Loading...
Agenda and Minutes 2008-03-19 Community Preservation Committee Agenda DATE: Wednesday, March 19, 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 period ? Fiscal Update ? Chair’s Report ? Discussion of First Round 2008 Project Applications ? Votes to Recommend 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, March 19, 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 and Mason Maronn (7:17 pm) Staff Present: Bruce Young, Community Preservation Planner John Frey, Community Preservation Planner Jack Hornor opened the public hearing at 6:06 pm 1. PUBLIC COMMENT Frank Olbris, 284 North Farms Rd., stated that land preservation opportunities are hard to forecast. He suggested saving funds in order to be ready to purchase quickly when opportunities arise. Michele Morris of Valley CDC spoke in favor of the Habitat for Humanity project. She stated that for anyone in the 30-50% LMI this is the only route to home ownership. 2. FISCAL UPDATE Jack Hornor stated the balance available in the CPA account (after the Mineral Hills expenditure) is $1,627, 609.44. 3. CHAIR’S REPORT Jack Hornor stated that at the last meeting Lily Lombard was elected to attend the meeting with the Mayor to recommend CPA projects. Lily Lombard has accepted that assignment. 4. PROJECT FUNDING DISCUSSION: OPENING STATEMENTS Jack Hornor opened by reminded the CPC they are under no obligation to take any or all votes tonight. Also, there is no requirement to spend all CPA funds. John Andrulis simply stated he prefers a system of decision making that is as analytical as 2 possible. Tom Parent stated he favors funding a couple of the bigger projects over a period of time. This will allow funding of many smaller projects now. Also, he needs more input regarding the housing options. Finally, he stated there is one project he is certain the CPC should not fund at all. Don Bianchi started by stating it has been a privilege to serve on the CPC and learn about all these great projects. He also stated the CPC has spent much time reviewing the projects but no time discussing them amongst each other. His opinions may change depending on the input of others. He stated four projects look good (Housing First, First Churches, Habitat for Humanity and Sheldon Field). He also stated the CPC should try to fund Forbes Library, Valley CDC and Elm Street. He is not sure the CPC should fund Housing Partnership Study or Horace Lamb. Lily Lombard started by stating this is just the first of many funding rounds for the CPC and therefore she anticipates a very steep learning curve. She would like the CPC to establish procedures and protocol based on this meeting tonight. She also encouraged all partially funded or rejected projects to re-submit with better and stronger projects in the future. She stated the CPC needed to prioritize its historic, housing and recreational needs. She encouraged funding studies for all. Also, this round is about setting precedents and therefore the CPC must be cautious about deed restrictions, leverage minimums and funding private concerns. Finally, the pool of funds is limited and therefore all grants must consider reduced funding on order to save for the future. Fran Volkmann stated she has reviewed all applications with an eye toward the CPA criteria and those meeting the criteria would then contend for funding. The public purpose is very important and also the amount of time a project serves its purpose is important. She questions each project as to whether it enlarges or diminishes its public purpose over time. Also, the amount of bang for the buck is important and therefore leveraged grants are important. Finally, she thanked Deborah Koch for her valuable questions and assessment of the projects. Jack Hornor stated the CPC has been active for just one year now and it has been a productive and interesting year. He thanked the committee and staff, and stated they are very professional. He echoed the comments regarding the need for an affordable housing master plan. His priorities for funding focus on amount of public benefit and also the degree of need for a project. He reminded the CPC that financing and forward allocating are means for the CPC to stretch its funding capabilities. 5. PROJECT COMMENT PERIOD Jack Hornor announced the CPC would now comment on each project specifically. Projects would be discussed in alphabetical order. Each member would have an opportunity to comment then further time would be allowed for discussion. ELM STREET DISTRICT 3 ?? Jack Hornor read the opening statement from the project application. The initial request for $38,000 has been downgraded to $19,388. ?? Don Bianchi stated he appreciated the applicant’s willingness to scale back the request. The applicant makes a compelling case for the project to remain a priority for the CPC. This project is a good check against the Smith College overlay. It is not top tier for him but would like to support. ?? Lily Lombard stated she would like to support but wants to see leverage of funds against district members’ contributions. She favors a condition of matching the grant. ?? Fran Volkmann stated this is a project. The educational overlay is unsatisfactory and leaves the district at a disadvantage, this project will count-act that plan. ?? Tom Parent agreed with Lily Lombard regarding leverage of funds. He is also concerned about printing costs. ?? John Andrulis stated he did not find much merit in this project. The CPC would be taking sides in an adversarial situation. The