Loading...
Agenda and Minutes 2008-06-18 Community Preservation Committee Agenda DATE: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 TIME: 6:00 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 06/11/2008 ?? Fiscal update ?? Chair’s report ?? Votes to recommend second round 2008 project funding ?? 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, June 18, 2008 Time: 6:00 pm Place: City Hall, 212 Main St., Council Chambers Members Present: Jack Hornor, Don Bianchi, Fran Volkmann, John Andrulis, Tom Parent, Lily Lombard, Craig Della Penna, George Kohout and Mason Maronn Staff Present: Bruce Young, Community Preservation Planner John Frey, Community Preservation Planner Jack Hornor opened the public hearing at 6:05 pm 1. PUBLIC COMMENT Michael Bardsley, City Councilor spoke in favor of the Florence Civic Center project. He stated local history needs preserving and multiple, local institutions best do it. Also, the civic center is a truly open space for the community acting as the meetinghouse for many organizations. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Jack Hornor presented the minutes from June 11, 2008 for approval. Upon motion by Tom Parent, seconded by Mason Maronn, all voted in favor (Lilly Lombard abstained) of accepting the minutes of June 11, 2008 3. FISCAL UPDATE Bruce Young presented the current balance figures for the CPC. Current financial commitments are $981,342, plus $1M & interest over four years for the library (~$300,000 per year). Thus far only $571,075 has been allocated to the grantees. After committed dollars the CPC balance is $483,213. That is the amount available to spend immediately tonight. Jack Hornor noted the remaining dollars in the CPC account are accruing interest. Also, FY09 first quarter tax bills will be mailed soon. Finally, the State matching grant should arrive in October. George Kohout requested a spreadsheet summary of the fiscal report be made available at each meeting. *** 2 Lilly Lombard suggested pie charts summaries for each of the funding areas. *** Bruce Young also noted that unspent administrative money for FY08 would be returned to the st CPC general fund on July 1. That figure would be ~$15,000. 4. CHAIR’S REPORT Jack Hornor presented the staffing report for FY08. Spent so far is $24,500 for personnel, plus ~$6,000 for non-staff expenses, for a total of $30,677. At the end of the fiscal year ~$15-18,000 will be returned to the CPC general fund. He also stated Bruce Young cannot provide more staffing hours but John Frey could increase from his current 3.75 hours per week. He suggested John Frey take more of the administrative tasks from Bruce Young up to 10 hours per week. He noted much administrative is expected in the next six months, and then it would become more professional with project implementation in 2009. Finally, up to $65,000 could be used for staffing support. George Kohout suggested the CPC review its procedure for minutes. The group decided to schedule a review for the December 3, 2008 meeting. *** Lilly Lombard suggested Bruce Young needed to spend too much time on the application process each funding cycle. She suggested the CPC streamline its requirements for applicants. *** Mason Maronn and Tom Parent agreed with Lilly Lombard. Don Bianchi requested Jack Hornor clarify the meeting dates for the remainder of 2008. Jack Hornor stated eligibility forms for round three are due on Tuesday, August 12, 2008, with applications due on September 12, 2008. Site visits are scheduled for Saturday, September 27, 2008. Lilly Lombard asked if there would be more than one site visit scheduled. Bruce Young stated if more than one is scheduled then he would want the CPC members to RSVP for visits. Jack Hornor tabled the matter until after round two. 5. PROJECT RECOMMENDATION DECISIONS The projects were discussed and voted on in the order of favorability based on the tier ranking decisions. Each discussion began with a prepared motion presented for discussion. Discussion ensued, conditions suggested, and changes made as agreed. The final motions are attached below. 3 GROVE STREET ?? Jack Hornor presented the Grove Street project for discussion. This projected ranked number one for discussion with all nine members placing it in tier 1. ?? Fran Volkmann presented the draft motion for discussion. She suggested funding the actual costs, not the requested amount. ?? George Kohout stated this ranked first on his list because of the public safety nature of the request. He also stated it is a local priority to not only create new affordable housing, but also preserve the current stock of affordable housing which this helps accomplish. ?? Lilly Lombard questioned how many bids were obtained for this project. ?? Jack Hornor stated three bids were received and this was the lowest bid. ?? Upon motion by Don Bianchi, seconded by John Andrulis, all voted in favor of the project recommendation for $8,824 (see final motion version