Loading...
Agenda and Minutes 2008-01-16 Community Preservation Committee Agenda DATE: Wednesday, January 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 Bruce Young, Community Preservation Planner byoung@northamptonma.gov Agenda 1. Welcoming of new Community Preservation Committee (CPC) members 2. Election of CPC Chair and Vice Chair 3. Public comment period 4. Approval of minutes for 12/19/2007 5. Chair's Report 6. Discussion of 2008 CPC project decision making processes (including allocation formulas and a timeline and specific steps to review applications) 7. Discussion of CPC financing Discussion of workshop for applicants and potential applicants 8. Any other necessary business 9. 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, January 16, 2008 Time: 7:00 pm Place: City Hall, 212 Main St., Council Chambers Members Present: Jack Hornor, Don Bianchi, Fran Volkmann, Lilly Lombard, John Andrulis, Mason Maronn, George Kohout, and Tom Parent Staff Present: Bruce Young, Community Preservation Planner John Frey, Community Preservation Planner Jack Hornor opened the public hearing at 7:00 pm 1. WELCOME NEW CPC MEMBERS Jack Hornor began the meeting by welcoming Lily Lombard and Fran Volkmann, the citizen elected members of the CPC. They are sworn in and now eligible to vote on CPC issues. 2. ELECTION OF CPC CHAIR & VICE CHAIR Election of CPC Chair ?? Tom Parent nominated Jack Hornor for CPC Chair. ?? John Andrulis seconded the motion. ?? Fran Volkmann motioned to end the nominations. All agreed. ?? George Kohout mentioned he is in favor of term limits and requested the Board discuss such in the future. ?? Jack Hornor acknowledged that the CPC needs to adopt some committee rules. ?? All in favor and Jack Hornor is re-elected as Chair for a one-year term, Jan-Dec, 2008. Election of CPC Vice Chair ?? Lily Lombard nominated Fran Volkmann for CPC Vice Chair. ?? Don Bianchi seconded the motion. ?? Don Bianchi motioned to end the nominations. ?? Tom Parent seconded and all agreed. ?? Don Bianchi opened discussion by asking if Fran Volkmann is willing to be Vice Chair. ?? Jack Hornor stated Fran Volkmann has worked closely with him in the past and he is very enthusiastic about her nomination. ?? All in favor (except Fran Volkmann who abstained). Fran Volkmann is elected new Vice Chair for a one-year term, Jan-Dec 2008. 2 Discussion of Past Year ?? Fran Volkmann opened discussion by commending Jack Hornor on his leadership in drafting the CPC Plan. However, she felt there is some disjunction between leadership and the CPC members. She acknowledged that the open meeting laws make it very difficult for the Chair. She wondered if an executive committee could alleviate the issue. ?? Jack Hornor encouraged all members to communicate individually by email with the Chair and Vice Chair if they have any concerns. This would not constitute an open meeting violation. ?? George Kohout appreciated Fran Volkmann’s comments, but stated that even with a Vice Chair there may be a lack of communication. He encouraged site visits as a way for committee members to communicate and understand various concerns with a given proposal. ?? Lily Lombard suggested an executive committee would alleviate the burden on Jack Hornor. She suggested a committee consisting of CPC members not burden with duties on other boards. This would include the Mayor’s appointee, the City Council’s appointee and the two citizen elected members. ?? Jack Hornor questioned whether to continue this discussion now or table until another meeting. ?? Tom Parent noted that if the CPC adopted an executive committee it would be difficult to meet with the mayor without an open meeting. ?? Jack Hornor stated he is not in favor of an executive committee but rather just needs help with duties. He stated the Vice Chair can easily fill this role. ?? Discussion is continued to a later meeting. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT Bruce Hart from Florence ?? Bruce Hart worried that the CPC members who represent other boards will be advocating for their boards when deciding on CPC grants. He questioned whether this is a concern for the members. ?? Jack Hornor noted that those members are appointed to the CPC by law, but that they have the ability to either strictly advocate for their board or not. ?? Don Bianchi stated that he feels there is great diversity created by the appointments, but that it is for the common good. ?? Mason Maronn agreed and believed that CPC members will generally advocate for the greater good of the CPC over their individual interests. 4. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 19, 2007 MEETING Revision under “4. Eligibility Form Review Process, B” ?? Jack Hornor stated that he and Bruce Young think the committee agreed with Don Bianchi’s suggestion that a denial get an automatic appeal and that this was the resolution of that discussion. ?? Committee agreed with Jack Hornor’s recollection. 