Loading...
Agenda and Minutes 2008-09-03 Community Preservation Committee Agenda DATE: Wednesday, September 3, 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 8/20 minutes ? Chair's Report ? Briefing from Housing Authority – Jon Hite ? Discussion of Valley CDC request for expedited review of the Maple Street SRO project ? Discussion of FCBA application ? Discussion of By-Laws & Rules of Procedure ? Discussion of review of Community Preservation Plan ? Other Business ?? For additional information please refer to the Community Preservation Committee website: http://www.northamptonma.gov/gsuniverse/httpRoot/comm/ MINUTES Community Preservation Committee Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2008 Time: 7:00 pm Place: 212 Main St., City Council Chambers Members Present: Jack Hornor, George Kohout, Craig Della Penna, John Andrulis, Tom Parent, Fran Volkmann, Don Bianchi and Mason Maronn. Staff Present: Bruce Young, Community Preservation Planner John Frey, Community Preservation Planner Jack Hornor opened the public meeting at 7:04pm. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT ?? None 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ?? Jack Hornor presented the minutes of the August 6, 2008 meeting for approval. He suggested a few changes that have been incorporated into the draft minutes. ?? Upon motion by Tom Parent, seconded by Craig Della Penna, all voted in favor of approving the minutes. 3. CHAIR’S REPORT ?? None 4. BRIEFING FROM HOUSING AUTHORITY ?? Jack Hornor welcomed Jon Hite, Director of the Northampton Housing Authority to speak regarding the current state of affordable housing in Northampton. ?? Jon Hite spoke on many topics. Major points included… -NHA has not specifically discussed the CPA, but he does envision submitting grant requests in the near future. -NHA owns and operates approximately 650 units of housing. Their constituencies are the disabled, elderly, and low-income citizens. It is a difficult population to house and many find it difficult to maintain their housing. -Current housing in the works includes four parcels at the Northampton state hospital site. They are completing construction plans for ten units on Burts Pit Road just beyond the Community Gardens. A project is also in the works to create a first-time homebuyer program, with priority for municipal employees, on Laurel Street. -NHA will not be coming before the CPC for assistance with operating expenses. There preference if for major impact funding. -NHA is not in competition with HAP or Valley CDC. They are each working on different areas of the housing needs problem. ?? Jack Hornor asked Jon Hite to discuss the different types of housing the community needs. Jon Hite stated as the baby boomers hit retirement age there will be a major need for 1.5 bedroom, affordable housing. Also, the younger DMH population is huge in this area. The ADA helped identify these people and they have funding but housing stock is lacking. Finally, for families, two-bedroom units are most in demand with a waiting list of over 40, while three-bedroom units have a seven family backlog and four-bedroom units ten families. ?? Fran Volkmann asked how NHA utilizes SROs. Jon Hite stated there is a new grant from Veterans Affairs Supported Housing for 70 SRO vouchers for homeless veterans with mental health or substance abuse problems. NHA is working closely with the VA to organize this program. It will involve a lottery system for applicants. The carrot is the housing, while the stick is the requirement for participation in needed programming including substance abuse programs. ?? Don Bianchi asked about the status of the mid-level affordable housing at Hampton Gardens. Jon Hite stated the trust fund might be gone in 18 months. Discussion regarding solutions needs to start with the Mayor. 5. DISCUSSION OF VALLEY CDC REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED REVIEW ?? Jack Hornor presented a request from Valley CDC for expedited review of its SRO project at 16 North Maple Street in Florence. The reason for expedited review is because the projects potential primary grantor, Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development has an application due date of October 30, 2008. In that grant application Valley CDC must show local funding support for their application to be competitive on the state level. ?? Jack Hornor stated the normal funding cycle for this round is applications due by September 12, 2008 with CPC recommendations by December 3, 2008. ?? George Kohout questioned what would happen without CPC support. Pat McCarthy, Project Manager at Valley CDC answered the project would not receive funding from the state without this local support. The reason the site needs renovation is because skyrocketing utility costs is driving the current arrangement into further debt. The new configuration will be more energy efficient, fully funded, and self-sustaining. ?? Jack Hornor questioned when else Valley CDC could apply for state funding. Pat McCarthy