below). JACKSON STREET ?? Jack Hornor presented the Jackson Street project for discussion. This projected ranked number two for discussion with five members placing it in tier 1, three in tier 2, and one in tier 3. ?? Bruce Young explained ~400 square feet are needed from the landowner to the north. The plan requests $35,000 cash in hand for bargaining in order to avoid eminent domain taking. However, it may cost less to purchase an easement from the owner. That savings would be returned to the CPC. He queried if the CPC would support this approach. ?? Craig Della Penna argued the landowner would receive no damages since this actually improves the property. ?? Bruce Young stated the value is based on purchase price value. ?? Tom Parent questioned if this creates a liability for the homeowner if they accept an easement. ?? Bruce Young explained there would be no liability for a landowner under the State recreation laws. ?? Fran Volkmann suggested the City Council would not act lightly on an eminent domain taking. ?? Lilly Lombard questioned if the money could be earmarked for an easement but not an eminent domain taking. ?? Bruce Young explained the CPC could choose to do that. ?? Mason Maronn argued this a safety issue to use the trail in its current state. ?? Lilly Lombard stated this would be a public benefit to the Jackson Street School. ?? Craig Della Penna explained the bike trail is part of the Safe Routes to Schools program and this glitch with the trail needs to be fixed. ?? Bruce Young noted the path utilizing the abutter’s property would be ADA compliant. ?? Don Bianchi suggested the CPC does not need to weigh in on this issue. Change language to state, “If City gains clear legal access”. ?? Jack Hornor struck the eminent domain language from the motion. ?? Upon motion by Craig Della Penna, seconded by Lilly Lombard, all voted in favor of the project recommendation for $35,000 (see final motion version below). CITY CLERK 4 ?? Jack Hornor presented the CITY CLERK project for discussion. This projected ranked number three for discussion with four members placing it in tier 1 and five in tier 2. ?? Fran Volkmann presented the draft motion for discussion. She suggested voting to fund the complete project but only giving $16,000 in FY08. ?? Don Bianchi recalled the city clerk needed $16,000 now plus $33,000 now for shelving. ?? Fran Volkmann questioned if the shelving could wait until 2009. ?? Jack Hornor stated that the shelving needs would not hold up the preservation effort. ?? Don Bianchi stated the CPC knows they need the shelving. He suggested voting for the $16,000 now and deferring the remainder if the request to later this evening. ?? Lilly Lombard stated the city clerk plans to come back in FY09 anyhow for further funding. ?? Fran Volkmann motioned to fund $16,033 in FY08 and $33,675 in FY09. Mason Maronn seconded the motion. ?? Tom Parent stated he is uncomfortable pushing funding into FY09. He suggested making the difficult decision tonight and not jeopardizing future funding potential. ?? Lilly Lombard suggested amending the comment to include, “applicant explores feasibility of transitioning archives to electronic database”. ?? The motion is passed 5-4 to fund $16,033 in FY08 and $33,675 in FY09 (see final motion version below). Jack Hornor, Fran Volkmann, Mason Maronn, John Andrulis, and Craig Della Penna voted in favor. Those opposed included Lilly Lombard, George Kohout, Tom Parent, and Don Bianchi. ?? NOTE: those opposed stated they are only opposed to the funding schedule and would have preferred the CPC fully fund the project with FY08 dollars. SUMMER STREET ?? Jack Hornor presented the Summer Street project for discussion. This projected ranked number three (tie) for discussion with four members placing it in tier 1 and five in tier 2. ?? Fran Volkmann presented the draft motion for discussion. She queried the CPC regarding more cost estimates. She suggested simply paying the costs up to the amount stated in the proposal. ?? George Kohout agreed to fund up to the amount proposed contingent on the applicant securing two more bids. ?? Don Bianchi agreed with the condition they accept the lowest bid. ?? Tom Parent questioned if the tenants truly needed to move out during renovations. ?? Jack Hornor stated the applicant would likely secure a separate $8,000 grant for those expenses. ?? Bruce Young stated the applicant would cover those expenses separately if not granted. ?? Upon motion by Don Bianchi, seconded by John Andrulis, all voted in favor of the project recommendation for $39,618 (see final motion version below). FITZGERALD LAKE ?? Jack Hornor presented the Fitzgerald Lake project for discussion. This projected ranked number five for discussion with four members placing it in tier 1, three in tier 2 and two in tier 3. ?? Fran Volkmann presented the draft motion for discussion. ?? George Kohout suggested adding a statement that the public will benefit as all money allocated would be returned to the City’s general fund upon sale of the property. 