Loading...
Agenda and Minutes 2009-09-02 City of Northampton Community Preservation Committee 210 Main Street, City Hall Northampton, MA 01060 Community Preservation Committee DATE: Wednesday, September 2, 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 Minutes ?? Chair’s Report ?? CPA Grant Reporting & Monitoring Update ?? CPA Website Update ?? Financial Update ?? Discussion of Funding Levels for Upcoming Rounds ?? Finalize 2010 Round 1 Schedule ?? 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 2, 2009 Time: 7:00 pm Place: City Council Chambers, 212 Main St. Members Present: Fran Volkmann, Tom Parent, Lilly Lombard, 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 7:04pm. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT ?? None. 2. ACCEPTENCE OF AUGUST 19, 2009 MINUTES ?? Fran Volkmann tabled the review of minutes to the next meeting. 3. CHAIR’S REPORT ?? Fran Volkmann noted Stuart Saginor of the Community Preservation Coalition would attend the next meeting to discuss Senate Bill 90. ?? Fran Volkmann noted the CPC still does not have a new housing representative appointed. The mayor is too busy to address this concern at the present time. 4. CPA GRANT REPORTING & MONITORING UPDATE ?? Tom Parent presented an update regarding reporting and monitoring. He stated he met with Downey Meyer and Bruce Young. They determined a need for guidance regarding the difference between monitoring during the project versus and beyond. There are 33 grants at this point, which is too much for staff. Would self- reporting be helpful? ?? Jack Hornor stated reporting should vary by project as does the signage requirements. Follow-up for many will be minimal, while others could take time. Still others perhaps no reporting necessary. ?? Downey Meyer stated monitoring is only as good as the enforcement if a problem arises. It may not be realistic to enforce. There are other groups to rely upon for monitoring such as the Conservation Commission, DPW, Recreation Commission, and Historical Commission. Make sure we hand off responsibility to them as necessary, then just a few for left us to monitor. ?? Jack Hornor asked staff to investigate other CPCs to understand their requirements for monitoring. Also, we haven’t spent all of our administrative money. We could fund additional hours. ?? Don Bianchi suggested delegating would create the same problem. Monitoring is not a good match for the Housing Partnership. Possibly only the Historical Commission would be a good match for their category. Also, there is a distinction between during disbursement and ongoing, especially for construction projects. The focus should be on disbursement, ongoing monitoring could be as simple as submitting a generic form annually. It is very serious to declare default on a recipient. Also, it is usually not a time sensitive issue if enforcing. ?? Tom Parent stated perhaps we should spell out terms individually in each grant agreement. ?? David Drake agreed stating we could distribute sample forms when agreement is signed. Create basic form for reporting at completion or annually. CPC has time for look at submitted reports even if not individual site visits. ?? Bruce Young stated staff already does monitoring while construction is under way. Staff handles payments, reports and invoices. Many projects could have an end date for reporting. Many other boards have accepted monitoring terms, such as DPW for NLF. It is better to build in money in grant for self-reporting. ?? Downey Meyer stated he would like to hear from Don Bianchi how affordability restrictions would be enforced. For instance the Conservation Commission can detect problems but cannot enforce unless it holds a Conservation Restriction. ?? Don Bianchi stated in most cases DHCD usually is a major funder. It is easier for them to monitor the project. For instance, how does CDBG enforce problems? ?? Bruce Young stated the Housing Authority enforces via a deed recording. ?? Fran Volkmann summarized we should possibly have a reporting form. Restrictions should not be held by CPC. CPC could deal with stragglers on case- by-case basis. ?? David Drake suggested also having respondent answer how grant funds have benefited them. That could be used as legacy for CPC. ?? Don Bianchi asked what have we done up to now. ?? Bruce Young stated after contract is approved we send response saying they can begin to incur funds. The letter also spells out how to receive funds. It depends on the type of project. However, we currently have no ongoing reporting form. ?? Don Bianchi stated post-project completion we do need some reporting, but keep it simple and narrow. Monitoring should only speak to conditions. ?? Jack Hornor stated it is not our job to enforce but is our job to monitor. It is not cumbersome to ask for annual report in perpetuity. ?? Fran Volkmann argued that would not be practical to impose on the CPC. Perpetual monitoring is only possible for those holding grant restrictions. ?? Don Bianchi stated it would be helpful see what unique conditions exist for these projects. That would help us to understand what we need here. ?? Bruce Young stated most conditions are temporary except for long-term preservation restrictions. ?? Fran Volkmann stated it appears we have given sufficient guidance to our advisement group. ?? David Drake stated he do not foresee reporting for 50 years or more. He wants to hear about the benefits now. ?? Fran Volkmann stated we would surely hear about grant restriction problems. ?? Lilly