2023-12-07-CPC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

4 Ms. O’Brien commented that the AHT’s projections are useful because they are being used to inform the Trust’s request from CPC. Ms. Walker commented that the AHT’s projections are only possibilities and are more subject to change than Town CIPs. Ms. Fenoll osa commented that the AHT’s projections are the only available estimates for housing for the CPC and noted that the AHT’s justification for their FY25 CPA request was based on these AHT projections. Ms. Fenollosa added that the AHT should not be left out of the table. Ms. Walker said she did not think the table should be included in the “Looking Forward” section. Ms. Roy commented that the point of the section is to show that there is a greater need for CPA funding than is available for the foreseeable future and so the CPC is going to have hard decisions regarding future funding. Mr. Pressman commented that there were 17 changes between the Town’s CPA capital plan s for FY24 and FY25 and commented that the Town’s anticipated request for over $12 million is fictional. Mr. Pressman added that the AHT’s numbers are also fictional and that the purpose of a Trust is to capitalize on unforeseeable projects when they arise. Mr. Pressman suggested writing a few sentences to acknowledge that the CPC received anticipated funding for future fiscal years, the CPC receives proposals and attempts to address them in an equitable manner, and if there are more requests than funding available, the CPC will try to address the applications in an equitable and fair manner. Ms. Roy suggested leaving the table out of the section and just leaving the language that acknowledges the anticipation for more funding requests than what is available. Ms. Fenollosa shared her opinion that the CPC could not say they anticipate more than $61 million in requests over five years without showing their reasoning. Ms. Fenollosa shared that the CPC has received multiple requests for multiple years to provide 5-year projections for CPA funding. Ms. Fenollosa shared that she used available projections from the CPC’s regular requestors, to formulate the table. Ms. Walker commented that the housing numbers are not projections. Ms. Krieger commented that the purpose of the Looking Forward section is to recognize that based on available projections, the CPC is faced with more requests for funding than it has, and so the CPC should be mindful of this situation and should not overlook alternative funding that could be used to fund these project requests. Ms. O’Brien commented that the section also highlights what is needed to address affordable housing solutions. Ms. Krieger added that the section will establish a foundation to justify heavily funding community housing over other projects in the future, should the need arise. Ms. Beebee acknowledged that the CEC has repeatedly requested a 5-year projection from the CPC and that the table is helpful, but added that there is no expectation for the CPC’s projections to be binding. Ms. Beebee also suggested that the financial pressures might be short-term and due in large part to factors related to the upcoming high school project.