stated grant cycles are twice yearly but the longer the project waits the more costly it will be. ?? Tom Parent questioned how much the CPC has available to spend and how much is Valley CDC requesting. Jack Hornor stated the CPC has approximately $800,000 to grant. Pat McCarthy stated the CPC request is for $250,000 of the $2,000,000 total project cost. ?? Bruce Young stated Peg Keller questions the viability of the enhanced SRO model. He wondered if Valley CDC had the same reservations. Pat McCarthy stated there is a need for both styles of SRO. A comprehensive approach is needed and there is currently a scarcity of inventory and services for those in need of enhanced SROs. ?? George Kohout asked if Valley CDC is prioritizing this project over their others. Pat McCarthy confirmed this is their major project for this funding cycle. ?? Don Bianchi stated other applications have been expedited before. He stated the criteria for consideration is high value and a pressing need for quick review. It is hard to make that determination without seeing the application. He suggested tabling discussion. ?? Jack Hornor stated the decision tonight is simply whether the CPC wants to accept the application for discussion. ?? Don Bianchi suggested the CPC agree to view the application, but reserve judgment. The CPC could still decide yes, no, or no but remains in cycle with the others. ?? Jack Hornor agreed that is the process. He stated the CPC must decide on dates for expedition. ?? Fran Volkmann stated the CPC is not pre-judging the application, merely assigning it for expeditious review. It meets the criteria as the need for SROs is high and the timeline is crucial in order to leverage the grant. ?? George Kohout stated his reservation is with the concept of expedited review in general. It will unconsciously give the project a favorable light by accepting it for review. ?? Tom Parent stated the CPC did reject a request for expeditious review last December. ?? Bruce Young stated the reason for that was the lack of procedures and the fact that the application was not complete. ?? Jack Hornor confirmed that the CPC was attempting to complete the CPA Plan at the same time last year. The CPA Plan does now allow for expeditious review. Only question here tonight is whether to grant expeditious review. ?? Don Bianchi confirmed that competition for state money is indeed intense. He stated Fran Volkmann made a very compelling argument. His own perspective is to vet application intensively in regards to the criteria for expedited review. He expects it to be a very detailed discussion. ?? George Kohout stated the implication is that even accepting the application throws it into review. He argues against the policy. ?? Craig Della Penna agreed with George Kohout. He feels the project needs to be reviewed in the context and scope of all the projects combined. ?? Bruce Young stated the other applications are due September 12, 2008. The CPC could still review this application in the context of the other projects. ?? Tom Parent stated the CPC would see the other applications, members could compare in their own minds. ?? Jack Hornor stated there is good reason for this policy. The CPC must have flexibility in making its decisions. ?? Don Bianchi stated the CPC should consider the policy implications. However, Valley CDC is the principal housing source for the CPC and he gives weight to that fact. ?? Don Bianchi motioned for expedited review, John Andrulis seconded. ?? Jack Hornor stated the timeline for expedited review if granted would be… -Application due September 5, 2008. -CPC additional questions to Bruce Young due September 9, 2008. -Bruce Young sends questions to applicant by September 11, 2008. -Applicant responds in writing by September 15, 2008. -CPC discussion on September 17, 2008 at regular meeting. -CPC finish discussion by October 1, 2008. -If approved for funding, to City Council for votes on October 2 & 16, 2008. ?? Bruce Young confirmed that Peg Keller also agreed Valley CDC is the top source for affordable housing projects in Northampton. ?? Mason Maronn stated Vellay CDC knew about the state application deadline months ago. Why the hurry now? Pat McCarthy stated it would have been irresponsible of them to apply sooner. It is important to follow the correct order for state projects. ?? Craig Della Penna stated expedited review poisons the entire process. ?? Jack Hornor, Fran Volkmann, George Kohout, Don Bianchi, Mason Maronn, Tom Parent and John Andrulis vote in favor of allowing expedited review of the Valley CDC application. Craig Della Penna votes opposed. ?? Jack Hornor stated the CPC would review the policy during its review of the CPA Plan. ?? Tom Parent requested staff contact Peg Keller for further explanation regarding Enhanced SROs. ?? Bruce Young suggested meeting with the Housing Partnership to discuss. ?? Jack Hornor stated there is no policy yet regarding official outside review of affordable housing projects. He suggested the CPC discuss. ?? George Kohout stated boards have offered assistance and the CPC should consider requiring outside review. 