Loading...
Agenda and Minutes 2008-03-12 Community Preservation Committee Agenda DATE: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 TIME: 5:15 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 Agenda 1. 5:15 PM – 5:45 PM Discussion of First Churches Historic Restoration Project with applicant ?? 2. 5:45 PM – 6:15 PM Discussion of Valley CDC First Time Homebuyers Housing Project with applicant ?? 3. 6:15 PM – 6:45 PM Discussion of Horace Lamb Historic Restoration Project with applicant ?? 4. 6:45 – 7:00 PM Break ?? 5. 7:00 – 8:00 PM Public comment period- The Community Preservation Committee invites the general public ?? to comment on the first round Community Preservation Act funding proposals. 6. 8:00 –9:00 PM Approval of minutes for 01/09/2008, 01/16/2008, and 02/20/2008 ?? Chair's Report ?? Discussion of renewal of annual Community Preservation Coalition membership ?? 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, March 12, 2008 Time: 5:15 pm Place: City Hall, 212 Main St., Council Chambers Members Present: Jack Hornor, Don Bianchi, Fran Volkmann, George Kohout, Mason Maronn (5:35 pm) and John Andrulis (6:50 pm) Staff Present: Bruce Young, Community Preservation Planner John Frey, Community Preservation Planner Jack Hornor opened the public hearing at 5:25 pm 1. DISCUSSION OF FIRST CHURCHES HISTORIC RESTORATION PROJECT WITH APPLICANT As a continuation of the postponed meeting of March 1, 2008 Fran Volkmann presided over the applicant presentations. Fran Volkmann welcomed First Churches to the meeting. She encouraged First Churches to make a 10-minute presentation then leave time for questions. Penny Burke of the Northampton Center for the Arts opened the presentation by telling how important the church is as a community venue for the arts. First Night regularly utilizes the church for its annual festivities but was unable to do so this year. She urges the CPC to support the project so necessary repairs can be performed. Peg Whitham of First Churches spoke highlighting four major points regarding the project. First, this site has been the location of Northampton’s meetinghouses since 1655. Secondly, this application to the CPC is just a small portion of a larger capital campaign totaling $2mil. Thirdly, she spoke of the immediate repair needs of the ceiling and roof. Lastly, she emphasized the community need for this building. Peter Ives, Minister of First Churches spoke of the historic significance of this building as a meetinghouse. In fact, it is the fifth meetinghouse to be located on this site. He also stated the while it is used for worship on Sundays, the other days it is used to “discern the mind of the town”. Peg Whitham mentioned they are merely stewards of this community building. The building is open to groups to use seven days a week. Finally, all previous maintenance has been done to historically correct standards and this project will as well. Fran Volkmann opened the floor for discussion. Jack Hornor began by asking about previous 2 work as he thought most repairs had already been performed. Peter Ives responded that masonry work has been performed on three sides. Also, some work has been performed on the slate roof but only patching and pasting. This project would be a fully reconstruction of the roof and ceiling. Don Bianchi commented on their compelling and eloquent case for funding, but wondered how they would raise the fully required amount. He questioned if there was a way for them to leverage a grant by the CPC for more funding elsewhere. Peg Whitham stated that the church members have already pledged $700,000 and approximately 12 other trusts/funds have pledged $500,000. Peter Ives stated the CPC grant would surely send a message to the community. Also, they have already secured a $2,000,000, 5-year loan from United Bank so work will be completed on schedule regardless of pledges. ***George Kohout noted the CPC should further discuss matching grant challenges as a way of leveraging CPA funds. Fran Volkmann thanked First Churches for attending and noted the impressive number of participating grantors. 2. DISCUSSION OF VALLEY CDC FIRST TIME HOMEBUYERS HOUSING PROJECT WITH APPLICANT Fran Volkmann welcomed Valley CDC to the meeting. She encouraged them to make a 10- minute presentation then leave time for questions. Michele Morris of Valley CDC explained the project concept. Five mortgage subsidies of $50,000 would be offered to first time, low-income applicants living or working in Northampton. Also, administrative funding would allow further counseling for other Hampshire County residents. Applicants must be under 80% HUD income limits and have less than $75,000 in assets. Fran Volkmann opened the floor for discussion. Don Bianchi asked if the requirements are similar to past programs. Michele Morris stated past programs have been similar but with lower income limits and a shorter forgiveness period. This program will have 30-year, linear forgiveness of the $50,000. Don Bianchi questioned the legality and appropriateness of the live or work in Northampton requirement. Michele Morris stated that with local initiative programs so long as you meet the local minority percentage requirements you could institute these types of additional requirements, however, if the CPC wished to exclude that requirement it could be accommodated. Fran Volkmann asked if the Amherst program is similar to this proposal. Michele Morris stated that Valley CDC is not running that program, instead they are only income-certifying applicants then forwarding them to the town to administer. 