educational overlay is public policy and therefore should be respected. The district contains many buildings lacking historic vintage. ?? Jack Hornor stated this is a good project as will help the CPC understand the current state of historic preservation, which is part of our mandate. He is disappointed by the removal of the Forms B portion of the project. ?? General discussion opened with Don Bianchi stating he does not agree with John Andrulis logic. He believes it is appropriate for the CPC to make a judgment. ?? Lily Lombard stated she believes this project should be part of a larger inventory of historic preservation by the City as a whole. She stated the CPC should fund a study with a higher priority. ?? No further discussion. FIRST CHURCHES ?? Jack Hornor read the opening statement from the project application. The request is for $250,000 of a $2,000,000 total project. ?? Tom Parent stated he is shocked by the condition of the building. It certainly needs the work. He is also not concerned by the church vs. state issues, as this building is a true meetinghouse for the community servicing over 1,000 people per week. He is impressed by the member contributions to date. ?? John Andrulis stated that even though this is largely a private facility, most funding would also be private. The public funding via the CPC is modest and therefore acceptable. He is concerned this may set precedent for other churches to apply for funding. ?? Fran Volkmann stated she is very enthusiastic about this project and supports full funding now. She is not concerned about church issues as this has always been the primary meetinghouse for the town serving a public purpose. Finally, the applicants have made a huge effort to raise funds and this is just a small portion. ?? Lily Lombard agreed with Fran Volkmann. Her only concern is that two-thirds of all requests are for historic preservation. She believes the CPC would need to trim somewhere. ?? Don Bianchi stated he most closely agreed with Fran Volkmann. He noted the conditions are truly dire. Also, he was impressed by the detailed costs estimates and the line of credit that is already in place. Finally, he would fully fund now and not phase. ?? Jack Hornor stated his enthusiasm for the project. He announced just one person (Roy 4 Martin) contacted him to voice church vs. state concerns. The CPA Coalition has documented many instances of church funding across the state. So long as there is a public benefit then it is appropriate to fund the project. ?? No general discussion. FORBES LIBRARY ?? Jack Hornor read the opening statement from the project application. The request is for the full cost of the project, $1,600,000. ?? John Andrulis stated this project arguably affects the most people, as 16,000 citizens in Northampton hold library cards. Therefore, this project rates highly for him. He also believes the project arguably qualifies for recreation status along with historic preservation. Forbes has had many fundraisers in the past and therefore shouldn’t have to appeal to the public again. The City has a responsibility to maintain this property and therefore it is within the purview of the CPC to fully fund. He favors the use of bonding over phasing of funds, as it would save money in the long run. This is his highest priority project. ?? Don Bianchi stated this is the most challenging project for the CPC. The City is obligated to fund somehow and usually the Capital Improvement Committee funds building projects. However, this project was referred to CPC. He is concerned this project would compromise funding of other important projects, as even forward funding would tie up future projects. He believes the CPC needs to debate whether to send this project back to Capital Improvement Committee for funding. Finally, he agreed the impact of this project would be incredibly high. ?? Tom Parent stated something must be done, as the damage to the building is definite. He is unsure how to fund and favors sending back to Capital Improvement Committee, at least for partial funding. ?? Fran Volkmann stated the Capital Improvement Committee has only $170,000 available for projects this year. She favors this project as CPA funds come directly for the people into a building owned by the City. However, she is concerned that even very good projects should not take all the CPC funds. She favored bonding the project but not for the full amount. Finally, she believes Forbes should do some fundraising and fully assess its future funding needs. ?? Lily Lombard stated she strongly favors this project. It is a tremendous historic property for the City and has received very little preservation work to date. This is a bargain for 100 years of neglect. She encourages the CPC to fund as generously as possible, but not for the full amount. She believes Forbes must leverage these funds and appeal to the community for further support. ?? Mason Maronn agreed with Lily Lombard. He is leaning toward phasing the project though bonding could be good as well. ?? Jack Hornor stated he has a slightly different view. He believes this is the most important project for the CPC. He noted that Forbes has already completed a $4million renovation of the interior including $3million of leveraged community funding. He believes Forbes should not need to do another campaign. Also, the Capital Improvement Committee cannot afford to help currently and therefore the CPC should fully fund utilizing bonding. He is concerned the project would not be completed if not fully funded by the CPC. ?? General discussion opened with John Andrulis stating the library is already engaged in a campaign to raise money for technology improvements. He agreed further campaigns should not be necessary. He reminded the CPC that bonding costs would need to be included in the funding price. ?? Tom Parent questioned what the costs of bonding would be versus phasing. 