6. DISCUSSION OF FCBA APPLICATION ?? Jack Hornor continued the discussion regarding the Florence Civic & Business Association application. At the last meeting the CPC approved preservation guidelines. The guideline for historic preservation generally requires permanent protection, but is flexible in order to guarantee what is best to serve the community. This is the starting point for discussion tonight. All other historic preservation grants to this point have accepted permanent protection conditions. However, this project is just to preserve the archive and interior work to expand museum space. ?? George Kohout questioned if the actual work suggested in the application has been resolved. Jack Hornor stated the revised application meets CPA guidelines and has been approved. ?? Tom Parent questioned if three bids are required for work. Bruce Young stated that law only applies to City owned property, but CPC will be requiring three bids. ?? Don Bianchi stated the only question in his opinion is the nature of the guarantee and how many years. ?? Jack Hornor stated the preservation guarantee should only apply to the collection, not to the building. ?? Don Bianchi stated the CPC must still define preservation guarantee. What does it mean to preserve a collection of items? ?? Fran Volkmann stated it means nothing to the individual items. FCBA wants to preserve the collection. The CPC should support that effort in whatever form they suggest. The CPC could and should request permanent preservation guarantees of the collection in general. This does not tie their hands regarding individual items. Any funds from the sale of items should go toward protecting the collection as a whole. ?? Jack Hornor stated his faith in the applicant. They have worked hard and we need to recognize that. Items come and go, goal is preservation and access to future generations. ?? Don Bianchi stated the general collection is a collection of individual items. At what point does the collection shrink to not still be a collection? ?? Jack Hornor stated that wording should remain deliberately vague. ?? Bruce Young stated the requirement to use funds for preserving the collection trumps that question. ?? Jack Hornor stated the grant agreement spells out enforcement. CPC will do what is necessary to enforce. ?? George Kohout stated this is a rather subjective evaluating and recording mechanism for reporting. We are accepting leap of faith here. ?? Jack Hornor stated this is a reasonable leap of faith. ?? Don Bianchi stated the CPC could not enforce because we have not defined collection. ?? Fran Volkmann stated she sees it differently as the last line provides guarantee. How has value of collection increased or maintained is the question. ?? Don Bianchi stated that if the only requirement were that they report to us, then we would need to define that. Because no way to measure the value. ?? George Kohout suggested appraising the value and guaranteeing that. ?? Bruce Young stated the grant agreement requires annual reporting. He suggested a ledger showing sale money returned to collection preservation. ?? Robert Ross of FCBA stated the last time the CPC asked for charter document. Monetary value not applicable, this is historical and cultural value. You already have a guarantee through our charter and history of what we do. ?? Mason Maronn agreed they could not put monetary value on the artifacts. It has educational value as well, they need to get this archived on the web. ?? Jack Hornor stated the CPC is worrying too much about what applicant may do. He is ready to take leap of faith. We are asking them to preserve the collection and make accessible as best they can. Let’s allow them to do that. He urged the CPC to take leap of faith. ?? Fran Volkmann agreed with Jack Hornor. The language in the condition is directed at CPC for due diligence, not at applicant. She is more worried about outside complaint of lack of diligence. This language is a good compromise. Fran Volkmann motioned for permanent preservation of the general collection. Tom Parent seconded. ?? George Kohout stated the applicant has said they would not accept. ?? Jack Hornor stated this is the best recommendation for the City of Northampton. We should move forward. ?? George Kohout stated the applicant should have the chance to oppose and negotiate. Let’s hear their suggestion of a guarantee. ?? Robert Ross stated the document has just been put in front of them. They need time for dialogue with their board. ?? Jack Hornor stated the CPC operates under open meeting law. The CPC can only have dialogue under open meeting. It cannot have outside dialogue. ?? Robert Ross stated written negotiations are usually a back and forth process. ?? Loretta Gougeon of FCBA suggested the CPC write preservation guarantee document and she would take to their board. She wishes to not require any guarantee based on the CPC’s faith in them. She expected