3 ?? Minutes revised to reflect such. Revision under “4. Project Recommendation & Funding Process, A” ?? Jack Hornor stated that he and Bruce Young think the committee agreed with George Kohout’s suggestion and that the minutes should note that. ?? Committee agreed with Jack Hornor’s recollection. ?? Minutes revised to reflect such. Approval ?? Mason Maronn moved to approve the minutes of December 19, 2007. ?? John Andrulis seconded the motion. ?? Fran Volkmann requested that future minutes include page numbers. ?? All those present voted in favor of the motion. 5. CHAIR’S REPORT LATE FILING OF ELIGIBILITY FORMS ?? Jack Hornor stated that two eligibility applications were received after the close of business on December 31, 2007. While they are not very late he felt uncomfortable accepting them for this round of funding. One is for the DAR home on South St and the other is for Look Park. ?? Bruce Young stated that the Look Park application was mailed on Dec 31, 2007 but not received in the Planning office until January 2, 2008. The application passes technical review. He stated that Look Park would likely not file an application for funding until the next cycle. ?? George Kohout stated the CPC plan should be amended to state forms are due in the Planning Department office by close of business on that date, not postmarked. ?? Fran Volkmann believed the mayor requested a February 15, 2008 date for end of first cycle, but the CPC bumped it up to accommodate one application that is time sensitive. She suggested we change next year to a February 15, 2009 deadline. ?? Don Bianchi believed the CPC moved up the date so that the CPC would have time to review applications before the February meeting. Also, he pointed out that the rules state eligibility applications are due 30 days before regular applications. In this case the deadline should have been January 1, 2008. Therefore, in spirit these applications fit the rules and should be accepted. ?? Mason Maronn motioned to accept these eligibility applications as submitted on time. ?? Lily Lombard seconded the motion. ?? All voted in favor. DAR ELIGIBILITY FORM 4 ?? Bruce Young stated the DAR application is marginal for its eligibility. It appears the work may be considered maintenance, which is not acceptable. If it were considered rehabilitation it would be acceptable. ?? Jack Hornor stated the language of the law is not precise. It gives leeway and you will find similar projects have been accepted by other CPC’s. ?? Lily Lombard stated this CPC could make its own decision. She stated it should be eligible. ?? Tom Parent suggested it could be considered maintenance and preservation. ?? Jack Hornor suggested this could be sorted out during application review. He suggested the eligibility form be accepted. Likewise, he suggested Bruce Young should remind the applicant that maintenance is not permitted and more specific information should be included in the application. ?? Lily Lombard also suggested the CPC needs more detail in application. ?? George Kohout reminded everyone the burden is on applicant. Therefore we accept for now. ?? Don Bianchi also felt the CPC should accept application but reserve right to decide later if it meets funding criteria. ?? Bruce Young stated most CPC’s would accept this because it is a non-profit. It may be different were it for a private owner. He reminded the CPC procedures and rules very important to lay down first. ?? Jack Hornor reminded everyone that CPC funding must be for public benefit. This eligibility application will be deemed acceptable and the final application will be more thoroughly reviewed. LOOK PARK ELIGIBILITY FORM ?? Jack Hornor stated the Look Park project is for historic preservation and rehabilitative restoration of the fountain. Therefore it should be eligible to apply. ?? George Kohout wondered why the full committee is being asked to vote on the eligibility of this project. It should be the Chair along with staff making the decision. ?? All vote in favor of eligibility. PLAN AMENDMENT ?? Lily Lombard suggested the CPC begin to keep list of possible changes to the CPC Plan. The comprehensive list could then be discussed when it is time for the annual review of the CPC plan. FINANCIAL UPDATE ?? Jack Hornor stated that the meeting scheduled with Chris Pile, Northampton Finance Director and Jim Dostal, Council President has yet to take place. Therefore, no new information is available concerning creative methods to leverage CPC funds. ?? Jack Hornor distributed the CPC financial report (see Appendix A). The account balance is currently about $1.7m and should be $2.0m by end of fiscal year. Then the state matching funds will be received a few months later. ?? Don Bianchi stated these reports are very helpful and he would appreciate monthly updates. 