5 ?? Jack Hornor stated the Conservation Commission listed Sawmills as the higher priority project. He stated his preference to reject this proposal in favor of funding Sawmills. ?? Mason Maronn stated Sawmills is the higher priority for him as well. ?? George Kohout stated he thinks the CPC could fund both. He suggests not voting down this project so quickly. ?? Don Bianchi suggested deferring the vote until after the Sawmills discussion. ?? Tom Parent agreed. ?? Jack Hornor tabled the discussion to after the Sawmill discussion. PARADISE POND ?? Jack Hornor presented the Paradise Pond project for discussion. This projected ranked number six for discussion with three members placing it in tier 1, four in tier 2, and two in tier 3. ?? Fran Volkmann presented the draft motion for discussion. ?? Jack Hornor stated he consulted Stuart Saginore of the Community Preservation Coalition regarding legality of funding this project. Saginore raised two questions regarding maintenance and supplanting. Supplanting would be an issue if the money was already allocated but that is not the case here, therefore no issue. Maintenance concerns however may be an issue. The applicant did not apply specifically for maintenance, but rather simply for a subsidy to maintain affordable housing. The intent is to preserve affordable housing, as the consequence is raised rents and displaced families. Therefore, Jack Hornor does not see a conflict here. ?? Lilly Lombard stated her preference for the city solicitor to weigh-in on this issue as it appears like maintenance to her since a portion of the money would subsidize maintenance costs. ?? Don Bianchi disagreed with Lilly Lombard. He stated the CPC could easily earmark the dollars for non-maintenance expenses. The material point is to maintain the affordable housing. ?? Fran Volkmann concurred with Don Bianchi. ?? Jack Hornor stated the key sentence in the application states this money would replace HUD funding specifically. ?? Tom Parent stated the CPC asked the applicant to cut budget elsewhere and they stated it is not possible. He suggested they could afford the money from the general HAP budget. ?? Jack Hornor disagreed with Tom Parent. He stated each of the projects is discrete. Mixing of funds is not possible. ?? Don Bianchi concurred with Jack Hornor. He also stated margins on these projects are incredibly thin and therefore not funding would create a hardship directly on the residents in the long run. ?? Bruce Young stated total operating expenses minus the maintenance costs are $23,810. The CPC could fund that amount without concern. ?? Don Bianchi stated that figure assumes rent is static. The CPC could easily justify full amount without maintenance concerns. ?? Lilly Lombard stated she received two comments when she queried the public. One was concerned this set a bad precedent. The second stated this rewards mismanagement yet it was important for the community to step in anyhow. Either way, it is important to receive assurances this won’t happen again. ?? George Kohout applauded the applicant for their honesty. He stated many projects are the result of mistakes by management in the past. ?? Don Bianchi stated this is a mistake and not mismanagement. There are many mistakes in 6 other projects as well. HAP is a quality organization deserving of support. ?? Jack Hornor stated HAP has assured funding in the future via a letter from HUD. ?? Upon motion by Fran Volkmann, seconded by John Andrulis, all voted in favor of the project recommendation for $26,627 (see final motion version below). SAW MILL HILLS ?? Jack Hornor presented the Saw Mill Hills project for discussion. This projected ranked number seven for discussion with two members placing it in tier 1, six in tier 2, and one in tier 3. ?? Fran Volkmann presented the draft motion for discussion. ?? Jack Hornor queried the CPC whether to fund with or without affordable housing goals. ?? Bruce Young summarized the project costs at $390,000 total. The Office of Planning & Development would secure a land grant for ~$90,000. With additional surveying and soft costs the balance needed for purchase would be $310,000. If the two build-able lots were sold for market value that would recoup ~$160,000 but then the affordable housing prospects would be lost. ?? Jack Hornor stated there is an option to extend the purchase for $1,000 per month. He suggested tabling the project to round 3. ?? Bruce Young stated the option to extend only applies if there is a contract to purchase. ?? Fran Volkmann stated her preference to fund just $150,000 and forego the affordable housing option. She suggested there would be better opportunities to spend the affordable housing dollars in the future. ?? Don Bianchi agreed with Fran Volkmann. ?? Jack Hornor questioned the applicant if $150,000 is sufficient to fund the project. ?? Wayne Feiden stated