Loading...
Agenda and Minutes 2008-02-20 Community Preservation Committee Agenda DATE: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 TIME: 7:00 PM PLACE: 210 Main Street, City Hall, Hearing Room (second floor) Contact: Jack Hornor, Chair, Community Preservation Committee Jack@JackHornor.com Bruce Young, Community Preservation Planner byoung@northamptonma.gov Agenda 1. Public comment period 2. Approval of minutes for 01/09/2008 and 01/16/2008 3. Chair's Report 4. Discussion of renewal of annual Community Preservation Coalition membership 5. Discussion of choosing a third person to accompany the Chair and Vice Chair when presenting the Committee's recommendations to the Mayor 6. Discussion of CPC financing 7. Discussion of the public comment period at the CPC meeting on March 19, 2008 8. Scheduling of site visits to 2008 project proposal sites 9. Questions and requests for additional project application information from members of the committee 10. Any other necessary business 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, February 20, 2008 Time: 7:00 pm Place: City Hall, 212 Main St., Second Floor Hearing Room Members Present: Jack Hornor, Don Bianchi, Lilly Lombard, John Andrulis, Mason Maronn, and Tom Parent (late 8:30 pm) Staff Present: Bruce Young, Community Preservation Planner John Frey, Community Preservation Planner Jack Hornor opened the public hearing at 7:00 pm. He began by stating that the meeting would not be an official public meeting. Bruce Young confirmed that while the meeting was posted in over nine different venues, it was mistakenly not recorded on time in the City Clerk’s Office. Therefore, no official votes may take place. Procedures have been put in place to avoid this problem in the future. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT Janet Moulding, Forbes Library Applicant ?? Janet Moulding questioned the CPC for guidance regarding the desired format for the March 1, 2008 presentations. ?? Jack Hornor stated that CPC questions regarding applications are to be emailed out to the applicants by February 22, 2008. The applicants are welcome to present however they feel is best but it would behoove them to directly address the CPC questions at some point during the presentation. Bob Aronson, Sylvester Rd. ?? Bob Aronson questioned the use of CPA revenue for the preservation of historic documents. He felt this would essentially be using the CPA to fund basic government functions. He does not favor this project and would not want the CPC setting precedent for this type of spending of CPA revenue. ?? Jack Hornor responded that the applicant though pre-qualified did not actually submit a full application for this project funding cycle. ?? Bob Aronson also questioned the private interest benefits in the Horace Lamb project. ?? Jack Hornor noted this possible problem and re-iterated that CPA grants must have a public interest. It is for the applicant to demonstrate this public benefit. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2 No vote on approval of minutes. Item tabled to March 19, 2008 meeting. 3. CHAIR’S REPORT None 4. DISCUSSION OF COMMUNITY PRESERVATION COALITION MEMBERSHIP Community Preservation Coalition Membership ?? Bruce Young reported it is time to discuss renewal of the CPC’s annual membership in the coalition. Last year the CPC agreed to pay for the full year since the coalition helped with passage of the Northampton CPA. ?? Jack Hornor commented that he supports renewal of the CPC’s membership in the coalition since they help extensively at the local level and provide leadership at the state level. ?? The item was tabled for vote at the March 19, 2008 meeting. 5. DISCUSSION OF CPC RECOMMENDATION MEETING WITH MAYOR Third CPC Member at Meeting With Mayor ?? Jack Hornor reminded the CPC that it was previously decided that a third member will join the chair and vice-chair at the meeting with the Mayor to present CPC funding recommendations. The CPC needs to choose the third member. ?? The item was tabled for vote at the March 19, 2008 meeting. 