Loading...
Agenda and Minutes 2008-07-02 Community Preservation Committee Agenda DATE: Wednesday, July 2, 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 Fran Volkmann, Vice Chair, Community Preservation Committee Franv@comcast.net Bruce Young, Community Preservation Planner byoung@northamptonma.gov (413) 587-1263 Agenda Review of Round Two process to date, and update on timetable for rest of the ?? process Discussion of timetable for Round Three ?? Discussion of number of rounds and possible schedule for 2009 ?? Discussion of HAP proposal and possible addition of language to clarify ?? requirement that CPA funds not be used for maintenance Update on other Round Two projects ?? Review of disbursement procedures and CPA Grant Agreement ?? Update on meeting with Valley CDC ?? Discussion of preservation deed restrictions ?? All other 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, July 2, 2008 Time: 7:00 pm Place: City Hall, 212 Main St., Council Chambers Members Present: Jack Hornor, Don Bianchi, Fran Volkmann, John Andrulis, Tom Parent, Lily Lombard, George Kohout, and Craig Della Penna (at 7:21 pm). Staff Present: Bruce Young, Community Preservation Planner John Frey, Community Preservation Planner Jack Hornor opened the public hearing at 7:06 pm 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ?? Jack Hornor presented the minutes from May 31, 2008 and June 18, 2008 for approval. ?? Upon motion by George Kohout, seconded by Tom Parent, all voted in favor of approval (Fran Volkmann abstained for May 31, 2008). 3. REVIEW OF ROUND TWO PROCESSES TIMETABLE ?? Jack Hornor presented a timetable for presenting recommendations to the mayor and city council. Jack Hornor, Fran Volkmann, and Lilly Lombard are scheduled to present recommendations to the mayor in July 8, 2008. Unfortunately, given the summer schedules recommendations cannot be voted on at city council until August 21, 2008 and September 4, 2008. It appears this will not present any harm to grantees. ?? Tom Parent recommended planning ahead for the future to avoid summertime delays. ?? Don Bianchi requested in the future the CPC schedule the meeting with the mayor sooner. The fire alarm delay at Grove Street is concerning. ?? Fran Volkmann suggested setting schedule with mayor before CPC funding meeting in order to expedite recommendations. ?? Upon motion by Don Bianchi, seconded by Lilly Lombard, all vote in favor of requesting expedited approval by city council (one vote only). ?? Bruce Young suggested the city council is unlikely to waive the second vote. His sense is that council would prefer to follow the full rules. 2 EMAILING OF COMMENTS ?? Lilly Lombard opened a discussion regarding written comments by CPC members when they cannot attend the meeting. She suggested the CPC must adopt a protocol for handling emails and written comments. Her complaint stemmed from a written review by the Community Preservation Coalition regarding the HAP application. Jack Hornor summarized the letter but did not read it fully for the CPC. She felt he should have forwarded the email to all CPC or read the letter in its entirety at the meeting. ?? Fran Volkmann stated the CPC must discuss separately the two issues – emailing comments among CPC members and member discussions with the coalition. ?? Jack Hornor summarized that three members missed the first meeting to discuss round two projects. Don Bianchi emailed his comments directly to all members, Lilly Lombard sent comments to staff asking her comments be read at the meeting, and Jack Hornor did not send any comments just the ranking. ?? George Kohout stated in round one when he missed the meeting he sent his comments, which were distributed, to all members. ?? Bruce Young stated Lilly Lombard’s comments were attached to her ranking sheet therefore he did not want to distribute. ?? George Kohout suggested not revisiting the past, instead just set policy for future. ?? Lilly Lombard agreed with George Kohout. ?? Don Bianchi stated he understands how Lilly Lombard felt her views were not represented. His view is that the chair is an administrative position. Decision-making regarding the applications must belong to all the members. He sent his comments in order to avoid a discretionary decision not to distribute. He believes emails are part of the public domain and therefore not against open meeting law to send. ?? Tom Parent stated comments must not be distributed ahead of the meeting as that may unfairly influence the proceedings. ?? Jack Hornor suggested the CPC set a policy tonight. ?? Fran Volkmann suggested a policy in which members send comments to staff. Staff would then be responsible for reading comments at the time each