Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-11-09 .r! Community Preservation Committee 14 Easy Street Nantucket, MA 02554 51 COMMUNITY PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES - Tuesday- November 9, 2004 A meeting of the Community Preservation Committee, CPC, was held on Tuesday, November 9,2004, at 3: 15 PM at the Washington Street Annex Building, at 37 Washington Street. Present were: Barry Rector, Chair, Ken Beaugrand, Vice Chair, Mark Voigt, Rich Brannigan, Polly Miller, Linda Williams, Neville Richen, Virginia Andrews, and Stephanie Henke, Administrative Secretary. Doug Bennett was absent. Barry Rector establ ished a quorum and cal led the meeting to order at 3: 16 PM. Upon a motion made by Polly and 2nd by Rich, it was unanimously VOTED to approve the agenda. FY '06 Funding Decision Discussion Barry noted that we now have the additional information we requested from the applicants. Committee members need to take a copy of each and be sure to read it over. Barry laid out the strategy for the decision-making process. It would basically involve 3 steps: 1. Having completed a meeting with Connie, the committee needs to decide on the amount it will appropriate. 2. Decide how much to fund for the committee. 3. Eliminate any applicants that don't fit the criteria of the Act. Then in a later round the committee will dissect them one by one. Until we have had a chance to look at all the additional materials, Batty asked that the committee keep an open mind about each application. Barry stated that they had met with Connie and got an idea of projected FY '06 funds. They also learned that FY '05 was really the heyday year for CPC funding. Rich explained that FY '05 was the most money the fund will likely ever have because in '03 and '04 it built up a fund balance. We will never again in all probability have a fund balance as large as we did then. Currently we have a balance of $600,000 going into FY '06. State Local Fund Balance Equals - $1 .1 01 iI (projected) $1.2 mil (projected) $600,000 $3 mil If the committee authorizes appropriation of 3 million, it will have no fund balance left. The question is what we project local and state will be in the future. Barry and Rich both feel that FY '06 state will be funded at 100%. 80-82 communities have enacted the CPA, which is only about 25% of all communities. Rich and Barry have been told that the state coffers are full, and that we should anticipate a 100% match. If we get the 100% match from the state for FY '06, we will have $2.4 million. If we spend the whole 2.4 million, we will have a fund balance of $600,000. Rich stated that he and Barry are both comfortable with spending $2.6 and leaving a fund balance of about $300,000. Last year the committee appropriated $3.5 million. Upon a motion made by Rich, and 2nd by Mark, it was unanimously VOTED to authorize the appropriation of $2.6 million for FY '06 for the CPA warrant article. Rich stated that this would be the working number to use during deliberations. epe Minutes, November 9, 2004-Page 1 Polly asked that we next take out the operating budget. Barry stated that we are allowed to use 5% of the budget for administrative expenses. At 5%, we would be allowed $130,000, but that as a good faith effort, we should level fund it at $93,211. Linda asked jf there were any way to make that number less or to creatively fund it so that it didn't come out of what we had to give to the projects. Barry explained that if we don't put it in there, it won't be there if we need it, but that if we do put it in there and don't use it, it just goes back into the pot for later use. Mark 2nd that and suggested that rather than getting caught up in that number, let's look at the projects first. Neville asked that we have a definite number to work with, and suggested we use the $93,211, since that is what we have used before and it has worked. Barry suggested we lock it down now as a working number, and that if we have to undercut it later, we can do that. He added that anything we didn't use of it this year could go to fund projects in another year. The committee then proceetleJ down the list of all applications and decidecI that aD 30 ditJ indeed fit the CPA criter~ with the following projects being discussed and voted upoa 30 Main Street. Polly mentioned that she thought that some aspects of this project don't benefit the public. That there is really limited public access to this project. Ken reminded the committee that as long as it is made accessible for a certain amount of time, it is considered eligible for CPA funds. Rich was concerned that Rich Norton never answered the question as to whether the building is designated as an historic landmark. He didn't know whether it was and Rich felt his question was never adequately answered. Mark clarified that he didn't know of any buildings downtown that weren't historic, at least as contributing. Rich added that he also had a problem with it being a private fraternal organization. Neville countered that Rich Norton had said that it was one of the first buildings re- built after the fire. He noted that the project included restoring some elements and adding some new things, and wondered if the whole project fell under the CPA. Linda added that most of the buildings are not marked as historic even though they are. Most contribute in some way to the historic district. She noted that the first floor of the building is indeed open to the public year round and that she herself has attended functions on the other floor. Mark stated that he believes it meets the CPA criteria, and that later they could discuss which parts are suspect. Upon a motion made by Mark and 2nd by Linda, it was VOTED 4 to 1 (with Rich opposed and Barry, Ginger and Neville abstaining) that the 30 Main Application, for purposes of discussion, met the CPA criteria. Artist's Association of Nantucket. Rich stated that he didn't think that artists and art fell under the CPA. He felt it is a stretch, and that there doesn't seem to be any guarantee that the things preserved won't be sold. Ginger mentioned that we have approved other things without restrictions already in place and then held the money until they had them in place. Rich said that Town Records and art are two different things. Linda added that the