Loading...
01.02.20 Comm Preservation Committee Public Meeting Minutes-FINCITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES COMMITTEE /COMMISSION: SUBCOMMITTEE DATE: LOCATION: MEMBERS PRESENT: Community Preservation Committee January 2, 2020 Beverly City Hall, 191 Cabot Street Chair - Marilyn McCrory, Vice Chair - Heather Richter, Wendy Pearl, John Hall, Tom Bussone, Christy Edwards, Nancy Marino, Robert Buchsbaum MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Derek Beckwith Denise Deschamps - Economic Development Planner, Planning Department, acting as Committee staff, Emily Hutchings (via conference call) - Associate Planner, Planning Department. Richard Smith - Adams and Smith LLC Jodi Byrne - Recording Secretary Special Meeting for the Powder House Project Chair Marilyn McCrory calls the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Denise Deschamps connects Emily Hutchings via conference call. Richard Smith is welcomed to the meeting. McCrory confirms that, prior to the meeting, all Committee members received copies of the bid and structure reports. Deschamps reviews the materials, including supplemental documents provided by Hutchings and Smith that included a revised Budget Form and revised Project Schedule. McCrory states that the City is requesting that the CPC amend the Memorandum of Understanding to complete the items not originally funded and to add $35,287.77 to the allocated funding for the project. McCrory briefly reviews the history of this project, including its increased timeline and the original funding request to the CPC for $102,500. Deschamps explains that the increased timeline was due, in part, to the time required for the full study of the Powder House to take place. She notes that the study provided a more detailed account of the work that was required in comparison to the scope of work originally supplied in the 2016 application for funding to the CPC. The bids received exceeded the original cost estimates. Deschamps states that the new total for the project is $219,787.77. McCrory asks Hutchings about the other sources of funding. It is noted that there is a MHC MPPF Grant for $55,000, a Beverly Crossing donation of $25,000, and an Essex National Heritage Grant for $2,000. McCrory asks about a contribution from Meridian that was identified in the original application for CPA funding. Smith answers that Meridian agreed to perform the 3D scan of the building, pro bono, with a noted $5,000 value. McCrory confirms that the CPC is being asked to both revise the work to be funded and the amount of CPA funding. Smith explains that this ask is for Alt. 1 restoration, noting that the full project study revealed that the entire masonry scope would need to be repaired. Deschamps says that previously the CPC had approved $25, 000, maximum, for non - construction work, with the remaining $77,500 dedicated to construction- related work. Robert Buchsbaum asks about the CPC's funding history of this project.. Heather Richter answers that the CPC did not fully fund the project when it was originally seeking funding in Round 3 (2016) because they had concerns that sufficient funds would not be available as they were considering other projects with large funding requests. However, that is not a factor at this time. Wendy Pearl also notes that in the past the CPC liked to see a full plan for providing funds, as high priority work and price tags could differ. Tom Bussone asks about price guarantees. Hutchings states that there were concerns that work would not be completed by June 30, and that the MPPF grant holds a spending deadline of June 30. Hutchings explains that she received confirmation from the preferred contractor that $110,000 will be completed prior to this deadline. Hutchings checked with MHC and as long as $110,000 can be expended on, the project prior to June 30, 2020 the MPPF grant will not be jeopardized. The rest may be completed after this date. Hutchings states that this plan has been approved with the Historic Committee. She also notes that the contractor thinks that all work can be done by the end of July, 2020. Hutchings explains that the extension is needed due to the specialized type of brick that needs to be used. Bussone asks for confirmation that if the CPC provides the additional funds requested, the other groups providing funding will be committed to their funding, and Hutchings confirms. Deschamps states that Hutchings received an email that the new work schedule will not jeopardize the MPPF funds. McCrory asks if all of the new items in the work scope are eligible for CPA funding, and Hutchings confirms. It is noted that the report shows the things not to be funded with the CPC money, and that the physical restoration meets the qualifications of a historical restoration project. Pearl asks if this project will require the use of contingency money. Hutchinson says that the contingency money is present in case any unknown issues arise. She says that if there are no unknown issues, the money will be returned to the CPC. Pearl asks if Alt. 2 would be done if it were possible, and Hutchinson confirms. An Alt 2 plan would complete this project (all except for the educational side, which is not a part of the restoration grant). McCrory asks a question on behalf of absent Committee member Derek Beckwith: Why the difference between the original funding request and the current need identified? Smith answers that it is because the first estimate was before the thorough building study, and also that costs of materials and labor have increased in the past three years. Also, since the work required is so specialized specific details of the work scope are needed before a truly accurate budget can be developed. John Hall asks if this was originally a high priority historic project, and Hutchings confirms. Bussone asks Pearl if she feels they should be inclined to fund the whole project, including (Alt. 2) for $13,000 (additional funds), and she confirms. McCrory asks where this project fits into the city's historic preservation priorities. Hutchings answers that this is the second oldest city -owned building in Beverly (after city hall), and that it is unique as the only eight -sided powder house in New England. Hutchings explains that the Powder House is city -owned and could be used for significant educational opportunities. She states that neighbors are enthusiastic about this restoration plan as it is a unique feature of their neighborhood. Hutchings states that the Powder House ties strongly with Beverly's military history. McCrory confirms, after reviewing the Community Preservation Plan, that the Powder House was highlighted as a historic preservation priority. McCrory reaffirms the importance of the project to ensure the validity of the request. Pearl states that this was a high priority project. She also notes that although the cost and project estimates have changed, the application has not. Pearl affirms that the other sources of funding add appeal to this project, and that because it is owned by the city, it promotes city pride and commitment. She feels this project is a good example of CPA work. Hall asks about public access to the site. Hutchinson answers that it is next to a narrow public street, accessible by Madison and Appleton. Hall notes that his hope is that the public will be able to use this building. Smith answers that after the work is completed, the public could access the site. Smith does confirm that the structure will not allow handicap accessibility, and suggests an app for virtual tours. Buchsbaum asks how the city will maintain this building. Smith answers that the building is 190 years old, and that there needs to be a maintenance schedule (perhaps a 20 -25 year masonry work review). Smith thinks that a long -range cycle plan should be in order to review the upkeep of the building. McCrory asks if maintenance is included in the application. Pearl states that the project completion should ensure low maintenance. Richter notes that the original (2016) application for CPA funding does show the topic of maintenance, and she reads this section of the application to the Committee. Hutchings states that Lance Daly was the original force behind this application, and that he has since been relocated out of the state. She confirms that she has taken over the administration of this project, and that she would be sure that a maintenance plan occurs. Nancy Marino asks how they could ensure that the public could take advantage of this historic site. Hutchings answers that the promotional plan will include press releases, soon- to -be- published Boston Globe article; various media outlets, a historic preservation plan communicated to schools, working with Historic Beverly, and collaborating with city partners. McCrory confirms that the current request to the CPC is for additional funding in the amount of $35,287.77. Pearl notes the new amount of $51,069.22 for the full project including both Alternates 1 and 2, and recommends the CPC consider funding Alternate 2 as well. It is noted that these funds would come from this year's budget, and that only the additional amount has not already been allocated. Pearl motions to fund the Alt. 2 project at ($52,000), with the contingency of a maintenance plan which would need to be created before the final disbursement of CPA funds for this project. Bussone seconds. The motion passes (8 -0). Hutchings thanks the CPC for their time and support, and Smith leaves the meeting at 7:15. McCrory thanks Deschamps for all the provided information. Christy Edwards motions to adjourn the meeting. Marino seconds. The motion to adjourn passes (8 -0). The meeting adjourns at 7:15 pm. The next meeting is scheduled for January 16, 2020.