application is discussed as if the member was present. ?? George Kohout agreed comments should be read in round, not just during public comment. He also suggested this should apply for the public as well. ?? Jack Hornor stated he is only concerned about making certain the CPC does not violate any open meeting laws. ?? Lilly Lombard stated the Chair has a very conservative stance on the open meeting law. She also stated the Coalition document was different and needed to be presented in its entirety. ?? Jack Hornor stated he agrees in retrospect. ?? Tom Parent stated the public could email the CPC at any time. Also, staff could forward public comment to members at any time. ?? Bruce Young clarified that support letters are part of the actual project application and therefore not necessary to communicate to all meeting. Instead, they would just be attached to the application. SETTING AGENDA 3 ?? Lilly Lombard suggested that any CPC member who has a general business or administrative item should be permitted to email that item to all members. Open meeting law allows it. ?? Jack Hornor stated his personal preference is to not do that. ?? Tom Parent suggested any item could be discussed at the meeting under the “all business” agenda item. It is not necessary for a CPC member to specifically have their item listed on the agenda. ?? Lilly Lombard agreed, however she feels it is necessary to allow CPC members to comment on the agenda brought forward by the Chair. ?? Jack Hornor argued this creates incredible amounts of additional work for the Chair. A draft agenda is not acceptable. ?? Fran Volkmann stated Jack Hornor does send the agenda to her for comment. She stated not all items could be on the agenda; choices must be made. She queried the CPC members as to whether the Chair and Vice-chair were making the wrong choices. ?? Jack Hornor stated he is happy to add items to the agenda, however he requests the CPC keep the process simple. ?? Don Bianchi suggested a simply way to accommodate changes it to allow an agenda change period at the beginning of each meeting. ?? George Kohout stated that method is common practice for many committees. He also suggested using a running agenda. Either way there must be a system available to empower the CPC members when needed. CPC MEMBER COMMUNICATION WITH COALITION AND PUBLIC ?? Jack Hornor stated Lilly Lombard emailed the Community Preservation Coalition directly for advice regarding the HAP application. The Coalition emailed back to Jack Hornor and Bruce Young. ?? Fran Volkmann stated she is concerned with what Lilly Lombard did. She felt Lilly Lombard’s email was biased in order to get the Coalition on her side. She believes if a member wants to communicate with the Coalition it should be done through the Chair or staff. She then read the email into the record. Finally, she suggested if the CPC wants advice on an application from the Coalition it must send the application without comment in order to get a fair judgment from the Coalition. ?? Lilly Lombard apologized for her actions. She agreed her email did appear stacked. She simply wanted to express her concerns with the application. ?? Jack Hornor stated it is reasonable for a CPC to request advice from the Coalition or other outside source. However, it is his belief, and Bruce Young’s as well, that communication must go through staff, then comments will be read into the record at the CPC meetings. ?? Lilly Lombard questioned if that applies with contacting prospective applicants as well. ?? Craig Della Penna suggested outreach by members should be encouraged. ?? Tom Parent stated the open meeting law concerns us communicating as a whole, not us to the public. No problem with a CPC member speaking with the public. ?? Jack Hornor stated the only problem is if the CPC member were to suggest they were speaking for the whole committee. He encouraged members to be very careful. ?? George Kohout stated communication with public is fine up until an application is filed. 