Loading...
Agenda and Minutes 2008-08-20 Community Preservation Committee Agenda DATE: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 TIME: 7:00 PM (6:00 PM for the workshop) 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 ? Acceptance of 8/6 minutes ? Chair's Report (including Round Three eligibility decisions) ? Fiscal Report ? Applicant Feedback on the Application Review Process ? Briefing from Housing Partnership ? Discussion of Preservation Guarantees/Restrictions ? Discussion of Model Grant Agreement (including reporting and signage) ? Discussion of By-Laws & Rules of Procedure ? Other Business ? NOTE: A workshop for applicants for the third CPA funding round will be held from 6:00- 7:00 p.m. on the night of this meeting. The workshop is open to the public. 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, August 20, 2008 Time: 6:00pm (workshop), 7:00 pm (meeting) Place: 212 Main St., City Council Chambers Members Present: Jack Hornor (workshop), George Kohout (workshop), Craig Della Penna, John Andrulis, Tom Parent, Fran Volkmann, and Lilly Lombard. Staff Present: Bruce Young, Community Preservation Planner John Frey, Community Preservation Planner Jack Hornor opened the workshop at 6:00pm. WORKSHOP ?? Jack Hornor welcomed attendees to the workshop. He then outlined the process for Round 3. Most importantly, all applicants must read the CPC plan and the CPA law (http://www.northamptonma.gov/gsuniverse/httpRoot/comm/CPA_Plan/). Also, applicants must read Appendix C of the plan and make certain what is proposed is allowable. ?? Attendees then introduced themselves. Present were Bob Zimmerman and Bruce Hart (Broad Brook Coalition), Pat McCarthy (Valley CDC), Joan Robb and Joanne Montgomery (Nonotuck Land Fund), and Steve Strimer (David Ruggles Center). ?? Jack Hornor commented regarding the David Ruggles Center project that a historic preservation restriction would be required. Either the building must be eligible for listing on the state historic register or the City of Northampton Historic Commission must approve the project. That process still needs to be clarified. ?? Jack Hornor summarized the Round 3 schedule. Applications are due in the Planning Department office by 4:30pm on September 12. Bruce Young will then check applications for technical accuracy and distribute to the CPC members on September 17. Site visits will be scheduled for September 27. CPC members will produce follow-up questions for applicants by October 1. Applicants must respond to the questions in writing by October 10. Applicants will meet with the CPC on either October 15 or November 5. The CPC will deliberate and make grant recommendations on November 19 and December 3. The recommendations are then sent to the Mayor and City Council for two votes. After the City Council approves a grant the applicant must still work out the Preservation Guarantee with the CPC. It may be February or March 2009 before funds are received. ?? Joan Robb asked about site visits and if the property owners should be present. Bruce Young stated the site visit schedule would be determined on September 17. They will last about half an hour each. Jack Hornor stated it would be helpful if the property owners were present. 2 ?? Joanne Montgomery asked how preservation guarantees work regarding open space. Jack Hornor stated a permanent deed restriction would suffice. Guidelines for all preservation guarantees would hopefully be finalized later tonight. George Kohout added that public access could also be required though. ?? George Kohout asked for a clarification regarding public support. Jack Hornor stated letters of support are encouraged and will generally suffice, but public comment is always welcome at the beginning of each CPC meeting. ?? Bob Zimmerman asked about contractor bids. Jack Hornor explained three bids are required for outside contractor work. Three bids must be included with the September 12 application deadline. ?? Pat McCarthy stated that two of their project proposals include year long outside bids and could not be included by September 12. Jack Hornor explained they should include those details in the application. Special cases such as these can be negotiated in the grant agreement. ?? Steve Strimer explained their project is technically for acquisition and restoration. However the restoration would be completed with volunteer help. Should they apply under both categories? Jack Hornor explained since the money would be used just for acquisition then they should only apply under that category, and therefore no bids are required for the restoration work. ?? Steve Strimer also asked if they should apply under the recreation category since the building will be used as a museum. Jack Hornor explained recreation money is permitted for land use only and not buildings, therefore it would not apply. George Kohout stated however that mentioning the uses strengthens their application. Don’t check off recreation but do mention in the narrative. ?? Jack Hornor finished by encouraging all applicants to use the CPC members and staff for technical assistance. It is better to clarify questions before the applications are due. Jack Hornor opened the public meeting at 7:03pm. