Agenda and Minutes 2009-09-16
City of Northampton
Community Preservation Committee
210 Main Street, City Hall
Northampton, MA 01060
Community Preservation Committee
DATE: Wednesday, September 16, 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
Bruce Young, Community Preservation Planner
byoung@northamptonma.gov
(413) 587-1263
Agenda
??
Public Comment
??
Acceptance of August 19, 2009 & September 2, 2009 Minutes
??
Chair’s Report
??
Community Preservation Coalition presentation regarding SB90
??
Procedure for 2010 CPC Plan Revision
??
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, September 16, 2009
Time: 7:00 pm
Place: City Council Chambers, 212 Main St.
Members Present: Fran Volkmann, George Kohout, David Drake, Downey Meyer,
Don Bianchi, and Jack Hornor.
Staff Present: Bruce Young, Community Preservation Planner
John Frey, Community Preservation Planner
Fran Volkmann opened the public meeting at 7:03pm.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
??
David Hirships, Warburton Way stated his belief that the Leeds Hotel Bridge
proposal is vague regarding its budget and the DPW is spread too thin to maintain
the project going forward. The Look Park recreation project again is not worth
funding the study when likelihood of funding the full project is not great.
Regarding the Dorsey-Jones project, it is a private home, and it is not stated if
public benefit would be forthcoming. Finally, Valley CDC mortgage counseling is
not a worthy project. CPA housing dollars should only be spent on bricks and
mortar.
??
Fran Volkmann re-iterated the CPC’s stated need for detail from the applicants
regarding a project’s ability to meet the CPA criteria for funding. Hopefully
applicants have realized this need.
2. ACCEPTENCE OF AUGUST 19, 2009 & SEPTEMBER 2, 2009 MINUTES
??
Fran Volkmann tabled the review of August 19, 2009 minutes to the next
meeting.
??
Fran Volkmann presented the September 2, 2009 minutes for discussion. After
noting a couple minor technical changes the minutes were approved as read.
3. CHAIR’S REPORT
??
Fran Volkmann announced that Joseph DeFazio has been nominated as the new
CPC representative of the Housing Authority. Hopefully he will be approved on
one reading at City Council.
??
Fran Volkmann announced that applicant questions must be submitted to Bruce
Young by Friday morning, September 18, 2009. Also, the CPC must decide on a
site visit schedule.
4. COMMUNITY PRESERVATION COALITION PRESENTATION
SENATE BILL 90
??
Stuart Saginore of the Community Preservation coalition spoke to the committee
regarding current CPA funding concerns and the proposed legislation to remedy
the problems. A copy of the power point presentation can be found here…
http://www.northamptonma.gov/gsuniverse/httpRoot/comm/minutes/2009/
??
Highlights of Stuart Saginore’s presentation included…
?? The Coalition is comprised of representatives of 7 major non-profits plus
member CPA communities (70% of Coalition budget).
?? There are only 15 cities out of the 142 CPA communities and very few are
large cities. A concern is that if a large city approved the CPA it would eat
up the available matching funds. The slice of pie is already shrinking and
this would make the situation worse. Proposed legislation would remedy
this issue.
?? So far over 10,000 acres have been protected and 2300 affordable housing
units created. Historic preservation leads the list with over 1300
appropriations. Recreation has received only 500 appropriations. Over
$700 million in funding and matching appropriations.
?? The Coalition is constantly defending raids on the CPA Trust Fund. They
are also defending against legislation harming the CPA. Over 25 proposed
bills this session alone mention CPA.
?? The primary challenges to the CPA currently are 1.) Trust fund matching
dollars, 2.) Lack of cities, 3.) Limited use of the recreation category.
?? Matching dollars have run upside down since 2006. Revenue has fallen
every year since 2003. On the distribution side demand has grown every
year. There was a 100% match for the first 6 years. Last year it fell to
80%. This year the match is expected to be to just 35%. 100% is not
guaranteed and unlikely to happen again. 50% match is a more realistic
goal. That level would keep existing communities onboard and slowly
bring on more communities. Another goal is to use legislation to guarantee
funding levels as more communities pass the CPA.
?? The state legislature wants solutions that will bring on more cities.
Proposed legislation would allow communities to adopt at a minimum of
1%, and then transfer other municipal revenue to their CPA fund in order
to reach the maximum 3%.
?? Currently, recreation projects cannot be funded unless the land is acquired
with CPA dollars. Any current parkland is hands-off to recreational
rehabilitation. Preservation is the most restrictive definition requiring
protection from injury, harm, or destruction, and not including
maintenance. However, the SJC stated if land has ceased to be recreational
land then it is possible to create new recreation. The timeline is vague
though and open to interpretation by the individual City Council in each
town.
