Loading...
Agenda and Minutes 2008-10-01 Community Preservation Committee Agenda DATE: Wednesday, October 1, 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 Public Comment period ? Acceptance of 9/17 minutes ? Chair's Report ? Budget Report ? Discussion of questions to applicants ? Discussion of site visits ? Update on all projects ?? Discussion of CPA Plan revisions ?? 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, October 1, 2008 Time: 7:00 pm Place: 212 Main St., City Council Chambers Members Present: Jack Hornor, George Kohout, Craig Della Penna, Tom Parent, Fran Volkmann, Don Bianchi, Mason Maronn, John Andrulis and Lilly Lombard (9:00pm) Staff Present: Bruce Young, Community Preservation Planner John Frey, Community Preservation Planner Jack Hornor opened the public meeting at 7:05pm. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT ?? None 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ?? Jack Hornor presented the minutes of the September 17, 2008 meeting for approval. ?? Upon motion by Tom Parent, seconded by John Andrulis, all voted in favor of approving the minutes. 3. CHAIR’S REPORT ?? Jack Hornor announced First Churches would be hosting an open house on October 20, 2008 and October 23, 2008. All are welcome and encouraged to attend. Four members stated they are likely to attend on Monday, while four other members stated they might attend Thursday. ?? Jack Hornor stated the meeting with Round 3 applicants would take place over two evenings. It was encouraged to separate the two multi-proposal applicants (Valley CDC and Conservation Commission) to separate nights making it easier to control pacing of the meetings. ?? Jack Hornor queried the CPC as to appropriate dates for 2009 Round 1 application deadlines. It was agreed eligibility forms would be due on January 12, 2009 and full applications due on February 11, 2009. Upon suggestion of Don Bianchi the rest of the dates for 2009 Round 1 was tabled to a later meeting. 2 4. BUDGET REPORT ?? John Frey presented the expanded budget report Excel file. The report now includes five tabs with spreadsheets titled General, Capital, Forecast, Project Status, and Category Allocation. The idea is to email the updated spreadsheet along with the minutes once per month after the second meeting. The forecast page was added so CPC members could understand exactly how much money they have available to grant at any given time. The forecast accounts for already recommended projects that have not been allocated, as well as future income and interest expected. ?? Don Bianchi cautioned the CPC to realize while funding levels may seem flush for 2008 Round 3, if all is spent then the forecasted level will be under $300,000 for 2009 Round 1 next May. ?? Bruce Young stated 2008 Round 3 application requests (post-Maple St SRO) total $965,287. Of the ten applications, two applications were submitted for Historic Preservation projects ($152,761), three for Community Housing projects ($336,250), four for Open Space projects ($436,276), and one for a Recreation project ($40,000). 5. DISCUSSION OF QUESTIONS TO APPLICANTS & SITE VISITS ?? Jack Hornor open the discussion by noting the lack of participation at the site visits and in drafting the questions to applicants. He especially challenged those with specific funding category knowledge to help the other members in drafting pointed, useful questions of the applicants. ?? Mason Maronn stated he already understands the open space conservation projects and does not need further information. ?? Jack Hornor stated a quick note from all members stating their status with the applications would be helpful. He re-iterated that the truly useful questions to the applicants would come from the category experts. ?? Tom Parent noted that Saturdays are difficult for him to do site visits. Weeknights are better and he would personally visit the sites with which he has concerns. ?? Fran Volkmann stated she never expected all CPC members to attend the site visits. She encourages the CPC to divide up the site visits and report back to each other the pertinent information. ?? George Kohout noted that he too was on vacation for this round of site visits. He stated participation on volunteer boards always has an ebb and flow. Attendance would never be one hundred percent. He suggested each member personally evaluate his or her commitment to the CPC and meet with the Chair to discuss if necessary. ?? Bruce Young suggested dividing site visits and applicant questions among the members. ?? Don Bianchi agreed with Bruce Young and Fran Volkmann regarding the group sharing responsibility for the visits. However, he stated each member should still draft questions for the applicants. It’s important to participate in that work and he encourages the members to push for more participation from each other. Site visits are worth the effort when making hard funding decisions. 