulis stated he likes the 7pm start time. ?? Jack Hornor stated with no opposition the start time would remain 7pm. 5. PROJECT RECOMMENDATION MEETING WITH MAYOR TIMETABLE Jack Hornor stated the expected timetable for project approval is… -Minor changes tonight (April 16, 2008) -Mayor presents to City Council (April 17, 2008) -City Council forwards to Finance Committee (April 17, 2008) -Finance Committee discusses (April 22, 2008) -City Council first reading (May 1, 2008) -City Council second reading (May 15, 2008) ELM STREET PROJECT ?? Jack Hornor stated the Mayor questioned the decision to not approve funding of the printing costs in the grant recommendation. The Mayor wondered if the association is required by ordinance to deliver a copy to each affected resident. ?? Bruce Young stated notification is required but actually printing and mailing the document is not mandatory. He stated standard protocol for the City is to mail a postcard notification to all residents stating where the document is available (online, planning department, libraries, etc.). ?? Jack Hornor agreed we should notify all residents but as the CPC supports sustainable practices, mass printing should not be encouraged. However, the Mayor still wants the CPC to consider. ?? Fran Volkmann questioned if the ordinance will be the same as the design standards document. She wondered if it were possible to mail just a summary. ?? Bruce Young stated the ordinance and design standards are usually the same. Often times the full handbook becomes part of the ordinance. ?? Jack Hornor stated his belief that the document is an interpretation of the ordinance, a clarification of the new rules. If there is no movement amongst the CPC to change its position then keep it as is in the recommendation. ?? Bruce Young stated all residents would receive notice detailing how to access the documents. ?? Craig Della Penna suggested printing about 1/3 the total number of households in order to have available for requests. He does not agree with not having any printed. ?? Fran Volkmann stated the committee did not recommend printing because it is standard practice for the City to not print these sorts of documents. She suggested a straw vote to see if members want to change the recommendation. ?? Tom Parent questioned if all residents would be informed before the ordinance changes are accepted. Bruce Young responded that all residents would be notified via postcard before decisions are made. ?? Jack Hornor asked for a straw vote to which no one responded they wanted a change in the recommendation. The CPC recommendation stays as written not to fund printing. 3 FORBES LIBRARY ?? Jack Hornor clarified an earlier concern regarding Forbes Library Board of Trustees meeting minutes. Minutes are in fact available online for public viewing. HOUSING FIRST SITE SELECTION ?? Jack Hornor stated the Mayor’s concern that the CPC may not want to actually maintain control of site selection for the Housing First property. ?? Don Bianchi stated the reason the CPC included the condition was for concern the Mayor and Council may not approve the recommendation without such oversight. ?? Fran Volkmann stated the Mayor envisioned CPC having to deal with neighborhood concerns during site selection. ?? Don Bianchi stated the CPC included conditions in all recommendations that reasonable oversight would be executed at a later time. He suggested simplifying the condition to state the CPC would oversee that money is spent appropriately to ensure intent of grant is met. ?? Bruce Young stated it is the job of the Planning Board to ensure the usage of a site is correct. The CPC should only want to ensure performance of the goals, not strict oversight of location. ?? Don Bianchi stated that clarifies the situation for him. He suggested striking site review but still oversee development budget, operating budget and ensure necessary permits are secured. ?? Jack Hornor stated his belief that that would still be too much oversight and may slow the applicant’s approval process. He stated the applicant has provided enough information to proceed. He suggested striking the full condition. ?? Tom Parent suggested it is in the applicant’s best interest to select a site without permit difficulties. ?? Craig Della Penna suggested it is not standard to award grant money unless a viable project is fully in place. ?? Jack Hornor stated the plan is fully in place, the final site is the only thing lacking at this point. ?? Fran Volkmann stated this is not the only recommendation the CPC funded without a full plan in place. She sees no problem with this practice. ?? Don Bianchi suggested delegating responsibility to the Planning