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT ?? None. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ?? Jack Hornor presented the minutes of the August 6, 2008 meeting for approval. ?? Upon motion by Tom Parent, seconded by Craig Della Penna, all voted in favor of approving the minutes (Lilly Lombard and Fran Volkmann abstained). 3. CHAIR’S REPORT ELIGIBILTY FORMS FOR ROUND 3 ?? Jack Hornor stated the approved eligibility forms for Round 3 have been posted on the 3 CPC website (http://www.northamptonma.gov/gsuniverse/httpRoot/comm/Eligibility_Determinations/ Second_Round_2008/). 12 projects total have been deemed eligible to apply. They include four open space, two historic, four housing, and two recreation projects. ?? George Kohout questioned the application by the Conservation Commission for unspecified funds. He wondered if this were for future land purchases. ?? Bruce Young stated the Department of Revenues stated CPA funds could be awarded for unspecified future projects. The Conservation Commission hopes to determine purchase possibilities before the application is due. ?? Tom Parent questioned if any eligibility forms were rejected. ?? Jack Hornor stated none were rejected. 4. FISCAL REPORT ?? Jack Hornor stated there is no update this meeting. Reports will likely be once per month. John Frey will be responsible for fiscal reports. The plan is to produce summary reports for the meetings, but have a fully detailed spreadsheet available by request. ?? Bruce Young informed the CPC that the DOR is requiring a new annual report called the Community Preservation Initiatives Report. The DOR intends to create a data layer on the Mass GIS website. ?? Jack Hornor clarified the report only applies to fully approved projects. The report must be submitted by September 15 in order to receive the October state match. ?? Jack Hornor also stated he has been called to attend the City Council Finance Committee meeting tomorrow. He hopes the Finance Committee will approve all Round 2 projects and forward immediately to the full council for the first vote. 5. APPLICANT FEEDBACK ON THE APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS ?? Jack Hornor explained that the CPC sent requests to prior applicants for feedback regarding the application process. He invited members of the audience to speak. ?? Janet Moulding, Forbes Library, stated she was impressed by the amount of policy and formal procedure involved. It made for a long and rough process but the outcome was excellent because of it. She provided constructive criticism and stated her biggest disappointment was the lowly attended site visit. She felt it was very important for the CPC to see the site in order to understand the importance of the project. She also felt communication was lacking as she often received different responses from different committee members. Finally, she was disappointed not to be able to negotiate the final grant amount. ?? Jack Hornor stated site visits will often be lowly attended but applicants should not read anything into it. It could simply mean the CPC members have few outstanding questions. ?? *** Lilly Lombard acknowledged that the CPC still must formalize the appeal process. ?? Bruce Young read a letter submitted by Marisa Labozzetta, Historic Elm Street. Her comments included… -“I appreciated the personal updates by you (Bruce) and Jack and I thought that the general information meeting before the first round was valuable and that one or two should be held each year.” 4 -“Perhaps if the Committee could spare applicants the pain of going through the entire process very early on if they know or at least have a good idea that their application will not be favorably decided upon. It seemed that an application that probably shouldn't have been considered did go the distance.” -“I also feel that the setting of the applicant presentation is important. I felt that the Council Chambers was a very uncomfortable place to be, standing, far from the committee members, and being grilled. I would have preferred and been more comfortable sitting in some configuration with the members.” 