Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Applicant Feedback topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Springfield committee splits over recommending portico for Ames House; directs most unsuccessful applicants to reapply
Summary
At its June 2 meeting the Springfield City Community Preservation Committee debated whether the Ames House should pursue funding to rebuild its historic portico; the motion to recommend the portico failed 3–3, and the panel voted unanimously to send most unsuccessful applicants a standard “reapply next year” message while offering targeted guidance to a small number of projects.
At a June 2 meeting, the Springfield City Community Preservation Committee debated whether to advise the Ames House to seek funding to rebuild its two‑story portico and ultimately failed to pass that recommendation on a 3–3 vote. The committee instead voted unanimously to send most unsuccessful applicants a standard message that the panel lacked funds and to invite them to reapply next year, while offering more specific feedback to two projects.
The committee’s chair, Bob McCarol, proposed that the Ames applicant be encouraged next year to seek funding for the portico rather than the windows it had requested. "I move that we respond to them with the suggestion that they put the portico forward for their project next year," McCarol said. The motion was seconded and, after a brief discussion about public benefit and feasibility, failed on a three‑for/three‑against tie (Steve Bosworth and Wanita Martinez voted yes; Rosemary Morren, Yolanda Consul and Willie voted no; McCarol voted yes as chair, producing a 3–3 split that defeated the motion).
Members differed on whether the committee should steer applicants toward what they personally preferred. Opponents cited the CPA funding cap and uncertainty about whether a portico reconstruction could be completed within the program’s limits. "To rebuild the portico and do the windows far exceeds the CPA cap of 300,000," said Willie (committee member). Supporters said the portico restoration would have strong public benefit as a visible historic feature.
After the failed motion members agreed to group most of the 11 unsuccessful applicants into a category that will receive a standard rejection email saying the committee lacked funds and inviting reapplication next year. Alden Street and Bridge Street were identified as two projects that will receive specific, actionable feedback — for example, adding a clear operating pro forma, vacancy and tenant data, or clearer architectural plans — if the applicants reapply.
The committee also reviewed several other projects that fared well in scoring but were unfunded because of tight competition, noting multiple requests for pickleball courts and local park improvements this year.
Next steps: staff will send the standard and targeted feedback by email and the recorded meeting will remain available for applicants to review. The committee is scheduled to appear at the City Council public hearing on June 22 and will resume regular work in September.