5 OUTREACH ?? Jack Hornor requested staff to begin compiling an outreach list of all local groups that may be interested in pursuing a CPC grant. He asked for an update on this effort. ?? John Frey submitted the latest list containing over 60 local organizations. This list is a constant work in progress and should exceed over 200 contacts over time. DEED RESTRICTIONS ?? Bruce Young stated that currently according to the CPA deed restrictions are only required when acquiring new property. However, the Anti-Aid Amendment passed by the legislature states that no public money could be used for a private property without a public benefit. Also, the public benefit must be secured via a real property interest such as a deed or preservation restriction. Most CPC’s are instituting bylaws or procedures requiring a deed restriction for all projects. Some require the deed on the entire property, while some are just for the work being completed. He encouraged the CPC to consider drafting a similar policy. UPCOMING CPA AMENDMENTS ?? Bruce Young stated that the CP Coalition has proposed 12 amendments to the CPA for the legislature to consider this term. ?? Jack Hornor noted that number one on the list is to increase pool of funds the State uses to match local CPC funds. Since the CPA was created the State has matched all funds at 100% each year. However, as more communities pass the local CPA is will be hard to match those funds without an increase in the funding pool. It is a goal to make certain the matching funds achieve at least 75%. LAPTOP COMPUTERS FOR CPC MEMBERS ?? Bruce Young provided a report on the current effort to offer laptops to CPC members. He stated there are basically two levels of computers available starting at $350 for a basic computer without software and going to $500+ to include MS Office and wireless capabilities. He also stated that the City MIS department is not comfortable allowing board members on to the city system. ?? Jack Hornor stated that five members would like laptops provided, John Andrulis, Don Bianchi, Fran Volkmann, Lily Lombard, and Mason Maronn. ?? Don Bianchi questioned whether utilizing laptops at the meetings would make the CPC more efficient. ?? Jack Hornor stated this would allow staff to quickly and cheaply distribute application and meeting materials to all members. Also it would make it easier for members to bring all materials to a meeting versus paper files. ?? Bruce Young explained that it is now possible for the Planning Department to now quickly scan files and create PDF’s to be instantly emailed to all CPC members. ?? Jack Hornor summarized that we will continue to provide materials electronically and strive to utilize less paper. The decision to purchase laptops will need more time. CPC ADMINISTRATIVE ACCOUNT 6 ?? Bruce Young stated that it is still permissible to request the full 5% allowed by the CPA for administrative funds for FY08. The balance still available to request is $19,000. Chris Pile and the CP Coalition confirmed this information. ?? Jack Hornor stated the additional funds could be used to fund the historical records grant. We should move the funds now and if not used it will automatically go back into the general fund at the end of FY08. ?? Mason Maronn questioned if this is a go-around for utilizing administrative funds for other uses. ?? Jack Hornor stated this is not a new idea. CPC can fund because this is needed administrative information. ?? Mason Maronn stated this makes the money transfer much more palatable and he is in favor. ?? Lily Lombard stated it is the CPC’s obligation to conduct this assessment and therefore it is a good fit for administrative funding. ?? George Kohout stated the CPC originally wanted most money to go to the public good. This project can still be funded through regular channels. Likewise FY09 is soon enough to request 100% administrative funding. ?? Jack Hornor stated that timing is key for this project and using out of administrative funds would hurry the process. Therefore, it is a nice safeguard. ?? Lily Lombard motioned to request the remainder of FY08 administrative funds. ?? Don Bianchi seconded the motion. ?? Vote fails 6-2. Don Bianchi, Fran Volkmann, John Andrulis, Mason Maronn, Tom Parent and George Kohout against. Lily Lombard and Jack Hornor in favor. ADA REQUIREMENTS ?? Jack Hornor stated this would be discussed at the next meeting. CPC WEBSITE ?? Jack Hornor stated this would be discussed at the next meeting. APPLICATIONS ?? No completed applications have been submitted yet. All applications due in Planning Department office by close of business on February 1, 2008. 6. DISCUSSION OF 2008 CPC PROJECT DECISION MAKING PROCESSES ALLOCATION FORMULAS ?? Jack Hornor spoke for Chris Kennedy who was absent. He stated Chris Kennedy wanted the CPC to make a decision regarding allocation formulas and reserve budgets. He wanted to know if anyone else favored limiting the allocations granted for the first round. ?? Fran Volkmann stated she does not want to spend the full allotment in the first round regardless of the four grant areas. 