3 Jack Hornor stated this seems to emphasize the need for a comprehensive Northampton housing needs plan. He questioned if this is the best use of the money and wondered if targeting renters would be better. Michele Morris stated this is an efficient use of funds to accomplish meaningful work. Doing full purchase by Valley CDC then renting out requires much more money; this is an inexpensive way to create more affordable units. It also enables equity building. George Kohout questioned the longevity of affordability. He wondered about annual certification of the homeowners. Michele Morris stated the income certification only applies for rental units. However, she assured the CPC that if a client sells the home the program will recapture the percentage of the grant based on the number of years remaining in the term. It is up to the CPC as to what happens with that money. It could be re-used or returned to the CPC. Fran Volkmann thanked Valley CDC for attending. 3. DISCUSSION OF HORACE LAMB RESTORATION PROJECT WITH APPLICANT Fran Volkmann welcomed the Horace Lamb condominium association to the meeting. She encouraged them to make a 10-minute presentation then leave time for questions. Steve Strimer stated the CPC has a duty to help historic housing. He noted that while the condos are privately owned they only live there a short time in relation to the historic nature of the building. He mentioned a similar restoration at the Silk Mill in Florence and noted that George Danzinger of the Silk Mill encourages CPC use of funds for historic homes. Greg Neffinger, architect for Horace Lamb described the actual work needed on this site. He noted two springs flow under the building. The plan is to put in a concrete slab and keep the water underneath. Also, most of the timber has beetle infestation and need replaced. With CPC funding the historic nature of the building could be maintained. Fran Volkmann opened the floor for discussion. Jack Hornor began by disclosing he is a former owner and resident of the Horace Lamb condos. He noted there is no denying the need for repairs. He did however question the degree of public benefit to the community. Greg Neffinger noted the repairs do fall under the definition of historic preservation. However, without the contribution of CPC funds the owners may only be able to afford minimal stabilizing repairs without ability to maintain historic character. George Kohout questioned if these problems would be mitigated when the Mill River is reintroduced behind the building. Greg Neffinger stated the basement is actually lower than the river level and therefore will always have water concerns. Jack Hornor noted the CPC plan requires the building to be eligible for the historic register. Greg Neffinger stated Form B confirms the building’s eligibility. 4 Fran Volkmann questioned how much of the historic integrity was lost when renovating the building to condominiums. Greg Neffinger noted that buildings change usage over time. That is part of the historic story shown by the building. Mason Maronn questioned if the archways and turbine will remain after repairs. Greg Neffinger noted the shoestring budget they currently have available for repairs. The more CPC money they receive the more that can be saved. Fran Volkmann thanked the Horace Lamb Condominium Association for attending. 4. BREAK Fran Volkmann announced a short 10-minute break. 5. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Jack Hornor announced the public is welcome to comment on any of the proposed CPC projects. He thanked the public for attending and noted the CPC members are here to listen to them. He noted comments would be accepted in alphabetical order by project. Elm Street District ?? Martha Lyon, 313 Elm St. and Elm Street Historic District member, spoke in favor of the project. She stated the district was formed in 1995. It includes great variety and many of the oldest homes in town. It is also the gateway into town from the west. She noted development pressures abound along the fringes of the district. Guidelines are needed to keep the historic district processes known and fair. ?? Edie Ambrose, 125 Straw Ave., Florence, spoke in favor of the project. She noted the architecture in Northampton is very significant. Many styles are present and not just in downtown. It is necessary to educate the public regarding the guidelines and this