Department. ?? Jack Hornor stated he doesn’t believe CPC has the ability to delegate responsibilities to the Planning Department. Delegating to CPC staff would still keep it within the CPC realm even though CPC is staffed by the Planning Department. While possible this would be costly to the CPC budget. ?? Don Bianchi stated it is unusual for any real estate project not to include site evaluation. He is fine with relinquishing site selection, but cautious of losing due diligence in overseeing viability of project. ?? Jack Hornor suggested striking the first sentence of the condition. ?? Upon motion by Don Bianchi, seconded by Tom Parent, all agreed to strike the first sentence of the condition (George Kohout abstained). HOUSING FIRST AFFORDABILITY TERM 4 ?? Jack Hornor stated the Mayor questioned the length of the affordability term. He stated Service Net is amenable to any condition proposed. ?? Bruce Young stated 99 years is the standard length. ?? Don Bianchi recommended changes to the condition (see attached). ?? Upon motion by Don Bianchi, seconded by Tom Parent, all agreed to condition changes (George Kohout abstained). 6. REVIEW OF INITIAL FUNDING CYCLE TIMETABLE & PROCESS ?? Jack Hornor reviewed the timeline for the first funding cycle that included eligibility forms due (January 1, 2008), full applications due (February 1, 2008), process meeting (February 20, 2008), presentations (March 1, 2008), presentations and public comment meeting (March 12, 2008), and final decision meeting (March 19, 2008). He queried the CPC for their impressions. ?? Tom Parent thought the six hour final meeting was too long making it difficult to focus. ?? Don Bianchi agreed the night was grueling but the process was handled well. Everyone was prepared, leadership was great, and the CPC struggled to fund projects as best they could. ?? Fran Volkmann liked the process in general, though suggested the CPC re-work the presentations. Questions need to be better formulated ahead of time. ?? Jack Hornor stated his belief that the applicants were happy with the process. ?? Bruce Young stated he has received very little feedback, but that is likely a good indicator. ?? Jack Hornor stated he thought the process was very good, though he was surprised at the small amount of public comment. Perhaps that meeting could be re-worked. Overall the meetings were long but in future they should proceed more quickly. MAYORAL RECOMMENDATIONS ?? Bruce Young stated he has not sent formal notification to the applicants as of yet. He thought it was better to wait since the Mayor may recommend changes. ?? Fran Volkmann stated the CPC should communicate to the applicants ASAP. Language in the letter could state that project recommendations are subject to changes pending mayoral and council approval. ?? Don Bianchi stated he is sensitive that the CPC wants to work pro-actively with the Mayor, but the CPC is in control of the proceedings. While the Mayor could reject a project, no project could move forward without CPC initial approval. ?? Tom Parent stated the narrative in letter to applicants is understandable to add. Simply explain that the CPC believed the process would have proceeded more quickly. ?? Jack Hornor stated his understanding that the Mayor could accept, decrease, or not approve a project, but could not change the stated conditions. He also believed the Mayor intends to forward all recommendations to council without change. ?? Bruce Young stated he disagrees with this understanding of the CPA. He believed Council could approve with conditions. He stated the CPC should engage the city 5 solicitor to research. ?? George Kohout suggested the CPC simply play out the process and see what the Council decides. ?? Fran Volkmann stated the CPC is independent of the City and therefore setting conditions is the CPC’s duty. 7. ELIGIBILITY FORMS FOR ROUND 2 FUNDING CYCLE HISTORIC NORTHAMPTON ELIGIBILITY FORM ?? Jack Hornor stated he has reviewed all the eligibility forms for Round 2 with the assistance of Fran Volkmann and Bruce Young. He determined the Historic Northampton organization is not permitted to create its own stabilization fund with CPC awards therefore he denied the eligibility application. All denied eligibility forms are automatically forwarded to the full CPC for review. ?? Kerry Buckley of Historic Northampton presented his arguments in favor of establishing a stabilization fund under the control of Historic Northampton. He essentially stated his belief that if the funds were used for allowable CPA preservation purposes then a stabilization fund would be a proper scheme under the CPA guidelines. Therefore, the eligibility form should be allowed and the