The Holyoke Community Preservation Act advisory committee voted on a slate of project recommendations after reviewing a FY25 budget of $696,142 and confirming a $661,595 awardable pool after a 5% administrative deduction. The committee recommended funding for multiple projects across historic preservation, open space/recreation and affordable housing; the recommendations will be forwarded to Holyoke City Council, which must approve or adjust them.

The committee chair, Jay (committee chair), opened the meeting by noting the committee must use a conservative budget figure submitted to City Council. Committee staff Meg (staff member) confirmed the awardable pool of $661,595 and reminded members the CPA legislation allows carrying category minimums forward. The committee discussed the required 10% category minimum (about $66,160) and the option to set amounts aside for future years.

Committee members debated and voted on 10 substantive items. The top recommended awards were:

- Flats Community Building (historic preservation): recommend $100,000. Committee member Mary moved the motion; the committee voted to recommend the full $100,000 by committee tally (committee announced the result as 8–1).

- Lawrence School — Chimney and retaining wall restoration (historic preservation): after extended debate over eligibility and precedent for funding school maintenance, the committee rejected an initial proposal to fund $100,000 and instead voted to recommend a reduced $50,000 allocation (motion carried 5–3). Committee members cited concerns about setting a precedent for school maintenance, while others said the work meets preservation goals.

- Glutec/GlowTech Park playground upgrade (open space & recreation): the committee voted to recommend $150,000 to replace the play structure, add benches and picnic tables and provide trash receptacles. The committee discussed the applicant’s pending external grant and agreed to a conditional approach in contract drafting; the motion carried 5–4.

- Greater Holyoke YMCA pickleball courts (open space & recreation): the committee recommended $130,000 to convert a vacant parking lot at the YMCA into two pickleball courts with a half-court basketball option and public access during evenings and weekends; the motion passed with the committee chair recused from the vote and the remaining members voting in favor (committee recorded an 8–0 roll call in favor with the chair abstaining).

- Tiny-home project (150 East Dwight, ‘Eighth Sister’) (affordable housing): the committee recommended $50,000 to One Holyoke CDC to deliver a ~650 sq. ft. net‑zero tiny home and associated street-side garden. The motion carried on roll call (committee announced the result as 6 in favor, 2 opposed).

- A second tiny-home proposal for 160 Pine Street and a consultant-led tiny-home policy/study did not receive committee support at this meeting. Committee members noted planning and other city departments are already pursuing studies and ordinances related to accessory dwelling units and tiny-home policy and preferred to avoid duplicative spending.

- Wistariahurst retaining wall, Phase 2 (historic preservation): the committee discussed the long-term scope of the 440-foot wall repair and acknowledged the city has secured previous matching funds; members expressed concern CPA funding alone cannot address the full scope. No positive recommendation was adopted for the $350,000 request.

- City Hall stained-glass window restoration (historic preservation): with the remaining available funds the committee voted to recommend $165,435 to complete work on the two large windows (Windows 1 and 5) and to cover associated professional consultation; the motion passed 8–1. The committee asked that the award letter and subsequent contract identify the specific work to be completed with the recommended amount.

Why it matters: the committee’s package will be bundled and sent to City Council for final approval. Several committee members flagged the limits of CPA funding relative to large capital needs (for example, phased stone-wall restorations at Wistariahurst) and emphasized the contract stage as the point where project details, match requirements and contingencies (for pending outside grants) will be finalized.

Committee discussion highlights and exact attributions (selected):

- Helene, a committee member, on the Flats Community Building: "It's an extremely, I mean, to make a community space just accessible to everyone, like, that's a % what we're here for." (remarks during the Flats discussion.)

- Mary (committee member) moved funding for the Flats project: "I move to, approve the Flats Community Building, for a hundred thousand dollars." (motion recorded in the transcript.)

- Michael (committee member) opposed full funding of several school-related items, saying of the Lawrence School request, "I'm not gonna vote for this. It's something the mayor's office or the school department should take up." (remarks during the Lawrence School discussion.)

- Meg (staff member) explained the process after recommendations: council may approve, reduce or reallocate recommended amounts, and the committee will finalize contract terms in a subsequent contract subcommittee meeting.

What happens next: staff will package the committee’s recommendations for City Council review and prepare contract templates for recommended projects. The committee’s contract subcommittee (named during the meeting) will work with applicants and staff to finalize scope and contingencies before formal contract execution.

Ending: committee members repeatedly noted that several larger needs in the city (extensive wall repairs, multi-phase historic projects) exceed the direct capacity of CPA funds alone, and they urged the mayor, council and applicants to pursue layered funding strategies and clear shovel‑ready project definitions to improve the odds of timely implementation.