Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutCommunity Preservation Committee -- 2013-10-23 Minutes Approved: 11-13-2013 Vote: 4-0-1 - , jj{{q 9Rli �`y�_111� i't..1 MINUTES OF COMMUNITY PRESERVATION COMMITTEE REGULAR SESSION BRE!4TER T010 CLERK. Wednesday, October 23, 2013 at 4:30 pm Brewster Town Office Building Present: William Klein, Paul Ruchinskas, Elliott Carr, Dion Dugan, Roland Bassett, Jeanne Boehm, and Elizabeth Taylor Absent: Don Arthur and Martin Kamarck In Attendance: Jackalyn Courchsne and Jon Juhl The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:30 pm As required by the Open Meeting Law we are informing you that the Town will be audio taping this public meeting. In addition, if anyone else intends to either video or audiotape this meeting they are required to inform the chair. " Agenda Items: 1. Approval of Minutes (if any) 2. Discussion of CPC Warrant Article 17 at Upcoming town meeting 3. Update on preparation of agreements on: • Habitat Housing Proposal • Brewster Housing Authority Brewster Woods project 4. Preliminary discussion on past and future policies related to proposal deadlines, payout schedule agreements, and other funding requirements. 5. Other unanticipated business 6. Adjournment 1. Approval of Minutes The minutes of previous meetings will be presented at a future meeting for review. 2. Discussion of CPC Warrant Article 17 at Upcoming town meeting The conditional award letter to the Habitat for Humanity to build 5 or 6 homes was discussed and it was noted that the commitment letter has been reviewed and changed by the town's legal counsel. It was clarified after a brief discussion that there is a formal CPC Meeting Minutes October 23, 2013 Page 1 of 4 requirement that a property be acquired within 2 years in order to use the money. After the property is acquired, there will be another 18 months to get a shovel in the ground. (Roland Bassett and Dion Dugan arrived to the meeting following the vote). MOTION: to approve the Habitat for Humanity conditional award letter dated October 23,2013. Motion made by Paul Ruchinskas, second by Elizabeth Taylor. VOTE: 5-0-0 3. Update on preparation of agreements on: ■Habitat Housing Proposal ■Brewster Housing Authority Brewster Woods project The Brewster Housing Authority Brewster Woods project was discussed. There was a review of the status of the Request for Proposal and all of the costs involved. It appears that $80,000 to $100,000 is being requested for predevelopment costs that did not appear to be in the initial application. The predevelopment budget includes the costs felt will be necessary to have the project considered by the Commonwealth and improve the likelihood of it being funded. Affordable housing is very competitive and it is important for consideration that the town provides maximum support for the project. So predevelopment funding is important going forward and the funding process was a reviewed. Site approval process and permit commitment process with the budgets for these were reviewed. A ground lease between the developer and the Housing Authority is what is being proposed. It is hoped that the CPC would provide the predevelopment funds to pay the consultant and to obtain the comprehensive permits. A new Executive Director will be chosen for the Brewster Housing Authority to replace Jackie who is leaving. Jackie plans on working closely with her successor so that this project moves forward smoothly. Due to the process involved in advertising and hiring a developer, it was felt that a developer would probably be hired in December 2013 or January 2014. • It was suggested that if the town meeting approves the $600,000 from the CPC to support this project, the restrictions of the predevelopment funds that are under consideration by the CPC should not affect the project. • The important areas for consideration are land acquisition costs that will be provided in this instance by the Brewster Housing Authority and the town providing the maximum amount of local commitment that in this case would come from the CPC. • There was a discussion and concerns raised about what restrictions should be included in the support letter. • It was suggested that the development team is the most important aspect of the project. • Restrictions placed on the project would be to try to protect the CPC monies and avoid any unforeseen pitfalls in the project. • It was felt that any monies expended by the CPC would not be used until monies from the state were in hand. • Clarification is needed as to exactly how much money would be available of the $600,000 for predevelopment costs and for what purposes. It was suggested that as currently outlined in the draft acceptance letter that the $100,000 go to hiring the CPC Meeting Minutes October 23, 2013 Page 2 of 4 consultant, pay for legal