Loading...
Agenda and Minutes 2010-11-03 City of Northampton Community Preservation Committee 210 Main Street, City Hall Northampton, MA 01060 Community Preservation Committee DATE: Wednesday, November 3, 2010 TIME: 7:00pm PLACE: City Council Chambers, 212 Main Street (BEHIND City Hall) Contact: Fran Volkmann, Chair, Community Preservation Committee Franv@comcast.net Tom Parent, Vice Chair, Community Preservation Committee ParentBridge@hotmail.com Sarah LaValley, Community Preservation Planner slavalley@northamptonma.gov (413) 587-1263 Agenda  Public Comment  Chair’s Report  Minutes October 20, 2010 o  Historic Preservation Restriction Application – Inquiry to Ethics Commission  Public Discussion of Round 2 2010 Applications Agriculture & Conservation Commissions – Agricultural Preservation o Restriction Program Conservation Commission – Turkey Hill o Conservation Commission, Conservation Fund o Friends of Hampshire County Homeless Individuals o Historical Commission, Local Historic Preservation Restriction Program o Lilly Library, Window Restoration o Recreation Commission – Florence Fields o Tree Committee, Tree Census o Valley CDC – Predevelopment Loan o Valley CDC - Housing Production Support Program o  Begin Funding Recommendations  Other Business For additional information please refer to the Community Preservation Committee website: http://www.northamptonma.gov/cpc/ Community Preservation Committee Minutes November 3, 2010 Time: 7:00 pm Place: City Council Chambers, 212 Main St. Members Present: Fran Volkmann, David Drake, Downey Meyer, Katharine Baker, Brian Adams, Don Bianchi, Joe DeFazio, Lilly Lombard Staff Present: Sarah LaValley Fran called the meeting to order at 7:01 PM. Public Comment There was no general public comment Public Discussion of Round 2 2010 Applications Fran explained the process for the public comment on applications. Deb Jacobs, 82 Grove Avenue, Leeds expressed her support for the tree census. As a former member of the tree committee, it is an important project for the City. The ice storm 2 years ago in the hilltowns brought to light the importance of knowing the types and health of trees, and can be important when applying for grant funds Tom Parent, 57 Beacon Street, Chairman of the recreation commission expressed his support for the funds requested to match the PARC grant just received for development of Florence Fields. Tom distributed three support letters for the application (added to application documents). A committee will be formed to raise funds for maintenance and other expenses, but the important first step is to make the funds for design and construction available. Mark Carmien, Turkey Hill Road, expressed support for the Turkey Hill acquisition application on behalf . The 25 acres in Northampton will be paid for by a combination of grants and fundraising, which has been successful in acquiring other land in the area. The purchase will allow the City to discontinue the end of Turkey Hill Road. If it is not discontinued, it could be improved, and the surrounding land developed. Mark talked about the features of the land, and the habitat it provides for a variety of different animals. Fran reported that Councilor Labarge was not able to attend the meeting, but also expressed her support for the project. Holly Hargraves, North Maple Street, board of trustees of Lilly Library expressed support for the stained glass window project. When the building was renovated, the windows were put aside in the hopes that they could someday be restored. Dan McCarthy, program manager at Hairston House, expressed support for FHCHI application. 92% of the 32 men who went through the Hairston House program and were homeless ended up obtaining a stable place to live. Recidivism rates are much higher when people do not have stable housing, and programs such as the one proposed are very important. A graduate of Hairston House and resident of Alliance for Sober Living house expressed his support for the FHCHI application. Denise McCann, Day Avenue spoke in favor of the Valley CDC predevelopment loan program. There is still a strong housing market in Northampton despite the recession, and properties often sell quickly. The loan program would provide readily available funds to allow Valley CDC to make purchases. Chair’s Report Fran recalled that Joe had raised a question about any potential conflict with the HPR application. The Ethics Commission advised that if the program applies to at least 10% of the population, there is no conflict for Committee members. Sarah presented a memo (filed with application) determining that a HPR could potentially apply to 18% of Northampton’s population. This was based on the number of owner-occupied, single-family homes built prior to 1940. Northampton Community Preservation Committee Minutes 1 November 3, 2010 Minutes October 20, 2010 Fran presented a few items for clarification/correction. Sarah will clarify in the Valley CDC predevelopment loan discussion that two CPA awards were made, monies from the first were used and then returned to the Fund, but Valley has not yet requested payment for the second award. Two incomplete sentences in the Florence Fields discussion section will be corrected. Fran asked about a confusing section referencing wetlands laws in during the APR discussion. Sarah will remove wetlands jargon to make the sentence readable. Katharine moved to accept the minutes as corrected, seconded by David. The motion carried unanimously. Begin Funding Recommendations Fran stated that the Committee will receive a financial update, and can then fill out a ranking sheet. Sarah will collate these and the Committee will begin discussions. The financial report shows that there is approximately $892,000 available at this round. If no money is spent, 1.13 million will be available for the next round. These figures include anticipated receipts and expenditures. The allocation sheets show that 5.7 million in CPA funds has been awarded so far. This breaks down to 40.7% for historic projects, 26.8% open space, 12% recreation, and 20.7% affordable housing. Katharine asked about the distinctions between discretionary funds and funds for discrete projects. Don noted that in the past, application for funds have been partially funded in many cases. Brian asked about the funding for DPW hours proposed in the tree census project. Fran noted that this was also done for the drain labeling project. Sarah added that invoices would need to be submitted to show expenditures in accordance with the contract. The Committee discussed the finances of the Florence Fields project, noting that additional clarification will be needed dollar amounts required at which stages of the project. David noted that negative perception of spending of CPA projects can have lasting impacts for the future of the CPA. In light of recent