COMMUNITY PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Statutory members  Charlie McMillan, Historical Commission  Joyce Moss, Planning and Development Board  Eric Reenstierna, Conservation Commission  Jeff Sacks, Housing Authority  Andrew Stern, Parks and Recreation Commission

COMMUNITY PRESERVATION COMMITTEE (cont’d) Mayoral appointees  Doug Dickson, Wards 5 & 6, Recreation  Hallie Pinta, Wards 7 & 8, Community Housing  Setti Warren, Wards 1 & 2, Open Space  Claudia Sauermann Wu, Wards 3 & 4, Historic Preservation

CPA FUND 1% real estate tax surcharge: $1.5M available FY 2002 $1.8M available FY 2003 State matching fund: $1.5M available October 15, 2002

FIRST STEPS Chair & vice-chair elected Existing studies reviewed Four subcommittees appointed: communications, plan development, project review, project audit Procedures and regulations drafted Decision process/guidelines drafted

EXISTING STUDIES REVIEWED Framework plan Recreation and Open Space plan Community Development plan Existing housing programs National, state and local historic listings, guidelines and reports

DECISION PROCESS Proposal submitted Preliminary review (staff, subcmte): refer or return with questions Final review (full CPC): recommend, deny, defer or return with questions Submit recommendation to Aldermen Advocate approval by Aldermen

DECISION GUIDELINES All proposals must meet certain threshold requirements Completeness Legal and zoning issues Good public policy Fiduciary responsibility

DECISION GUIDELINES Proposals rank higher if they: Preserve essential community character Contribute to community vitality Demonstrate community support Serve more than one CPA purpose Produce highest cost/benefit value Leverage other public/private funds Save resource that would otherwise be lost Show that no other options exist Create incentive for private projects

DECISION GUIDELINES Community housing proposals rank higher if they: Contribute to 10% affordability goal Ensure longer-term affordability Promote reuse of existing buildings or construction on previously developed sites Convert market rate to affordable units Target qualified city employees Employ underutilized funding sources currently available in Newton

DECISION GUIDELINES Historic preservation proposals rank higher if they: Are listed, eligible for listing or determined to be significant resource by Historic Commission Preserve/restore a city-owned resource Preserve/restore an endangered resource Enable public access Preserve a resource that retains historic integrity

DECISION GUIDELINES Open space proposals rank higher if they: Are listed on city’s open space plan Add to existing open spaces Demonstrate value for biodiversity, wildlife habitat or resource reclamation Mitigate flooding or preserve wetlands Create pocket parks in needed areas

DECISION GUIDELINES Recreation proposals rank higher if they: Are listed in city’s recreation plan Support multiple recreation uses Serve larger number of residents Provide passive as well as active uses Preserve sight lines and access consistent with open space

COMMUNICATION PLAN Ongoing meetings and public hearings Meetings with boards and advocates Page on city web site Newsletter in tax/water bills Coverage in local papers and cable TV Video on NewTV

FIRST PUBLIC HEARING (June) Report progress to date Propose decision process and guidelines Lay out next steps Get community feedback on above Hear ideas and objectives for Community Preservation funds

PLAN DEVELOPMENT Committee experts prepared sections Sections integrated through several edits Draft widely circulated for input Public Hearing on draft Plan finalized (late September)

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS August announcement for Nov 1 deadline Application form and process Exception for time-sensitive proposals

SECOND PUBLIC HEARING (September) Present Community Preservation Plan Get community feedback on above Answer questions about RFP Lay out process and timeline

FIRST-ROUND PROPOSALS 24 projects 15 made first cut (complete, fundable) 11 recommended in whole or in part $2.8 M value

THIRD PUBLIC HEARING (January) Presentation by proponents Community advocates and others Questions by CPC Requests for additional info

SELECTION PROCESS Staff analysis against guidelines Identification of issues and options CPC discussion Straw vote Final recommendation

RECOMMENDATIONS Draft Board order Memo outlining rationale and conditions Special Board cmte; Finance cmte Vote by full Board of Aldermen

RECOMMENDATIONS 3 community housing -- $1.4 M 3 recreation -- $.6 M 3 historic preservation -- $.5 M 2 open space -- $.3 M

NEXT STEPS Major open space opportunity Refine process Update CP Plan Community outreach October 1 application deadline