6. BRIEFING FROM HOUSING PARTNERSHIP ?? Jack Hornor welcomed Peg Keller, Northampton Housing and Community Development Senior Planner, and Gordon Shaw, Housing Partnership Chair, to speak regarding the current state of affordable housing in Northampton. ?? Peg Keller spoke on many topics. Major points included… 1. Regarding the Request for Qualifications for the Work Scope for the Strategic Plan six firms have submitted bids. The work scope should be completed this fall. The work on the plan itself will begin before the end of the year. The last major housing plan is from 1986. They envision a plan that not only documents the current state of housing but also indicates what still is left to accomplish. 2. The trend across the nation is to end the emergency shelter model and replace with permanent supported housing. 3. Regarding affordable rentals the stock is pretty solid right now. The goal of the Partnership is to create smaller sites scattered throughout the city. There are new units for both individuals and families. Current projects include the Mary McColgan House on Grove Street (Housing Authority developed 6 units in partnership with the Department of Mental Health), School Street (Valley CDC rehabbing 4 units and adding 4 more), Village Hill (launching Phase 2, 35 units, in addition to the 33 produced in the first phase), Paradise Pond Apartments (developed by HAP, 12 units of affordable family housing). The Housing Authority is moving ahead on the development of 2 more parcels they were deed through the State Hospital disposition process, homeownership for Laurel Street, and units for clients of the Department of Mental Retardation out on Burts Pit Rd. 4. Regarding housing development requests to the CPC they envision Habitat for Humanity, Valley CDC, and HAP as the major applicants. A very successful model that has been employed in the past is the City initiated open space acquisitions where a portion of the parcel has been used for affordable housing.. This is an approach the Partnership feels the CPC should encourage, as it addresses multiple CPC goals. Examples are the Habitat for Humanity duplex created on Ryan Road and the 6 units on Westhampton Rd. 5. One of the current gaps in the affordable housing inventory is in SRO housing for people with 30-50% of the median income. With the loss of Augie’s and other sites, more SROs are needed in the city. The Housing Partnership suggests prioritizing the King St and Maple St projects. Also, the Enhanced SRO model (larger units with individual kitchens, etc) is being rethought as a design, as it 5 tends to isolate residents rather than encourage socialization. . Instead, the community room and community kitchen style seems better. 6. Another current gap is in home ownership for people earning 80-120% of median income. There is currently a condo glut and more condo conversions are unlikely at this time. Units near downtown are most in demand. A current survey of area realtors indicates that homes available for under $250,000 are plentiful, whereas the properties with asking prices of $400,000 and above are completely stagnating on the market. 7. Very important for non-profits to receive unencumbered operating funds. They need that money for real tangible project creation. Also, local money allows the non-profits to get to targets that other grant money fails to reach. 8. The last major area of concern is with affordable housing complexes going to market rate. Several affordability agreements are set to expire in the coming years. Very important to acknowledge and confront this scenario now. 9. Finally, the Housing Partnership has offered to formally vet CPC affordable housing applications, if the Committee wishes. 7. DISCUSSION OF PRESERVATION GUARANTEE GUIDELINES ?? Jack Hornor presented the latest version of the Preservation Guarantee Guidelines for discussion. ?? Jack Hornor introduced Michele Barker, Preservation Massachusetts. She is available to provide input regarding preservation restrictions in Massachusetts. ?? Jack Hornor announced he has replaced the term “restriction” with the term “guarantee” across the document. He stated guaranteeing preservation is the over goal of the CPC, while restrictions are just a negative tool. He also suggested dollar amounts for the various guarantee levels. PROJECT GUARANTEE NEEDS ?? Jack Hornor presented the first undecided topic for discussion. Do all projects need guarantees? His sense is that the CPC wants guarantees for all projects. ?? Tom Parent suggested feasibility studies, etcetera (support) do not need guarantees. ?? Fran Volkmann suggested adding language so that only projects involving real property need guarantees. CPC agrees and the language is added. DOLLAR LEVELS AND TERM? ?? Jack Hornor presented the second undecided topic for discussion. What are the appropriate guarantee terms and should they be tied to dollar amount? ?? Michele Barker noted that real property interests below $100,000 would still require permanent guarantees. ?? Lilly Lombard suggested making it crystal clear that the CPC reserves the right to adjust terms on a case-by-case basis. ?? Fran Volkmann questioned why the CPC is matching term