5 ?? Bruce Young stated bonding generally costs 5% per year while construction costs have been increasing at around 10% per year. The City issues a bond anticipation note to lock in the immediate rate but final rate is not known until bond is purchased on the open market. He also stated the City energy officer believes replacement of the windows is not the best use of funds currently. ?? Lily Lombard stated she is not in favor of phasing. She also is not convinced fundraising could or should not be pursued. ?? Don Bianchi stated the lack of Capital Improvement Committee funding prospects are sobering and discouraging. He believes the CPA should be utilized for unique opportunities and not to supplant normal city expenses. ?? Fran Volkmann stated she is uncomfortable with the idea of long-term bonding of 10-20 years. The CPA has been adopted for just five years and therefore bonding should be limited to that term. Also, though the Capital Improvement Committee has little money now that may not be the case in future years. ?? Jack Hornor reminded the CPC the community would be responsible for bonding and forward allocated funds even if the CPA is voted out. ?? No further discussion. HABITAT FOR HUMANITY ?? Jack Hornor read the opening statement from the project application. The request is $120,000 of the over $600,000 total cost ($63,000 in 2008, $57,000 in 2009). ?? Lily Lombard stated she was very enthusiastic about this project as Habitat gets the most out of their dollars invested. However, the City has already contributed $480,000 and that should be considered. ?? Tom Parent agreed this is a great project and excellent site as it fits well with the community. Prior City contributions might influence his decision. CPC should at least fund some of the cost. ?? Mason Maronn stated he agrees with Tom Parent. ?? John Andrulis stated the CPC could certainly afford the $63,000 for year one. He questioned if the project is still viable should the CPC not fund the $57,000 needed in the future. ?? Don Bianchi stated he likes this project very much. He argued the earlier investment by the City was primarily for an environmental cleanup that needed to be completed anyhow. He stated this project gives a very high return rate on the CPC investment. Finally, he is impressed with Habitat’s track record in assisting non-english speaking candidates. ?? Fran Volkmann agreed with Don Bianchi and Tom Parent. She stated she wants to approve full $120,000 now so they could get started. ?? Jack Hornor stated he is very impressed with Habitat’s track record in our community. Habitat will not be in Northampton every year so let’s definitely fund this project. He advocated to forward fund the $57,000 now for 2009. ?? The only general discussion comment was Mason Maronn stating he is impressed by Habitat’s quality of construction. ?? No further discussion. HORACE LAMB ?? Jack Hornor read the opening statement from the project application. The request is any portion of the estimated $150,000 total cost. 6 ?? Lily Lombard opened by stating the Horace Lamb folks are brave for submitting this proposal as it enters the controversial area of private ownership benefiting from CPA funds. She viewed the site and stated her appreciation for the historical value as well as the rehabilitation needed. The CPC and applicant would need to agree on the required deed restrictions. Finally, she stated her desire for a comprehensive historic inventory study before contemplating projects such as this one. ?? Fran Volkmann agreed with Lily Lombard and expressed her regret for not supporting the project. She also stated the building has already been significantly altered from it’s historical state. Finally, there is no public access to the building for them to appreciate its historical value. ?? Tom Parent stated this is the project he knows the most as he grew up nearby. He is sorry for the homeowners but states many others are in similar need. Also, this just doesn’t meet the public benefit threshold required. ?? Mason Maronn stated he has a big problem distinguishing between restoration and maintenance for this project. Also, the lack of public access is a problem. ?? Don Bianchi agreed with all and stated his opposition to funding. ?? Jack Hornor stated he is a former owner and resident of the building so he knows it very well. He noted the historic commission did not formally support the project. This project does not rank high for him. ?? No further discussion. HOUSING FIRST ?? Jack Hornor read the opening statement from the project application. The request is for $220,00 of the $395,000 project total. ?? Mason Maronn stated he likes the leverage aspect of this project. ?? Tom Parent stated he likes this project very much but is concerned by the current lack of a site location. He suggested funding deposit money or such. ?? Fran Volkmann stated she sees no concern with approving the project with conditions regarding finding a site. ?? Don Bianchi stated he appreciates the commitment Housing First has shown toward ending homelessness. This project is worthy and deserving, he would like to fund