2010-09-29-CPC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Mr. Wolk noted that much of the difficulty in approving capital projects is due to the philosophical differences of Committee members. Ms. Manz responded that despite these differences, the CPC must have a predictable process for review of capital projects. She noted that the CPC needed to understand the Town’s expectations and have clear guidelines regarding requests for additional information. She said she was still somewhat unclear about how much information the CPC needed in order to make a decision on certain projects. She hoped the CPC and Town Manager’s Office could work collaboratively on a suitable time frame for project review. Mr. Kanter suggested that the process should be fairly straightforward, with th project submission on October 15, and review in the weeks thereafter. He noted that if the CPC needs further information on a project, they simply inform the applicant. If the applicant does not supply the necessary information within the time frame requested by the CPC, the CPC may choose not to approve funding for the project, and may “roll it over” to the following fiscal year. The responsibility rests on the applicant to meet timely and reasonable requests by the CPC. Ms. Weiss felt that it was important to have deadline dates for applicants to follow. Mr. Kanter, however, believed that CPC review could be on a “project by project” basis. There was general agreement among members that the process of project review had to be more predictable both from the standpoint of the CPC and of the applicants. Mr. Adler summarized the discussion and said the CPC hoped to work cooperatively and positively with its applicants to achieve a smoother process of project review. Mr. Valente requested a meeting with the CPC at their next meeting to discuss legal expenses for both the Busa and Cotton Farm land acquisitions. Under the open meeting law, further detail on the matter should wait until the next th meeting of the CPC. He will meet with the CPC on October 13. The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 pm Two documents were reviewed or presented at the CPC meeting; (1)An untitled handout with the 6/30/10 balances of the four “buckets” in the CPA fund. This document is on file with the CPC. (2)A spreadsheet entitled, “CPA Projects – Master List” updated by Ms. Rice, dated September 27, 2010. This document is on file with the CPC. Respectfully submitted, Nathalie Rice Administrative Assistant Community Preservation Committee 4