Loading...
Agenda and Minutes 2007-12-19 Community Preservation Committee Agenda DATE: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 TIME: 7:00 PM PLACE: City Hall Hearing Room, 210 Main Street (SECOND FLOOR of City Hall) Contact: Bruce Young, Community Preservation Planner byoung@northamptonma.gov Jack Hornor, Chair, Community Preservation Committee Jack@JackHornor.com Agenda 1. Public comment period 2. Approval of minutes for 11/19/2007 3. Chair's Report 4. Discussion of review and recommendation process (eligibility form review process, project application process, project recommendation and funding process-CPC to Mayor to City Council, CPA fund award process, project implementation conditions and monitoring) 5. Discussion of committee website 6. Discussion of workshop for potential applicants 7. Any other necessary 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, December 19, 2007 Time: 7:00 pm nd Place: City Hall, 212 Main St, 2 Floor Hearing Room Members Present: Jack Hornor, Chris Kennedy, Don Bianchi, Fran Volkmann, Lilly Lombard, John Andrulis, Mason Maronn, George Kohout (at 8:20 pm) Staff Present: Bruce Young, Land Use and Conservation Planner John Frey, Community Preservation Planner Jack Hornor opened the public hearing at 7:00 pm 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None 2. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19, 2007 MEETING Revision ?? Jack Hornor questioned whether committee decided to elect new Chair and Vice Chair in January or March. ?? Committee recollected January elections were decided. ?? Minutes revised to reflect January elections. Approval ?? Don Bianchi moved to approve the minutes of November 19, 2007. ?? John Andrulis seconded the motion. ?? All those present voted in favor of the motion. 3. CHAIR’S REPORT CPC Staff ?? Jack Hornor introduced John Frey from the Planning Department. John will work under and assist Bruce Young in CPC support duties. Both will attend CPC meetings with Bruce available to answer questions and advise the committee while John will take the minutes. ?? Jack Hornor reminded the committee that the agreement with the Planning Department only pertains to capacity, not actual staffing personnel. CPC does not care who does the work, only that work is satisfactory to the committee. Financial Report ?? Local revenue receipts for FY08 are $349,890. ?? Interest for FY08 is $24,918.32. ?? Match from state is $714,215. ?? Total account balance is approximately $1,600,000. ?? Don Andrulis requested exact figures for January meeting. ?? Jack Hornor confirmed that will be possible. Community Preservation Coalition ?? Jack Hornor questioned if all members are receiving the coalition’s emails. All members confirmed they are receiving the emails. ?? Jack Hornor announced the coalition has received a foundation grant to hire a communications specialist. It is anticipated that this will result in a better coalition website, newsletter and newsgroup for coalition members. Historic & Housing Inventory Study ?? Jack Hornor stated that the city currently has comprehensive open space and recreation planning studies, but none for community housing or historic buildings. He questioned how prudent it is to use administrative funds for these studies and asked Bruce Young if there are other avenues to accomplish these studies. ?? Bruce Young reported that the Community Preservation Coalition stated many communities are using administrative funds to do these studies, but there is a more creative way to accomplish. The better way is to apply for a grant from the Massachusetts Historical Commission, and then it is permissible to match the grant with CPA general funds. This is preferable to using up limited administrative funds. ?? Chris Kennedy suggested it is still possible to use administrative funds in FY08 to accomplish at least a partial study. ?? Bruce Young agreed this is possible and the committee can piece together studies in the future. ?? Jack Hornor reminded the committee they can only suggest to possible applicants that this is a needed study, but it is necessary for an applicant to initiate the process. Administrative Funding Allotment for FY08 ?? Jack Hornor reminded the committee they voted to allocate just $50,000 to admistrative funding for FY08 instead of the possible 5% ($69,000). He questioned whether it is possible to still get the additional $19,000 allocated to administrative funding. ?? Bruce Young stated that it might not possible since CPA requires administrative funding to be allotted before fiscal year begins. Also, administrative funds must be used during that fiscal year or they are returned to the general fund, no carryover possible. ?? Chris Kennedy stated this seems odd and difficult since the committee needs those funds for planning purposes. ?? Jack Hornor stated he will do thorough research of the committee’s options and report back next month. ?? Fran Volkmann questioned why the committee chose $50,000 instead of full $69,000. ?? Jack Hornor stated the committee did so to appear fiscally prudent to the public. ?? Chris Kennedy questioned what the projected administrative costs are for FY08. ?? Jack Hornor stated there is no historical record yet, but he projects $3,000 needed for administrative staffing (3.5 hours per week) and $23,000 for professional staffing (14 hours per week). CPC