3 ?? Bruce Young stated it is advantageous for applicants to receive and answer these questions before their project presentations. Otherwise, answers would be needlessly delayed. ?? Fran Volkmann stated if CPC members believe they have a reservation now with a project it is important to let the applicant know that in your questioning. 6. UPDATE ON ALL PROJECTS ?? John Frey presented the project status sheet for review. This spreadsheet is included in the monthly budget reports emailed to all CPC members. The spreadsheet is essentially a chronological listing of the steps needed to complete a project. It will provide an up-to- date status of all projects. ?? Fran Volkmann suggested adding the funding year to the funding round data. ?? Tom Parent questioned how the data would reflect funds disbursed over multiple years. ?? Don Bianchi suggested providing more detail on the disbursements. ?? George Kohout suggested combining the monitoring lines and warrant information. ?? Don Bianchi stated this spreadsheet, along with the forecasted budget and CPC PR letter are great additions. This work is very beneficial for the CPC. ?? *** Craig Della Penna stated a monthly newsletter would be very easy to produce once the framework is in place. He suggested staff contact him for assistance in setting up. ?? Fran Volkmann stated this is very important in helping to understand the hold up of many projects. ?? Bruce Young stated there various reason for the backlog. This could help applicants in understand the general timeline needed for completing a project. It is often much longer than anticipated. ?? *** Staff needs to determine final report and monitoring criteria. 7. DISCUSSION OF CPA PLAN REVISIONS ?? Fran Volkmann opened discussion regarding the annual revision of the CPA Plan. She suggested moving quickly through each section to simply identify area where policy changes need be discussed. Once completed and areas identified the CPC will discuss each item separately. INTRODUCTION ?? Jack Hornor suggested adding a section highlighting the history of the Northampton CPC to date. Basically let people know what the CPC has accomplished since the passing of the CPA. ?? Mason Maronn suggested adding the total number of projects, types and dollar amounts. ?? Fran Volkmann suggested adding just a summary paragraph to the introduction then include a detailed appendix. ?? Don Bianchi summarized by stating this document is part plan and part annual report. 4 PURPOSES ?? George Kohout suggested changing the language pertaining to year where needed. ?? Don Bianchi suggested not worrying too much about the narrative here, rather focus on the policy and criteria. PROCESS ?? George Kohout suggested changing the wording to reflect just two funding rounds. ?? *** Jack Hornor suggested the CPC discuss the policy for expedited review. GENERAL CRITERIA ?? George Kohout suggested again changing language to reflect the current year where needed. ?? Don Bianchi stated the criteria have been very useful as a guide. The system seems to be working and does not limit the CPC members when making decisions. ?? Jack Hornor stated the applicants seem to be citing the criteria in their application narrative. This has been very useful. OPEN SPACE ?? Mason Maronn reported the Conservation Committee was pleased and supportive of the Open Space section in the CPA Plan. He forwarded a few change suggestions to Bruce Young. ?? Bruce Young stated the Conservation Committee recommended removing the direct commentary regarding suburban development. ?? George Kohout agreed the CPC should follow the advice of the experts and strike the wording. ?? Jack Hornor suggested adding document regarding preservation guarantees. Perhaps add it as an appendix with reference throughout the document. ?? Bruce Young suggested adding the bylaws and procedures as an appendix as well. ?? Mason Maronn suggested also adding the grant agreement as well. ?? George Kohout suggested adding the language regarding preservation guarantees to the application itself. HISTORIC PRESERVATION ?? Craig Della Penna stated he does not believe the Historic Preservation Committee has discussed the CPA Plan. ?? Jack Hornor stated the CPC must re-write the application (and related documents) to state upfront that historic preservation projects must meet one of the two specific criteria the state CPA law requires. The law dictates this for historic preservation projects only and the applicants need to know this higher criteria standard upfront. ?? Craig Della Penna stated the criteria are too onerous and biased against historic