6. DISCUSSION OF CPC FINANCING CPC Financing Options ?? Bruce Young reported that he met with Jim Dostal and Chris Pile to discuss CPC financing options. The CPA allows for a variety of options (Bruce will add information). ?? Don Bianchi reminded everyone that the CPC could only commit to grants totaling the anticipated tax revenue, not including the State match since that percentage is not known or guaranteed. ?? Jack Hornor noted that if the Northampton CPA was voted out in the future any bond obligations must still be paid. The CPA tax would still be collected but only until all bond obligations have been settled. ?? Jack Hornor noted the CPC has the ability to forward commit funding to a project over a number of years. He stated that the City Council might look favorably upon a candidate that could receive payments over multiple years, thereby avoiding the need for financing, such as bonds. ?? Bruce Young stated this could make sense in a project where costs are relatively stable (below inflation levels). However, if the project costs increase rapidly over time (such as 3 with building materials), it could save money in the long term to use bonding. The standard bond rates vary between 2.7% and 7.2%. The problem is that rates float until the bond is actually purchased and therefore timing the rate for a bargain is not possible. When forecasting bond costs use a rate of 5%. ?? Jack Hornor summarized bonding by stating the pro is that it allows the CPC to finance very large projects, however the con is that it commits the City to the CPA for the long-term. This could result in a politically difficult situation if the public decides it does not want the CPA. Fiscal Report ?? Don Bianchi questioned how much the CPC would have available to award in the coming quarters. ?? Jack Hornor distributed the latest financial report (see appendix A). He stated that the CPC tax is billed quarterly and the City receives approximately $175,000 each quarter. By th August 15 of each year the City must report the total collected for that fiscal year. The State th then delivers the matching funds by October 15. In FY07 the match percentage was 100% resulting in $1.4M collected for the year. However, that matching percentage is expected to go down this year. ?? Jack Hornor noted the current balance of $1.9M. He summarized by stating this is the most flush the CPC is likely to be at any one time since no money has yet to be awarded. 7. DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AT MARCH 19, 2008 MEETING March 19, 2008 Meeting ?? Jack Hornor noted the March 19, 2008 meeting is likely to be very long and therefore he suggested limiting total public comment to 30 minutes. ?? Don Bianchi stated the March 12, 2008 meeting is entirely for public comment and th therefore limiting comment on the 19 is practical. ?? Mason Maronn suggested simply limiting the time allowed per speaker. ?? Jack Hornor agreed and suggested determining how many want to speak at the beginning of the meeting then allocating time based on that number. th ?? Lily Lombard stated wants the CPC to advertise March 12 as the primary public th comment period and discourage March 19 comment as much as possible. th ?? Don Bianchi then questioned whether the March 12 meeting is just to listen to comment or to allow dialogue. ?? Jack Hornor stated he believes that will depend on attendance. He also cautioned that the CPC should not speak on behalf of the applicant. th ?? Lily Lombard stated the March 12 meeting is a public hearing and therefore the CPC could not respond to comments. ?? *** Jack Hornor stated his interpretation is different and questioned if that is true. He asked staff to determine exact definitions of hearing and meeting, and to summarize options for interaction with public. 8. SCHEDULING OF SITE VISITS 4 Site Visits ?? Jack Hornor queried the protocol for site visits. ?? Mason Maronn stated that normally the site visit is schedule when the applicant is before the board, but here the staff may need to schedule ahead of time. ?? Jack Hornor mentioned some members prefer weekends while others prefer weekdays. He questioned if it is possible to schedule two visits. ?? Lily Lombard commented that we have asked quite a bit of applicants already. ?? *** Don Bianchi believed visits should be scheduled before the applicant presentation. He asked that this be the protocol in the future. ?? Don Bianchi suggested visits for this round from March 2-12. He prefers the weekend of March 7-8. ?? Lily Lombard stated she preferred weeknights. John Andrulis and Jack Hornor agreed. ?? Jack Hornor stated it is acceptable to burden the applicant with multiple visits if it helps the CPA process. He noted it is to the applicant’s benefit to accommodate. ?? Jack Hornor asked Bruce Young to please schedule visits as soon as possible. Expedited Applications ?? Lily Lombard questioned what the CPC should do regarding applications that need to be expedited for closing purposes. She stated that Fran Volkmann believed the CPC could deliberate and vote March 1 if all preliminary work by the CPC has been completed. ?? Don Bianchi stated the reason for expediting would need to