it. The public benefit return on the investment is off the charts. He sympathizes with their difficulty in finding a location without the funding in place; therefore he supports full funding with a condition the CPC gets to approve the location when a site is found. He suggests a set time period to find a site then additional time to close on the property. ?? John Andrulis agreed with Don Bianchi and seconded his thoughts. ?? Lily Lombard stated she fully supports this project. ?? Jack Hornor stated he really supports this project because of its public benefit. He described his firsthand knowledge of benefits people at the cot shelter will realize through this project. This project is a true paradigm shift in the fight against homelessness. ?? General discussion opened with his belief that City Council might want the duty of approving the final site location. ?? Don Bianchi agreed the City Council could have that duty if they want it. ?? No further discussion. HOUSING PARTNERSHIP COMMUNITY HOUSING 7 ?? Jack Hornor read the opening statement from the project application. The request is for $35,000. ?? Don Bianchi stated this project is a lower priority for him. While this project has value it is not the strongest of the housing proposals. Fund it if there is money available after the others. ?? Tom Parent stated he feels differently. He believes the study is necessary for him to understand the current housing issues and needs. This project will be value in the long term. ?? John Andrulis stated it is very important to collect data in order to make rational decisions. Therefore, this project is quite valuable. However, he encouraged the applicant to wait until 2010 for the new census information as it will be much more relevant. ?? Lily Lombard stated she agreed with Tom Parent and John Andrulis. She encouraged the applicant wait in order to do the study correctly. ?? Mason Maronn stated he needs this information in order to understand housing issues. He is concerned that the applicant provided a wide range of estimates for the project. He also encouraged waiting in order to get the most out of the investment. ?? Fran Volkmann stated she would like to fund it now. Her impression is that not all data will come from the census, therefore fund some now so the applicant can get started. ?? Jack Hornor agreed with Fran Volkmann. This study is more than just digesting census data. He wants to fully fund this project now. He stated the structure of the study is important now, while the data could be updated later. ?? No further discussion. SHELDON FIELD ?? Jack Hornor read the opening statement from the project application. The request is $1,500 for the soft costs of purchasing the $10,000 lot. ?? Don Bianchi stated this is a great project for a very low price. Also, it is the only recreational project this round. Finally, by purchasing it will make the land eligible for CPA funds in the future. ?? Tom Parent stated the timeline for actual development of the land for recreational purposes might be less than ten years if an appropriate land swap is found. ?? All others stated agreement with Don Bianchi and Tom Parent. ?? No further discussion. VALLEY CDC ?? Jack Hornor read the opening statement from the project application. The request is $250,000 for programming, plus $26,000 for administration. ?? John Andrulis stated he is highly in favor, though he is curious regarding the negative interest rate. ?? Mason Maronn stated he is uncertain about the housing applications, though this project sounds good and helpful to him. ?? Lily Lombard stated this project seems good though being the first round it is hard to compare the quality versus other possible uses. She is inclined to defer for this funding cycle. Finally, she is concerned regarding the degree of public benefit. ?? Tom Parent agreed this appears to be a good program, though he is uncertain how it compares to others. ?? Don Bianchi stated this is an important project, as Valley CDC is a highly regarded 8 organization. He is in favor of fully funding the administrative support for Valley CDC. He also would prefer a lottery system versus first come, first served. He also finds compelling reasons to ensure a diversity of households. Finally, he is concerned about a lack of CPA funds and therefore encourages scaling back the project for now. ?? Fran Volkmann agreed this is an excellent organization and the administrative support is very valuable. However, she is concerned the program might not return the most bang for the buck. She is concerned about the diminishing return in the re-use of the money. Finally, she is concerned about the lack of an affordability restriction, as most CPA housing projects require such. ?? Jack Hornor echoed Fran Volkmann’s statements. He is concerned as to whether this is the best use of funds. He believes funding rental programs may be more important but they have not applied. This program is likely the best Valley CDC has to offer. He agrees it is important to fund the operating support. ?? General discussion opened with Don Bianchi stating it is important to fund both pieces. He questioned if the CPC could split the two options. ?? Mason Maronn agreed the counseling aspect of the project is very important. ?? Lily Lombard questioned if the CPC could reduce the per-grant subsidy from $50,000 to a lesser number. ?? Fran Volkmann believes the number cannot be decreased, as that is the minimum needed to create change as most of the lower housing stock is in definite need of repairs. ?? Don Bianchi agreed that is a creative solution, but as most homes are not affordable the $50,000 subsidy is needed. ?? No further discussion. 