Loading...
Agenda and Minutes 2009-11-04 City of Northampton Community Preservation Committee 210 Main Street, City Hall Northampton, MA 01060 Community Preservation Committee DATE: Wednesday, November 4, 2009 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 Wayne Feiden, Community Preservation Planner wfeiden@northamptonma.gov (413) 587-1265 Agenda ?? General Public Comment ?? Public Discussion to Comment on Round 2 Applications ?? Acceptance of 10/21/2009 Minutes ?? Chair's Report ?? Review of Round 2, 2009 Applications Initial Discussion o Project Ranking o Further Discussion o Funding Recommendations o ?? 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, November 4, 2009 Time: 7:00 pm Place: City Council Chambers, 212 Main St. Members Present: Fran Volkmann, George Kohout, Tom Parent, Downey Meyer, Lilly Lombard, Don Bianchi, Jack Hornor and Joseph Defazio Staff Present: John Frey, Community Preservation Planner Wayne Feiden, Director of Planning Fran Volkmann opened the public meeting at 7:00pm. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT ?? Frank Olbris 284 N Farms Rd stated he would like a policy whereby the CPC periodically replenishes the conservation fund reserve. Opportunities come quickly and a stable, revolving fund would be helpful. 2. PUBLIC DISCUSSION TO COMMENT ON ROUND 2 APPLICATIONS ?? Mimi Odgers, Glendale Rd., spoke in favor of the dam restoration project. She was impressed by the grassroots efforts of private citizens. Natural order has re- established itself in since the inception of the dam. Recuperation time would be extensive if dam is removed. This is an urgent, time sensitive request. ?? Piotr Parasiewicz, Umass river scientist and director of Rushing Rivers Institute, spoke in favor of removing the dam. There is an ecological cost well beyond the economic costs. Dam has contributed to warming of the water. Removing the dam would re-establish natural coldwater habitat. ?? Fran Tibo, Leeds, spoke in favor of the dam restoration. People are committed to doing the work necessary to save and maintain the dam. ?? Susan Carbin, Leeds, spoke in favor of the Hotel Bridge restoration effort. Historic elements are in danger of being lost. This is a time critical issue. ?? Alice Batteford, Leeds, spoke in favor of the Hotel Bridge restoration effort. Pedestrians and cyclists heavily use it. ?? Dave Herships, Warburton Way, spoke in favor of the dam restoration, Beaver Brook purchase, and Barrett St. projects. ?? Tris Metcalf, Main St., spoke in favor of the Hospital Hill Chapel restoration. As one of the remaining Pratt designed public building it is an important and significant structure to preserve. ?? Bruce Fuller, State St., spoke in favor of the dam restoration, specifically for its fire safety aspects. No other fire protection exists in the area. ?? Steve Strimer, Clark Ave., spoke in favor of the Dorsey-Jones house project. The house in on the National Register and the Underground Railroad historical register. They are willing to do PR and educational tours in conjunction with the Ruggles Center. The properties really belong to Northampton as a whole. He also spoke in favor of the Hospital Hill Chapel. They have demonstrated public benefit via historic exhibit of hospital history. ?? Deb Jacobs, Grove Ave., Leeds spoke in favor of the Hotel Bridge restoration effort. It is a key link in keeping the neighborhood connected. Also spoke in favor of the Beaver Brook land project. It is closely connected to the Fitzgerald Lake area. Also spoke in favor of the dam restoration. These projects are all urgent. Funding cannot wait. ?? ?, Florence, spoke in favor of the Masonic Health Systems project. She works at the home and spoke during to the need of life safety upgrades. ?? Jonathan Wright, Beacon St., Florence spoke in favor of the Dorsey-Jones restoration project. It is important to preserve the simple, modest buildings of extraordinary people. It is a historically important and special story. Also spoke in favor of the Hospital Hill Chapel restoration. There are very unique aspects to this simple chapel. ?? Richard Costello, Hadley, spoke in favor of the Dorsey-Jones project. ?? Alison Costello, resident of the Dorsey-Jones house, spoke