controversy about the Maple Street SRO project, David asked for further clarification of the projects presented by Valley CDC. Joanne Campbell, Valley CDC provided a brief overview of the progress of the Maple Street project. Valley CDC goes out to bid for construction; which can sometimes be required to be prevailing wage based on the types of funds received. Maple Street SRO is not prevailing wage. A breakdown of costs will be emailed to the CPC. Don added that anything funded through the state’s affordable housing system is vetted and reviewed extensively. This should provide some level of comfort that both CPA and other funds are being spent wisely. Joanne noted that both the King Street and Maple Street SRO projects were funded by the state. While this additional review provides additional review, it also raises costs. Fran noted that it was raised at the City Council when the project was funded that it is a high, unsustainable cost to house 11 people. However, 11 people will be houses affordably in perpetuity, and since rent will not support the building, many of the costs are necessarily borne on the front end. Joanne noted that former CPC chair Jack Hornor pointed out that CPA funds were used as a match for state funds. If not spent in Northampton, these monies would be spent elsewhere. Joanne added that the Maple SRO was hoped to be enhanced, however, since this would not have been by-right, this was not a viable option. Past projects in Florence were met with opposition, and appeals of other permits forced scopes of those to change. The Committee discussed the Maple SRO project and the article in the Springfield Republican regarding the costs of the project. Katharine asked if there is any way it could be responded to. Downey supported this idea. Lilly suggested that Fran respond with a letter to the editor, and perhaps follow-up with a guest column. Joe noted that the CPC application highlighted enhanced units when initial discussions about the project were begun. Although it may not have been presented to the City Council this way, it should be addressed. Northampton Community Preservation Committee Minutes 2 November 3, 2010 Fran noted that if one follows what was said, it’s clear that Valley wasn’t definitive what they would be able to do. Joanne noted this at City Council meetings. However, that was lost in the larger discussion about the benefits of enhanced SRO units. Don stated that it is important to address the negative comments made about the intentions of the CPC. It would also be important to address the communication between CPC and City Council. The Committee should work to improve any communication issues between the CPC and Council, but the problem should not be regarded as one between Valley CDC and Council. David noted that a vision statement including enhanced SRO’s was useful at the beginning, but it would have been more useful as things moved along to make it clear that the goal would likely not be achieved. Joanne replied that CPC is often the first stop when funding is sought, and projects are often necessarily changed when additional information is uncovered about the project. Downey highlighted that the recommendation to City Council is the key document that the CPC deliberations result in, and this document and the written records are what the CPC and Council must rely on. Sarah added that the resolution, which boils down projects into a few sentences, did not mention enhanced SRO, and this was by design. However, it does raise the question as to how project changes, which often occur, should be communicated to City Council even if they are in keeping with Council resolutions and contracts. Fran suggested that she could try an op-ed piece, but would like to discuss the issues with City Council beforehand. Brian noted that it will be challenging to rebut the public accusation that the CPC has done something untoward. Fran asked if anyone had any remaining comments about the applications. Sarah informed the Committee that Westhampton’s LAND grant was not funded, but Northampton’s was. This will place a greater fundraising burden in Westhampton. David expressed his support for the Lilly Library windows project The Committee filled out evaluation sheets, and Sarah tallied these, ‘fund fully,’ ‘fund partially,’ or ‘do not fund’ as a basis for preliminary discussion priorities. Lilly Library windows, Turkey Hill, Tree Census and FHCHI were placed in the shopping cart. Florence Fields will need a greater discussion when a detailed budget is provided. The Committee established base figures for each application, with a preliminary goal of spending approximately $600,000. Lilly suggested that the tree census is important, but funding for labels could be reduced. Downey suggested that funding for the census be provided this round, but labeling be suggested for a future round. Katharine asked if funding for maintaining the census had been requested, as a one-time census would not be as helpful. A target of $5,000 for the census, and a few labels was suggested. Sarah will distribute the ‘draft shopping cart for discussion’ to the CPC. It will be clear that this has not been voted on and is not a final product. The Committee suggested that the Lilly Library window project should receive more than one quote. The Committee discussed the Florence Fields application, and agreed that solid budget numbers are needed. Northampton Community Preservation Committee Minutes 3 November 3, 2010 Preliminary Evaluation Sheet – DEVELOPED FOR COMMITTEE DISCUSSION DURING MEETING. Does not indicate final award decision Do Initial Fund Fund Not Cart Amount Total Project Fully Partially Fund Amount Requested Budget Community Housing Valley CDC Predevelopment Loan 1 7 $60,000 Fund $80,000 unknown Valley CDC Housing Production Support 4 3 1 $75,000 Program $75,000 $352,573 7 1 $120,000 FHCHI Sober Housing $120,000 $305,000 Recreation 1 5 1 $130,000 Florence Fields $324,752 $955,152 Open Space 1 7 $60,000 Conservation Fund $100,000 $300,000 4 4 $60,000 APR Program $75,000 $100,000 Open Space/Recreation Turkey Hill Open Space 7 1 $85,720 Acquisition $85,720 $308,500 5 2 1 $5,000 Tree Census $8,180 $8,180 Historic Local Historic 1 6 1 $10,000 Preservation Restriction $20,000 $30,000 Lilly Library Window 8 $13,000 Restoration $13,000 $13,000 $618,720 Northampton Community Preservation Committee Minutes 4 November 3, 2010 Other Business Sarah stated that Central Services Director David Pomerantz informed her that an unanticipated expenditure raised the cost of the Grove Street Inn CPA project by $600. Would the CPC be willing to consider an additional award? The Committee agreed this would require a greater discussion of procedure and what is allowable. The meeting adjourned at 9:50 PM. Northampton Community Preservation Committee Minutes 5 November 3, 2010