4 At that point all communication must happen via the CPC as a whole. ?? Fran Volkmann stated outreach is very important for the CPC. Though she cautioned the public will take a member’s word as fact. Members must be careful to state they are only representing themselves. ?? Jack Hornor stated the process must be the same for all applicants once the applications are in. Until then be certain to represent only yourself and suggest staff as a resource for prospective applicants. ?? Bruce Young added that projects are often at the discretion of CPC because the CPA is vague. He encouraged the CPC to adopt strict policies. ?? Fran Volkmann encouraged members to express to the CPC their communications with prospective applicants. It is important for CPC members to know the scope of possible projects in the city. OTHER ?? George Kohout requested the Chair to take public comment in order of projects, not at random. ?? Lilly Lombard asked Bruce Young if many parts of the applications were submitted after the deadline this round. ?? ***Bruce Young stated it was about the same as last time. However, much high-ranking criteria were missing. He suggested updating the application to state what must be read. Also, require certain items to include letters of support. Perhaps have different levels of requirements based on the dollar amount requested. ?? Jack Hornor stated he is in favor of adding mandatory items. 4. DISCUSSION OF TIMETABLE FOR ROUND 3 ?? Jack Hornor presented a draft timetable for round 3. He suggests adding a workshop again. Also, he suggests editing follow-up questions for applicants in a sub-committee, not during the public meeting. ?? Fran Volkmann suggested making it a small working group utilizing the resident expert in each funding category. No need to do it in the public meeting. ?? Jack Hornor stated he agrees but staff will be needed. ?? George Kohout stated he believes it must be a public meeting. ?? George Kohout, seconded by Tom Parent, motioned to approve the round 3 schedule. ?? Lily Lombard questioned if there will be two site visit days scheduled. ?? Tom Parent suggested waiting to see how many and what kind of applications are received. ?? Don Bianchi suggested trying to find a way to combine the site visits with the additional questions. ?? Jack Hornor stated it is best to require questions and answers in writing. ?? George Kohout stated it would be too time consuming to combine in one visit. ?? Jack Hornor stated it is the site visits that usually prompt the additional questions. Good to have questions after the site visit. ?? Jack Hornor suggested only scheduling second site visits as needed. 5 ?? Fran Volkmann proposed canceling the August 3, 2008 and September 3, 2008 meetings. Also, there should be no need for Saturday meetings with the new timeline. ?? Jack Hornor disagreed with Fran Volkmann regarding the meeting schedule. He stated there is too much work to be done and the CPC generally works slowly. ?? Don Bianchi suggested deferring a decision on round 3 scheduling to July 16, 2008. ?? Fran Volkmann urged the CPC to at least make a decision regarding application due dates. ?? George Kohout suggested keeping the full schedule. If needed changed can be made later. ?? All vote in favor of the proposed round 3 schedule. 5. 2009 SCHEDULE ?? Jack Hornor tabled discussion to the July 16, 2008 meeting. 6. DISCUSSION OF HAP PROPOSAL ?? Jack Hornor presented the response letter from the Coalition regarding maintenance concerns in the HAP proposal. He suggested simply conditioning HAP not to use any grant money for maintenance. ?? Don Bianchi thinks this is a non-issue. The condition will create confusion for the city council. The HAP budget includes enough non-maintenance items. ?? Lily Lombard stated the HAP application specifically detailed a budget including maintenance costs. ?? George Kohout agreed with using the condition. Let the applicant shift funds as needed to avoid conflict. ?? Fran Volkmann stated this is not a big deal. The CPC is simply subsidizing rents for low- income people. ?? Jack Hornor stated the condition is fairly innocuous. It creates no hardship for HAP. ?? Lily Lombard stated she would be satisfied with that remedy. ?? John Andrulis stated tenants are paying rents to HAP. That money could be earmarked directly for the maintenance budget. ?? Bruce Young stated HAP has agreed to do that. ?? ***Upon motion by John Andrulis, seconded by Craig Della Penna, all voted in favor (Don Bianchi abstained) to set policy of conditioning all grants to include statement that no CPA money is to be used for maintenance. 7. UPDATE OF OTHER ROUND 2 PROJECTS FLORENCE CIVIC CENTER ?? Craig Della Penna stated he met the Florence Civic Center and they will work to create a more professional application. ?? Bruce Young stated the FCC has two options for utilizing money for technical support. Either they could give the CPC or city a 30-year mortgage on the artifacts or just spend grant money specifically on eligible items. 