Loading...
Agenda and Minutes 2010-12-01 City of Northampton Community Preservation Committee 210 Main Street, City Hall Northampton, MA 01060 Community Preservation Committee DATE: Wednesday, December 1, 2010 TIME: 7:00pm PLACE: City Council Chambers, 212 Main Street (BEHIND City Hall) Contact: Fran Volkmann, Chair, Community Preservation Committee Franv@comcast.net Sarah LaValley, Community Preservation Planner slavalley@northamptonma.gov (413) 587-1263 Agenda  Public Comment  Chair’s Report  Minutes November 17, 2010 o  Conservation Commission CR Implementation Plan  Debriefing – 2010 Round 2  CPC Policy Discussions Amendments to Applications Under Consideration o Requests for Reprogramming of Award Funds o  Other Business For additional information please refer to the Community Preservation Committee website: http://www.northamptonma.gov/cpc/ Community Preservation Committee Minutes December 1, 2010 Time: 7:00 pm Place: City Council Chambers, 212 Main St. Members Present: Fran Volkmann, Downey Meyer, Katharine Baker, Brian Adams, Don Bianchi, Joe DeFazio, Lilly Lombard Staff Present: Sarah LaValley Fran called the meeting to order at 7:02 PM. Public Comment Ann Marie Moggio, Recreation Department, thanked the Commission for funding the Bean/Allard project. The park will provide opportunity for users to get exercise. Unlike conservation areas, which can be enjoyed at no cost, users of the recreation department amenities pay to participate, and this is a great opportunity for them to expand their facilities in Northampton. Wayne Feiden, Planning Director updated the Committee on Bean/Allard acquisition progress, and provided a memo, dated Nov. 30 (filed with Bean/Allard CPA project materials) that provides a recap of the budget changes to the project approved by the CPC at the last meeting. Fran expressed discomfort at the way the budget reprogramming went forward, noting that the desire to follow process might have been misunderstood to mean lack of support for the project. Speaking only for herself, she said she would welcome a well-developed plan to develop Florence Fields with a coherent overall budget and a commitment to raise a reasonable percentage of the funds from external sources. She would even support bonding for the project. But this kind of reprogramming is not transparent to the public and goes forward outside of the committee’s well-established procedures. Downey expressed his disagreement, and suggested that there was room within the application budget and materials to allow the allocation to construction, which explicitly noted soft costs and other materials. Had he thought that those items were not budgeted for, and were being created, he would not have approved the budget reprogramming request. Fran replied that she spoke with the Community Preservation Coalition, and projects are bound by the wording of the City Council resolution (the Scope of Warrant Article), and not by the content of the application. That resolution stated that the funds were for the purchase and protection of the land, not the construction of playing fields. The easiest thing to do going forward in similar situations may be to have the funds returned and a new application submitted, so that the CPC can make another recommendation, following the processes that have been developed and which the Committee can stand behind. Wayne noted that the Bean/Allard task force was intentionally granted a lot of authority during the public process, so it wasn’t possible to know exactly what the $990,000 would be spent upon. Additionally, allowing less flexibility for applicants to move things around during projects may encourage them to be more vague during the application stage. Chair’s Report Fran informed the Committee that Mayor Higgins would like an opinion from the City Solicitor regarding the Valley CDC Housing Production Support program before she recommends it to the City Council. The Coalition indicated that a similar project is underway in Sudbury, and offered to connect us with the person they have hired (paid by CPA funds). Sarah will convey this information to the City Solicitor. Fran noted that the Housing Needs Assessment, which was funded by the CPA, is complete. Minutes November 17, 2010 Brian moved to accept the minutes, seconded by Katharine. The motion carried unanimously. Fran asked Wayne about what the council resolution referenced by Wayne in the minutes was regarding. Wayne replied that the PARC grant needed its own Council resolution, and the Northampton Community Preservation Committee Minutes 1 December 1, 2010 August resolution to accept the grant also included what the grant funds could be spent upon, including recreation fields development. Conservation Commission CR Implementation Plan Wayne distributed a memo dated November 30,( filed with the 2010 Round 1 Conservation Fund CPA project documents) to follow-up on the August request that the Conservation Commission develop an implementation plan for placing restrictions on all acquisitions funded through the CPA. Wayne added that staff read of the Community Preservation Act requires that a restriction be placed on real property interests purchased with CPA monies. However, the Conservation Fund also funds soft costs, and some of these soft costs don’t result in successful projects. Don asked what happens if the soft costs are funded through CPA, but the more significant acquisition costs are funded in some other way. Wayne replied that there were a few instances where recording fees were covered by the Conservation Fund Restrictions will be placed on properties within six months after acquisition. This is necessary to retain value of the land, without any depreciation caused by the restriction, to allow for true reimbursement value for grants. Don asked if there is any risk to properties in the six-month interim before the restriction is placed. Wayne replied that there isn’t any, since the land will be owned by the city. Wayne noted that he has conflicting opinions about whether the placement of these restrictions will pose an Article 97 issue, since transfer of interests requires approval of the state legislature, but there seems to be a general consensus that this won’t be triggered. Wayne explained that while it’s sometimes possible to find an agency to hold a CR, funding would be required in some cases, and there are other CR’s it may be difficult to find holders in other cases. Downey noted that it is important to know what the terms of a CR contain, since the holders may have different values and interests from the CPC. Wayne suggested that the details be worked out with the Conservation Commission, and that Conservation Northampton will be available to hold restrictions if no other