preservation applicants. He thinks this is unfair and suggested requiring each applicant type to receive prior approval from its appropriate board. ?? Jack Hornor disagreed and suggested this would save time for historic preservation applicants as it mandates support from the beginning. Also, it is specifically required by the CPA law, not the CPC. 5 ?? Don Bianchi summarized the applicant must provide either proof the property is on the state historic register or that the project has the approval of the historic Commission. He suggested giving the applicant until the application due date to provide this proof. ?? Craig Della Penna suggested sending a letter to the various boards to let them know they must do outreach to warn potential applicants of this additional criteria. ?? Don Bianchi stated it is reasonable due diligence to require this criteria be submitted by the application due date. ?? George Kohout stated there are not that many potential historic preservation applicants. He suggested they would know the rules. ?? Craig Della Penna stated this seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen for being so strict. ?? Bruce Young stated that would be a state problem as it is their criteria. ?? Craig Della Penna stated he would like to see other boards weigh in on the respective projects, but not require before the application due date. ?? Fran Volkmann summarized by stating the CPC knows what must be added here. She suggested simply adding a statement that the document of compliance must submitted by the application due date. ?? Bruce Young suggested adding a checkbox of understanding before being permitted to download the application document online. ?? Jack Hornor suggested adding preservation guarantee language throughout the section where appropriate. ?? Bruce Young suggested adding it to the top point in the criteria. ?? Tom Parent stated some criteria are a must for preservation guarantees, while some are discretionary. ?? Don Bianchi suggested separating the criteria into mandatory threshold criteria and evaluative criteria. COMMUNITY HOUSING ?? Don Bianchi stated he has communicated with the Housing Partnership through Peg Keller. ?? Bruce Young added that the CPC has funded a comprehensive study through the Housing Partnership. ?? Don Bianchi suggested having the commissions edit the narrative sections. ?? George Kohout suggested requiring in the criteria a letter of support from the appropriate board. ?? Jack Hornor stated it is open for debate whether that should be required or just helpful for funding support. ?? Lilly Lombard supported amending the document to require the applicant to seek endorsement, not necessarily receive endorsement. ?? Tom Parent disagreed and stated the CPC members are appointed to represent their boards. It would politicize the process to require approval from the full boards. ?? Fran Volkmann agreed with Tom Parent, she suggested if the CPC wants input from other boards we would seek it ourselves. ?? Lilly Lombard agreed the CPC must be an independent judge of the projects, however a few applicants have not consulted with the appropriate boards and this has created 6 problems. She suggested staff put the applicants in touch with the boards early on in the process. ?? Don Bianchi suggested putting this in the evaluative criteria. No threshold for support but it would help an applicant to do so. ?? John Andrulis stated as a practical matter the Housing Authority may not be comfortable judging the Housing Partnership and vice versa. ?? Tom Parent stated they must go to the Housing Authority as the delegated authority. ?? Don Bianchi stated the Housing Partnership has the practical expertise though. ?? Jack Hornor stated applicants understand the value of gaining support. He suggested leaving the issue in the general criteria only, not the category specific criteria. ?? Lilly Lombard stated she wants the applicant to provide the support by the application due date, not staggered throughout the process. ?? Bruce Young stated boards are not sure what they are being asked to support and to what degree. This should be clarified. ?? The CPC consensus was to be neutral regarding the necessity for board input. If the applicant wants to pursue support from the boards they are welcome to do so. If the CPC wants more input from a board they will pursue it themselves. RECREATION ?? Tom Parent stated the director of the Recreation Department is happy with the CPA Plan. The full Recreation Commission is set to discuss the plan at its next meeting. 8. OTHER BUSINESS ?? None Upon motion by George Kohout, seconded by Don Bianchi, all agreed to adjourn meeting at 9:28 pm. Respectfully submitted on October 9, 2008, John Frey, Community Preservation Planner 7