6. TIER RANKING CPC members now ranked the projects into three groups with the following definitions… -Tier One would be projects the member is ready to fully fund at this time. -Tier Two would be projects the member has some questions about or which she or he believes needs further discussion before voting on a funding recommendation. Placing a project in this tier would indicate neither support nor opposition. -Tier Three would be projects the member is not ready to recommend for funding at this time, for whatever reason he or she may have. Ranking results were as follows in order of favorability (Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3)… HOUSING FIRST 8, 0, 0 SHELDON FIELD 7, 1, 0 HABITAT FOR HUMANITY 7, 1, 0 FIRST CHURCHES 6, 2, 0 HOUSING PARTNERSHIP STUDY 4, 3, 1 VALLEY CDC 1, 7, 0 FORBES 1, 7, 0 ELM STREET 0, 7, 1 HORACE LAMB 0, 1, 7 9 7. 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. HOUSING FIRST ?? A motion for recommendation was presented by Fran Volkmann and seconded by Don Bianchi. ?? Don Bianchi proposed numerous conditions that were amended into the proposed motion. ?? Discussion was closed. ?? All voted in favor of the project recommendation (see final version below). SHELDON FIELD ?? A motion for recommendation was presented by Don Bianchi and seconded by Tom Parent. ?? Discussion was closed. ?? All voted in favor of the project recommendation (see final version below). HABITAT FOR HUMANITY ?? A motion for recommendation was presented by Fran Volkmann and seconded by Mason Maronn. ?? Tom Parent questioned the forward allocation of the $57,000. ?? Jack Hornor stated he is happy to forward allocate it now. ?? Don Bianchi stated Habitat for Humanity agreed they only need the $63,000 now and the other amount may change in the future anyhow. ?? A straw poll showed majority prefers to keep the $57,000 allocation for 2009 in the motion. ?? Discussion was closed. ?? All voted in favor of the project recommendation (see final version below). FIRST CHURCHES ?? A motion for recommendation was presented by Mason Maronn and seconded by Don Bianchi. ?? Discussion was closed. ?? All voted in favor of the project recommendation (see final version below). HOUSING PARTNERSHIP ?? A motion for recommendation was presented by Fran Volkmann and seconded by Mason Maronn. ?? Don Bianchi stated he preferred to fund just the scope of services portion of the application request now. ?? Jack Hornor stated this project is at the top of the list for him and therefore does not want to phase the proposal. 10 ?? A straw poll showed the majority prefers to leave the motion as it is now. ?? Discussion was closed. ?? All voted in favor of the project recommendation (see final version below). VALLEY CDC ?? A motion for recommendation was presented by Don Bianchi and seconded by Tom Parent. ?? Don Bianchi proposed numerous conditions that were amended into the proposed motion. ?? Lily Lombard stated her concern that this project may not be the best use of housing funds. There are too many questions regarding best use and public benefit. ?? Don Bianchi stated the options include tabling for now or voting just for administration funds. ?? When questioned the applicant (Michele Morris) stated she believes deferred payment loans are better than an affordability deed rider. Also, there are other projects possible but this seems to be the best for building equity home ownership for LMI candidates. ?? Don Bianchi withdrew his original motion. ?? A new motion for recommendation of just the administrative funding was presented by Don Bianchi and seconded by Tom Parent. ?? Discussion was closed. ?? All voted in favor of the project recommendation (see final version below). FORBES LIBRARY ?? Discussion began before a motion was presented. Jack Hornor stated the question is how much and how to finance (either Forbes or CPC could finance). ?? Tom Parent stated this is something he is unprepared to decide now, as he needs more financing answers. ?? Jack Hornor stated it is best find a mutually agreeable plan including the CPC, Mayor, City Council, and Forbes. He questioned how much the Capital Improvement Committee could provide and what Forbes could possible fund raise. His opinion is they both could provide very little. Also, the project could not be scaled back as this repair is all necessary. Perhaps the CPC could vote on a contingency proposal. ?? Fran Volkmann stated Forbes must further advocate for funding once the CPC commits to a portion of the project. ?? Don Bianchi suggested the CPC commit $1,000,000 and leave the rest for the City and Forbes to decide. ?? Jack Hornor stated he doubts the $600,000 could be found. Partial funding is not the best approach. As the library is arguably the best use of CPA funds the CPC should fully fund now. ?? Don Bianchi stated, as this is a huge project the $1,600,000 may not be the final number. He proposed partial funding now with the possibility Forbes may return to request more. ?? John Andrulis agreed with Jack Hornor. ?? Fran Volkmann stated she wants to save at least $500,000 for the next funding cycle. ?? A motion for recommendation of $1,000,000 was presented by Fran Volkmann and seconded by Don Bianchi. ?? Fran Volkmann stated she does not want to bond the project for ten years or more. ?? Lily Lombard agreed with Fran Volkmann and stated Forbes could do a fundraising campaign. 