Loading...
Agenda and Minutes 2010-03-03 City of Northampton Community Preservation Committee 210 Main Street, City Hall Northampton, MA 01060 Community Preservation Committee DATE: Wednesday, March 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 – February 4, 2010  Revised Request for Funding – Broad Brook Coalition  CPC/Public Access to Information related to Applications  Friends of Upper Roberts Reservoir and Dam Request for Change to Pending Application  CPC Spring Schedule  Community Preservation Coalition Membership  Draft contracts, Round 2 2009, Monitoring and Reporting  Other Business For additional information please refer to the Community Preservation Committee website: http://www.northamptonma.gov/cpc/ Community Preservation Committee Minutes March 3, 2010 Time: 7:00 pm Place: City Council Chambers, 212 Main St. Members Present: Tom Parent, Fran Volkmann, Lilly Lombard, Downey Meyer, Don Bianchi, David Drake, Brian Adams. Staff Present: Sarah LaValley  Chair Fran Volkmann called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Public Comment  There was no public comment. Chair’s Report  There were not items on the Chair’s Report. Minutes – Feb 3, 2010  Action on the February 3 minutes was postponed until the next meeting. Revised Request for Funding – Broad Brook Coalition  Bob Zimmermann, Chair, Broad Brook Coalition, provided a review of the past application for invasives control. The Coalition was able to receive funding from Mass Land Trust for the project, and would now like to use CPA Funds for the 2 and 3 phases of the project. ndrd  Other invasive plants -buckhorn & knapweed, have been advancing at a rapid rate along the dam, and quotes and proposals have been sought for control of those species.  Two firms have been selected for knapweed and buckhorn removal.  The Coalition is requesting that the $12,000 allocated during the previous round be now awarded to the revised request.  Fran called for questions from the Committee, and clarified that $12,000 has already been awarded by the CPC, and the request is now for different species and for a different timetable than the original request. The funding amount remains the same.  Bob: Would have to get started in April/early May for buckhorn project  Brian: asked about a timetable for the revised activities.  Bob- control may be possible with 2 years, but 3 year also seems likely. An April or May start rd will be needed for the buckhorn removal.  Don noted that the request is consistent with the original application in that still involves control of invasive species  Lilly moved to accept the revised application and fund the project as described. The motion was seconded by David. The motion carried unanimously, with no further discussion. CPC/Public Access to Information Related to Applications  Fran noted that Ed Shanahan had been in touch with the CPC about the need for various types of information from private institutions that receive CPA funds, and the Committee agreed that it should be an agenda item.  Ed Shanahan recalled that his initial letter to the CPC was spurred by the Friends of Look Park being unhappy about introduction of bike trail into Look Park last fall. Also, several of the Park’s Northampton Community Preservation Committee Minutes 1 March 3, 2010 stakeholders were unaware of the Park’s application to the CPA for creation of playing fields at the park.  Ed suggested that there should be some provision for access to meetings prior to organizations being able to request CPA funds. How can taxpayer money be allocated when trustee meetings aren’t open to the public?  David noted that access is an important issue with regard to public funds. The CPC deals with different types of entities making applications, but they are all treated the same with regard to funding. The CPA can’t require, under state law, that nonprofit board meetings be open to CPC members or the public.  Ed suggested that it is a good proposal to have potential applicants have public hearings and information sessions prior to applications being submitted, and that the CPC could initiate a conversation with city council regarding how to handle public access to CPA grantees.  Downey noted that by setting conditions in contracts, organizations can essentially be told how to conduct their business, and grants can be refused if conditions aren’t agreed with. However, the application process is the place to focus, since the public can participate and discuss potential conditions with the CPC. Once contract conditions are satisfied, the Committee is obligated to disperse funds.  Fran summarized that the Committee should spend time thinking about how it should condition issues that come up repeatedly. These might include the transparency of organizations, as well as proof that organizations are viable and can continue to go forward. Some of these attempt to be addressed with a changed contracting format.  Lilly suggested that the CPC take these concerns into account when revising the CPA plan.  Ed stated that he appreciates the receptiveness of the Committee to the issues he brought up. Friends of Upper Roberts Reservoir and Dam Request for Change to Pending Application  Fran stated that the CPC is being given a request to change an application that’s been submitted in the current round.  Dee Boyle-Clapp stated that the Friends are asking for a change because the group has met with the Board of Public Works, and have discovered that there are information gaps that can be filled with a study.  $25,000 is being sought to discover what the most dangerous part of the dam is. Would like clarity to have enough information to have engineering firms be able to submit a proposal.  The Friends had hoped for a letter of support from the BPW on the revised application, but the meeting last week was postponed due to snow.  Fran noted that the $25,000 study request is new, but the historic request was also in the initial application.  Dee replied that the maintenance fund request has been decreased by $25,000 to accommodate the new study request.  Lilly pointed out that maintenance is not an eligible activity under the CPA.  Don asked how the $40,000 study cost was determined.  Dee replied that this was an informed estimate based on the costs of similar studies.  Don noted that the Committee will need an opportunity to formulate other questions.  Fran asked that Committee members get additional questions to Sarah by Monday.  Dee noted that the maintenance fund will be stricken, as it’s not eligible.  Tom moved to accept the amended application. The motion was seconded by David. The motion carried unanimously, with no further discussion. CPC Spring Schedule  Fran proposed a change in the schedule to remove the 2 meeting set up for applicant meetings, nd due to the small number of submittals.  Sarah relayed that NCMC had requested to be placed on the agenda for the scheduled April meeting. Northampton Community Preservation Committee Minutes 2 March 3, 2010  The Committee agreed that the process should be as expeditious as possible, and that applicants will have more than one opportunity to discuss applications with the CPC.  Tom moved to approve the revised schedule. The motion was seconded by Downey. The motion carried unanimously with no further discussion.  Fran stated that there are three potential site visits: Child’s Park, NCMC, and Upper Roberts Meadow. Committee members volunteered to attend.  David and Brian will coordinate their own, since they will not be available on March 13  Sarah will coordinate and inform members of exact times. Community Preservation Coalition Membership  Lilly moved to approve payment of the $3,000 invoice to the Coalition. The motion was seconded by Don, and carried unanimously with no further discussion. Draft contracts, Round 2 2009, Monitoring and Reporting  The Committee reviewed financial reports; there will be approximately $460,000 available for funding at Round 1 2010  The Committee reviewed draft contracts from Round 2 2009, and revised each as needed. Other Business No other business was discussed. The meeting adjourned at 9:55 PM Northampton Community Preservation Committee Minutes 3 March 3, 2010