project will accomplish that need. First Churches ?? Kathleen Silva, 119 Riverside Dr., spoke in favor of the project. She noted the meetinghouse is for all citizens, accepted without prejudice. The doors are always open and the meetinghouse hosts many annual community events. ?? Mary Casper, 106 High St., Florence, spoke in favor of the project. She noted the community cares about the historic character of the city as a whole. This building tops that list. The meetinghouse has been the social center of the town during times of war, etc. Though not a member of the congregation she is in favor of CPC support. ?? Jen Urff, Ladyslipper Lane, spoke in favor of the project. She noted she is new to the area and First Churches has helped her become a part of the community. ?? Denise Goodwin, 54 Burncolt, spoke in favor of the project. She noted over 1000 people use the meetinghouse each week. This was the location of the first same gender marriage in the area. It is a place for funerals and used more by non-members than members. 5 ?? Bill Sher, 145 State St., stated that he is not a member of First Churches but is in favor of the project. Forbes Library ?? Janet Moulding of Forbes Library spoke in favor of the project. She noted this is an historic building that belongs to the community. It has stood neglected for over 100 years and the time for repairs is now. For example, Old Main was neglected until it was too expensive to save. It is time to save Forbes now. Habitat for Humanity ?? Rebecca Moller, 193 Nonotuck Dr., Florence, spoke in favor of the project. She noted how this project would have a huge impact locally. Many prospective homeowners could not afford without this program. This particular site is moving slowly and needs CPC support. Peg Whitham, 112 Chestnut St., Florence, spoke in favor of the project. She noted how Habitat for Humanity empowers people. It allows affordable housing while creating people proud of their homes. Horace Lamb ?? None. Housing First ?? Andrea Miller, Service Net, spoke in favor of the project. She noted 12-20 individuals are long-term (7 years on average) users of the cot shelter. Housing First is a pro-active, cost- effective means of assisting these people. Other similar programs have demonstrated cost savings to society of over $9,000 per year per individual served. This project is good for our neighbors while being economically sound. Rebecca Moller, 193 Nonotuck Dr., Florence, spoke in favor of the project. She noted that proactive measures are much effective for the individual served while be economical for society. This style of program is part of the ten-year plan to end homelessness. Housing Partnership Community Housing ?? None. Sheldon Field ?? None. Turkey Hill ?? None. Valley CDC ?? None. 6. CPC BUSINESS CHAIRS REPORT 6 ?? Jack Hornor announced the opening of round 2 for CPC applications. All new eligibility forms are due delivered to the Planning Department office in City Hall by 4:30pm on April 1, 2008. ?? ***George Kohout clarified forms are due in hand by that time, not merely postmarked. He asked to clarify this language in the CPC plan in the future. MINUTES ?? Jack Hornor presented the January 9, 2008 draft minutes for approval. Fran Volkmann asked for one minor correction to a statement of hers on page 3 to say “February 15, 2009”, not “2008”. Upon motion by John Andrulis and seconded by Fran Volkmann all agreed to approve the minutes (Mason Maronn abstained). ?? Jack Hornor presented the January 16, 2008 draft minutes for approval. Upon motion by Fran Volkmann and seconded by Don Bianchi all agreed to approve the minutes. ?? Jack Hornor presented the February 20, 2008 draft minutes for approval. Upon motion by Mason Maronn and seconded by John Andrulis all agreed to approve the minutes (George Kohout and Fran Volkmann abstained). CPC MEMBERSHIP ?? Jack Hornor announced Community Preservation Coalition dues are up for renewal this month. He questioned the CPC if they wished to maintain their membership in the coalition. ?? George Kohout confirmed the annual are again $2,500. ?? Upon motion by Don Bianchi and seconded by Mason Maronn all agreed to renew membership in the Community Preservation Coalition. RECOMMEDATIONS TO MAYOR ?? Fran Volkmann reminded the CPC that a third person is needed for the meeting with the Mayor to announce funding recommendations. ?? Don Bianchi questioned if anyone was interested in the task. ?? Mason Maronn stated he is interested but cannot make a daytime meeting. ?? Jack Hornor stated he believes Lily Lombard would be interested. ?? George Kohout stated he thought it would be hard to vote for Lily Lombard without her present. ?? Upon motion by Don Bianchi and seconded by Mason Maronn all voted to approve Lily Lombard for the position provided she is interested. PROCESS FOR MARCH 19 MEETING ?? Jack Hornor opened the floor for suggestions on how to administer the March 19, 2008 meeting. ?? George Kohout suggested there are many ways to evaluate and compare the projects; either one by one voting, or ranking all and then comparing, etc. ?? Don Bianchi stated ultimately each project needs a separate up or down vote, but he suggested the CPC begin by talking about the projects as a collective package. ?? Jack Hornor envisioned the opposite, discussing each project one at a time and voting yes or no in general. Then taking all the yes projects and comparing them as a group in order to allocate the funds. 