to dollar amount anyhow. ?? Jack Hornor stated the Historic Commission wanted perpetual guarantees for all project levels, but he wondered if this is too much. The suggested levels seem to make sense as a 6 starting point. He also stated the requirement for perpetual real property interest guarantees only apply to city acquisitions, not when others are acquiring. ?? Lilly Lombard suggested a general paragraph without dollar amounts. ?? George Kohout stated that would be too protective. The guidelines are an appropriate starting point for applicants to use in crafting their own guarantees. Also, this is a working document that could be changed later. ?? Tom Parent agrees with George Kohout. When applicants apply the CPC must have a guideline in place to help in creating the appropriate guarantee. This would accomplish that goal. ?? Fran Volkmann suggested integrating this into the questions asked of applicants. ?? Craig Della Penna stated he likes it the way it is written. It is to the point but broad enough for flexibility. ?? Lilly Lombard stated ten years is not preservation. ?? Jack Hornor stated the CPC is preserving the specifications of the grant agreement. Preservation is not necessarily permanent. The CPC agreed with this suggestion. ?? Michele Barker stated preservation is about the property, not the work. ?? Fran Volkmann stated affordable housing preservation is inherently short-term in nature, while historic preservation is longer. That needs addressed in the guidelines. ?? Lilly Lombard stated she wants the CPC to attract long-term (perpetual) historic preservation projects. ?? Craig Della Penna stated it is very important to allow small grants for all categories including historic preservation. The CPC must allow grassroots projects. ?? John Andrulis stated he is impressed with the amount of effort Jack Hornor has put into this document. The document must be general, keep low levels, and allow for discretion. This document accomplishes those goals. ?? George Kohout suggested changing the language to reflect separate terms for historic, open space and recreation versus housing. Straw vote shows the CPC agrees. ?? Jack Hornor suggested striking all guidelines and adds, “Generally, the CPC will require permanent guarantees for Open Space, Historic Resource and Recreation projects. A preservation guarantee will be required for Community Housing projects.” MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT ?? Jack Hornor presented the third undecided topic for discussion. How should monitoring and enforcement work? He suggested requiring annual reporting for the term of the guarantee. ?? Fran Volkmann stated it is not practical to require all projects to report each year. She suggested changing the language to reflect flexibility. ?? Craig Della Penna stated it would be too many projects to monitor. ?? Jack Hornor stated as long as the CPC exists it is important to give best effort in monitoring the projects. ?? All agree the goal of enforcement is to get the project back to the terms of the agreement, not to force return of the grant money. ?? Upon motion by John Andrulis, seconded by Tom Parent, all vote in favor of accepting the Preservation Guarantee Guidelines (see attachment for latest version). 7 8. DISCUSSION OF MODEL GRANT AGREEMENT ?? Jack Hornor presented the latest version of the Model Grant Agreement for discussion. ?? Fran Volkmann suggested adding a separate item regarding reporting/monitoring. The item is added. ?? Upon motion by Lilly Lombard, seconded by John Andrulis, all vote in favor of accepting the Model Grant Agreement (see attachment for latest version). 9. DISCUSSION OF BY-LAWS & RULES OF PROCEDURE ?? Jack Hornor tabled discussion to September 3, 2008 meeting. 10. OTHER BUSINESS PROJECTS OUT-OF-CYCLE ?? Bruce Young stated the Planning Department has requested the CPC create a formal policy regarding out-of-cycle grant requests. ?? Craig Della Penna questioned if this is intended for any project or just emergency only. ?? Jack Hornor stated he would put it on the agenda for the next meeting. HABITAT FOR HUMANITY PROJECT ?? Bruce Young stated the HFH project is being reduced from six to five units. He asked then to detail the change in a written narrative and then he will present to the CPC for a vote. FIRST CHURCHES PRESERVATION GUARANTEE ?? Bruce Young stated he has received the Historic Preservation Restriction from Mass Historic. Two items are missing though regarding enforceability and the city partnership. Work is underway to add provisions for enforcement and the city as stakeholder. Upon motion by George Kohout, seconded by Tom Parent, all agreed to adjourn meeting at 10:25 pm. Respectfully submitted on August 27, 2008, John Frey, Community Preservation Planner 8 Attachment A – Preservation Guarantee Guidelines Adopted by the Community