Agenda and Minutes 2010-02-03
City of Northampton
Community Preservation Committee
210 Main Street, City Hall
Northampton, MA 01060
Community Preservation Committee
DATE: Wednesday, February 3, 2010
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
Sarah LaValley, Community Preservation Planner
slavalley@northamptonma.gov
(413) 587-1263
Agenda
Public Comment
Chair’s Report
Minutes – Jan 20, 2010
Feasibility Study
Review of Bean Farm / Allard Farm Application
Other Business
For additional information please refer to the Community Preservation Committee
website: http://www.northamptonma.gov/cpc/
Community Preservation Committee Minutes
February 3, 2010
Time: 7:00 pm
Place: City Council Chambers, 212 Main St.
Members Present: Tom Parent, Lilly Lombard, Downey Meyer, Don Bianchi, George Kohout, David
Drake, Joe DeFazio, Brian Adams.
Staff Present: Sarah LaValley, Wayne Feiden
Vice Chair Tom Parent opened the public meeting at 7:00 pm.
Public Comment
A Fort Hill Terrace resident suggested that the Bean/Allard property should be entirely dedicated
to agriculture. Since it’s historically been farmland, it should continue to be farmed.
A citizen thanked the CPC for making the historic Bean/Allard preservation possible, and she
supports the expenditure on the property purchase.
Chair’s Report
Tom noted that he, Downey, Sarah and Wayne met to try and consolidate contracts and include
detailed monitoring provisions.
Downey said the new contract format will be the primary source of conditioning and monitoring.
Staff can refer to contract for ‘one-stop shopping’ about monitoring.
Lilly suggested that contracts contain a reference to the original submitted CPA application.
Downey noted that if an item is important enough for staff to keep track of, it should be included
in the contract.
Lilly said that detailed contracts can provide both accountability and protection of applicants.
Brian asked if there had been problem with contracts in the past, and the Committee noted that
there had been.
Tom stated that the contracting item will put on the agenda for consideration for next meeting.
Tom pointed out that a proposed amendment from the Broadbrook coalition was submitted, and
will be discussed at the next meeting.
Minutes – Jan 20, 2010
David moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Lilly. The motion carried unanimously.
Tom suggested that the Committee consider at the next meeting whether it would like staff to
continue preparing very detailed minutes of the meetings.
Feasibility Study for Playing Fields
Lilly asked if a male/female breakdown of field use is available.
Ann-Marie Moggio, Recreation Department said that solid numbers aren’t available, as they were
not part of data gathering
Lilly stated that it would be helpful to know what population is being served.
George asked if there are other scenarios around the City that were being developed that will now
be tabled. Wayne stated that other opportunities will continue to be looked at.
The Committee discussed Sheldon field.
Northampton Community Preservation Committee Minutes 1
February 3, 2010
Review of Bean/Allard Farm Application
Tom Parent stepped down as chair of the CPC for the Bean Farm portion of the meeting, as the
Recreation Commission of which he is a member, is a co-applicant for CPA funds. Joe DeFazio
served as Chair during the discussion.
Joe stated that the Committee will consider Wayne agent of the applicant for the first segment,
where he will offer a presentation about the application and the CPC can ask questions. Then will
wear his other hat as a City staffer.
Wayne introduced Clem Clay, from the Trust for Public Land (TPL).
Wayne stated that TPL has an option to purchase Allard property, and the City has a purchaswe
and sale agreement for the Bean property.
Wayne noted that the property is eligible for several grants. A Federal Land & Water Grant is due
in March, and staff are hopeful to make the deadline.
Wayne noted that the Bean Taskforce will become Bean/Allard Taskforce.
Wayne responded to written questions from the CPC:
With regard to a request for a detailed funding breakdown, Wayne noted that there will
o
be some cooperation with soft costs. For example, the City will agree to remove debris in
barns. Many of the details will need to be worked out once the property has been
purchased, and grant funding is determined.
Don asked why the cost is inflated for purchase of just one parcel.
o
Wayne replied that there are more opportunities available from grants and other sources
o
for larger parcels.
With regard to a prohibition on affordable housing on the property, Wayne noted that the
o
Beans asked that affordable housing not be placed on the site. The City was agreeable
because there isn’t a need for affordable housing in the area, and land use in the area
would also require vehicle ownership.
Lilly disclosed that she is part of GrowFood Northampton. The organization rallied to preserve
agricultural use on the Bean property, and as Allard has been added, GFN may eventually put a
bid in on the property once the agricultural restriction is in place.
The Committee held a discussion about a potential conflict of interest.
David noted that if there is no personal gain from the participation there is no problem, but if it
entails employment then it would and that if any CPC member has a potential conflict on a
project, it should be disclosed because it could remove impartiality, even if only perceived.