11 ?? John Andrulis stated he agrees with Jack Hornor. ?? Mason Maronn stated he agrees with Fran Volkmann. ?? John Andrulis stated he would vote against the motion as a protest regarding the smaller funding amount. ?? Discussion was closed. ?? The motion passed 4-3 in favor of the project recommendation (see final version below). In favor were Fran Volkmann, Lily Lombard, Don Bianchi and Mason Maronn. Opposed were Jack Hornor, John Andrulis and Tom Parent. ELM STREET ?? A motion for recommendation was presented by Don Bianchi and seconded by Mason Maronn. ?? Tom Parent stated he is concerned about the printing costs, as most similar projects do not include printing subsidy. ?? The motion was amended to exclude the printing costs. ?? Fran Volkmann stated she is not in favor of forcing the Elm Street District to match the funds. ?? John Andrulis stated the benefits are primarily private in nature and therefore it is fair to ask for matching funds. Either way, he is not in favor of the project. ?? Lily Lombard stated the Turkey Hill projects have all asked for matching funds from the neighbors. It is an important precedent for the CPC to require leveraged funding. ?? Don Bianchi agreed to keep the precedent but with less difficult matching terms. ?? Bruce Young stated the Planning Board required as a condition of the Educational Overlay that the Elm Street District re-work their plan. ?? Lily Lombard stated with that information she changes her opinion regarding the request for matching funds by the Elm Street District. ?? The motion was amended to fully fund minus the printing costs. ?? Discussion was closed. ?? The motion passed 6-1 in favor of the project recommendation. In favor were Jack Hornor, Fran Volkmann, Lily Lombard, Tom Parent, Don Bianchi and Mason Maronn. Opposed was John Andrulis. HORACE LAMB ?? A motion for denial of funding was presented by Tom Parent and seconded by John Andrulis ?? Discussion was closed. ?? All voted in favor of denying the project recommendation. Meeting adjourned at 11:59 pm. Respectfully submitted on April 4, 2008, John Frey, Community Preservation Planner 12 Attachments: Community Preservation Committee Recommendation for Funding Date: March 19, 2008 Applicant: Clark Avenue Condominiums: Historic Preservation of Horace Lamb Wire Mill Amount of funding requested: Up to $150,000 Time-frame of request: 2008 Amount of funding recommended by CPC: ______$0.00_________ Time-frame of funding recommended: _______________ Summary reasons for recommendation: The present building, constructed in 1885, represents a feature of Northampton’s ?? past. The basement is in urgent need of protection from further water damage ?? The building represents adaptable reuse of a mill building within walking ?? distance of downtown. Conditions/contingencies attached to recommendation: Historic preservation restriction Procedures for monitoring and reporting shall be worked out among the Committee, Mayor and the grantee. Additional comments from committee: 13 Community Preservation Committee Recommendation for Funding Date: March 19, 2008 Applicant: Elm Street Historic District Commission: Protection of Elm Street Corridor Amount of funding requested: $38,800/$19,400 Time-frame of request: 2008 Amount of funding recommended by CPC: $35,681.25 Time-frame of funding recommended: _______________ Summary reasons for recommendation: The Elm Street neighborhood is one of the most important historic districts ?? within the City. Recent changes in zoning have made it necessary to strengthen existing ?? guidelines for historic preservation and to update the inventory and bring new structures within commission oversight. Meets a broad public purpose in protecting a significant area of the City. ?? Protection of this district is in keeping with the goals of Sustainable ?? Northampton and the goals of the CPC. New ordinance can be used as an educational tool and can be applied elsewhere ?? in the City. Conditions/contingencies attached to recommendation: Reproduction of Plans ?? Funding match must be raised before the CPC provides funds. ?? Submittal of report due upon completion of part A or within one year of funding ?? and submittal of report due upon completion of entire project or at the end of year two. Procedures for monitoring and reporting shall be worked out among the ?? Committee, Mayor and the grantee. Additional comments from committee: Funding from Office of Planning and Development must be secured prior to ?? receipt of CPA funds. A portion of this allocation may be taken from CPC administrative funds. ?? 14 Community Preservation Committee Recommendation for Funding Date: March 19, 2008 Applicant: First Churches Historic Restoration Project Amount of funding requested: $250,000 Time-frame of request: 2008 Amount of funding recommended by CPC: _____$250,000________ Time-frame of funding recommended: __2008___________ Summary reasons for recommendation: The First Churches Meeting House has been a central feature of the community ?? since 1655; it serves a broad public purpose beyond that of the church. The present building, constructed in 1878, stands as an outstanding historic ?? edifice in the very center of Northampton. The building supports the goals of the Northampton Sustainability Plan in ?? contributing to the uniqueness of the city. The building is now in urgent need of restoration and preservation. ?? The project uses CPA funds efficiently as a small part (12.5%) of a much larger ?? fundraising effort, and directs CPA funds solely to the reconstruction of the roof. Conditions/contingencies attached to recommendation: Filing of a preservation restriction on the sanctuary of the Meeting House ?? The committee will be notified when the project is complete and the preservation ?? restriction is in place; if not complete within one year of City Council approval, a progress report will be made at the end of the first year. Procedures for monitoring and reporting shall be worked out among the ?? Committee, Mayor and the grantee. Additional comments from committee: Initial allocation to come from portion of CPA funds set aside for Historic ?? Preservation. 