7 ?? Jack Hornor reminded the CPC that funds are incoming throughout the year via property tax payments. Also, the State match is expected in October. ?? Tom Parent stated he is uncertain regarding allocation totals for the first round. For him it will depend on the needs of the 12 applicants. ?? Mason Maronn suggested the CPC maintain a reserve for possible out of cycle funding grants. ?? Don Bianchi suggested creating guiding principles for allocation protocol but not a set formula. His intention is to not spend all funds in first round and wants balance in all four grant areas, but it will again depend on the quality and need of the applicants. ?? John Andrulis stated that the guiding principles would help the CPC maintain a critical eye over the first 12 applications. ?? Jack Hornor stated the 12 applications would likely far exceed the current CPC account balance of $1.7m. Therefore, critical decisions would be necessary anyhow. ?? George Kohout questioned whether budgeted reserves would provide benefit. ?? Jack Hornor stated the reserves provide advantages but the plan must be very detailed in its structure and intent. ?? Bruce Young stated that some CPC’s provide a designated minimum for recreational spending though not mandated by the CPA. Also, the CPC can fund certain commissions directly without a specific project application. The CPA does not require a specific project in order to provide funding so long as the commission spending meets necessary criteria. ?? Don Bianchi motioned to adopt two guiding principles. First to strive for funding balance among the four project areas and secondly to reserve certain funds for future rounds or possible out-of-cycle special projects. The principles are not binding but just set the context for awards discussion. ?? Tom Parent seconded the motion. ?? Lily Lombard questioned what the set percentages should be. Perhaps they should be set after the first funding cycle. ?? Fran Volkmann stated she is not certain the CPC should go on record with such a statement. She questioned whether it would apply in the future. ?? John Andrulis stated funding percentage guidelines to the four areas would be very useful. ?? Jack Hornor stated he is more comfortable with first looking at the 12 applications in this funding cycle before committing to allocation percentages. However he is comfortable with committing to not spend all funds in first round. ?? Don Bianchi reiterated the guiding principles are more about spirit than set requirement. ?? Bruce Young stated the applicants are very interested in knowing an answer from the CPC regarding allocation percentages before the application deadline. ?? Mason Maronn stated he is comfortable treating all four areas equally during review but not necessarily funding each equally. ?? Don Bianchi stated there might be value in balancing all four areas. ?? Jack Hornor stated the public regardless of the CPC’s intent would treat the guiding principles as binding. ?? Don Bianchi withdrew his motion to adopt guiding principles. 8 ?? George Kohout stated there are two funding cycles still in FY08. CPC would have $2m total at its disposal. He suggested spending 60% during this funding cycle. ?? Mason Maronn stated he wants no limits during the first round. ?? Jack Hornor suggested if the CPC makes such a decision it would need to be publicized widely. ?? Don Bianchi stated this commitment would be very restricting on the CPC. ?? George Kohout stated the CPC would need to eventually make a decision whether now or during application review. He stated it appears the CPC is committed to saving some funds for the second round. ?? Lily Lombard agreed to the concept of saving some funds for the second round. ?? Jack Hornor wondered whether he should send a formal statement to the applicants. ?? Fran Volkmann agreed this would be a good idea. ?? George Kohout suggested a 10% funding commitment for recreation to put it on par with the other three funding areas. ?? John Andrulis stated he wants no regulated increases to any of the four areas beyond those required by the CPA. ?? Tom Parent agreed with John Andrulis and stated waiting to decide during application review makes the most sense. ?? Bruce Young stated this round will include 6 historic, 4 housing, 1 open space, and 1 open space/recreational project. ?? The CPC resolved to not adopt any funding principles at this time. REVIEW PROCESS TIMELINE ?? Fran Volkmann provided the CPC with a suggested timeline for application review (see Appendix B). She stated this would allow time for CPC staff technical review and CPC member review before the later scheduled meetings. ?? George Kohout stated that site reviews are very important, though missing a site review should not be grounds for recusal from an application funding decision. Likewise, he offered to attend the site visits and provide feedback for the CPC. ?? Jack Hornor questioned if the site visits should happe before the applicant presentations. ?? Tom Parent suggested cutting down the proposed 30-minute presentations. ?? Jack Hornor suggested the CPC query applicants as to their presentation needs and schedule accordingly. ?? Lily Lombard suggested she liked the proposed Saturday, March 1, 2008 meeting date for applicant presentations. ?? All agreed to the March 1, 2008 meeting