Community Preservation
Committee
Public Meeting
of June 14, 2005
9:00 a.m.
Members Present: Elaine
Anderson, Chair; William Dougal; Eric Dray; Tim
Hazel; Nancy Jacobsen (arrived @ 9:20 a.m.); Stephen Milkewicz; and Winthrop Smith.
Member Absence: Treg Kaeselau
The
meeting was called to order at 9:01 a.m.
There
were none.
At the last meeting Eric Dray had been nominated as Vice Chairman. Eric Dray declined the nomination since he already has a lot of Board work.
Motion: Eric Dray made a motion nominating Tim Hazel as Vice Chair. William Dougal seconded the motion and it passed 5-0-0.
(Tim Hazel abstained from voting.)
Chairman’s Updates:
Laura Shufelt’s Invoices.
Elaine
Anderson told the committee that they had all voted and approved the fee
schedule for Laura Shufelt’s services but the Town Manager (KAB) had advised
her that there is no need to have an RFP for Laura’s services because the
invoices are considered intergovernmental services. KAB said as soon as an invoice is submitted he will take it to
the Board of Selectmen (BoS) for their approval and Laura’s reimbursement.
Treg Kaeselau’s Resignation.
Elaine Anderson said that the Recreation Department is looking at a replacement for Treg’s spot on the Committee. Treg must resign first to clear the way for another applicant.
A great deal of the meeting was spent on a discussion of the memo dated June 6, 2005 that Laura had sent to the Community Preservation Committee (CPC). Mainly the discussion – with most everyone’s input – revolved around how the anticipated funds would be leveraged. Bottom line of memo suggested including a target per unit contribution but went on to say flexibility should be mandated.
Elaine
Anderson said that early in this committee they had looked at other communities
for information on how they did it and then composite ideas evolved.
Laura
countered by saying that “What we have here is cumbersome and involved and we
need to streamline the process.” She
further suggested that maybe a rolling application? – but - applicants have to
be informed that they can’t receive the money until the next town meeting. Next Laura said that the group needs to come
to a decision on what form the application should be in.
Elaine
said she enjoyed the simplicity of what had been submitted but wondered whether
there are standard form, i.e., boilerplate for these applications?
Bill
Dougal said he is still having problems with this entire proposal. He feels it doesn’t get to the essence of
Provincetown. There are 3 variables in
Provincetown and Bill listed them:
1.
Limited
land;
2.
Tremendous
demand; and
3.
An
acute timetable because we are losing a community.
“We
have to be proactive in our process and thus we will be more successful. He has not yet seen a developer that has
proposed anything on a small scale.”
Bill continued by saying, “How many units can we construct when we have
economies of scale and given the variables?”
He suggested that the group must put out further directives. (At this point in the meeting Nancy Jacobsen
arrived) Bill told the group that we
need a critical mass of units. We’re
not looking for small groups of units.
We need more specificity if we are going before the BoS. BoS needs to be made aware of where we are
headed and we need further plans.
Tim
Hazel said that someone has to come before us from the Housing Authority. “We can’t go out and start looking for
properties – that’s not within our purview.
Once we get this information out there, then it’s up to people to come
to us. Our job is to motivate these
people and guide them.,” Tim said.
Bill
Dougal - responding to Tim – said, “We
need to essentially decide our direction.
Are we going for new construction?
Or what – are we looking for the bigger planning – the most units? – we
haven’t even had a philosophical discussion on our direction.
The
discussion then became cyclical with everyone offering their own personal
opinions.
Next
everyone concentrated on the Community Housing goals contained on one of the
pages. Some of the goals were
eliminated and others received different weights and/or priorities. This section will go back to the drawing
board.
The
Committee did agree that the money should be leveraged so that Provincetown can
get the “most bang for the buck.”
Tim
Hazel then said that he would like the community to come first – not
development.
Bill
Dougal said that we have to be competitive in the marketplace. We have to have a priority for new
construction because that will get us to the 10% most quickly.
Again
these thoughts went back and forth with no conclusions. Win tried to cite what
New York City did with their artists and compare it to Provincetown. He said, “We just need to get the word out.”
Elaine
said, “We’re not at odds but just struggling with ways to achieve the same
thing.”
Tim
added, “We know that brand new is more economical. We really need a blend.”
Win
Smith suggested that the Committee needs to talk to banks – and see what they
would like. We need to talk to Seamens
and discuss what they will do with rehab vs new construction. Win and Tim felt
this avenue would offer free advertising for the banks involved. (They’d be crazy to not cooperate with
programs was the Committee’s cumulative thought.)
Laura
said decisions are almost impossible without projects in front of us.
Tim
Hazel said that the group should be challenging people to think of creative
ways to solve this issue. Bill Dougal
said that we’re dealing with water usage and availability.
Elaine
Anderson wondered if ever there were any opportunities for renters to buy
property? Win, once again, cited New
York experiences, and said that many times instead of an opportunity, it caused
rents to be increased.
Tim
Hazel told the CPC that they need to let people know “the store is open” for
these kinds of things. Eric Dray said
that there should be language in the memo that details other options for
housing opportunities.
Elaine
suggested that perhaps we can let Laura take a second shot at this memo.
Elaine
also suggested going over the application later. As long as we are within the letter of the law she would prefer a
more simplified form.
Eric
Dray said that we need a draft that we’re comfortable with and then we can send
it to the different boards that are represented by members of the CPC.
IT WAS DECIDED THAT THE NEXT MEETING WILL HAPPEN ON TUESDAY – JUNE 28TH
AT 9:00 A.M.
Approval of May 31st
Minutes.
Motion: Eric Dray made a motion to approve the
minutes of the May 31, 2005 meeting with only one correction (mtg adjourned at
6 p.m. – not 6 a.m.) The motion was
seconded by Nancy Jacobsen and approved unanimously.
The
meeting adjourned at 10:35 a.m.
Respectfully Submitted
E. Rogers Gaudiano
Approved
by: _____________________________ on ______________________
Elaine Anderson, Chair Date