MN does have a permanent collection that can never be sold. Ginger said they are planning an exhibit of the permanent collection at the Coffin School next year or the year after. They want to restore significant pieces. Mark added that he also struggled to see how it fit in with the act, but he could look at it as a Nantucket cultural resource, then wondered how much access the public would have to it. Polly said that she thought it was a stretch as well, but that when she looked at it in terms of the things they didn't think were historic 200 years ago (e.g. scrimshaw and sailor's valentines), but that we see as historic now, she can see that it does fit, so she felt it should be left in for later consideration. Neville mentioned that it has educational value. Barry mentioned that most of these pieces are only 40 years old, and was concerned about the subjective nature of art, especially art that is that young. He also was concerned to learn that in fact Reggie Levine wasn't certified. Ginger countered that Reggie Levine is the president of the Nantucket Arts Council and is considered an expert of Nantucket Art. In terms of his qualifications, he is not suspect. She agreed with Polly that it should be left in for now. Mark 2nd that. Upon a motion made by Linda, and 2nd by Mark, it was VOTED 6 to 2 (with Barry and Rich opposed) that the MN Application, for purposes of discussion, met the CPA criteria. landmark House. Ginger mentioned that they had requested the grant under the historic resources category, but that most of the building wasn't that old. Barry said it actually may fit better under the affordable housing category. Barry was also concerned that the applicant hadn't complied with the RFP process, even after having been asked to do so. Ken argued that that point should go toward the money they are awarded, not whether it meets the CPA criteria. Barry countered that the RFP is specific and that in any other grant process, that is usually grounds for rejection. Rich stated that we had already set a precedent about not accepting late applications, so if the applicant didn't submit 11 full copies, they didn't react to the RFP. Ken answered that it could be argued that they did, but that they gave one book that was above and beyond what was asked fm. epe Minutes, November 9, 2004-Page 2 Upon a motion made by Linda and 2nd by Ken, it was VOTED 6 to 2 (with Barry and Rich opposed) that the Landmark House Application, for purposes of discussion, met the CPA criteria. Madaket Life Saving Station. Ken stated that he didn't see how this project fit within the act, that the town should be paying to maintain their buildings. Mark wanted to know how one qualifies [meaning the other life saving museum building] and one doesn't. He continued that even though the building is owned by the town, it is a preservation project. While he is ambivalent about the different items in the project, it is a preservation project, and he believes it meets the CPA requirements. Linda added that it didn't matter who owned a building, as long as it was a 501 c 3, etc., and that we have funded other town projects. The town doesn't have the resources to fix it. Neville asked how it is going to benefit the public? Can they go in, see it, etc.? It is a town building that only the town uses, so it doesn't fit. Ginger stated that it is the Life Saving Station. Polly said the act includes fire stations, etc., so that means it could meet the act. Upon a motion made by Linda, and 2nd by Ginger, it was VOTED 5 to 3 (with Ken, Polly and Rich opposed) that the Madaket Life Saving Station Application, for purposes of discussion, met the CPA criteria. Bany wanted to know if they had come before the HOC with their revised plan and Mark wasn't sure, but Linda thought that they had. Mark noted that it was the HOC to begin with that said it needed to be more than maintenance, that it had to be an historic preservation project, not just cosmetic work. Mark has seen the re-do of the HOC proposal and WQuld support it now. Star of the Sea Hostel. Polly mentioned that most of it did not seem to be historic preservation, and she doesn't believe it fits under affordable housing, because it's for people who are only here for short periods of time. Barry asked whether they had been before the HOC, and he said that the interior portions are historical and parts are AOA work, but that the building itself is historic; some of what they are doing is historic preservation and some isn't. He believes it meets the criteria and that it is open to the public. Linda agreed, saying that in fact this project was making the building more accessible. She did have questions about the back building and the boardwalk, however. Upon a motion by Linda and 2nd by Ginger, it was unanimously VOTED that the Star of the Sea Hostel Application, for purposes of discussion, met the CPA criteria. Small Friends. Polly said that this project is a stretch. There is just one small component and that there is almost no public use. Mark, Ginger, and Neville dittoed that. Linda said there will be public benefit because there will be many people moving into the new development and they will have kids that can use the playground. Barry agreed with that, mentioning that Strong Wings is also in that area. He also mentioned that they could always put conditions on the award, saying, for example, that it needed to be open for so many hours to the public. Then it is up to the applicant if they want to meet that condition in exchange for the grant. Neville mentioned that it will be fully utilized because they have until now been using the PR grounds for their summer programs. So he feels they definitely need it. Linda stated that the public can use it on weekends and after school. She added that this is the only agency that provides this service to Nantucket families. Upon a motion made by Linda and 2nd by Neville, it was VOTED 5 to 3 (with Ken, Ginger and Mark opposed) that the Small Friends Application, for purposes of discussion, met the CPA criteria. There being no other business of the committee, and upon a motion made by Ginger and 2nd by Ken, it was unanimously VOTED to adjourn the meeting at 4:45 PM. Respectfully submitted by, Stephanie Henke Administrative Secretary epe Minutes, November 9, 2004-Page 3