viability should be decided based on the merits of the project determined in the full application process. ?? Jack Hornor stated he does not doubt the projects Historic Northampton would choose to fund would qualify for CPA funding. However, he also stated he does not believe it is proper to simply transfer funds from the CPC account to a separate Historic Northampton account without projects in place. That is not the intent of the CPA. ?? Kerry Buckley stated he would like the CPC to approve a new eligibility form with specific projects presented. ?? Upon motion by George Kohout, seconded by John Andrulis, all voted in favor of allowing Historic Northampton to re-submit an eligibility form. ?? Kerry Buckley submitted a new eligibility form and Jack Hornor will review. AMENDING ELIGIBILITY FORMS ?? Jack Hornor queried the CPC as to whether it should accept eligibility form changes or require applicants to re-submit next round. ?? Don Bianchi stated first that he agreed with Jack Hornor’s denial of the eligibility form. Secondly, he stated the eligibility form is designed to eliminate unneeded work by the applicant if their project is not allowed by the CPA regardless of the merits. Therefore, the spirit of the rule is to allow changes in order to make an applicant eligible, and then decide projects based on merits. ?? George Kohout agreed and stated the CPC should change the wording in its eligibility rules. ?? Jack Hornor stated his belief that the wording already allows the CPC to accept changes and therefore does not need amending. ?? Don Bianchi stated the CPC should however further elaborate on its intention for the eligibility form. ?? Fran Volkmann stated the intention is not for applicants to appeal a given eligibility form but rather to change their form in order for their project application to meet CPA criteria. 6 ?? John Frey suggested the CPC change its procedure to not simply require eligibility forms to be submitted on by a certain date, but rather to require the applicant to pro-actively work with staff and the Chair to submit an approved eligibility form by that certain date (thirty days before applications are due). In other words, if the applicant does not start early enough to leave time for eligibility form changes by the deadline then they must wait for the next funding cycle. VALLEY CDC ELIGIBILITY ?? Don Bianchi questioned if denied or postponed applications from the first round need to re-submit eligibility forms. ?? Jack Hornor suggested the CPC discuss this at a later meeting. ?? Fran Volkmann stated her belief that if an applicant were actually turned down they would need to begin the process anew. However, she believed the Valley CDC applications was not fully turned down but rather postponed pending more information. ?? Don Bianchi stated an application could be turned down for numerous reasons including either a lack of money to fund or rather a project simply is no good. ?? Fran Volkmann suggested an applicant could not come back with exactly the same project. ?? Jack Hornor stated the minutes make it clear enough why a given project is rejected. He suggested the CPC could be subjective in this area, as the applicant would get the correct message. ?? Jack Hornor stated Lilly Lombard had emailed numerous questions regarding Valley CDC. He would put the issue on the agenda for the next meeting. ?? Don Bianchi stated his belief that they could apply again next time. ?? Jack Hornor stated his agreement but first the CPC must first discuss best use of affordable housing mortgage assistance money. 8. ROUND TWO FUNDING CYCLE TIMELINE After some discussion the CPC agreed upon the following meeting schedule for the second funding cycle. ?? May 1, 2008 – applications due ?? May 17, 2008 – site visits scheduled ?? May 19, 2008 – questions to applicants due to Bruce Young ?? May 21, 2008 – initial discussion and questions to applicants ?? May 31, 2008 – meet with applicants ?? June 11, 2008 – public hearing (written comments encouraged) and initial committee discussion of projects (up to ranking of projects) ?? June 18, 2008 – final funding discussions and decisions Upon motion by Tom Parent, seconded by John Andrulis, all voted to adjourn meeting at 10pm. Respectfully submitted on May 2, 2008, John Frey, Community Preservation Planner 7 Attachments: City of Northampton Community Preservation Committee 210 Main Street, City Hall Northampton, MA 01060 April 3, 2008 Mayor Clare Higgins City of Northampton 210 Main Street, City Hall Northampton, MA 01060 Re: Community Preservation Committee Recommendation to fund the Community Housing for Chronically Homeless Project Dear Honorable Mayor Higgins, On February 