Loading...
2015-09-17CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION: Community Preservation Committee SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: September 17, 2015 LOCATION: Beverly City Hall, Third Floor Conference Room B MEMBERS PRESENT: Wendy Pearl — Chairperson, Marilyn McCrory — Vice Chair, Jon Paddol, Darrien Crimmin, Henry Pizzo & Robert Buchsbaum MEMBERS ABSENT: Heather Richter, John Thomson, Thomas Bussone OTHERS PRESENT: Environmental Planning Amy Maxner, Beverly Golf and Tennis Commission Martin Lawler, Purchasing Agent David Gelineau, Beverly resident Rick Marciano RECORDER: Aileen O'Rourke Pearl calls the meeting to order at 7:11 p.m. Discussion with David Gelineau Purchasing Agent — Overview of Municipal Bidding Procedures, Beverly Golf & Tennis Club Application Dave Gelineau, City Purchasing Agent, presents to the Committee an overview of the municipal bidding process. He distributes a "cheat sheet" stating this is a MGL149 project. Additionally he has 2 purchasing manuals that he refers to depending on the dollar value for the bid. Construction projects need a design and a budget for the bid. He explains that usually, the architect makes initial plans and specs, it is then advertised in the central registrar and local newspapers. Depending on dollar value, companies may need to prequalify and send in a bid deposit. Beverly also sends a prevailing wage sheet for what contractors have to pay its workers. Gelineau goes on to explain that according to MGL, bids go to the lowest bidder who can prove they can do the work. Gelineau notes that the difficulty with the $47K award is the Golf and Tennis Commission doesn't want to waste the money in just getting a design as bids are only valid for a certain amount of time and depending on the timeframe for a CPA application for work, this might necessitate going out for a second round of bids. He notes that the pool of contractors may shrink the second time as it is costly for them to submit bids. He is hoping that when the bids come in the CPC will commit to giving a certain amount to fund the bathrooms. He understands the CPC got hung up on the 40% contingency but he says that was just a placeholder for a good faith estimate. He notes that the lowest bidder is going to be the winner, so that number is irrelevant in the long run. Members agree this is a worthwhile project and wouldn't have gone this far if the CPC didn't think so. Crimmin notes the Committee has funded other historic preservation projects to develop a design so there is a precedent for this type of award. Crimmin suggests that bids can also be used as a goal post and value engineered to shave off costs. Pearl notes that when the design is done, estimated construction cost will be known, and the BG &T can come back for more money at that time with an out -of -cycle application. Pearl also notes that when the bid came back higher for Lynch Park bathrooms, Bruce Doig found other funding to bridge the gap and the CPC would like to see a better match for this project. McCrory states there are other sources of funding for historic preservation projects and asks what effort was done to pursue these funds. Gelineau states they did receive a historic preservation grant for some other preservation work a number of years ago, but that was with the help of the Planning Department to write the grant, BG &T volunteers may find it hard to manage that. He notes that the Director of Grant for the City just left and so there is a gap in resources. Gelineau states that the City undertakes the capital projects, the club operator takes care of the day to day expenses, but, he opines, when there are competing interests for City funds, it is hard to prioritize the golf club over teacher salaries. Gelineau states his belief that the Golf and Tennis Commission are doing their best and they are an asset to the City. A few years ago, members of the club were leaving, and facility conditions were terrible. When the new RIP was sent out for a new operator it laid out the responsibilities. The current operator underwent a rigorous review and they are doing a good job. He believes the bathrooms are critical not only for compliance but for allowing all people with disabilities, including the elderly, that chance to utilize and enjoy the facility and asks that the CPC make a commitment to fund the project. McCrory clarifies that the CPC invited the Commission to submit an out of cycle application but there is no guarantee that the CPC would be able to fund the entire project cost as CPA funds may be limited at that point, thus the CPC was suggesting breaking the project out into phases. General discussion ensues as to other possible sources of funding that the Commission can tap to help with this project. Discussion wraps up and members thank Gelineau for his time and willingness to address the CPC. Members turn their focus on administrative updates. Administrative Updates Maxner states