15 Community Preservation Committee Recommendation for Funding Date: March 19, 2008 Applicant: Forbes Library Amount of funding requested: $1,603.465 Time-frame of request: 2008 Amount of funding recommended by CPC: $1,000,000 Time-frame of funding recommended: $250,000 each year for 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 Summary reasons for recommendation: Forbes Library was constructed in the early 1890s and constitutes a central and ?? unique landmark of the city. Significant financial investment is necessary to complete the renovation and ?? preservation of the building already begun in past years, and to protect it for the future. The building serves a broad public purpose, as a library, as a repository of ?? historic documents, and as a center for community activities. Support of this project meets the goals of both the Northampton Sustainability ?? Plan and the CPA. The project enjoys widespread public support. ?? Conditions/contingencies attached to recommendation: Bonding or some other form of borrowing against these funds will be worked ?? out with the Mayor, the Finance Director, and the Forbes Trustees to their satisfaction. A structure for oversight and reporting regarding the specific uses of CPC funds ?? will be established to the satisfaction of the CPC, the Mayor, and the Forbes Trustees. Given that the CPC allocation comes from public funds, the information ?? regarding their use will be available to the public according to a process mutually agreed upon by the CPC, the Mayor, and the Forbes Trustees. Prior to the dispersal of the funds, the Forbes Trustees will issue a report to the ?? CPC and the Mayor outlining a specific plan to raise the additional funds needed to complete the project as it has been presented to the committee. Procedures for monitoring and reporting shall be worked out among the ?? Committee, Mayor and the grantee. Additional comments from committee: 16 Community Preservation Committee Recommendation for Funding Date: March 19, 2008 Applicant: Pioneer Valley Habitat for Humanity: Garfield Avenue Project Amount of funding requested: $120,000 Time-frame of request: $63,000 in 2008 $57,000 in 2009 Amount of funding recommended by CPC: ___$120,000____________ Time-frame of funding recommended: ___$63,000 in 2008____________ ___$57,000 in 2009____________ Summary reasons for recommendation: The need for affordable housing in Northampton is well documented and its ?? construction meets goals of both the Sustainable Northampton Plan and the CPC. Habitat for Humanity has a long record of success in the creation of such ?? housing. The project uses city land in an appropriate way. ?? The new homes will be energy efficient. ?? The project has a unique and community-wide dimension in that the houses will ?? be built by Smith Vocational students, owners through sweat-equity, and volunteers, and some of the materials will be donated or provided at cost from local merchants. CPA funds are used efficiently and compose only about 17% of the cost of the ?? project. Conditions/contingencies attached to recommendation: Occupancy will be restricted to families with incomes at or below 50% of area ?? median income at initial occupancy, adjusted for household size. The deed rider (which will be provided to the CPC for its review and approval) will stipulate affordability in perpetuity. Applicant submits report when infrastructure is completed or at the end of one ?? year. In selecting families for participation, Habitat pledges to undertake affirmative ?? and inclusive outreach. Applicant must have site control prior to disbursal of CPA funds. ?? Procedures for monitoring and reporting shall be worked out among the ?? Committee, Mayor and the grantee. Additional comments from committee: 17 Community Preservation Committee Recommendation for Funding Date: March 19, 2008 Applicant: Housing First: Community Housing for the Chronically Homeless Amount of funding requested: $220,000 Time-frame of request: 2008 Amount of funding recommended by CPC: _$220,000______________ Time-frame of funding recommended: __2008_____________ Summary reasons for recommendation: Moves forward the Housing First Concept: a widely accepted approach to ?? dealing with homelessness in a particularly vulnerable population. Addresses strongly the goals of the Northampton Sustainability Plan and the ?? CPA. Provides a long-term solution that is less costly than alternative approaches. ?? Leverages CPA funds effectively. ?? Has broad-based support. ?? Conditions/contingencies attached to recommendation: Occupancy will be restricted to individuals with incomes at or below 30% of area ?? median income. Resident selection will be undertaken in accordance with State requirements associated with its “Housing First” initiatives. The CPC must approve the site selected