be very extraordinary. He believed it would shift the competitive balance of the process. The threshold should be very high for such. ?? Bruce Young stated two applicants are in need of an expedited decision, Sheldon Field and Turkey Hill. The Sheldon Field purchase is due to close April 30, 2008. The Turkey Hill project is dependent on a State grant that is due to expire in June. He reminded the CPC that once they approve a project it must be presented to the Mayor and then voted twice at City Council. ?? Don Bianchi questioned if a CPC commitment would possibly buy more time from the seller of the property. ?? Bruce Young believed that would not be sufficient in both cases. ?? Lily Lombard suggested scheduling those two site visits prior to the March 1, 2008 meeting thereby allowing the CPC to vote if needed. ?? Bruce Young noted the March 1, 2008 meeting is listed as presentations only but the agenda could be revised. ?? Jack Hornor summarized that voting early does not necessarily make it preferential. Also, he noted the CPC is well within its rights to handle this way. 9. QUESTIONS & REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL APPLICANT INFORMATION Additional Applicant Questions ?? Jack Hornor noted that all CPC members have been asked to submit additional applicant questions to Bruce Young. He asked Bruce Young to compile and forward questions to the 5 applicants. He questioned how the applicants should respond to the CPC. ?? Don Bianchi questioned if the additional questions are public information. ?? Bruce Young acknowledged anything sent to staff is public information. ?? Don Bianchi suggested not requiring the applicant to respond before the March 1, 2008 presentation, rather the applicant could respond at the presentation as needed. Also, written responses are encouraged. ?? Jack Hornor questioned how this would change the presentations. He noted it is in the applicants’ best interest to respond directly to these questions during their presentations. ?? Don Bianchi stated 30 minutes is a short time for a presentation and the CPC needs to reserve time for follow questions if needed. ?? Jack Hornor stated the CPC must stick to the 30-minute schedule. He suggested the applicant have another means for responding post meeting, perhaps via a written response to the CPC. ?? Tom Parent suggested perhaps a first-round cut then inviting finalists back for additional follow-up. ?? Jack Hornor noted this might be a good protocol in the future but too late to institute for this round. He suggested not changing the schedule. ?? Jack Hornor asked Bruce Young to email questions by February 21, 2008. ?? Bruce Young noted he would email questions suggesting applicants should address questions during their presentations on March 1, 2008. He also noted the CPC should email him unaddressed and follow-up questions from the meeting by March 3, 2008. He would then compile and email to the applicants with the request to respond in writing by March 12, 2008. Miscellaneous Discussion ?? Lily Lombard requested staff please note in the minutes items for future CPC discussion. ?? Tom Parent questioned if there are any abutter issues for CPC members. The consensus was that only if a CPC member would receive direct financial impact should they need to recuse themselves from voting. ?? *** Lily Lombard suggested a page limit for CPA applications. ?? Jack Hornor likewise stated that one application appeared too short. He questioned if the CPC should encourage withdrawal or resubmission of the application. ?? Don Bianchi stated the CPC should not do that but rather the CPC can question the applicant. ?? Bruce Young noted the application met the minimum requirements. ?? *** Lily Lombard suggested a future minimum required for applications be discussed. ?? Don Bianchi stated the CPC should not be the gatekeeper for applicants. Instead, applicants need to advocate for themselves via a more thorough application. ?? Lily Lombard questioned if the CPC could ask specifically for deed restrictions from the applicants. ?? Bruce Young stated the CPC would need to create a specific policy. It is too late to require directly now. 6 ?? *** Lily Lombard noted the CPC should schedule time to discuss a deed restriction policy. ?? Jack Hornor stated that an ad hoc committee could be nominated to discuss such issues. 10. ANY OF BUSINESS None Meeting adjourned at 9:12 pm. ***Note: anything denoted with asterisks is suggested for future policy discussion by the CPC. Respectfully submitted on February 22, 2008, John Frey, Community Preservation Planner 7 APPENDIX A – Financial Report 8 9