in favor of the project. It has already progressed so much. The discovery of the history is very exciting and ever expanding. ?? Tom Douglas spoke in favor of the Academy of Music restoration. He presented a favorable letter from David Pomerantz, the Director of Central Services. They are incredibly grateful for their first funding, now would like to prioritize the door and window replacement. Stopping the water damage is the priority. Interior renovations are secondary. ?? Gail Yacuzzo, Elm St., spoke in favor of the Academy of Music restoration. There is a lack of funds for capital improvements. They have solidified their operating budget but need help with capital improvements. ?? Deborah Anthony, Executive Director of the Academy of Music, spoke in favor of the restoration. Security is questionable with the current doors. Energy savings would also be realized with improvements. She noted they continually fundraise for programming related funds. Finally, interest from resident groups has increased with the first round of improvements. ?? Maureen O’toole, Florence, administrator at Overlook, spoke in favor of the project. There is historic significance as well as the life safety issues. ?? Jon Clapp, Chesterfield Rd., spoke in favor of the dam restoration project. It started as a very local effort but many distant residents have stepped forward in favor of the project. ?? Joseph Misterka, Chesterfield Rd., spoke in favor of the dam restoration as well as the Hotel Bridge project. It seems unreasonable that the dam has been labeled high risk. ?? Roger Cuny, Haydenville, and employee of Wright Builders, spoke in favor of the chapel restoration. Building is in extensive disrepair and jeopardy. The building envelope must be treated immediately. ?? Pastor Maduka spoke in favor of the chapel restoration. He read a letter in the Gazette from 1871 detailing the effort in creating the chapel. He noted they have full support of the Historic Commission. 3. ACCEPTENCE OF OCTOBER 21, 2009 MINUTES ?? Fran Volkmann presented the October 21, 2009 minutes for discussion. With no corrections Fran Volkmann declared the minutes approved as read. 4. CHAIR’S REPORT ?? Fran Volkmann reminded everyone the next meeting on November 18, 2009 would take place in the Hearing Room, second floor City Hall. ?? Fran Volkmann stated Bruce Young’s replacement is on the way. Second round interviews happening currently. ?? Fran Volkmann noted City Council would be voting on November 19 to re- allocate the reserve accounts. ?? Fran Volkmann read a memo from Terri Anderson regarding the technology upgrades. New equipment has been ordered that will work with our current technology. ?? Fran Volkmann noted John Frey is the new CPA mailing list administrator. ?? Fran Volkmann noted John Frey would be staffing the CPC until November 20, 2009, then taking a six-month leave of absence. Wayne Feiden would be in charge until a new staff person is hired. 5. MEETING WITH DPW REGARDING CHESTERFIELD DAM PROJECT ?? Fran Volkmann asked why the dam couldn’t be left alone. Ned Huntley, Director of the DPW, stated the State has rated it a high danger dam in poor condition. It is high danger because of its proximity to nearby property. The City must take some action. ?? Tom Parent asked whether unfunded State mandates must be answered. Ned Huntley has no answer to that question. ?? George Kohout asked about the high hazard aspects of the dam. Ned Huntley stated if the upper reservoir failed the lower dams would be in immediate jeopardy and thereafter the homes nearby. ?? Fran Volkmann asked about dredging issues. Ned Huntley stated dredging must be done either way. 17-18,000 yards of sediment would be removed via hydrological means. Undetermined where sediment will go. A restored dam would not look similar to now. Steel girders would be placed in front of it to support the stone face. Also, a new concrete cap. ?? Fran Volkmann asked about the impact on wildlife. Ned Huntely stated the pro to removing the dan is that the cold river habitat would be restored, but warm water fisheries lost. Other wildlife would likely stay either way. If removed it would look like a natural stream with a sharp gorge of 30-40’ exposed. ?? Jack