she received a thank you note from Andrew DeFranza of Harborlight House with a photo of the residents holding thank you signs. She notes that DeFranza has extended an invitation to the CPC for a tour of the facility as construction progresses. Pearl notes that at the last meeting a vote was taken to designate remaining funds from the Round 2 budget to the community housing category, however it has become unclear as to what the amount was and the exact language of the motion. Members agree to get clarity from Thomson, who made that motion, at the next meeting since he is absent this evening. Maxner will draft the funding recommendations and CPC cover letter and send to Pearl, McCrory and Ayles for their review. Once finalized she will send to City Council for the first October meeting. Pearl asks if the CPC should make a presentation to Council. Members think it best to offer a brief presentation. Pearl reminds members that the City Council will go through Community Preservation Committee September 17, 2015 Meeting Minutes Page 214 the projects individually and choose to fund, partially fund, or not fund all, they cannot increase funding on projects. Pearl explains that she and Planning Director Aaron Clausen discussed the possibility of the Planning Department submitting an out -of -cycle application to secure a consultant to develop a housing plan for the City. She asks if the CPC would be willing to entertain such an application. Discussion ensues with members agreeing that a housing plan is needed. Members express support for the plan and an out -of -cycle application since it would go far in informing decisions for future application rounds and incorporation into the CPA Plan. CPA Plan Members discuss the Canton CPA Plan as a model and agree that it is a reasonable template to follow. Pearl itemizes the existing planning documents for the City: • The Open Space & Recreation Plan is newly drafted and conditionally approved by the State • The City Master Plan 10+ years old • The MHC Historic Resource Survey will go towards informing the Historic section • The Committee needs information from Recreation Department as to a capital plan and the Lynch Park master plan • There is a housing plan, but it is old; the Planning Department's out -of -cycle application will go toward the community housing section Discussion ensues as to whether the Committee should draft the Plan or hire a consultant, with members agreeing that a draft could be assembled by the CPC if work items are delegated. The Committee will utilize existing boards and commissions for their expertise. McCrory notes that the Committee has between now and December to get the plan written if they would like to hold a public meeting in January. General discussion points as summarized: • The plan should provide objectives that can be used to compare project proposals against and within each category provide a prioritized list. This can then be used to encourage applications in certain areas. • Plan to be updated yearly? In the Gloucester plan it states the CPA plan will be revised annually. Members discuss who will write which section: • Pearl offers to work with the Historic District Commission to draft the historic section. • McCrory and Buchsbaum to start on the Open Space section. • Crimmin offers to review what exists for the housing plan, with the hope that perhaps Bussone and Thomson can help work on housing section. • Maxner will ask Doig for the recreation capital plan and Lynch Park master plan, with Paddol offering to work on the recreation plan with help from Pizzo. • Members agree to undertake homework with the hopes of some draft deliverables in time for the next CPC meeting. Community Preservation Committee September 17, 2015 Meeting Minutes Page 314 • Members agree there needs to be a public process component and a way to include a framework for long -term planning. • Maxner will download the existing master planning documents to a cloud for CPC reference. Maxner asks if the next meeting can be scheduled for the fourth Thursday of the month so that Richter can attend. Members agree to schedule the next meeting for Thursday October 22 d McCrory notes that the Round 3 application schedule should be developed. Discussion ensues as to timing and the CPC's ability to draft a CPA Plan for public hearing presentation. Maxner suggests perhaps taking a year off to plan ahead so that Round 3 could align with the fiscal year to start July 1st with FY17 money. Members further discuss timing of Round 3 and public hearing scheduling without coming to a consensus and agree to table this discussion for now. Members would like to see a budget update from Ayles at the next meeting. There being no further business this evening, Crimmin moves to adjourn. Seconded by McCrory. Motion carries unanimously 5 -0. The meeting is adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Community Preservation Committee September 17, 2015 Meeting Minutes Page 414