yes. The land grant is quite likely, but they would fundraise the amount if not. ?? Upon motion by Lilly Lombard, seconded by Craig Della Penna, all voted in favor of the project recommendation for $150,000 (see final motion version below). FITZGERALD LAKE (CONTINUED) ?? Tom Parent questioned if fundraising had been considered from the actual neighbors of the property. ?? Wayne Feiden stated the Broad Brook Coalition solicited fundraising in the neighborhood and they are going to pay the soft costs of the purchase. ?? Mason Maronn stated the other protections in place on the property are not sufficient enough to keep it from being developed. ?? Craig Della Penna stated it is highly unlikely someone would develop there in the coming months. He suggested it is possible to wait. ?? Bruce Young stated the purchase option expires in the fall, therefore cannot wait until round 3 for funding. ?? Lilly Lombard questioned how this property ranked versus other possible parcels that may come available. ?? Bruce Young stated it is a high priority parcel because of the nutrient loading problem. ?? George Kohout stated any chance to purchase land along a stream is a must. Also, the money coming back to the city is a bonus. ?? Fran Volkmann stated she only ranked it low because the Saw Mill Hills project was more 7 important. ?? Upon motion by Lilly Lombard, seconded by Mason Maronn, all voted in favor of the project recommendation for $31,000 (see final motion version below). HISTORIC NORTHAMPTON ?? Jack Hornor presented the Historic Northampton project for discussion. This projected ranked number eight for discussion with seven members placing it in tier 2, and two in tier 3. ?? Fran Volkmann presented the draft motion for discussion. She suggested tabling the project without prejudice to work out a binding historic preservation restriction (HPR) of at least 99 years. ?? Fran Volkmann read the letter from Kerry Buckley regarding their opinion of the HPR issue. ?? Craig Della Penna stated the CPC needs the HPR. Anything less is not longevity guarantee. The HPR is the only way to safeguard the public interest in this case. ?? Mason Maronn stated Historic Northampton has even stated they may sell the property in the future. ?? George Kohout stated this applicant in fact did sell property on South Street in order to secure funds for the organization. ?? Lilly Lombard stated she strongly supports an HPR condition on this property. She suggested HPRs could be decided on a case-by-case basis depending on the funding level of the project. She would like the CPC to host a workshop to better understand deed restrictions. *** ?? Tom Parent suggested putting a lien on the property to protect the CPC investment. ?? Jack Hornor stated their goal is to preserve the organization, not necessarily their properties. ?? Craig Della Penna suggested putting a restriction on moving the building and also a pro-rated lien in the case of a sale. ?? Bruce Young stated most HPRs are for exterior only. ?? Fran Volkmann suggested delaying a vote until this issue is solved, not simply table to round 3. ?? Don Bianchi stated his preference to fund with HPR conditions. They could choose to take it or leave it. ?? Lilly Lombard stated the applicant prioritized interior funding and also stated they could leverage the funds. She suggested just funding $105,100 for the top priority project contingent upon appropriate HPR. ?? Fran Volkmann questioned if this is maintenance instead of preservation. ?? Jack Hornor stated it appeared to be preservation. ?? Craig Della Penna stated there must be a precedence the CPC could reference. ?? Lilly Lombard stated it is not well defined, therefore the CPC would need to make its own standards. ?? George Kohout suggested funding just $56,500 for one of the houses. He is not comfortable with funding more until the HPR issue is solved. ?? Fran Volkmann stated recouping money at sale is not good enough. She wants an HPR on the property. ?? Jack Hornor concurred with Fran Volkmann. ?? Don Bianchi made a motion, seconded by Mason Maronn to not fund this round and state without prejudice they may reapply with an HPR. ?? Jack Hornor stated the CPC must give them guidance regarding an appropriate HPR. 8 ?? Lilly Lombard suggested making this contingent upon CPC approval of the HPR. ?? Craig Della Penna stated this is a bad public relations option. It creates a line in the sand. ?? Tom Parent agreed. He prefers escrowing the money awaiting an HPR from the applicant. ?? Don Bianchi withdrew his motion. ?? Jack Hornor stated his preference for a motion to fund some with acceptable HPR. The CPC should send a message that Historic Northampton does good work, but that the HPR is important. ?? Don Bianchi stated he wants the Historic Commission to weigh in on what would be an appropriate HPR. ?? Lilly Lombard stated her preference to send a clear message they must leverage funds on future projects. ?? Upon motion by