Hornor asked about the length of time to become natural again. Ned Huntley stated there would be natural plantings as part of the restoration process, but it would take several years to re-establish fully. ?? Lilly Lombard asked about budgetary costs of both proposals. Ned Huntley stated removal of the dam is $1.2M, while restoration is $1.8M. BPW favors teardown to avoid maintenance costs as it is an enterprise fund responsible to taxpayers. ?? Downey Meyer asked about length of dam and the work required along the banks of the dam. Ned Huntley stated trees would be removed and granite blocks re- pointed along the full width. ?? George Kohout asked if the full dam would be removed or just the central span. Ned Huntley stated the full length would be removed and returned to a natural corridor. ?? Fran Volkmann asked about micro-hydro power generation to pay for maintenance costs if the dam remained. Ned Huntely stated their engineers have deemed it unfeasible. There is no immediate nearby use, therefore the power must be sold to the grid and that pays back less in return. However, future rates could change. ?? George Kohout asked about other city dams. Ned Huntley stated two others are in fair condition, not poor condition like this one. ?? Lilly Lombard asked about the position of the BPW and DPW regarding restoration if funds were raised to cover the difference. Ned Huntley stated the BPW has voted to remove the dam. That has not changed. The extension was granted simply to see if the Friends of the Chesterfield Dam could raise funds. More extensions may be possible. There are long-term risks beyond maintenance costs. Risk is eradicated with removal of the dam. ?? Ned Huntely stated the current difference is $625,000 based on the meeting with DEP last month. That is the best guess at this point. ?? Ned Huntely clarified the DPW works under auspices of BPW. He personally finds the current dam area beautiful, but likewise it would be nice once restored if removed. ?? Lilly Lombard asked what the BPW would need to see to make a decision. Ned Huntely stated the BPW needs a formal plan of achieved fundraising including long-term maintenance. ?? Fran Volkmann stated it feels as though we are waiting for more info. Ned Huntely stated the current extension expires in March 2010. They may be able to extend the deadline. There is no current deadline date for actual action be it either removal or restoration. ?? Dee Boyle Clapp stated high hazard designation is unimportant. Any dam near homes is rated high hazard. It’s the poor condition rating that must be addressed. Utility payback for power generation is now up to 10 cents per kilowatt-hour. The State is looking at hydropower generation over solar. Rushing River folks talked about ecology costs. The hydropower is clean energy that helps that initivative. Brook trout do not migrate in this area anyhow as the next dam is just 1.6 miles away. Dam has survived 70 years of neglect. Two issues if sediment is removed from the edges. Invasive plants would move establish themselves. This is one of first engineered dams, which is important from a historical perspective. Formal plan is to raise $25-50,000 locally, $200,000 from CPA, and $300,000 from grants. 6. MEETING WITH DPW REGARDING HOTEL BRIDGE PROJECT ?? George Kohout asked about the projected study costs. Ned Huntley stated it is $50,000 for a full, in depth design analysis and restoration analysis. The bridge has been closed to vehicular traffic since 2004. Corrugated decking has begun to fall through. Inspections are ongoing. It needs work. Last maintenance was in 1985. ?? Lilly Lombard asked for a ballpark full cost for restoration. Ned Huntley stated it is probably in the hundreds of thousands, not near a million dollars. It is definitely worthy of saving for historic reasons. Chapter 90 funds were available last time but unlikely this time since it is pedestrian only. State is prioritizing high use bridges. ?? Jack Hornor asked about engineering cost details. Ned Huntley stated structural engineers are billing nearly $200 per hour. ?? Fran Volkmann asked about funding of a restoration. Ned Huntley stated the CPA is the only source currently. 