Loading...
Agenda and Minutes 2008-01-09 Community Preservation Committee Informational Workshop Agenda DATE: Wednesday, January 9, 2008 TIME: 7:00 PM PLACE: City Council Chambers, 212 Main Street (BEHIND City Hall) Contact: Bruce Young, Community Preservation Planner byoung@northamptonma.gov Jack Hornor, Chair, Community Preservation Committee Jack@JackHornor.com Agenda Open informational workshop with members of the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) and CPC Staff to discuss and answer questions about Community Preservation Act (CPA) projects or project applications. Meeting is open to applicants that are eligible for the current CPA funding round and all future applicants. For additional information please refer to the Community Preservation Committee website: http://www.northamptonma.gov/gsuniverse/httpRoot/comm/ MINUTES Community Preservation Committee Date: Wednesday, January 9, 2008 Time: 7:00 pm Place: City Hall, 212 Main St, Council Chambers Members Present: Jack Hornor, Don Bianchi, Fran Volkmann, Lilly Lombard, George Kohout Staff Present: Bruce Young, Land Use and Conservation Planner John Frey, Community Preservation Planner Jack Hornor opened the public hearing at 7:00 pm 1. OPENING STATEMENT Jack Hornor opened the meeting by welcoming the public. The 11 people attending consisted primarily of applicants for the first round of funding, plus a couple potential future applicants. Jack reminded the public that the CPC intends to make the award review process as transparent and inclusive as possible. This includes posting all relevant materials to the CPC website as quickly as possible. As such all of the 11 eligibility pre- applications that were submitted by Jan 1, 2008 have been approved and posted on the site. Finally, Jack reminded the applicants that all completed applications are due by close of business February 1, 2008 delivered to the Planning Department office in City Hall. The rest of the meeting was essentially an open question and answer period for the applicants and the CPC members. 2. QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD (all response without a name attached are assumed to be from Jack Hornor, Board Chair and represent CPC policy). How many housing eligibility applications were submitted? ?? Bruce Young stated that five of the 11 pre-applications are for community housing and all are eligible to submit applications. Can individual, private citizens apply for affordable housing grants? ?? Don Bianchi questioned whether the specific project fit the definition criteria for community housing. If so, then it may fit. However, it’s likely to be much more effective if proposed by an established community services program. ?? Jack Hornor further elaborated that a project must have a public benefit, not a personal benefit. Also, the proposed project could be for maintenance needs. Who is the public housing representative for the City of Northampton? ?? Peg Keller is the city’s housing and community development planner. She is located in the Planning & Development office on the second floor of City Hall. Is it too late to apply for this year? ?? The CPC will be reviewing applications on a quarterly basis. Only those 11 pre- applicants that were deemed eligible can submit full applications for this funding cycle. The next funding cycle has an April 1, 2008 deadline for eligibility pre- applications, and a May 1, 2008 deadline for full applications. Will there be money left over after the first funding cycle? ?? George Kohout stated he is uncertain and it will likely depend on the funding needs and the quality of the first round applications. ?? Jack Hornor further elaborated that the CPC has yet to adopt a financial policy. Questions that will be addressed include whether or not to fund a specific or minimum/maximum amount each quarter, whether or not to have a minimum “rainy day” fund leftover each cycle, and finally whether or not to set minimum funding allotments for the four funding areas beyond those required by the CPA (10% minimum each for historic, community housing and open space). How much is the pot of money each year? ?? Jack Hornor stated that money is collected each year via a 3% surcharge (maximum allowed by CPA) on all property tax bills. This surcharge amounts to approximately $700,000 each year in Northampton. Next, the State has a matching fund established utilized fees from the registering of deeds. In the past the match has been 100% and this is anticipated to continue. Therefore, the Northampton CPC is expected to receive about $1.4 million each year. By the end of FY08 (June 30, 2008) the balance collected to date will be approximately $2 million. Is there a waiting period before an applicant can re-submit a denied proposal? ?? Jack Hornor stated there is no rule or policy preventing an applicant from re- applying. Applicants may re-apply immediately at the next fund cycle. How will application results be communicated to the applicants & the public? ?? All applicants will receive a notification letter via US Mail. Likewise, all eligibility apps, full applications and CPC decisions will be posted on the CPC website for the public to see. While the CPC will make an effort to outreach to the public to keep them informed there may or may not be a press release distributed for each CPC decision. How often are the CPC minutes posted? ?? CPC minutes are not posted to the website until the minutes have been approved by the Board at the following meeting. However, the public may contact the CPC via the Planning Department office in City Hall in order to read the pending minutes before that date. Are deed restrictions needed for historic property grants from the CPC? ?? Bruce Young explained that the CPA only mandates a deed restriction when the grant is for acquisition of an historic property. In that case the deed is made in the name of the City and is approved by Mass Historical. Conversely, in the case of preservation or restoration of an historic property the CPA does not mandate a deed restriction. However, the local CPC may make it policy to require the deed restriction. Northampton CPC has yet to make that decision. Finally, most deed restrictions need only be for the work being done by the grant. ?? Don Bianchi further elaborated that while deed restrictions