Tom Parent, seconded by Craig Della Penna, all voted in favor of the project recommendation for $105,100 for priority “A” pending approval of an acceptable HPR (see final motion version below). FLORENCE CIVIC CENTER ?? Jack Hornor presented the Florence Civic Center project for discussion. This projected ranked number nine for discussion with six members placing it in tier 2, and three in tier 3. ?? Fran Volkmann presented the draft motion for discussion. She suggested tabling the discussion without prejudice in order to create an ad hoc subcommittee to work with the applicant in order to make this a CPC-fundable project. She believes the CPC wants to support but there are too many outstanding questions. ?? Lilly Lombard stated the application appears weak. The building lacks historic value and there is not enough detail regarding the significance of the artifacts. ?? Tom Parent stated those concerns were well addressed at the last meeting and he has been swayed to support the project. It is a great grassroots project by volunteers. He suggested funding pending Historic Commission endorsement. ?? Mason Maronn stated it is not just the building but also important to preserve the artifacts. ?? Craig Della Penna agreed with Tom Parent. However, he also stated the applicant needs to address public access issues. ?? George Kohout stated the applicant must supply three quotes for renovation work. ?? Jack Hornor stated this is an extraordinary opportunity to help support preservation efforts. He suggests tabling the discussion in order to work with the applicant. ?? Bruce Young stated many line items are not eligible because is falls under support which is not allowed. He believes the Historic Commission will endorse restoration of the building and preservation of the artifacts. ?? Jack Hornor suggested sending a positive message by reserving some amount of money to spend pending a revised application. ?? John Andrulis made motion, seconded by Mason Maronn, to reserve $30,000 pending a revised application. ?? Tom Parent suggested giving them $13,000 to begin the restoration, but hold the rest. ?? Jack Hornor stated he wants to keep the project as a whole. Also, they still need three bids for work. He could see raising it to $40,000. ?? George Kohout disagreed with proposal. He suggests they return in round 3 with a new application. 9 ?? Don Bianchi stated he likes the motion to earmark money for them. It is a strong statement of the CPC intention to fund. ?? Lilly Lombard concurred with George Kohout. The burden is on the applicant to produce a strong and complete application. ?? Fran Volkmann stated she would like the CPC to be more helpful than that. The CPA is tricky and the CPC must help the applicant to understand it. ?? Craig Della Penna suggested a CPC policy of setting aside funds for smaller projects with less stringent application requirements. ?? George Kohout suggested changing the ceiling to $40,000. ?? The motion is changed to $40,000. ?? Bruce Young queried the CPC if they are comfortable with the application changing to include items not currently listed. ?? Don Bianchi stated that is acceptable. The CPC need not be that specific. ?? Jack Hornor stated the project mission summary would cover most any changes. ?? George Kohout stated the full CPC must vote on the final approval of funding. ?? Jack Hornor stated an ad hoc committee is still subject to the open meeting laws. He suggests not creating such. ?? Fran Volkmann stated it is better to just designate a couple members and staff to work with the applicant. ?? Mason Maronn stated it is a bad precedent to design applications for groups. ?? Jack Hornor stated that is not the case here. The CPC is just giving advise. ?? The motion is accepted 8-1. Jack Hornor, Don Bianchi, Fran Volkmann, John Andrulis, Tom Parent, Craig Della Penna, George Kohout and Mason Maronn all voted in favor, Lilly Lombard was opposed, of the project recommendation for up to $40,000 pending a revised and approved application (see final motion version below). LOOK PARK ?? Jack Hornor presented the Look Park project for discussion. This projected ranked number ten for discussion with one member placing it in tier 2, and eight in tier 3. ?? Fran Volkmann presented the draft motion for discussion. ?? Jack Hornor stated he has many reservations regarding this project. His main concern was that it does not appear to be restoration of the fountain. ?? Mason Maronn stated he believed the fountain could be maintained at a cheaper cost. ?? George Kohout stated there is a lack of public benefit with this project. ?? John Andrulis stated the public benefits are limited and the costs are exorbitant. ?? Upon motion by Lilly Lombard, seconded by Don Bianchi, all (except Tom Parent abstained) voted in favor of rejecting the project recommendation (see final motion version below). CITY CLERK (CONTINUED) ?? Upon motion by Fran Volkmann, seconded by John Andrulis, all voted