7. REVIEW OF ROUND 2, 2009 PROJECTS – INITIAL DISCUSSION OVERLOOK AT NORTHAMPTON ?? Don Bianchi stated eligibility questions are still unresolved. ?? Fran Volkmann noted Stuart Saginor of the Community Preservation Coalition stated funds are only to protect buildings, not residents. Fire alarm is ok, heating maybe not. ?? Don Bianchi stated the public benefit is questionable. Not highly rated in his mind. Most compelling reason to fund is for the fire alarm. ?? Joseph Defazio stated it is a low priority compared to past community housing projects. ?? George Kohout stated it is a low priority. Hard to state benefit for citizens of Northampton. Historical aspects are lacking. This style of community housing not an open network like other affordable housing projects. ?? Downey Meyer stated he sees this as vital community housing. Lack of funding would create harm to that population as much as SRO populations. One question with technical issue of preservation, though he is comfortable with it. The question remains as to how bad the structure is currently. Many undetermined questions remain. ?? Tom Parent stated it is a low priority. It didn’t seem like the building is a major part of their grand scheme. ?? Fran Volkmann echoed Tom Parent. Important asset but hard to fit into CPA priorities. The restriction would be hard to accomplish. ?? Lilly Lombard echoed Downey Meyer. Obligation to elder population is just as important as others. She is concerned the grant would go toward a building that may be destroyed. ?? Jack Hornor agreed with general feeling of the CPC. ?? George Kohout stated he is concerned similar projects would become a regular source of requests for infusions. ?? Wayne Feiden stated this appears geared toward larger vision. LOOK PARK ?? Joseph Defazio stated this is a middle priority for him. It has high leverage value. ?? George Kohout placed it as a high-middle priority. He hears the need for more recreational opportunities. This is a much higher public benefit than their other project idea. ?? Downey Meyer stated it is a high priority. It addresses a low overall recreation funding level for the CPC. High leverage value. ?? Tom Parent placed it high on his list. It is a quick partial solution to recreation problem. ?? Fran Volkmann stated there is a slight risk the dredging plan may not work. ?? Lilly Lombard stated it is high leverage, in a nice location. It eases pressure on farmland. ?? Jack Hornor stated he loves this project. ?? Don Bianchi placed it high on his list. HOTEL BRIDGE ?? George Kohout stated it seems like a reasonable cost for a study. Once study in place Leeds Association could begin fundraising. It is a definite historic resource. ?? Downey Meyer placed it high to middle. He would like to see previous rehabilitation costs. ?? Tom Parent agreed it is high to middle priority. Outside fundraising would be necessary if expensive to fix. ?? Fran Volkmann stated she hopes to be able to save the bridge. She is worried about the rehabilitation budget. ?? Lilly Lombard dittoed the others. ?? Jack Hornor stated two things strike him. Fundraising is possible and it is important to think about geography. It is okay to have three projects from Leeds. ?? Don Bianchi placed it as middle priority. ?? Joseph Defazio agreed. ?? Wayne Feiden argued the city is responsible for removing old decking as it’s falling into river. The funding responsibility may not all fall to CPC. HOSPITAL HILL CHAPEL ?? Downey Meyer placed it a high priority as few Hospital Hill assets remain. High price tag though. Uncertain we could fund all. ?? Tom Parent stated he placed it closer to middle priority. He is concerned about full amount. They could fund partially. ?? Fran Volkmann stated she is not as encouraged. Wonderful building and great effort but partial funding would not do much. Worried about ongoing maintenance funds. Also, there is a lack of clarity about public benefit. ?? Lilly Lombard ranked aspects of this project high but others very low. Very important to preserve building envelope, especially the roof. Also concerned about ongoing maintenance. Not impressed with maintenance efforts thus far. There is public benefit to preserving exterior, same as First Churches. ?? Jack Hornor stated the public