date for applicant presentations. ?? Lily Lombard questioned if the CPC could expedite time sensitive applications. ?? Jack Hornor stated the CPC could do this in a case-by-case basis. ?? Fran Volkmann confirmed there is provision in the CPC plan for expedited decisions. ?? Tom Parent stated however that he does not want to exercise this option during the first funding round since all the projects and processes are new to the CPC. 9 ?? Don Bianchi stated these would be a rare exception. He suggested utilizing letters-of- interest and such to help applicants extend the time window. He advocated for staying with the set timeline for this funding cycle. ?? Bruce Young stated there would be at least one application with a timeline issue. ?? Don Bianchi suggested this be discussed at the February 20, 2008 meeting. ?? Jack Hornor reminded CPC members that any of them could make motion at any time. He suggested to do that at the February 20, 2008 meeting. ?? Fran Volkmann suggested Bruce Young should contact all applicants now to schedule March 1, 2008 presentations. ?? Jack Hornor stated the suggested schedule delay of the February 20, 2008 meeting to the th 27 should not happen. There is enough time for application review before the regular schedule time of February 20, 2008. ?? All agree the meeting will stay on February 20, 2008. ?? Lily Lombard offered to take minutes at the March 1, 2008 presentations if CPC staff cannot attend. ?? Jack Hornor queried the members for comment as to the additionally scheduled public comment meeting. ?? Fran Volkmann stated this additional meeting is very important for the public and that the CPC may learn something new. Also the CPC needs time to ponder public comment and therefore should not wait until the final meeting where funding decisions are made. ?? John Andrulis stated that the project advocates would simply be repeating themselves at each meeting. He suggested only having the regular meeting. ?? George Kohout agreed with John Andrulis. The additional meeting will be a no-win situation for the CPC. ?? Jack Hornor stated the CPC encourages written public comment at any time. ?? Lily Lombard stated she is convinced by Fran Volkmann and is in favor of the additional meeting. ?? George Kohout stated he envisions the public comment meeting including specific questions about projects. He does not want the CPC required to answer for the applicant. ?? Jack Hornor agreed that should not happen and stated it needs to be very clear on the agenda for the meeting. ?? All agree to March 12, 2008 for the additional public comment meeting. PROJECT APPLICATION EVALUATION SHEET ?? Fran Volkmann provided to the CPC members a proposed project evaluation scoring sheet (see Appendix C). ?? Jack Hornor queried the members as to how they felt about a scoring system. ?? Don Bianchi stated he needed more time to review the actual criteria. ?? Lily Lombard questioned whether the scoring system is intended for the CPC as a whole or for individual member needs. She is in favor of just using it on an individual basis. ?? Fran Volkmann stated the system requires CPC members to view all applications as a whole. ?? Don Bianchi suggested the framework of the evaluation sheet is good for consistent analysis of the applications, however he is not in favor of numbered scoring. He stated he wants to leave no impression of scoring. This is an evaluation only. The spirit of the two 10 is the same but the interpretation is different. Also, he stated the sheet needs more space for narrative comments. ?? Tom Parent agreed with Don Bianchi. He stated that for example an application might score well but still not be a good funding opportunity. ?? Bruce Young stated he wants feedback questions by early March so he can contact the applicants for additional information. ?? Fran Volkmann suggested re-doing the criteria with a poor to excellent rating system. Then a space for overall recommendation. ?? Jack Hornor stated that since the sheets are not to be turned in each member could adjust as they see fit. It could be revised further before the next funding cycle. ?? All agreed with Jack Hornor for this funding cycle. 7. DISCUSSION OF CPC FINANCING ?? Jack Hornor suggested this discussion be tabled to a later meeting. ?? All agreed. 8. DISCUSSION OF APPLICANT WORKSHOP ?? No discussion took place but minutes for that meeting will be distributed to the CPC members and posted to the CPC website. 9. NEW BUSINESS ?? None. Meeting adjourned at 10:03 pm. Respectfully submitted on January 25, 2008, John Frey, Community Preservation Planner 11 APPENDIX B – Timeline Some Suggestions re upcoming CPC decision processes Fran Volkmann, Jan 02, 2008 Following up on the committee’s discussion in December, I’ve been trying to think about the steps in our decision processes. If we can articulate the steps clearly, then perhaps we will be able to attach a reasonable time-line for the committee’s work and figure out when we will need to have meetings. My intent here is to throw these ideas into the pot with the ideas of others so that we can jointly come up with a good way of proceeding. 