in favor of moving the full allocation ($49,708) to FY08 (see final motion version below). Meeting adjourned at 10:44 pm. Respectfully submitted on June 25, 2008, 10 John Frey, Community Preservation Planner Attachments: Community Preservation Committee Recommendation for Funding Date: June 18, 2008 Applicant: Grove Street Fire Alarm Community Housing Project Amount of funding requested: $8,823.67 Time frame of request: 2008 Amount of funding recommended by CPC: $8,824 Time frame of funding recommended: 2008 Summary reasons for recommendation: Serves an important public benefit by providing safe temporary shelter and ?? stabilization for homeless adults in the community Benefits from a wide range of support from the community ?? Need for fire alarm system goes beyond ordinary maintenance and operation ?? costs Conditions/contingencies attached to recommendation: CPC funds actual cost of system up to $8,824 ?? Additional comments from committee: ?? 11 Community Preservation Committee Recommendation for Funding Date: June 18, 2008 Applicant: Jackson Street Bike Trail Access Acquisition and Construction Project Amount of funding requested: up to $35,000 Time frame of request: 2008 Amount of funding recommended by CPC: Time frame of funding recommended: Summary reasons for recommendation: Serves public purpose in providing easy access from Jackson Street ?? neighborhood, including the Jackson Street School, to the existing bikepath network. Improves the safety of the bikepath access ?? Supports the Northampton Sustainability Plan in encouraging alternative ?? transportation Is supported by a wide range of community groups and departments ?? Conditions/contingencies attached to recommendation: If within one year all CPC funds have not been spent, the OPD will return all ?? CPC funds to the CPA account. 12 Procedures for monitoring and reporting shall be worked out among the ?? Committee, Mayor and the grantee. Community Preservation Committee Recommendation for Funding Date: June 18, 2008 Applicant: City Clerk Records Historic Preservation Project Amount of funding requested: $72,333 Time frame of request: 2008, 2009, and 2010 Amount of funding recommended by CPC: $16,033 FY 08 and $33,675 FY 09 Time frame of funding recommended: Summary reasons for recommendation: Serves public need by preserving vital historic records ?? Project implementation meets the Commonwealth’s Registry of Vital Records ?? Mandate Conditions/contingencies attached to recommendation: Progress report must be submitted prior to second year disbursement. Procedures for monitoring and reporting shall be worked out among the ?? Committee, Mayor and the grantee. Additional comments from committee: Applicant explores feasibility of transitioning archives to electronic record ?? database 13 Community Preservation Committee Recommendation for Funding Date: June 18, 2008 Applicant: Summer Street Community Housing Project Amount of funding requested: $39,617.50 Time frame of request: 2008 Amount of funding recommended by CPC: Actual costs up to $39,617.50 Time frame of funding recommended: Summary reasons for recommendation: Serves public good by supporting housing and providing a support system for ?? low/moderate income individuals who chose to live in a sober and drug free environment. Need for structural support improvements goes beyond ordinary maintenance ?? and operation costs Benefits from a wide range of support from the community ?? Supports the Northampton Sustainability Plan in encouraging housing in a ?? dense urban neighborhood Conditions/contingencies attached to recommendation: Procedures for monitoring and reporting shall be worked out among the ?? Committee, Mayor and the grantee. 14 Contingent upon obtaining two additional bids and accepting the lowest ?? responsible and responsive bid. Community Preservation Committee Recommendation for Funding Date: June 18, 2008 Applicant: Paradise Pond Community Housing Project Amount of funding requested: $26,627 Time frame of request: 2008 Amount of funding recommended by CPC: $26,627 Time frame of funding recommended: 2008 Summary reasons for recommendation: Serves an important public benefit by providing housing and stabilization for ?? previously homeless families in the community Benefits from a wide range of support from the community ?? Ongoing funding from HUD is contingent upon this years gap funding ?? HAP has excellent track record over many years of supporting affordable ?? housing in Northampton Conditions/contingencies attached to recommendation: Funding in this category will be a one time funding expenditure 15 Procedures for monitoring and reporting shall be worked out among the ?? Committee, Mayor and the grantee. Additional comments from committee: Community Preservation Committee Recommendation for Funding Date: June 18, 2008 Applicant: Saw Mill Hills Open Space Acquisition Project Amount of funding requested: $150,000 Time frame of request: 2008 Amount of