Preservation Committee on 8/20/08 INTRODUCTION The Community Preservation Act (CPA) allows taxpayer money to be used for open space, community housing, historic preservation, and recreation projects. Some CPA projects create something new, which is then preserved, while some preserve something that already exists. But in every case is it important for the preservation goals of the community to be met. Because of this, the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) requires that the Grant Agreement for every CPA project involving real or other property include some kind of preservation guarantee. The Committee reserves the right to require the preservation guarantee it believes will best serve the community. Generally, however, the Committee will require permanent guarantees for Open Space, Historic Resource and Recreation projects. A preservation guarantee will be required for Community Housing projects. TYPES OF CPA PROJECTS & RELEVANT PRESERVATION GUARANTEES Acquisition (applicable to Open Space, Historic Resources, Recreation, Community Housing) The CPA Law requires that an open space, historic resource, recreation or community housing real property interest that is acquired with CPA funds must be bound by a permanent preservation guarantee that meets the requirements of Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 184, which limits the use of the property to the purpose for which it was acquired. Creation (applicable to Open Space, Recreation, Community Housing), and Preservation or Rehabilitation/Restoration (applicable to Open Space, Historic Resources, Recreation, Community Housing) Projects that are created, preserved, rehabilitated or restored with the use of CPA funds must have a guarantee deemed appropriate by the Community Preservation Committee. See below for our guidelines on long-term vs. short-term guarantees. Note: Open Space, Recreation and Community Housing rehabilitation/ restoration projects are only allowed if the property was acquired or created using Community Preservation Act funds. Support Support projects are only allowed in the area of Community Housing. Support projects are not required to have preservation guarantees. 9 HOW PRESERVATION GUARANTEES WORK General definition of a preservation guarantee: For the purposes of the Northampton Community Preservation Committee, a preservation guarantee means a limitation on a property that is appropriate for the protection of open space, historic resources, recreation or community housing. Every preservation guarantee is included or referenced in the Community Preservation Committee Grant Agreement, which CPA funding recipients must sign. The Committee may consult with various City boards and other organizations to help determine the most appropriate preservation guarantee. Applicants may be requested to meet with a City board as part of the CPC application review process. The Community Preservation Committee understands that not every applicant is familiar with preservation guarantees; the Committee is prepared to offer technical assistance to applicants in this area. The CPC has a number of standard guarantees already written, and generally these can easily be modified to fit a particular project. Applicants may need to obtain legal advice prior to acceptance of a guarantee. However, the Committee will make every effort to draft preservation guarantees, so that legal advice will only be necessary for the review of such documents. How the CPC manages preservation guarantees: Real property interests which are acquired by the City through the CPA process must be owned and managed by the City of Northampton, but the City Council may delegate the management of such property to the Conservation Commission, the Historical Commission, the Recreation Commission or the Housing Authority. The City Council may also delegate management of such property to an appropriate nonprofit organization. This means that for any acquisition project, the City of Northampton will hold the preservation guarantee and be an enforcement agent. Every other kind of preservation guarantee will be held by the City of Northampton and managed by the Community Preservation Committee. Other City committees or boards may help with this work, but a funding recipient will need to certify annually, for the length of the preservation guarantee, that they are meeting the terms of the preservation guarantee. For most projects, the annual preservation guarantee certification will require the submittal of a simple, one-page document. The Community Preservation Committee will review all annual reports to ensure Community Preservation Act funds are being spent according to the CPA Law and the rules and regulations guiding the Community Preservation Committee. What happens if a funding recipient breaks the terms of a preservation guarantee? The