7 ?? Don Bianchi counter-proposed a compromise of four steps… 1.) Briefly discuss all holistically to get a general idea what each member is thinking. 2.) Discuss each project individually. 3.) Discuss all favorable projects as a package. 4.) Appropriate funding individually by project. ?? John Andrulis stated his belief that the proposal is too imprecise. He would prefer everyone to rank the projects in order of preference, determine priorities, create a consensus, and then fund as needed. ?? Mason Maronn preferred to discuss the projects as a group according to funding category (open space, recreation, historic preservation, community housing). ?? George Kohout suggested tackling Forbes Library project first as its determination is the key to the viability of other projects. Whether that project is bonded or phased will determine funds left for other projects. ?? Don Bianchi questioned if Forbes Library has provided additional information regarding phasing options and alternative funding. ?? Jack Hornor stated the architect had yet to provide that information but it should be coming soon. Forbes Library suggested phasing is not practical is it will drastically increase the cost of the project. Bonding, however, may be the cheapest alternative to accomplish all goals. ?? Don Bianchi suggested the CPC could commit to a portion of the library project, and then suggest they go to the CIP for the rest. The mayor and council could say yes or no to that but may not increase the funding recommendation. ?? Jack Hornor wondered how little the CPC could fund and still be helpful to the library. The CPC grant should be collegial to other funding sources in the city. He questioned what collaborative options are available. ?? Fran Volkmann suggested the CPC could fund a specific dollar amount then tell Forbes Library to figure out the borrowing or bonding options. ?? Jack Hornor stated the CPC would still need to determine over how many years to fund the library project. ?? Bruce Young reminded the CPC there is a political distinction between one time funding and multi-year funding. The Northampton CPA has a sunset clause that expires in three years. Multi- year funding could exceed that period. ?? John Andrulis again suggested that ranking the projects would help set priorities. ?? Fran Volkmann advocated for something a little less precise. She stated she would be prepared to lump projects into groups such as “ready to fund fully” or “not prepared to approve this project”, then use that as a starting point to weed out the weakest projects. ?? George Kohout stated the CIC uses three tiers to rank the projects into groups. He suggested everyone do this ahead of time then email to staff to aggregate the results. ?? Bruce Young reminded everyone that all emails to staff remain as part of the public record. ?? Mason Maronn stated he is not prepared to rank projects now as he still needs more help understanding the community housing projects. ?? Don Bianchi stated he would not want to address the largest project first as it will bias the others similar to allowing time sensitive projects accelerated processing. He likes the tiered categories. Also, he does not want to rank ahead of time, as thinking will evolve over the course of the meeting. Instead, he preferred the CPC spend 20 minutes at the beginning to speak in prose so everyone will learn what the others are thinking. Then he would be prepared to categorize the projects. 8 ?? George Kohout questioned if the CPC is locked into making final decisions on March 19, 2008. He recommended the CPC close the public comment period. ?? Jack Hornor responded in the negative. The CPC could vote on some projects but table others for later. ?? Jack Hornor summarized the current consensus for the meeting… 1.) The first hour each individual speak in prose about their current feelings on the package of projects. 2.) Second hour the CPC discuss each project one by one. 3.) Each member category the project into tiers 4.) Staff aggregates the results then leads CPC discussion in order of preferred projects. ?? Don Bianchi agreed in general except that the first step should only takes two minutes per person or about 20 minutes total. ?? Fran Volkmann suggested the terminology for the three tiers be… 1.) Ready to fund project at full amount. 2.) Undecided, need more discussion. 