prior to disbursement, in terms of its ?? suitability for the purposes articulated by the applicant and its financial feasibility, initially and over time. The applicant must provide the information requested by the CPC (and allow a reasonable time for the CPC’s review of the information), including (but not limited to) the following: 18 a. The Purchase Agreement for the property. b. Information to document sufficient funding to acquire and develop the property, including a development budget including the cost of any required renovations, a commitment by FHCHI to provide $100,000 in cash on hand for acquisition, the commitment of ServiceNet to cover the cost of any required renovations, and the commitment of any other funding needed to complete the acquisition and renovation of the project. c. Information to document sufficient funding to maintain the operations of the property after renovations, including a written commitment by ServiceNet to be responsible for the costs of ongoing maintenance. At the CPC’s request, the applicant will provide a budget for the first year of operating the project, including information on anticipated rental income (including from public sources) and information on anticipated operating expenses. d. The ongoing Agreement between FHCHI and ServiceNet. Use of the structure must be assured to serve homeless individuals with incomes ?? less than 30% of AMI for at least thirty years. The CPC’s award may be withdrawn by the CPC, at its discretion, if either of the ?? following occurs: a. Within 8 months of the date of award of CPC funds, the applicant has not entered into a Purchase Agreement for a suitable property; or b. Within 12 months of the date of award of CPC funds, the applicant has not met all the conditions associated with the CPC award, acquired the property, and received the disbursement of some or all of the CPC funds awarded. Procedures for monitoring and reporting shall be worked out among the ?? Committee, Mayor and the grantee. Additional comments from committee: Initial portion of allocation to come from CPA funds set aside for Community Housing. 19 Community Preservation Committee Recommendation for Funding Date: March 19, 2008 Applicant: Northampton Housing Partnership: Community Housing Strategic Plan Amount of funding requested: $35,000 Time-frame of request: 2008 Amount of funding recommended by CPC: _____$5,000 in 2008_Scope of Services_________ Time-frame of funding recommended: ______up to $30,000 in 2009________ Summary reasons for recommendation: Both the Northampton Sustainability Plan and the Community Preservation Act ?? call for a housing needs assessment for the city. A needs assessment and strategic plan are necessary for the most effective ?? allocation of CPA and other funds for community housing. The Northampton Housing Partnership has a long record of informed ?? involvement in affordable housing in Northampton and is uniquely qualified to oversee this project. The NHP application represents a careful approach to selecting a consultant. ?? Conditions/contingencies attached to recommendation: Since this plan will be used by the CPC, the committee should be involved as ?? appropriate as this project moves forward. Procedures for monitoring and reporting shall be worked out among the ?? Committee, Mayor and the grantee. Additional comments from committee: 20 Community Preservation Committee Recommendation for Funding Date: March 19, 2008 Applicant: Northampton Recreation Commission: Sheldon Field Expansion Amount of funding requested: $1,500 Time-frame of request: Urgent: 2008 Amount of funding recommended by CPC: ____$1500___________ Time-frame of funding recommended: _____2008__________ Summary reasons for recommendation: The project meets the goals of the Sustainable Northampton Plan and the CPA ?? for the preservation of open space for recreation purposes. The project will eventually expand the number of badly needed sports fields for ?? city youth and other leagues, thus contributing to the quality of life here. The project uses CPA funds efficiently. The allocation consists solely of soft-costs ?? and constitutes just over 10% of the projected cost of the project. The project meets multiple CPA categories. ?? Conditions/contingencies attached to recommendation: Applicant submits copy of deed after recorded. ?? Procedures for monitoring and reporting shall be worked out among the ?? Committee, Mayor and the grantee. Additional comments from committee: 21 Community Preservation Committee Recommendation for Funding Date: March 19, 2008 Applicant: Valley CDC: Mortgage Subsidy Program Amount of funding requested: $276,000 Time-frame of request: 2008 Amount of funding recommended by CPC: __$26,161_____________ Time-frame of funding recommended: _____2008__________ Summary reasons for recommendation: The need for opportunities for home-ownership for low-income Northampton ?? residents has been repeatedly documented by the Housing Partnership and others. The proposed project meets goals of both the Sustainable Northampton Plan and ?? the CPA. Housing costs in the Pioneer Valley have risen to a place where it is almost ?? impossible for income-qualified applicants to purchase a home. Valley Community Development Corporation has a long history of success in ?? helping qualified first-time-home-buyers purchase and keep homes. 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: To be used for providing assistance to low or moderate income first-time homebuyers in Northampton. 22