Committee has the right to enforce all preservation guarantees. This right is spelled out in every preservation guarantee. Generally speaking, the goal of enforcement will be to 10 return the project to the state agreed upon in the Grant Agreement signed by the Committee and the funding recipient. EXAMPLES OF LONG-TERM AND SHORT-TERM PRESERVATION GUARANTEES The following is a list of the most common preservation guarantees. It is not a conclusive list of all preservation guarantees that may be approved by the Community Preservation Committee. CPA projects vary widely and the Committee reserves the right to require whatever preservation guarantee it believes will best serve the needs of the community. Recognizing that preservation guarantees are complex, the Committee encourages applicants to contact us to discuss the range of preservation guarantees that might be appropriate for a particular project. Conservation Restriction (Long-Term): A Conservation Restriction is a long-term preservation guarantee which applies to Open Space and Recreation projects. It protects open space and recreation areas from development and limits certain activities that would be detrimental to the open space or recreation land purchased with CPA funds. A Conservation Restriction is a specific type of restriction that carries the highest level of protection, and therefore it must be approved by the Massachusetts Secretary of Environmental Affairs as well as the Community Preservation Committee and City Council. Affordable Housing Restriction (Long-Term): An Affordable Housing Restriction is also a long-term restriction that provides the highest level of preservation guarantee, requiring any such Restriction to be approved by the Massachusetts Director of Housing & Community Development as well as the Community Preservation Committee and City Council. An Affordable Housing Restriction protects low-income and moderate income housing units. Historic Preservation Restriction (Long-Term): A Historic Preservation Restriction provides the highest level of preservation guarantee, requiring any such Restriction to be approved by the Massachusetts Historical Commission as well as the Community Preservation Committee and City Council. A Historic Preservation Restriction ensures that inappropriate changes are not made to historic properties. Note: The three above terms (Conservation Restriction, Affordable Housing Restriction, and Historical Preservation Restriction) are formal names which are always capitalized. This helps differentiate them from other terms. These ways of guaranteeing the permanent preservation of CPA projects are most appropriate for large projects, and are required for projects in which a real property interest is acquired. However, many other CPA projects do not rise to the level of needing permanent preservation guarantees. Below are examples of some other preservation guarantees. 11 Deed Restrictions: Deed restrictions are restrictions on a deed that place limitations on the use of the property. A deed restriction may initially run with a property for no more than thirty years. However, a deed restriction may be extended if it is written to allow the holder of the restriction to re-record it prior to its expiration. The Northampton Community Preservation Committee and the Northampton City Council must approve all deed restrictions. Memorandum of Agreement: A memorandum of agreement (MOA) or cooperative agreement is a document written between parties to cooperatively work together on an agreed upon project or meet an agreed upon objective. The purpose of an MOA is to have a written understanding of the agreement between parties. The MOA is a legal document that is binding. The Northampton Community Preservation Committee and the Northampton City Council must approve all Memorandums of Agreement. Mortgage: A mortgage is a conditional pledge of property to a creditor as security for performance of an obligation or repayment of a debt. The Northampton Community Preservation Committee and the Northampton City Council must approve all mortgage agreements. 12 Attachment B – City of Northampton Community Preservation Committee Grant Agreement This Grant Agreement is made this _________day of ______________,200__ ,by and between the City of Northampton, through its Community Preservation Committee (hereinafter "Northampton CPC") with an address of 210 Main Street, City Hall, Northampton, MA 01060 and [recipient] (hereinafter "Recipient") with an address of [ ], Northampton, MA, [zip]. The purpose of this Grant Agreement is to implement the following grant award: Project Name: Project Description: Project Location: Date of City Council Execution of Final Appropriation: This Grant Award is subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. Award. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, the City of Northampton agrees to award the Recipient the amount of [spell out in words and numbers] for the above referenced project. 2. Project Application. The Project Application submitted to the Northampton CPC, as may be amended by conditions of the CPC upon award, is incorporated into this Grant Agreement by reference. 13 3. Term. The term of this Grant Award is five years from the date of the City's execution of this Grant Agreement (the "Commencement Date"). All of the work described in this Grant Agreement must be completed no later than five-years after the Commencement Date, unless the Northampton CPC grants an extension for good cause shown. Funds not utilized on the Project must be returned to the Community Preservation Fund Reserve and will made available for future appropriation to other recipients. 4. Budget; Other Sources of Funding. Prior to the commencement of the work, the Recipient, must submit a complete project budget that accounts for (1) the expenditure of all funds awarded under this Grant Agreement; and (2) all other sources of funding, if necessary, to complete the project as described herein. Recipient shall not expend any grant funds until the Northampton CPC has approved the project budget. If the Northampton CPC determines that funds have been spent on goods or services not included in the project budget or otherwise not authorized under the CPA, the Recipient shall be responsible for repayment of such funds to the CPA Fund. 5. Reports. Every six months until the completion of the project, the Recipient shall provide the Northampton CPC with a written update on the progress toward completion of the work. A Final Report, including digital photo-documentation of the project, where appropriate, is due with 30 days after the date of completion. The Final Report shall be to the satisfaction of the Northampton CPC, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. All reports and project documents submitted to the Northampton CPC shall become the property of the City of Northampton and shall be available for use by the City and available to the public under the Massachusetts Public Records Law. 6. Monitoring Annual preservation guarantee certifications will be required for the length of the preservation guarantee. For perpetual preservation guarantees, the Community Preservation Committee reserves the right to require annual preservation guarantee certifications for an amount of time that will best serve the community. 7. Guarantees. Projects funded through the Community Preservation Act shall be subject to preservation guarantees or restrictions on the property limiting the use of the interest to the purpose of the funding. The guarantee/restriction accepted by the Northampton CPC is incorporated into this Grant Agreement by reference. 14 8. Compliance with Laws and Agreement. Recipient understands and agrees that projects funded through this Award are made pursuant to and must comply with the requirements of the Community Preservation Act, M.G.L. c. 44B. Recipient also agrees to comply with all requirements of this Grant Agreement. 9. Permits and Licenses. It is the obligation of Recipient to obtain all permits and licenses necessary for implementation of the Project. The award of this Grant waives no federal, state or local permit or license. 10. No Liability of City. By making this award, the City does not accept any liability whatsoever for any acts, omissions or errors associated with the Project. Recipient agrees to indemnify and defend the City from all claims, suits or demands resulting from implementation of the Project. 11. Community Preservation Act Awareness. Prior to beginning work on this project, Recipient agrees to post, in an appropriate location that is mutually acceptable to the parties, a sign stating, "This project funded in part by the citizens of Northampton through the Community Preservation Act." Recipient shall also identify that the Project was funded through the City of Northampton Community Preservation Act in its written materials about the Project, including press releases, brochures, etc. The Community Preservation Committee will provide the Recipient a sign prior to disbursing CPA funds. 12. No Assignment. Recipient may not assign this Grant Agreement without prior written agreement by the City of Northampton. 13. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties hereto, and may be amended only in writing executed by both the City of Northampton and the Recipient. Signatory below acknowledges and avers that he/she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of Recipient. Executed as of the date set forth above: The City of Northampton, [Recipient's Full Name] _________________________________ ________________________________ Mayor _________________________________ Chair, Northampton CPC 15