benefit is intrinsic. He cannot support for many reasons. Costs are sure to rise. Congregation unable to leverage at all thus far. The CPC must take a hard look at historic preservation options. CPC has already spent a lot on historic preservation. ?? Don Bianchi placed it low priority. First Churches is different as it is a major meeting area for many public groups. ?? Joseph Defazio placed it low priority. ?? George Kohout placed it low priority. He is moved by testimony but public benefit is low. Possible partial funding for envelope if applicant could leverage. ?? Fran Volkmann stated the owners have extended themselves to this point, but worried they cannot handle long-term maintenance. VCDC HOMEOWNERSHIP SUSTAINABILITY ?? Tom Parent stated he is in favor. He wonders if other counseling opportunities exist. ?? Fran Volkmann read Stuart Saginore’s statement. This support is allowable by local option. DOR does not favor though acknowledges many communities have done similar work. Many communities have decided not to pursue following DOR stance, however it currently remains a local decision. Question of whether it would be appealed locally. That could be costly to defend. ?? Lilly Lombard stated she is on the fence as to public benefit. She would like to see the project as larger group counseling. ?? Jack Hornor stated this is similar to first-time homebuyer counseling that was funded previously. He is generally not a risk taker, but satisfied this is what CPA law was intended to do. ?? Don Bianchi stated he feels the project has viable merit. Housing crisis has not been abated. VCDC’s program is top-notch. Much more valuable than other counseling options. Valuable return at only $1,000 per homeowner. This is not financial support directly for individuals. It is for the program. If homes were foreclosed upon, it is unlikely income eligible people would purchase. Therefore, it is a loss of affordable housing stock. ?? Joseph Defazio stated this is very worthwhile. It is inefficient though as 30% goes to overhead. He would not move forward though without clarity. ?? George Kohout stated he is not worried about DOR caution. However, he does not rate it as highly as the other housing projects. ?? Downey Meyer stated it is very worthwhile. However, it is difficult to quantify long-term benefit. ?? Don Bianchi stated long-term benefit is balanced by the low cost of this project. ?? Michelle Morris stated the Western Mass Consortium is generally just VCDC and HAP. Valley CDC would be responsible for Hampshire County. ?? M Walsh, Riverside Dr., spoke of her experience working with Michelle Morris of Valley CDC. She was a longtime homeowner. She fully owned her home at age 51, but now is on edge of foreclosure. Financial stability can change very quickly. VCDC is incredibly valuable and helpful. They are very pro-active. They help more than just those already in foreclosure. GROVE STREET INN ?? Fran Volkmann stated she is highly in favor. Phasing is possible. ?? Lilly Lombard stated this is a high priority but not full funding now. Budget needs work as it seems very expensive. ?? Jack Hornor stated the Grove Street Inn is very important, as there is no other like it in Northampton. He is in favor of scrutiny and phasing, but need to support it. ?? Don Bianchi stated he is impressed by priority list. Worth it to fund top priority at least. ?? Joseph Defazio stated he is in favor of the project. ?? George Kohout agreed. He believes leverage amount is just staff time though. Not viable leverage. ?? Wayne Feiden stated prevailing wage dependant on the applicant. Service Net would not need to pay prevailing wages. ?? Downey Meyer stated he had nothing to add. ?? Tom Parent agreed. ?? Lilly Lombard questioned if volunteer work could be included. ?? Wayne Feiden stated that is fine and city workers could do it too. Owner- operators can charge any amount, as well. GARFIELD AVENUE HABITAT ?? Lilly Lombard placed it high priority and worthwhile. ?? Jack Hornor stated it is a wonderful project. ?? Don Bianchi stated the site and building look great. Excellent project. ?? Joseph Defazio stated it is a very good project. ?? All others agreed. DORSEY-JONES HOUSE ?? Jack Hornor stated he is