Electronic vs. Paper Options ?? Jack Hornor presented the options committee members have for receiving CPC files (monthly minutes, applications, supporting materials, ordinances, etc). Members have the ability receive everything either electronically and/or by hard copy. There are costs incurred by the CPC to either method. ?? Bruce Young stated the planning department has many new pieces of equipment to make electronic storage and distribution faster and more cost effective than printing. The new copier includes a scanning option allowing staff to scan in materials and save automatically as a pdf file and email directly to members. Currently, 11 printed copies are required to meet CPC needs and with 20 applications projected for this first round that will be very expensive for the committee. Also, another electronic advantage is the new smartboard in the hearing room which will allow electronic plans to be projected and edited immediately during meetings. Finally, Bruce suggested the committee could purchase laptops for its members to use while serving on the committee (~$350 each). ?? Don Bianchi suggested one central binder of printed materials is sufficient and this can be brought to all meetings. Keep larger files in planning office. He will print materials as needed. ?? Chris Kennedy stated he prefers the electronic copies and will print his own materials as needed. He has his own laptop and will not need a CPC laptop. ?? John Andrulis stated he would need a laptop if the committee decides on the electronic route. Receiving printed materials is fine though. ?? Jack Hornor stated he does not need a CPC laptop, but agrees they should be purchased for members that do need it. ?? Fran Volkman stated she would like all materials electronically, but she will not have a laptop for the next six months. ?? Mason Maronn stated the electronic method is great and he will print as needed. ?? Jack Hornor resolved that he will query members via email to confirm needs then report back next month. CPC Website ?? Jack Hornor questioned how much material the committee wants to include on the website. Specifically, if all eligibility forms (approved or denied) and applications (approved or denied) should be posted. ?? Chris Kennedy stated he wants all materials posted on the CPC site to encourage transparency and full disclosure in the awards process. ?? Lilly Lombard fully agrees. ?? Fran Volkmann fully agrees. ?? Don Bianchi agrees though wonders if committee should exclude personal financial statements included with the applications. ?? Jack Hornor states this is a matter of transparency versus privacy. All application materials are known to be public record when submitted and therefore privacy (excepting account numbers, etc) is not an issue. ?? Jack Hornor hears the committee desires full disclosure and therefore resolves to post all possible materials on the CPC website. 4. DISCUSSION OF REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION PROCESS Eligibility Form Review Process A.) Current Status ?? Jack Hornor explained that the chair would review the eligibility forms with the assistance of staff to answer any technical issues. Two eligibility forms have already been reviewed and accepted (Forbes Library and First Churches). A few more expected soon including Turkey Hill Conservation, Garfield Ave Habitat for Humanity, and the City Clerk records conservation plan. B.) Appeal Process ?? Don Bianchi asked if applicants have a right to appeal. Bruce Young explained he sends a response letter to all applicants whether they are accepted or denied for eligibility. All denials include an appeal letter. Don wants to make certain the appeal rules and process are included so no applicants will be automatically lost by failure to understand rights. ?? Fran Volkmann suggested any potential denial be reviewed first by full committee at next monthly meeting before sending denial letter. ?? Jack Hornor states that the eligibility criteria are a nearly completely objective process and appeal process is a fair backup for now. ?? Don Bianchi disagrees with Fran Volkmann and believes the current right to appeal process is sufficient. He does however suggest that any denial get an automatic appeal to the full committee at the next meeting. C.) Possible Eligibility Form Weakness ?? Lilly Lombard states the eligibility form lacks basic check offs that will results in later application rejection. For instance, historic deed restrictions are not spelled out in eligibility form and she believes many applicants will be denied, as they won’t know that requirement. ?? Jack Hornor states that all requirements are spelled out in the plan and appendices. The burden is on the applicant to read the law. ?? Don Bianchi believes it is the applicants responsibility to do due diligence in researching award requirements. He feels all requirements are spelled out in the CPA. However, committee could do more to outline the requirements. ?? Bruce Young states we already have appendix C. He suggests we also state applicants should see the CPA for further requirements. He finally suggests the committee make a table like that on page 40, a table stating all required for each situation. It would include the requirements necessary by the CPA as well as the policies imposed by this CPC. ?? Jack Hornor asks Bruce Young to put