may not be required it may be in the applicant’s best interest to include on in their application. The more attractive the plan (i.e., the better for the public good), the more attractive the plan will be to the CPC. Will the Northampton CPC be generally active or passive over time? Does the CPC plan to hold back money over time for a possible large, attractive project or do they plan to distribute funds in a more structured percentage each cycle? ?? Fran Volkmann began by reminding the attendees that the CPC is independent of the City government. While the city (via the Mayor and City Council) have final approval power over CPC grants they may not originate or enact their own projects. All projects must originate via the application process and be recommended by the CPC. Further, she stated that personally she would like the CPC do adopt a policy or strategy of holding some money back a grand opportunity or time sensitive project that may present itself. ?? Don Bianchi likewise stated that he personally plans to advocate for the CPC to institute a “rainy day” fund in order to finance special opportunities. He doesn’t like the idea of spending all funds at the first opportunity they come available. ?? George Kohout suggested that while CPC awards are for either non-city or city sponsored projects, there might be pressure from City Hall to fund city proposed projects. ?? Jack Hornor went on to respond that we would need to wait and see how the Mayor and City Council plan to view CPC grants. The proof will be in the pudding and the city has a tremendous backlog of its own capital improvement programs. The CPA does not dictate when CPC funds are spent and therefore most CPC’s do keep a spillover fund each cycle. Also, he reminded everyone that the CPC itself could issue its own RFP for project idea. He encourages the public to speak up as to their preference on this issue. ?? Fran Volkmann encouraged applicants to make their proposals more attractive by utilizing various financial strategies. Possibilities include bonding, borrowing, phased funding, and leveraging other possible funds or grants. Is it possible for the CPC to fund a preliminary study for a possible larger CPC proposal? ?? Yes, funds can be used for studies and these types of applications are encouraged. Does the CPC maintain an office for in person deliveries? ?? Yes, the CPC maintains an office within the City Planning Department on the second floor of City Hall. The office is open for deliveries during regular business hours. Applicants are reminded that completed applications must include 11 copies of the proposal and one digital copy if possible. Should an applicant inflate their funding needs or apply for exactly what is needed? Does the CPC plan to fully fund or only partially fund projects? ?? George Kohout stated that in the CIP committee they often only partially fund projects. The CPC needs to have a discussion about such protocol. ?? Jack Hornor stated that the CPC likely will not have a set policy and will likely fully or partially fund based on the individual merits of the project. He suggests applicants ask for exactly what they need for a project (include quotes to strengthen your figures). It will be frowned upon if an applicant exaggerates their figures. ?? Don Bianchi expressed his opinion that he wants to see projects get fully funded as best they can. Funding gaps can compromise a projects and he prefers to have a small number of success stories instead of many under-funded projects. ?? George Kohout reminded the applicants that alternative funding numbers could be discussed during the interview and decision processes. For now ask for exactly what you need. ?? Jack Hornor reminded everyone that the criteria evaluation would be very crucial to the awards process. Therefore, applications need to be very thorough in answering the general and category specific criteria. Will the awards criteria possibly change in later rounds? ?? Jack Hornor stated that the local CPC plan might be revised annually. Therefore, the criteria will likely change over time. If an application is incomplete will it be automatically rejected? ?? Bruce Young reminded all applicants that they could meet with him as the CPC staff person prior to the application deadline in order to do a technical review. This should help minimize incomplete applications. ?? Jack Hornor suggested that there will likely be site visits and presentation required of each applicant. During that process an enhanced or corrected application may become necessary and will be permitted. Will there be a scoring system and feedback to the application evaluations? ?? Don Bianchi stated there will be written feedback with each application decision, but the actual evaluation will not include a numeric score. Will there be a definitive timeline to the review and awards process? ?? Jack Hornor reminded everyone that the process is likely to take longer than everyone will anticipate. The process is likely to become smoother and faster in subsequent funding cycles. The only set date as of this meeting is the application due date of February 1, 2008. Are awards permitted for Historic Commission funding? ?? Bruce Young stated that the CPA and the CPC plan allows for a broad interpretation of the awarding criteria. Funding of the Historic Commission could be possible depending on the project proposed. ?? Jack Hornor further suggested that applicants should peruse the Community Preservation Coalition’s website for the listing of past funded projects. The website address is http://www.communitypreservation.org/CPAProjectsSearchStart.cfm. Should the application address only the specific use of the CPC grant money or the project as a whole? ?? Fran Volkmann stated that the application should include all details of the overall project. It is very important how the CPC dollars will be used with the context of the full project. Also, other funding sources are very important to explaining the viability of the project. ?? Lily Lombard explained she expects a very specific breakdown of funding sources and spending plans, especially as it pertains to possible public versus private benefits. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 pm. Respectfully submitted on January 22, 2008, John Frey, Community Preservation Planner