not very enthusiastic. It is hard to see public benefit. Tours would be very limited. Only good is in knowing the story. In funding Ruggles the CPC have done fair share in this area. ?? Don Bianchi stated he is not in favor. ?? Joseph Defazio agreed. ?? George Kohout agreed. ?? Downey Meyer stated he has more affection for this project. With demands on our funds it is hard to grant however. Not much of a sense of urgency. He hopes to see it connected with Ruggles Center. ?? Tom Parent stated it is too much of a family structure. Too private to fund. ?? Fran Volkmann agreed. ?? Lilly Lombard agreed. CONSERVATION FUND ?? Don Bianchi stated he would rather see us fund projects already on the board given limited funds. ?? Joseph Defazio stated he has no opinion. He does not know enough yet to comment. ?? George Kohout stated he is in favor. It is very important for Conservation Commission to have quick funds available. Perhaps fund less than the asked for $150,000. ?? Downey Meyer stated he is in support. He is satisfied with use of previous funds. Discounts have been realized due to quick funding ability. ?? Tom Parent stated he is in favor at some level. ?? Fran Volkmann stated she is sensitive to time-sensitive projects. Middle priority but fund at lower level. ?? Lilly Lombard agreed. ?? Jack Hornor stated he is satisfied with the bang for the buck. CHILDS PARK POND ?? Joseph Defazio stated he is concerned with lack of support from public. ?? George Kohout stated he is also concerned with lack of support. Public benefit does not seem enhanced by this pond. ?? Downey Meyer also agreed. There is little public benefit. ?? Tom Parent stated he is also concerned. ?? Fran Volkmann stated she put it in middle priority. ?? Lilly Lombard stated she id solidly in favor of not funding. ?? Jack Hornor stated he feels Childs Park is a special part of Northampton. He is in favor. It seems a good resource for many. ?? Don Bianchi placed it low to middle priority. ?? George Kohout stated he would like to add that Childs Park needs a comprehensive public benefit project. CHESTERFIELD ROAD DAM ?? George Kohout rated it a low priority. He applauded their efforts but not swayed by hydropower options. Possibly the CPC could wait for more information. Still scenic area after removal of the dam. ?? Downey Meyer ranked it low as historic preservation is complicated by construction changes. Regarding open space, the view-shed remains off limits. Also, impressive rapids are currently covered. Not convinced dam is more valuable than gorge with exposed rapids. ?? Tom Parent placed it low as well. He is convinced by BPW sentiment. If BPW changes tune, he is open to further discussion. ?? Fran Volkmann stated she could not rate it very highly. BPW makes the decision. Friends fundraising effort is too early in the process. CPC should not be at the front of this effort. ?? Lilly Lombard disagreed. The citizen driven project impresses her. Smart people questioning BPW findings. CPC money is not at risk if fundraising fails. They are on path to pursuing all possible funding opportunities. City is not proactive in finding hydropower options. Open space argument is a toss-up. Historic value cannot be determined yet. ?? Jack Hornor stated downside to provisional funding is the tying up of funds. He is not ready to fund it. More questions remain. ?? Don Bianchi stated it is middle priority for him. He is also impressed by community-initiated project. More questions remain. ?? Joseph Defazio placed it low priority. No historical significance would remain. Would rather see leveraged funds already. ?? George Kohout stated building public benefit not seen with rehabilitation of the dam. BEAVER BROOK PARCEL ?? Downey Meyer stated this is a great parcel to preserve. Important to build off this purchase. Crucial to the central corridor. ?? Tom Parent stated it is important to stop development potential. ?? Fran Volkmann rated it very important. ?? Lilly Lombard rated it highly. ?? Jack Hornor agreed. ?? Don Bianchi stated there is a great track record for city with similar Land Grant purchases. ?? George Kohout agreed. ?? Downey Meyer agreed. BARRETT STREET MARSH ?? Tom Parent stated this is a great open space in