Downey: Reads from MGL Sec 19 of 268A. If a member of a group that has a financial interest,
can’t participate in discussion, and noted that impartiality is important for both perception of the
CPC’s decision, and for protection of the individual involved.
Lilly recused herself from discussion and vote.
Gene Tacy thanked Lilly for disclosing the potential conflict.
Lilly clarified that discussions about the Bean parcel alone did not present the same purchase
opportunity, only introduction of Allard piece.
Downey read the ethics commission number, and pointed out that CPC holds no enforcement
authority for ethics violations.
Wayne provided a breakdown of expected soft costs.
George asked whether uses will be assigned to any pieces of the property if a CPC vote occured
tonight. Wayne stated that a vote would only be approving the funding.
David noted that those decisions will be best decided by the task force.
Wayne clarified that TPL has agreed on 4 interests: 24 acres will be supported for athletic uses,
the floodplain forest will be preserved, there will be agriculture, and possible community gardens.
The location of recreation land will need to be negotiated.
Clem stated that the TPL goal is to preserve land for people- and also must balance rules of
funding agencies, interests of communities in that goal. TPL is a national land conservation
Northampton Community Preservation Committee Minutes 2
February 3, 2010
agency that was founded in 1972. The Trust typically get brought into projects where
communities may be struggling, and often participate in projects with multiple uses and interests.
David noted that the CPA will soon be up for renewal, and he feels it important to act in a way
that will garner support for the Act. The deal be kept as simple as possible so it can be easily
understood.
Wayne noted that things appear more complicated because the City has typically been
transparent with all land deals. The application and public process attempts to show that the City
is only being asked to spend what’s necessary to further goals and interests of its residents.
Clem noted that the current stage is most complicated.
Brian asked Clem if there is any scenario where the Bean/Allard Taskforce recommendations
would be in conflict with the TPL mission. Clem replied that none of what’s been presented so
far poses any problems; the mission embraces everything that’s on the table.
Brian asked where money would end up if the land was eventually sold to a private buyer.
Clem replied that TPL will secure the land in fee, sell off only the development interests via an
APR, then sell agricultural value to a private buyer.
David noted that from a voter perspective, it could appear that $1 million was spent, and the City
is not left with any land that it actually owns.
Wayne noted that the farmland and the views it provides will be preserved forever, and the City
also will also get land for playing fields.
Tom noted that the Committee initially considered 45 acres for the same price, so the return is
now much higher.
Wayne noted that there is time pressure to communicate confidence of purchase to the sellers, as
well as to TPL. The CPC policy is not to provide funds if a public process had not been started,
but it is fine that the process is still underway.
Brian asked what a positive vote will mean to the Beans. Wayne noted that negotiations are
currently occurring. The Beans will be retaining some property, and the City will complete the
survey to ensure that homes won’t encroach on fields. The closing will not occur immediately.
Gene stated that the CPC has approved purchase of property for a very small percentage of
community to use, this parcel will have a greater return, so its much easier to get the public
excited. Have explained that bond will show up on tax bill even if CPA is repealed, but haven’t
heard opposition.
David moved to approve the application, with Downey seconding. The motion carried
unanimously, with no discussion.
Wayne stated that the next steps is to determine bonding and allocations. Tom asked if bonding
is necessary. Wayne replied that it’s not, but will allow the CPC to fund more future applications.
The Committee explored different bonding scenarios and allocations.
Wayne noted that all categories are over 10%, so there was a lot of discretion.
David suggested that since historic did not participate, its percentage should be reduced from the
amount initially recommended.
Tom suggested 5%, historic 45% recreation, 50% open space.
The Committee agreed to 15 year bond to reduce debt service to still have funding available for
other projects.
The Committee discussed conditions.
Don suggested that the amount allocated for funding be contingent on the purchase of both
properties. Wayne noted that soft costs can’t be reduced proportionally, due to staff time,
surveys, etc.
George asked if standard conditions will also be included.
Tom stated that will be decided during contracting.
David asked if any conditions prevent argument in the future over uses.
Tom noted that changes would require approval of city council and state legislature.
Downey added that once the APR is in place it would also make it very difficult for recreation to
expand.
Northampton Community Preservation Committee Minutes 3
February 3, 2010
Don noted that a condition on time for completion is typically included.
Wayne stated that the deal should be completed in a year, but other circumstances could
necessitate more time.
The Committee agreed on two years for project completion.
David moved to accept the Council recommendation, seconded by Downey. The motion carried
unanimously, with no further discussion.
Unanimous
Tom resumed the role of chair.
Other Business
2010 Round 1 applications are due February 8. Questions from committee members are due to Sarah by
February 26, and the next meeting after that is scheduled for March 3.
There was consensus that a meeting will not be needed on February 17. Sarah will distribute packets of
submitted applications.
The meeting adjourned at 9:55 PM
Northampton Community Preservation Committee Minutes 4
February 3, 2010