6 ?? Craig Della Penna stated FCC has decided to reject option 1. ?? Bruce Young stated they will then do option 2. He is not certain when FCC will submit the updated application. ?? Jack Hornor stated FCC would need to submit application by July 11, 2008 in order to go with the other round 2 applications. Otherwise, it would need to go to City Council separately. ?? George Kohout disagreed with allowing FCC application to go to City Council separately. HISTORIC NORTHAMPTON ?? Jack Hornor explained Historic Northampton has already begun interior work and therefore cannot utilize funds awarded. They request the CPC re-allocate the funds for exterior work. ?? Craig Della Penna stated he is perturbed with HN’s actions. He believes they are trying to dictate the decisions of the CPC. ?? Jack Hornor stated he is fine with the request so long as the money awarded remains the same. ?? Fran Volkmann stated exterior work would be better for the deed restriction anyhow. ?? Craig Della Penna stated this is a policy issue the CPC must decide on and follow. ?? Fran Volkmann stated at least in this case HN had specifically applied for this work in their original application. ?? George Kohout stated this is not what the CPC voted on though. He does not like this situation. ?? Bruce Young suggested the CPC communicate to HN its displeasure. ?? Lily Lombard stated this does not allow the CPC to debate the quality of the exterior renovation work. ?? Craig Della Penna stated it is up to the Historic Commission to weigh in on the quality of the exterior renovation work. ?? Fran Volkmann suggested the CPC state it will fund appropriate historic preservation work, then let the Historic Commission decide it qualifies. ?? Bruce Young stated it is important for the CPC to decide whether it wants to qualify the work or if a deed restriction is enough. ?? Jack Hornor stated he wants the CPC to do both. ?? Fran Volkmann stated she is fine with shifting money to exterior renovation but she wants a historic preservation restriction and Historic Commission approval. ?? ***Craig Della Penna suggested the CPC make a policy requiring all prospective historic preservation applicants to vet their project through the Historical Commission. ?? Craig Della Penna makes motion, seconded by John Andrulis to approve exterior work conditioned on getting Historic Commission approval. ?? Fran Volkmann suggested amending motion to include condition requiring historic preservation restriction. ?? Tom Parent stated he would like an exact list of the work to be done by HN at the July 16, 2008 meeting. ?? Craig Della Penna stated it would be difficult for them to get Historic Commission approval in a timely manner. 7 ?? Fran Volkmann stated it is important to get professional input though. ?? Jack Hornor stated the CPC could do that in the future but requested the CPC move forward now. ?? Craig Della Penna withdrew the motion. ?? Jack Hornor suggested sending letter to HN to come to the July 16, 2008 meeting to present a list of work to be completed and an acceptable historic preservation restriction. ?? George Kohout stated this applicant would be applying most every round. He suggested letting them know this was bad form. ?? Jack Hornor stated he would communicate that to the applicant. ?? Fran Volkmann suggested limiting the presentation to 15 minutes. 8. REVIEW OF DISBURSEMENT PROCEDURE AND CPA GRANT AGREEMENT ?? Jack Hornor tabled discussion a future meeting. 9. UPDATE ON MEETING WITH VALLEY CDC ?? Fran Volkmann stated the meeting was not an action meeting. Three CPC members met with Valley CDC. Valley CDC spent most of the meeting just explaining what they do. They did however discuss pre-development funding initiatives and everyone seemed to gel around that idea. ?? Lily Lombard stated she hoped to get clear answers regarding their priority on mortgage subsidies. It was helpful but now she has more questions. 10. DISCUSSION OF PRESERVATION DEED RESTRICTIONS ?? Jack Hornor stated he attended the Historic Commission meeting. He feels the HC and CPC needs to collaborate more. He stated the CPA requires an HPR when an applicant uses money to buy “a real property interest”. However, this concept could apply to other categories as well – housing, open space, and recreation. ?? Bruce Young stated the city should hold the restriction as well, not just Mass Historical Commission. Also, conservation restrictions are typically in perpetuity. The CPC could request deed restrictions for a shorter term for smaller items. Also, the MHC process is very slow requiring at least 60 days. ?? ***Tom Parent suggested the CPC make certain the applicants know how long the deed restriction process will take. ?? Jack Hornor stated the CPC should present an informational sheet to applicants and discuss at the workshop. ?? George Kohout agreed the CPC must be proactive with the applicant. ?? Craig Della Penna suggested this is a good reason for doing just one funding cycle per year. Meeting adjourned at 10:23 pm. Respectfully submitted on July 9, 2008, John Frey, Community Preservation Planner 8