The Budget and Finance Committee of the City Council has voted 3-0 to recommend the Council NOT approve the $35,000 funding recommended by the Community Preservation Committee for a master plan for the former Kelley School building, according to the Daily News story.
The reason for the recommendation for denial, Holaday said, is that the committee questioned if this is "really the appropriate use of CPC funds, master planning."
She said the committee is going to look at additional information to see if other communities use Community Preservation Act funding in such a way.
At-large City Councillor Donna Holaday is chairperson of the Budget & Finance Committee. She goes on to say the committee is going to look at additional information to see if other communities use Community Preservation Act funding in such a way.
So, they vote to recommend denial, when a quick check online shows that CPA money can be used to cover administrative costs associated with implementing projects?
According to information provided on the website of the Georgetown (MA) CPC (couldn't find the wording in the legislation):
The CPC is permitted to appropriate up to 5% of the funds for administration and operational costs, so that the town doesn't have to bear the cost of administering the Act. These funds can be used to hire an administrator, purchase office supplies and cover the cost of professional services that may be needed to properly plan a project.
Is Newburyport already using the allowable 5% of the its funds? Whatever - using funds set aside for administration might not even be necessary.
Hingham's CPC, according to this report in the Hingham Journal, this year approved $40,000 for a study of preservation needs for documents and artifacts that are central to the town’s history and development ... The overall goal is to catalog, preserve, and digitize these items. The initial phase would determine the type, amount, and conditions of the documents and artifacts held by each project proponent.
What's the deal? Isn't this like a master plan for the project? Another quick check of this page on Hingham's town website showed they used CPA funds for detailed architectural analysis and designs of an old building.
And to what does this proposed Master Plan relate? Perhaps that's the problem!
Monday, July 28, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hi,
I think your last two sentences go to the heart of this (although i certainly have no direct knowledge of this).
As master plan is not a project plan. its a high level document and usually requires a process to first determine what direction the future is in.
So say the CPC funds a master plan that comes up with the resolution to sell the building. That certainly does not forward the goals of the CPA.
If the request was to create a specific project plan then i would think it would be okay.
I would also wonder if a youth center is something the CPA can be used for. Reading the three areas that the money can spend for, it does not like this is one of them. Only if the building was entirely devoted to sports.
thanks,
sds
I believe you are correct about a youth center not being within the guidelines of CPA funding. That's why I wonder about this "master plan."
I guess I figured they were using the term pretty loosely. Isn't there a master plan for the whole city? Should there be a sub-master plan for one project, or building?
I think most of the work that needs doing relates to handicapped access to the building and the restrooms, which is covered under CPA.
This is the kind of detail that would have made the snippet in the DN more clear!
Post a Comment