3.) Cannot recommend now for funding. ?? ***Bruce Young stated the CPC needs a policy in the plan to address tier 3. He questioned if the CPC needs to give a specific reason for not funding a project. ?? George Kohout suggested the CPC needed to be specific so the applicant knows whether to re-apply or not. ?? Jack Hornor stated the CPC would craft rejection letters. Each would be different but all would remind the applicant that they are eligible to re-apply. ?? Fran Volkmann suggested beginning the meeting at 6pm. All agreed. ?? George Kohout suggested the CPC needed to discuss the funding levels in general to determine a reserve level. ?? Jack Hornor reminded the CPC they decided informally in January to not spend all funds. ?? George Kohout stated the second round would be significantly less, as this is the highest reserve level the CPC will ever have available. ?? Don Bianchi stated the CPC receives approximately $175,000 additionally each quarter in tax revenue. Also, State matching funds come each October, but at uncertain amounts. ?? ***Don Bianchi suggested the Chair’s Report include updates on all issues for which the CPC voted. ?? Bruce Young stated he believed the City Council suspended the second reading for the Turkey Hill funding and approved the appropriation. ?? ***Mason Maronn suggested the CPC pro-actively submit updates to the media. ?? Jack Hornor stated the CPC has not voted on conditions to require for projects. He suggested each approved project include signage stating it received CPA funding. He does not envision discussing conditions at the March 19, 2008 meeting. ?? Fran Volkmann stated she could produce motion templates for the meeting to use as a starting point of discussion. ?? Jack Hornor summarized the meeting as follows… -The Community Preservation Committee will meet this coming Wednesday, March 19th, at 6:00 p.m. (an hour earlier than our usual meeting time) to discuss the applications which have been submitted, and to vote on funding recommendations. In the interests of transparency, I have outlined below the process we will use, as well as some additional information. -We'll start with a two-minute opening statement from each committee member. The purpose of this is to give each member an opportunity to talk about whatever he or she feels is particularly important. 9 -We'll continue by discussing each project in alphabetical order, starting with hearing from each committee member and then continuing with further discussion. -After we've discussed all of the projects, each committee member will divide them into three groups. -Tier One will be projects the member is ready to fully fund at that time. -Tier Two will be projects the member has some questions about or which she or he believes needs further discussion before voting on a funding recommendation. Placing a project in this tier will indicate neither support nor opposition. -Tier Three will be projects the member is not ready to recommend for funding at that time, for whatever reason he or she may have. -CPC staff will compile our individual groupings and display them via computer and overhead screen so that everyone can easily see the results. Each tier will show the number of votes each project received for that tier. -We'll then move on to making actual funding recommendations. We'll start with the project in Tier One that received the most votes, and then move through the rest of the projects using our aggregate rankings. In each case, I will ask for a motion and a second, and discussion of the motion will follow. -Fran Volkmann (CPC Vice Chair) and Bruce Young (CPC Staff) will have prepared a template motion for each project which will be displayed and which the committee can use as a starting point. These templates will include conditions that the committee is likely to require, such as various preservation restrictions. The templates will NOT include a dollar amount for any funding request; members will state those figures in their motions. Committee members can, of course, modify any of these templates when they make actual motions. The intent in providing them is simply to give us a starting point for each motion. -Three final notes: (1) Although our purpose on Wednesday night is to make funding recommendations, we are not required to vote on any project if the committee is not ready to do so. (2) In January we had a lengthy discussion about whether we should spend all the money we have for these projects, or reserve money for future funding cycles. Although the committee did not take a formal, binding vote, the minutes indicate that the general sense was that we should try to keep some money in reserve. (3) If you would like to read the applications, you can do so by going to the committee's website at http://www.northamptonma.gov/gsuniverse/httpRoot/comm/ and clicking on "2008 First Round CPA Applications." The agenda for Wednesday's meeting is also posted on our site. ***Note: anything denoted with asterisks is suggested for future policy discussion by the CPC. Meeting adjourned at 9:15 pm. Respectfully submitted on March 14, 2008, John Frey, Community Preservation Planner 10