1, 2008, the deadline for the first round of Community Preservation Act (CPA) funding requests in the City of Northampton, the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) began reviewing the ten project proposals submitted for CPA funding. During the first two weeks of February, the Community Preservation Committee and the Community Preservation Planner reviewed each of the ten proposals for technical correctness. The CPC members met on February 20, 2008 and compiled a list of questions and additional information necessary for further review. At this meeting the CPC set up two separate site visits for each of the proposed projects. On March 1 and March 12, the CPC met with each of the ten applicants to discuss, stth in detail, their project proposals. Also, on March 12, the CPC held a formal public th discussion on the project proposals. The purpose of the public discussion was to let members of the CPC hear the views of the public on any of the applications prior to their final review. 8 On March 19, the CPC held its summary evaluative discussions of the applications th and, during this six hour meeting, the CPC voted on all ten funding requests. At the March 19, 2008 meeting, the Community Preservation Committee voted 7-0 to recommend $220,000 to the Community Housing for Chronically Homeless Project for the purchase of a house in Northampton to provide up to six units of housing for chronically homeless individuals. The following are conditions/contingencies that the Community Preservation Committee is requiring as part of its recommendation for the Community Housing for Chronically Homeless Project: For a period of at least thirty years, occupancy will be restricted to individuals ?? with incomes at or below 30% of area median income. Resident selection will be undertaken in accordance with State requirements associated with its “Housing First” initiatives. The grantee must provide the information requested by the Community ?? Preservation Committee (and allow a reasonable time for the Committee’s review of the information), including (but not limited to) the following: a. The Purchase Agreement for the property. b. Information to document sufficient funding to acquire and develop the property, including a development budget including the cost of any required renovations, a commitment by FHCHI to provide $100,000 in cash on hand for acquisition, the commitment of ServiceNet to cover the cost of any required renovations, and the commitment of any other funding needed to complete the acquisition and renovation of the project. c. Information to document sufficient funding to maintain the operations of the property after renovations, including a written commitment by ServiceNet to be responsible for the costs of ongoing maintenance. At the CPC’s request, the applicant will provide a budget for the first year of operating the project, including information on anticipated rental income (including from public sources) and information on anticipated operating expenses. d. The ongoing Agreement between FHCHI and ServiceNet. Use of the structure must be assured to serve homeless individuals with incomes ?? less than 30% of AMI for at least thirty years. After thirty years, if the structure 9 cannot be maintained to serve homeless individuals with incomes less than 30% AMI, for years thirty-one through ninety-nine, the property must be restricted to affordable rental housing for individuals or households with incomes at or below 60% AMI. The Community Preservation Committee’s award may be withdrawn, at its ?? discretion, if either of the following occurs (an extension may be granted by the Community Preservation Committee): a. Within 8 months of the date of award of Community Preservation Act funds, the grantee has not entered into a Purchase Agreement for a suitable property; or b. Within 12 months of the date of award of Community Preservation Act funds, the grantee has not met all the conditions associated with the Community Preservation Committee award, acquired the property, and received the disbursement of some or all of the Community Preservation Act funds awarded. Procedures for monitoring and reporting shall be worked out among the ?? Committee, Mayor and the grantee. We hope that you will find this overview useful during this critical stage in the funding process. The Community Preservation Committee has worked diligently to ensure that both the Committee and the process have been comprehensive, transparent and inclusive; we welcome your input and expertise on this project recommendation. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Jack Hornor Chair, City of Northampton Community Preservation Committee 10