to have this document ahead of time. They are not in a rush to do this project. If comes down to board not accepting any agreement, project will go forward in some fashion. ?? Jack Hornor stated the document they have in mind is a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The CPC has the burden to prepare, but it must be done in CPC open discussion. ?? Robert Ross stated the language could say applicant has shown ability and determination to preserve the collection. He advised removing language about sales. ?? Jack Hornor stated the Historic Commission wants to oversee all sales. He wants to craft a compromise. ?? Don Bianchi stated by adopting this language in substance the CPC is saying we value this project and because of modest nature of funding we relying on applicant to follow. Board of FCBA should recognize this. He thinks we should do this. ?? Fran Volkmann stated the general procedure is the CPC makes resolution, sends to mayor, gets approved by City Council, then applicant decides whether to accept or not. No negotiation. ?? Loretta Gougeon stated she prefers the resolution to go to mayor first. ?? Bruce Young stated the CPC would be wasting its time and staff’s time for them simply to turn it down. It should go to FCBA first. ?? Loretta Gougeon stated that is fine too. ?? George Kohout stated this gives them opportunity to negotiate. He suggested Fran Volkmann withdraw motion and give draft to FCBA to discuss. ?? Don Bianchi stated his preference to adopt the motion and allow FCBA to respond before sending to the mayor. ?? Tom Parent agreed. He suggested the CPC take step back, don’t go to mayor first, and wait for FCBA to approve. ?? Fran Volkmann encouraged the CPC vote to grant request with this guarantee. Then FCBA talks about it. The CPC could then always change its recommendation. ?? Bruce Young stated this must be either approved or denied. There is no room for negotiation in most grants. ?? Robert Ross stated the CPC came up with this requirement for guarantees after the application was submitted. ?? Bruce Young disagreed. He stated the requirement is part of criteria in application. ?? Jack Hornor stated this guarantee is lesser than an HPR. It is just an MOA. ?? Craig Della Penna stated he likes this language. He suggested sending just this condition, not the full agreement. ?? Tom Parent agreed with Craig Della Penna. ?? Fran Volkmann dropped first motion. ?? Upon motion by Fran Volkmann, seconded by Tom Parent all vote in favor of approving the grant with the condition, “Prior to receipt of funding, the Florence Civic and Business Association must agree to permanently preserve the general collection and make it available to the public for viewing. This does not prohibit the applicant from selling individual items at its discretion, but funds received from the sale of items must be used to assist in preserving the collection.” 7. DISCUSSION OF BY-LAWS & RULES OF PROCEDURE ?? Jack Hornor presented the current By-Laws and Rules of Procedure for discussion. ?? George Kohout suggested he would be willing to make a motion to accept the current draft now since there is always the option to modify later as needed. ?? Jack Hornor suggested waiting one more meeting before voting. In the meantime, CPC members are encouraged to email Bruce Young with comments and suggestions for changes. Bruce Young will modify the draft once more and present at the next meeting. 8. DISCUSSION OF REVIEW OF COMMUNITY PRESERVATION PLAN ?? Jack Hornor announced that Fran Volkmann would lead the CPC in its effort to review and modify the Community Preservation Plan. ?? Fran Volkmann stated she was not part of the CPC when the original plan was written and adopted. She queried the CPC as the whether it is better to have a working sub- committee tackle the plan revision or have the entire CPC revise the plan in meeting under her guidance. ?? Tom Parent stated a working group is a lot of work for some, but better for others. Other documents have been discussed and modified in full meeting, he suggests doing the same with the plan. Perhaps do one section per meeting. ?? Mason Maronn agreed with Tom Parent. ?? George Kohout agreed but also suggested a sub-committee could speed up the process. However, he does not want to volunteer for the sub-committee. ?? Jack Hornor stated unless there are volunteers to do the work it will need to be done by the full CPC during regular meetings. ?? Fran Volkmann suggested reserving up to an hour per meeting to do one section at a time. ?? Jack Hornor assigned members to contact their respective boards for feedback (Conservation Committee, Recreation Committee, Housing Authority, Housing Partnership, Historic Commission, and Planning Board). It is expected members will report back with recommendations by October 8, 2008. 9. OTHER BUSINESS ?? None Upon motion by George Kohout, seconded by Tom Parent, all agreed to adjourn meeting at 9:45 pm. Respectfully submitted on September 9, 2008, John Frey, Community Preservation Planner