costs associated with the project, and for the permit process. • It is felt that the Commonwealth would want to see the town's funds used upfront and not on the backside of the project. • There was a proposal that before monies from the town are spent, that the developer chosen for the project be responsible for securing the funding for the predevelopment costs such as the permits and architectural engineering plans. There was a brief discussion on the Latham and Brewster Housing Authority project that did not go forward some of which was attributed to the banking situation that transpired at that time. Though it is true that the developer chosen for the project is usually responsible for securing the funding for the predevelopment costs, the Commonwealth may look at this as an obstacle to the project and has been the practice over the last several years that predevelopment costs are paid for by the town. This is looked at as sharing the burden with the developer as the developers do not see any developer fees for 6 to 9 months. It was suggested that providing the predevelopment funds is the best way to move the project forward. This is a town meeting warrant article so the only question is working out the restrictions on the predevelopment funds. How much money does the CPC want to put at risk? It is felt that the Commonwealth will look more favorably on the project if the town pays for the predevelopment costs. There was a review of the predevelopment budget. • $7,500 for design development for 50 units, design as chosen by the Brewster Housing Authority • $4,500 environmental analysis of the site (21 E requirement) • Engineering work for drainage, site plan, and septic Title V to meet Board of Health and state requirements • Permitting fees and some of these could be waived by the town • Legal fees for finalizing the ground lease and comprehensive permitting process • Developing/Consulting fees to get site approval and comprehensive permit • $2,500 for marketing study of Brewster and surrounding areas that takes about 6 weeks. State wants to look at the rental market of the area. • Contingency for unexpected costs that may not need to be spent. • These costs are based on previous projects approved by the State. Clarification was asked for the 3 bullets on page 2 of the letter where it appears that the whole $600,000 could be used for predevelopment costs and that this needs to be known by the town before the town meeting vote. It is felt that the predevelopment monies as proposed need to be in place for the State to consider funding the project. Second Page of letter, second paragraph states "financing additional predevelopment work after the permit has been approved;" and then the next paragraph says: "the balance of the funds would be available as of initial closing". There needs to be clarification on how money is to be paid out. The state will be looking to having these funds available following closing on the property. As proposed,the CPC needs to decide if it is amenable to putting $400,000 to $500,000 of the $600,000 towards predevelopment costs. CPC Meeting Minutes October 23, 2013 Page 3 of 4 There was a discussion and some members though not all were amenable to $100,000 going towards predevelopment costs. There was a review of the projects and the money allowed for upfront costs recently funded by the state. Due to the competitive nature of the process, those willing to put up money for upfront costs have a better chance of going through. It was felt that the developer is the most important portion of the project. The town needs to decide if this project is a risk they are willing to take. There was discussion on whether if going forward and the project not reaching completion if there would be any value left in work completed. The surrounding neighbors were notified of this project in 2009. Concern expressed as to acceptance of the project by the surrounding neighbors as well as if there were access to the property. Jon Juhl is to send Paul Ruchinskas additional information based on today's meeting. 4. Preliminary discussion on past and future policies related to proposal deadlines, payout schedule agreements, and other funding requirements This item postponed to a future meeting. 5. Other unanticipated business (Dion Dugan left the meeting before the vote) MOTION: to approve $450 from the Professional Services Account to have an estimation of value prepared for property of interest in the Punkhorn. Motion made by Roland Bassett, seconded by Jeanne Boehm. VOTE: 6-0-0 The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, November 13, 2013 at 4:30 pm 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at approximately 5:52 pm Respectfully submitted, A(2-0e,s —. Donna Moberg, Recording Secretary CPC Meeting Minutes October 23, 2013 Page 4 of 4