funding recommended by CPC: $150,000 Time frame of funding recommended: 2008 Summary reasons for recommendation: The acquisition would protect valuable natural resources and create a connection ?? between the Saw Mill Hills Conservation Area and the Mineral Hills Conservation Area thereby serving a public good. The project meets the goals of the Open Space and Recreation Plan, Sustainable ?? Northampton Plan and the CPA for the preservation of open space for recreation purposes. The Broad Brook Coalition, Nonotuck Land Fund and other conservation ?? partners support the Project. Conditions/contingencies attached to recommendation: Removal of two homes, and the restoration of the disturbed area located near the ?? stream, wetlands and vernal pool 16 Procedures for monitoring and reporting shall be worked out among the ?? Committee, Mayor and the grantee. Community Preservation Committee Recommendation for Funding Date: June 18, 2008 Applicant: Fitzgerald Lake Open Space Acquisition Project Amount of funding requested: $31,000 Time frame of request: 2008 Amount of funding recommended by CPC: $31,000 Time frame of funding recommended: Summary reasons for recommendation: The acquisition would extend the Fitzgerald Lake Conservation Area thereby ?? serving a public good. The project meets the goals of the Open Space and Recreation Plan, Sustainable ?? Northampton Plan and the CPA for the preservation of open space for recreation purposes. The Broad Brook Coalition, Nonotuck Land Fund and other conservation ?? partners support the Project. Funding would be returned to taxpayers of Northampton when returned to ?? General Fund after the payment of back taxes. Conditions/contingencies attached to recommendation: Land is to be purchased for conservation purposes under Article 97 of the ?? Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 17 Applicant shall submit a copy of the deed to the CPC after the deed is recorded. ?? Procedures for monitoring and reporting shall be worked out among the ?? Committee, Mayor and the grantee. Community Preservation Committee Recommendation for Funding Date: June 18, 2008 Applicant: Historic Northampton Museum Historic Preservation Project Amount of funding requested: $282,880 Time frame of request: 2008 Amount of funding recommended by CPC: $105,100 Time frame of funding recommended: Summary reasons for recommendation: The Historic Northampton Museum is a significant community and regional ?? resource for historic collections. The project enjoys widespread public support. ?? The project serves a public purpose by preserving structures and artifacts of ?? important historic significance Conditions/contingencies attached to recommendation: Historic Northampton presents a Historic Preservation Restriction that is ?? acceptable to the CPC prior to funding 18 Assurance of long-term preservation Procedures for monitoring and reporting shall be worked out among the ?? Committee, Mayor and the grantee. Community Preservation Committee Recommendation for Funding Date: June 18, 2008 Applicant: Florence Civic Historic Preservation Project Amount of funding requested: $40,000 Time frame of request: 2008 Amount of funding recommended by CPC: up to $40,000 Time frame of funding recommended: Summary reasons for recommendation: The history museum supports the goals of the Northampton Sustainability Plan ?? in protecting artifacts and documents that contributed to the uniqueness of the City. The building serves a broad public purpose, as a repository of historic ?? documents, and as a center for community activities. The project enjoys widespread public support. ?? Conditions/contingencies attached to recommendation: Applicant must show that they have received the endorsement of the Historical ?? Commission that the structure/artifacts are historically significant A minimum of three bids are necessary prior to release of funds ?? Procedures for monitoring and reporting shall be worked out among the ?? Committee, Mayor and the grantee. 19 Additional comments from committee: Reserve $40,000 and create a working group to work with the applicant to arrive ?? at a CPC fundable project Community Preservation Committee Recommendation for Funding Date: June 18, 2008 Applicant: Look Park Historic Restoration Project Amount of funding requested: $300,000 Time frame of request: 2008, 2009 and 2010 Amount of funding recommended by CPC: $0 Time frame of funding recommended: Summary reasons for recommendation: The project enjoys widespread public support. ?? The fountain was constructed prior to 1930 and constitutes a unique landmark in ?? Florence. Conditions/contingencies attached to recommendation: Procedures for monitoring and reporting shall be worked out among the ?? Committee, Mayor and the grantee. Additional comments from committee: CPC discussion on public value of CPC dollars for this project ?? Discussion of degree to which this project constitutes historic preservation ?? 20 21