the middle of town. Inexpensive solution to the problem. ?? Fran Volkmann stated this project seems like maintenance. City should fund it, not CPC. ?? Lilly Lombard rated it a high priority. It is an investment in preserving the marsh. ?? Jack Hornor stated he is unimpressed by the application report. Uncertain of risks and costs in the future. ?? Don Bianchi placed it medium priority. ?? Joseph Defazio placed it middle priority. ?? George Kohout stated there is a dilemma. Seems like maintenance to him, but it preserves open space. He is willing to support it. ?? Downey Meyer stated he is supportive of this proposal. He wants to see the marsh preserved and used as an education tool. It is not maintenance because this project is at end of marsh. Breaching current dam not easily accomplished. ?? Fran Volkmann stated she simply thinks this is not a CPA responsibility. Conservation Fund could fund it. Ongoing maintenance not being funded. VCDC AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND ?? Fran Volkmann placed it in the middle category. Same reasons as Conservation Fund. VCDC needs the fund to act quickly on project opportunities. ?? Lilly Lombard agreed. Well said. ?? Jack Hornor agreed with Fran Volkmann. ?? Don Bianchi stated it is a lot of bang for the buck. He would like to partially fund at this time. ?? All agreed. ACADEMY OF MUSIC ?? Lilly Lombard stated she cannot support funding all and not in favor of forward committing. Partially fund doors and windows now. She is concerned with high allocation to historic projects though. ?? Jack Hornor stated he has mixed feelings. He is glad we funded marquee and related work. Academy has explained they cannot seek other sources, but he feels they need to try. ?? Don Bianchi stated the doors and windows are high priority. He expects they would be back for more though, but it is time for Academy to explore other avenues. ?? Joseph Defazio stated he supports partial funding. ?? George Kohout agreed with Don Bianchi. ?? Downey Meyer stated it is a mistake not to fund doors and windows. Concerned though we funded all the side doors in the first round and it didn’t happen. He wants assurance this work would be completed, water tight and secure. ?? Tom Parent agreed with Don Bianchi. ?? Fran Volkmann placed it high priority for partial funding. She feels differently overall. This is a top priority as a downtown asset. Exactly kind of project CPA funds are for. It is understandable they came back, but fair for CPC to be judicious. She would be willing to bond all work. ?? Lilly Lombard stated she really needs input from Historic Commission on long- term checklist of top priorities. ?? Jack Hornor stated he is persuaded by arguments to secure the envelope. Would like to see a plan for Academy to use this asset to fund an ongoing maintenance budget. ?? George Kohout stated his desire to discuss further bonding of a wish list for recreation and open space projects. ?? Fran Volkmann stated she wants to put on future agenda to discuss long-term bonding plan. Should we be allocating for major projects? Proactively set aside for major investments or wait for applicants to come to us? 8. OTHER BUSINESS ?? CPC members now ranked the projects. Results of the ranking are listed below. Projects will be discussed in this new order at the November 18, 2009. Meeting. Upon motion by Downey Meyer, seconded by George Kohout, all agreed to adjourn the meeting at 10:59pm. APPENDIX A: CPC PROJECT RANKING CHART CPC Initial Project Ranking Sheet: 09 Round 2 FUNDING ADDITIONAL HIGH MIDDLE LOW PROJECT NAME AMOUNT LEVERAGE PRIORITY PRIORITY PRIORITY (in discussion order) REQUESTED AMOUNT Beaver Brook/Fitz Lake 8 $190,000 $369,370 Purchase Look Park Rec 8 $75,000 $695,000 Development Garfield Ave Habitat 7 1 $180,000 ~$185,000 Grove Street Inn 7 1 $120,000 $3,294 Academy of Music 5 3 $525,125 Barrett Street Marsh 4 3 1 $5,000 Conservation Fund 2 6 $150,000 Affordable Housing 2 6 $90,000 Fund Home Ownership 3 3 2 $42,446 Sustainability Hotel Bridge Leeds 1 7 $50,000 Hospital Hill Chapel 1 2 5 $575,245 Chesterfield Road Dam 1 1 6 $200,000 ~$200,000 Childs Park Pond 3 5 $6,650 Overlook at 1 7 $250,000 $207,300 Northampton Dorsey-Jones House 8 $100,000