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