Lombard stated a few grants do need ongoing monitoring to meet conditions like the Ruggles Center and FCBA. Most monitoring can end at completion of the project. ?? David Drake stated we do our best in the moment but problems will surely arise. He would not be in favor of pursing enforcement in most cases. ?? Jack Hornor stated the concern is not about getting money back, but rather ensuring the grant activities succeed. We want to enforce activities, especially affordability restrictions. ?? Don Bianchi stated he wants us to do due diligence during funding process. Secondly, compliance should be maintained with long-term conditions. Beyond that we should not worry and handle problems on a case-by-case basis. ?? Bruce Young stated much time is already spent on preservation guarantees. That is what you purchase as long going enforcement. There is strength in the guarantees, not in monitoring. Preservation restrictions carry on forever. Also, in funding various surveys you have helped with the monitoring. ?? Fran Volkmann summarized Tom Parent, Downey Meyer, and Bruce Young should check out other communities. Next they should develop a form asking the recipient to attest to conditions as needed. Most projects are moved to bodies for monitoring via restrictions. We analyze what is left over. 4. CPA WEBSITE UPDATE ?? Fran Volkmann stated she, Bruce Young, George Kohout and Lilly Lombard had a meeting with Teri Anderson to discuss the CPC website. They corrected the URL problem. ?? Bruce Young stated Gravity Switch would do the work. ?? Fran Volkmann stated our concern for reasonable space for documents and a new mailing list but Teri Anderson will confirm those problems are addressed. Also we can create a homepage. James Thompson in the Planning Department will handle the interactive map. We are on the cusp of seeing this happen. 5. FINANCIAL UPDATE General Balance Report ?? John Frey summarized the current general fund balance is $850,503. After subtracting committed funds (Forbes payments, etc) and receiving the State match in October, the CPC will have approximately $730,000 available to allocate to projects. However, only another $270,000 will accrue by next May for 2010 Round 1 funding. Therefore, the CPC may decide not to spend all funds available now. On a separate note, staff learned most of our general funds are currently allocated to specific reserve funds. This could pose various allocation problems in December. ?? Bruce Young stated designated reserves were used to fund projects in the first round. Then in the second round the CPC discussed and decided to fund projects with general funds. It is not possible to re-allocate the funds. ?? Jack Hornor asked why the funds could not be re-allocated since we have surely spent the minimum 10% needed on each mandated category. ?? Bruce Young stated State law says reserved must be spent on a project for that category. The resolutions for round two said specifically to use general funds. It cannot be changed after executed. ?? Jack Hornor stated correcting this mistake is not an ethical problem, so why should it be a legal problem. ?? Fran Volkmann stated the new policy should be adopted to fund out of designated reserves first. ?? Jack Hornor motioned that the CPC adopt the practice of funding projects first out of reserved funds, then out of general funds if needed. Downey Meyer seconded the motion. ?? Downey Meyer stated negative balances are not a problem with the auditor and this problem is curable over the next cycle or two. Continue with negative balances if need be. ?? David Drake stated we do not operate on a zero budget, we rollover funds annually. He suggested waiting to allow undesignated to be replenished. ?? Lilly Lombard asked if we would have recreation project requests this round. ?? Fran Volkmann stated Look Park is submitting one recreation application. ?? Bruce Young stated Look Park currently owns open space which the are looking to convert to recreation space. They are eligible to do so. ?? David Drake stated we do not want this to happen again. How do we avoid? ?? Bruce Young stated we simply do not have control over the financial auditing. The financial director, auditors, and Munis software not always up to date. There is always a lag time. That is why we show a forecast on our budget spreadsheets. ?? Fran Volkmann stated we have talked with Chris Pile and he ensured us everything would be okay. ?? Tom Parent suggested it makes sense to go back and try to correct the funds. ?? Bruce Young stated Stuart Saginore of the CP Coalition suggests not allocating to these accounts at start of year. Instead we could keep funds in the undesignated account then transfer at the end of the year or as allocated. ?? Lilly Lombard stated she generally agrees it is good policy to spend from the reserve accounts first, but need exceptions. ?? Jack Hornor amended his motion to state the CPC adopt the practice of funding projects first out of reserved funds, unless otherwise stated. Downey Meyer seconded the motion. All voted in favor of the motion. Forbes Library Appropriation ?? John Frey explained there is a technical problem involving the allocation of the Forbes Library funding. The original City Council order was to fund Forbes Library with $1,000,000 via bonding. However, since it took so long to process we only bonded $500,000. The City Council rescinded the order to bond the other $500,000; however the alternative funding source was not stated. Therefore, the CPC must