together a table for each of the four award categories. Bruce should have this approved by the Community Preservation Coalition and the Massachusetts Department of Revenue. Then add the committee’s own policies. ?? John Andrulis suggests for now the committee send a letter with all approved eligibility letters stating application restrictions and special rules. All agree this is best while Bruce Young works on standard table checklist. Project Application & CPC Review Process A.) Application Review Process ?? Jack Hornor asked of applications should be reviewed by full committee or by sub- committee first. Jack suggests many communities are informal but since the committee anticipates many applications it is prudent to have comprehensive review system in place. Jack suggests staff first review applications for technical aspects then turn over to committee. ?? John Andrulis suggests applicants make presentation to sub-committees (one for each of the four award categories), then make recommendations to full committee. ?? Don Bianchi disagrees and suggests the sub-committees compartmentalize the process too much. ?? Lilly Lombard suggests perhaps sub-committees in the future but for now it is best that all members familiarize themselves with each of the four award catergories. ?? Mason Maronn suggests sub-committees not appropriate since many applicants will actually overlap into multiple award categories. ?? Fran Volkmann suggests a small group review applications pre-meeting then the full committee attends the presentation by the applicant. ?? George Kohout suggests the number of applicants will drop over time. He believes the committee should all review each application. For now simply plan extra meetings to allow for the high number of first round applications. ?? Jack Hornor again makes pitch for the staff to review the applications pre-meeting and prepare a recommendation including concerns for the committee to ponder during the applicant’s formal presentation. ?? Mason Maronn agrees with Jack Hornor and re-iterates that the committee should review all applications the first year in order to familiarize themselves with the process for each group. ?? Fran Volkmann states she prefers the staff only review for technical concerns and not give overall recommendation. She re-iterates that the public wants the committee members making these award decisions, not the planning department. ?? Jack Hornor agrees but re-iterates a sub-committee review before the applicant’s presentation is unnecessary. Instead, staff reviews for technical concerns then forwards the applications electronically to all committee members pre-meeting. Committee members will then be prepared for the applicant’s presentation. ?? Lilly Lombard is concerned about open meeting violations if the committee discusses issues pre-meeting. ?? Chris Kennedy states that only a concern if one cc’s all with concerns. Instead address any concerns specifically to Bruce Young and he will address with the applicant. ?? Bruce Young states this is fine for technical concerns, but committee members must not contact him to subjectively voice a concern that perhaps an applicant has not gone far enough for instance. Bruce will not contact applicants with subjective feedback, only technical. B.) Applicant’s Presentation ?? Don Bianchi suggests each applicant be present for February meeting for quick 5-10 minute presentation. ?? George Kohout states that the Capital Improvements Committee hears a full 30- minute presentation for each project. Committee does not discuss until each presentation is heard then discuss all projects at once. ?? Fran Volkmann states that not all applications are equal and may not require same review. However, maybe it is best that all applicants present to the full committee. ?? Jack Hornor states that the application states the committee will meet with all applicants. C.) Eligible Applicants and Application Posting on Website ?? Lilly Lombard asks many applications this round and if the committee will relay this information to all the applicants. Also wonders when rejected applicants can re-apply. ?? Jack Hornor first states rejected applicants can re-apply each award period (no one- year wait). Jack states he prefers to list all eligible applicants online January 1, 2008. Then post all received applications together online on February 1, 2008. ?? Jack Hornor suggests they table final decision regarding application posting and presentations until January meeting. All agree. Project Recommendation & Funding Process (CPC to Mayor to City Council) A.) Meeting with Mayor ?? Jack Hornor suggests the mayor prefers to just meet with the chair regarding CPC award recommendations. ?? George Kohout suggests we have more people meet with mayor in order to avoid public impression that awards may be a done deal. ?? Fran Volkmann agrees with George, it is not good to have just two people in the room. ?? Chris Kennedy also agrees with Fran and George. Best to have more present so category experts can pitch a recommendation if the mayor questions it. Just warns that the committee needs to avoid having a quorum so only four max allowed. ?? Goerge Kohout suggests chair, vice-chair, and one expert chosen by committee attend the meeting with the mayor. B.) Post Award Recommendation Online ?? Chris Kennedy suggests the committee posts it’s