1. Prior to receipt of applications: January Provide feedback to potential applicants re Eligibility Determination Forms. - (Early in January.) Determine how much to spend this year; how much to hold in reserve, and - any other general questions regarding CPA funds that will affect the present round of projects. (Jan CPC meeting?) Create an Evaluation Sheet for committee members to use in their review of - each application. (Jan CPC meeting?) Adopt at least a preliminary time-line for the committee’s decision-making - process. (Jan CPC meeting?) 2. Initial steps re applications: February Initial review by Bruce, re: completeness, threshold criteria, zoning - compliance, deed restrictions, site control, and other “non-evaluative” criteria. (Feb 4-13) Initial reading of all applications by CPC members. (Feb 14-25) - Collation of results by Bruce; distribution to members. (Feb 26) - Review of initial questions and needed clarifications that arise from members’ - review. Site visits, where applicable. - 3. Committee review: March Initial discussion of all applications by full committee. (Feb 27) - Meeting(s) with applicants. How to schedule? (March 1) - A public discussion? (A meeting that allows public participation) - When and how many Public Hearings? - Final discussion and decisions by committee. (March 19) - - 14 4. Post review actions: Inform Applicants of committee decisions (informal e-mails ok?). (March 21) - Inform Mayor of committee decisions. (March 21) - Public meeting (or press release?) to announce decisions. - Meeting of CPC subcommittee with Mayor. - Notify applicants of Mayor’s recommendations; ask successful candidates to - attend City Council review. Attendance at City Council review by some or all committee members. - Final official notification of awards. - Summary of a possible time-line 1. All of the preliminary actions would be completed at the January CPC meeting on 1/16. 2. Initial steps Bruce would have 7 working days to complete his initial review of all of the - applications (Feb 4-13). The committee members would have 9 working days to complete their initial - reading of all of the applications. The regular Feb 20 CPC meeting would be postponed until Feb 27. (Feb 14-25) 3. Committee review Initial discussion by full committee would be held at the postponed Feb - meeting on Feb 27. I proposed that we consider holding a special (all day?) workshop with all of - the applicants (one-by-one) on Saturday, March 1. A public discussion/public hearing would be held sometime during the first - two weeks of March (March 12 might be good). Final discussion and decisions by the committee would occur at the regular - meeting on March 19. NB: I am submitting this time-line simply as a way of focusing the committee’s conversation about how we want to proceed. In fact, whether it is realistic or not depends on how many applications come in, how complex they are, etc. I think it would be useful to put these ideas, along with the ideas of others, out to the committee members prior to the Jan meeting so that we can all be thinking about how we actually want to structure our decision-making process for this first round of applications. Please let me know what you think, and whether I have been unclear or should be thinking differently. 15 APPENDIX C – Evaluation Sheet D R A F T 01-02-08 CPC Project Evaluation Sheet Each member of the CPC is asked to complete this evaluation sheet for each proposal. Please assign a number between 1 and 10 to each item, where 1 is failing and 10 is excellent. Upon completion of the sheet, please send it immediately to Bruce, who will collate the results. Name of Project ____________________________________ Funding Requested ______ Name of Evaluator __________________________________ Date __________________ RATING 1. How well does this project meet the CPC General Criteria? ________ 2. How well does this project meet the CPC Specific Criteria? ________ 3. How clearly are the goals of the project stated? ________ 4. How clear are the measures of outcomes, or success, of the project? ________ 5. How important is the project for the community as a whole? ________ 6. How important is the project for meeting one or more specific CPA goals?________ 7. How well qualified is the applicant to carry out this project? ________ 8. How do the benefits of the project compare with the risks? ________ 9. How clear is the implementation plan for this project? ________ 10. How realistic is the implementation plan? ________ 11. How realistic is the schedule for project completion? ________ 12. How adequate is the financial analysis and plan? ________ 13. How realistic is the budget? ________ 14. How effectively does the project leverage funds from other sources? ________ 15. How strongly is the project supported in the community? ________ COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THIS REVIEWER: REVIEWER’S OVERALL NUMERICAL EVALUATION OF PROJECT ________ 16