?? SB90, An Act to Sustain Community Preservation, has three major
components… 1.) Increase the Trust Fund revenues to guarantee a 75%
match in the first round. Registry of Deeds CPA surcharge is currently $20
per deed. Under the legislation the fee would automatically adjust to
guarantee a 75% match. As real estate transactions increase fees could fall.
2.) To make the CPA more attractive to cities the proposed legislation
would allow communities to adopt at a minimum of 1%, and then transfer
other municipal revenue to their CPA fund in order to reach the maximum
3%. 3.) Clarify the recreation language by allowing rehabilitation of
current parkland without requirement to create new recreation.
?? There were 83 sponsors of SB 90 including Senator Rosenberg and
Representative Kocot. The legislation is currently assigned to the
Committee on Community Development and Small Business. A hearing is
scheduled for September 29, 2009.
??
George Kohout asked if the deeds fee would be the only source of income to the
CPA Trust Fund.
??
Stuart Saginore stated the legislature could choose to change the deeds plan and
allow other sources of revenue, however this is unlikely.
??
David Hirships asked if any cities are interested in adopting the CPA.
??
Stuart Saginore stated many are interested pending the newly proposed legislation
rules. Businesses often fight the tax surcharge. New legislation would allow a
possible $100,000 base exemption for business property owners, similar to the
current residential allowances.
??
Don Bianchi stated we have a current request from owners of a nursing home to
do improvements. Is this considered rehabilitation, support or preservation?
??
Stuart Saginore stated the application must include a line item budget to
determine the status. The major issue is if it is not preservation then the City
Council must be willing to call it support.
??
Don Bianchi stated the nursing home houses 80% Medicaid/Medicare residents.
Some of the residents could be above 100% AMI. Is that a problem?
??
Stuart Saginore stated the DOR believes this is generally ok. If only 80% are
below AMI threshold then DOR would like CPA to fund no more than 80% of the
project. Proportionate funding is the goal. A bigger concern is that as a private
facility they must not violate state anti-aid laws. There must be a clear public
benefit, what is it? Perhaps try to get deed restriction guaranteeing affordable
housing units.
??
Bruce Young asked if all communities adopted the CPA could the deeds fee
increase be endless.
??
Stuart Saginore stated the cap would be $70 per deeds fee transaction, though
legislation could be changed. No other revenue sources are likely possible.
CPA BONDING
??
Stuart Saginore spoke briefly regarding CPA bonding opportunities. Highlights
included…
?? General obligation bonds can be issued against future CPA funds only, not
the expected state matching dollars.
?? A two-thirds vote by city council is needed to issue a bond.
?? Bonding can count toward the 10% annual reserve requirements.
?? If the CPA is revoked a town could either pay from another source
(unlikely) or the CPA surcharge would continue at the full or reduced rate
until the bond is paid.
?? 52 towns have issued CPA bonds funding 103 projects to date. There is
$152m in outstanding bonds with most for open space projects. Many
towns are fully bonded for coming years.
5. PROCEDURE FOR 2010 CPA PLAN REVISION
??
Fran Volkmann stated the plan revision is an ongoing process. For instance, the
CPC has already clarified expedited review. However, the CPC must still clarify
the mayoral role in CPA project funding.
??
Jack Hornor stated this is not something the CPC could change.
??
Fran Volkmann stated the CPC should continue to look over the plan for needed
revisions. She requests all category specialists review their own categories with
their respective boards.
??
Bruce Young stated new housing and historic plans are forthcoming. Also open
space will have a new plan for 2010-2015.
??
George Kohout asked what is the timeframe for plan revisions.
??
Fran Volkmann stated a goal to review and adopt revisions in March 2010.
December 16, 2009 is the next time the CPC could discuss this. Please move
forward with review within your individual boards.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
SB90
??
Jack Hornor stated he is generally supportive of the legislation, but language
allowing percentage replacement is not good for Northampton.
??
Fran Volkmann doesn’t see percentage replacement as a viable strategy for the
anti-CPA crowd. People simply need to decide if the CPA continues or not.
??
George Kohout stated he is comfortable in supporting SB90. He has not heard a
clamor for CPA repeal. Let’s not fan the flames.
??
David Drake stated he is very impressed SB90 has 83 sponsors. It is definitely a
strong bill.
??
Fran Volkmann queried if the CPC is comfortable in approving an endorsement.
??
Upon motion by Don Bianchi, seconded by David Drake, the Northampton CPC
endorses SB 90, An Act to Sustain Community Preservation. All voted in favor.
??
Don Bianchi stated the CPC is well served by the Community Preservation
Coalition.
??
Fran Volkmann stated she would write a letter supporting the legislation.
??
Bruce Young stated he would email a support request to our grantees.
??
David Drake suggested also bringing it to the Conservation Commission, Historic
Commission and Housing Partnership for endorsement.
Upon motion by Downey Meyer, seconded by George Kohout, all agreed to adjourn the
meeting at 9:41pm.