award recommendations online prior to the meeting with the mayor. ?? Fran Volkmann agrees this is fine. If committee makes it’s recommendations with integrity and free from political influence then that is the best we can do. ?? George Kohout agrees but re-iterates there will be times when financials will put us into difficulty where the CIC attempts to leverage CPC award monies. ?? Jack Hornor agrees we should hear CIC concerns but they must hear CPC as well. ?? Don Bianchi suggests this is nothing unique. There will be private concerns attempting to leverage CPC money as well. It’s no different because it’s a public concern. ?? Jack Hornor suggests city council won’t want CPC to again present to them after meeting with the mayor. CPA Fund Award Process ?? Jack Hornor stated that Bruce Young has drafted the sample award letter. Bruce will present at the January meeting. ?? Bruce Young questioned if committee should send two letters, one to announce the CPC has recommended you to the mayor for funding, and then a second letter if/when city council approves the award. The full committee agrees this is best. ?? Bruce Young then questioned whether CPC award letters should be sent certified or first class mail. He stated there are no official requirements. The full committee agrees first class is sufficient. Project Implementation Conditions & Monitoring ?? Jack Hornor suggested tabling to later meeting and all agreed. 5. DISCUSSION OF COMMITTEE WEBSITE CPC Website ?? Jack Hornor presented the pros and cons of the CPC using the city website or creating its own website. The current drawbacks to the city website include looks (especially lack of photos), bad url name, and lack of perceived independence of the CPC from the city. The cost of hosting our own site is not much but staffing can be pricey and uncertain if current staff has capability to maintain site. ?? Bruce Young stated another current problem with the city website is the lack of file space. Unlikely all application materials can be stored on the site. Also, the site is not an HTML-friendly environment. It is very difficult to use current system. ?? Lilly Lombard suggested that in the long run the committee will save time and money with its own website. ?? Mason Maronn made a motion for the committee to have its own website. ?? John Andrulis seconded the motion. ?? George Kohout asked if Bruce Young has a cost estimate for running the website. ?? Bruce Young stated he has queried other cities bought does not have reports back from them yet. He also stated it will vary depending on whether the committee uses planning staff or outside web professionals for website maintenance. ?? Jack Hornor reminded the committee a fiscal authorization will require a second motion. This motion is simply an agreement in general to have an independent CPC website. Jack stated it is the CPC’s duty to push people to the website via various methods including email updates. Jack also stated the city website will still have a link to the new CPC website. ?? Chris Kennedy stated having our own site is a good measure toward securing independence from the city. ?? Mason Maronn amended his motion to clarify the motion is simply to agree in theory that the CPC will pursue its own website. ?? John Andrulis seconded the motion. ?? All those present voted in favor of the motion. 6. DISCUSSION OF WORKSHOP FOR POTENTIAL APPLICANTS Workshop for Applicants ?? Jack Hornor questioned the group regarding the need for a workshop to assist potential CPA applicants. ?? Lilly Lombard stated she has already received many questions regarding the application process and feels a workshop is the best way to address the applicants. She feels this will result in a better round of applications. ?? Jack stated this needs to happen quickly for the application deadline. The committee resolved to schedule the workshop for Wednesday, January 9, 2007 from 7:00 – 9:00 pm. ?? George Kohout suggested this is excellent opportunity to host a meeting outside of city hall. He suggested the Florence Civic Center. ?? Jack Hornor asked Bruce Young to confirm the meeting with Florence Civic Center. ?? Chris Kennedy asked Bruce Young to check on ADA requirements for CPC meetings. 7. NEW BUSINESS Allocation of Funding ?? Chris Kennedy requested discussion regarding allocation formulas for the four award periods (every three months) and the four award categories (Open Space, Historic, Community Housing and Recreation). ?? Jack Hornor suggested that item be tabled to the January meeting and all agreed. Future Meeting Schedule ?? George Kohout suggested the committee may need more February meetings in order to hear all applicant presentations. He suggested scheduling additional meeting now. ?? Jack Hornor suggested that item be tabled to the January meeting and all agreed. Open Meeting Law Presentation ?? Bruce Young announced that Cynthia Pepyne will host an Open Meeting Law presentation on January 10, 2007 at 7:00 pm in city council chambers. All committee members are encouraged to attend. Parking Passes ?? Bruce Young announced that all committee members are eligible to receive a city parking pass which can be used at any time while doing CPC work. Contact Bruce if you want a pass. Meeting adjourned at 10:03 pm. Respectfully submitted on December 21, 2007, John Frey, Community Preservation Planner