2008-05-08-CPC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

COMMUNITY PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Legion Room Thursday, May 8, 2008 4:00 p.m. Present: CPC Chair, Betsey Weiss, Joel Adler, Marilyn Fenollosa, Wendy Manz, Leo McSweeney, Richard Pagett, Judy Pearson, Sandy Shaw and Dick Wolk. David Kanter, CEC Liaison was also present. Absent : Norman Cohen CPC Chair, Betsey Weiss called the meeting to order at 4:10 p.m. She first thanked the Committee and then proceeded with the agenda as follows: 1. Suggestions for changes for next year – municipal, school and land projects? The question of how much information is appropriate for project applicants to share in order for an application to be accepted was asked. In general, the Committee felt that applications in this year’s application process and cycle were presented with inadequate information and back up. More detailed rationale for projects and substantive justification is needed with each application, as are actual estimates and/or copies of appraisals. With regard to municipal projects, the Committee also agreed that each project should be submitted on its own individual application form with one project only per application. There was some discussion concerning the integrity of the Committee. Some expressed the feeling that the CPC is seen as a housekeeping unit. The conclusion one made, from the Town Meeting process, is that Town Meeting will approve any project that is budget relieving. Is the CPC Project Application form itself helpful? Does it seek all the necessary and pertinent information? The Committee felt it was and that in addition to the CPC’s general application form, it will continue to accept the Town’s general Capital Improvement Projects request form but that all elements of the CPC application must be included on the Town form. A breakdown of budget and requested funding must be explicitly defined with written estimates of cost. The consensus of the Committee was that the CPC should discuss these matters with appropriate Town personnel in June so they have ample time to respond accordingly to the CPC project th application deadline of October 15. Other matters of concern mentioned, and to be discussed, were the follow-up on projects and the overall procurement process. Some to be invited to a June meeting, although not complete, are Rob Addelson, Mary Ellen Dunn, Pat Goddard, Bill Hadley, Karen Mullins, Dave Pinsonneault, Karen Simmons, and Carl Valente. 2. Working with Town Counsel The CPC desires a more direct route to Town Counsel and believes such approach could expedite the process and minimize legal fees. In general, the concern is that Legal Counsel’s interpretation of project eligibility is translated through a third party and the CPC has little, if any, opportunity to dialogue directly with Legal and/or incorporate legal jargon into summary responses and write-ups. David Kanter suggested that the CPC prepare a document for Town Counsel from which Town Counsel could review and then respond. 3. The Needs Assessment – annual review Betsey shared that the Needs Assessment requires an annual review. To do such and to be completed by September, Betsey appointed sections as originally assigned and as follows: ?? Leo McSweeney to review community housing J. Pearson, 2008-05-08-CPC-min 1