approve a motion to allocate the other $500,000 from an appropriate funding account. ?? Jack Hornor we approved the reduction to $500,000 in bonding because it saved money. ?? Bruce Young stated this fell through our attention because the auditor’s office has been handling the bills for this project. The auditor’s have actually already paid over $600,000 in invoices on behalf of Forbes Library. ?? Tom Parent asked if this arrangement is acceptable to Forbes Library. ?? Bruce Young stated it is only bad because Forbes Library has not yet met the funding conditions of the grant agreement. He detailed the conditions. ?? Tom Parent stated there should be no transfer until the conditions are met. ?? John Frey stated the CPC could choose to stop paying the invoices. ?? Jack Hornor stated it is unfortunate but not plausible to enforce now. ?? David Drake stated it is good to see these problems with large, city related boards instead of with the smaller, less manageable projects. ?? Jack Hornor motioned to appropriate $500,000 ($150,000 from the historic reserve and $350,000 from the general fund) to Forbes Library. Tom Parent seconded the motion. All voted in favor of the motion. 6. DISCUSSION OF FUNDING LEVELS FOR UPCOMING ROUNDS ?? Bruce Young stated the CPC will have $730,000 to fund Round 2 projects, but if all that money is spent only $270,000 will be available for Round 1, 2010. ?? Jack Hornor stated it should depend on the quality of the projects proposed. The alternative is to tell applicants we will fund at much lower levels. Also, we should stress the need for matching funds to make a proposal more attractive. ?? Don Bianchi stated we would not know requests before the September 9, 2009 deadline. ?? Fran Volkmann stated it is good to discuss now before seeing the applications. ?? David Drake stated he is in favor of moderation. Good for the freedom of the CPC to make decisions on as needed basis. He is not a big fan of borrowing against future budgets as it kills great projects in future. It is a matter of leadership; work with the money we have now. ?? Fran Volkmann stated she would like to spend just $500,000 this fall. ?? Lilly Lombard stated she sees that funds will be shrinking in future. The CPC history is to spend. It is good to save for the future, but judge now on quality. ?? Don Bianchi stated we are balancing two worthy goals. First, managing expectations but providing balance. Second, leaving room to be flexible. He suggested setting a cap closer to 60% if projects are good. ?? Downey Meyer agreed with the principle of not spending every dime. If we have a matching/leveraging opportunity come we would need ability to spend. ?? Tom Parent stated we need a cap with flexibility to change, but let’s make it harder to move forward. Perhaps a 2/3rds vote to override cap. ?? Jack Hornor stated we should send a message to applicants; definitely do not want to uncap it. ?? Downey Meyer concerned with a cap that is too stringent. Applicants who have come forward now are the priority now. ?? Fran Volkmann stated historically we have rejected projects because they were not good enough. Moving forward we will need to reject for lack of funds. Perhaps we should allow rejected projects to automatically move forward to the next funding round. ?? David Drake stated we must self-impose prudent standards. ?? John Frey reminded the committee that the best source of funds is our ability to leverage matching funds. The CPC should remain flexible to take advantage of possible leveraging opportunities. ?? Lilly Lombard agreed leveraging ability is very important to her decision-making process going forward, especially with state levels lower. ?? Tom Parent stated we must be upfront about the need to maximize leveraging. ?? Jack Hornor agreed with that in general but we must let applicants know before submitting applications. ?? Bruce Young stated the CPC must be careful of losing grassroots groups due to lack of leveraging. Also, leveraging ability varies by category. ?? Fran Volkmann suggested setting a guideline for spending but not a particular number. ?? Lilly Lombard stated a cap would set a false expectation of spending. ?? Don Bianchi motioned to set a guideline stating the CPC anticipates not spending over $500,000 this round, Downey Meyer seconded the motion. Lilly Lombard, Downey Meyer, Tom Parent, David Drake, and Don Bianchi voted in favor, Jack Hornor voted against and Fran Volkmann abstained. The motion passed 5-1. ?? Jack Hornor stated he voted against because the guideline is inherently meaningless. 7. FINALIZE 2010 ROUND 1 SCHEDULE ?? Fran Volkmann recapped the current round dates. She stated the set-up would be almost identical to 2009. We need to add a Q&A session, perhaps on January 20, 2010. ?? Tom Parent motion to accept the schedule as listed and to place the schedule in the CPC Plan, David Drake seconded the motion. All voted in favor of the motion. 8. PROCEDURE FOR 2010 CPC PLAN REVISION ?? Fran Volkmann delayed discussion until next meeting. 9. OTHER BUSINESS Questions for Applicants ?? Fran Volkmann stated all committee members should read each application and feel welcome to ask any questions. However, the committee should divide the general duty of reviewing and writing questions. She hopes each member would sign up to review and write questions for three applications. ?? All agreed and a sign up sheet was distributed. Upon motion by Downey Meyer, seconded by Lilly Lombard all agreed to adjourn the meeting at 9:45pm.