partners are available. Downey added that a local entity would be preferable to a state or federal entity. Fran added that the Committee could also require specific CR conditions as needed. The Committee discussed what happens in the event a CR is violated. Debriefing – 2010 Round 2 Fran asked the Committee to think about how the round went; what was difficult, what went smoothly, and when a member should recuse themselves. The Committee discussed ethical and conflict of interest issues. Downey suggested that if any member has a potential conflict, they should contact the ethics commission for advice. Joe noted that he judges potential conflicts by an appearance of impropriety, and what the perception of someone looking into the Committee could be. Katharine noted that it was her first time sitting through an application round, and she thought the process was very clear. Brian noted that the request to reprogram Bean/Allard funds was the most awkward portion of the round, and it’s very helpful that the issue will now be discussed as a matter of policy. Downey noted that it is difficult to balance fairness to all applicants with the desire to allow reasonable changes to applications during the round. In a more formal setting, these types of amendments would not be allowed beyond the initial presentation of applications, but this may not be the best process for the Committee. The Committee discussed how best to translate the CPC deliberations into recommendations, and then to City Council resolutions. Sarah noted that she puts the resolutions together verbatim from the recommendations prepared by the Committee, adding only the accounting information. CPC Policy Discussions Amendments to Applications Under Consideration Fran asked at what point in the round applicants should be told that changes to applications are no longer possible, suggesting that this should be shortly after the meetings with applicants. Northampton Community Preservation Committee Minutes 2 December 1, 2010 Downey noted that it is often helpful for him to ask questions of applicants following public comment periods, as questions naturally arise. Lilly noted that the CPC process is very different from the strict processes required from other grants, and that the flexibility is very helpful. However, some repeat applicants have also learned to use this flexibility to their advantage, sometimes at the expense of less experienced applicants. Downey added that additional discussions with applicants sometimes occur when partial funding is being considered. The Committee compared amendments with out-of-round applications, and Don suggested that additional flexibility be allowed during rounds so that additional out-of-round requests can be reduced. Lilly moved that applicant initiated amendments to applications not be allowed following site visits, save for the most extreme, compelling circumstances. Seconded by Brian. Fran suggested that following meetings with the applicants be more appropriate. Joe noted that there have been a great deal of applications filed, and there have almost never been problems with amendments being needed at the last minute, and creating a policy to address one problem may be at the expense of other applicants. The CPC ultimately controls the meetings, and can direct applicants and attendees as needed. Fran noted that she could be much more ruthless as Chair, but did not have the sense during the amendment discussion for Florence Fields that she should end the conversation or refuse to accept changes to the application even on the last evening of voting. Katharine noted that a thorough application is also indicative of an applicant’s ability to execute a project. Brian noted that the process has worked well overall, and that it’s very helpful to have the flexibility to get as much information as possible. Lilly clarified the motion: applicant initiated amendments to applications not be allowed following the scheduled applicant meeting, save for the most extreme, compelling circumstances. Seconded by Katharine. 3 in favor, 4 opposed. Don suggested that a guideline be added to the plan that the Committee’s expectation is that all project information be available at the time of the applicant meeting. Brian suggested that the issue can be revisited at anytime. Requests for Reprogramming of Award Funds Fran explained that according to the CPA law, reprogramming of funds must be initiated with the CPC, and that the City Council has no authority to unilaterally allocate or reallocate CPA funds. Fran spoke with the Community Preservation Coalition, who indicated that the cleanest thing to do when CPA funds are left over is to have them returned, and then another application be filed. The Committee discussed how to handle requests to change budgets. Sarah suggested that she also needs guidance at a staff level what types of changes would require approval by the CPC, and that applicants who were able to prepare detailed budgets could be looked at with more scrutiny than applicants with bare bones budgets. When an invoice is received, she looks at budgets contained in applications to determine if the request is in compliance with the original approval. Joe suggested that the Committee obtain a definition of reprogramming and go from there. Katharine referenced the request to reprogram the Bean/Allard funds. Downey stated that he based his reprogramming approval vote on the budget contained in the Bean/Allard, where acquisition included many different types of activities. It’s not surprising that Committee members voted on the way they understood the application, and it shouldn’t be perceived that Committee members did anything untoward or that the request was inappropriate. The request was simply one to shift numbers in the budget. Don suggested that when applicants propose to use funds allocated for one purpose for another purpose, CPC approval is required. Sarah noted that this could place a burden on applicants for very small changes to budgets, and that CPC approval could end up being needed for simple amendments. Don suggested that once funds are awarded, if an applicant desires to use funds in a way that is materially different from what was approved by the Committee, consultation with staff is a needed first step. Northampton Community Preservation Committee Minutes 3 December 1, 2010 Fran suggested that substantial changes in the uses of funds allocated will require approval of the CPC. Sarah noted that she has been following this practice, and she’ll continue to do so. The Committee agreed that small changes don’t need Committee approval. Other Business None. The meeting adjourned at 9:08 Northampton Community Preservation Committee Minutes 4 December 1, 2010