Loading...
CPC Minutes from January 30, 2020-finalCITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES COMMITTEE /COMMISSION: SUBCOMMITTEE: Community Preservation Committee DATE: LOCATION: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: January 30, 2020 Beverly City Hall, 191 Cabot Street Chair - Marilyn McCrory, Vice Chair - Heather Richter, Wendy Pearl, Derek Beckwith, John Hall, Tom Bussone, Robert Buchsbaum, Nancy Marino Christy Edwards Denise Deschamps - Economic Development Planner, Planning Department, acting as Committee staff Jodi Byrne - Recording Secretary Chair Marilyn McCrory calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. McCrory informs the Committee that this meeting holds two agenda items: 1. to review the application from the City Clerk. To review and approve the CPC minutes for December 19 and January 2. Beverly City Clerk's Office Document Preservation Application Robert Buchsbaum opens the discussion with a request to invite the applicant to attend a future CPC meeting to discuss the application. He states that the project application appears disorganized as presented, and suggests that if others agree, the next step may be to focus on the organization of this project as it has been presented. McCrory agrees, yet questions if the component of the project that addresses the process of organization and storage of the documents meets the eligibility criteria for CPA funding. Wendy Pearl suggests that this process of organization may include placing documents in proper archival containers. She also asks for clarification as to how the proposal fits into the total plan for the conservation /preservation of the documents under the purview of the City Clerk's office. Derek Beckwith states that the application is not well - prepared and that the section with the inventory information is just a listing with no real organization or order as prepared by the inventory team. In addition, Beckwith notes that the inventory of documents as supplied by King Information Systems is rudimentary, contributing to an overall weak presentation. In addition, Beckwith notes that the summary of the work that needs to be done and the costs associated with that work is not sufficient. Overall, Beckwith suggests that this application does not present a close coordination between the description of the work to be performed and the request for funding, as there is no symmetry with the report and no clear plan. He questions whether or not the focus of this project is principally storage, not document preservation. Tom Bussone feels that the CPC did not receive the funding information that they requested, and that there is not enough information. Pearl asks if the City Clerk's project, funded by the CPC in Round 6, has gone out to bid yet. Denise Deschamps answers that bids did go out and that two companies have responded. John Hall expresses his concern that with each year's application there are more questions that need to be answered about the project. Pearl notes that on page 6 of the inventory submitted by King Information Systems, there is a reference to a box cover and fragile /torn documents from the 1700's. She notes the need for more information in this instance such as do the original documents need conservation or preservation. Should these documents be prioritized for preservation? It may depend on their condition and type. She says that the words "fragile and in a box" sound as though the documents could be in danger. She states that more details are needed, including the plan for these documents and the number of them from the 1700's. Beckwith reports that these early dates are also generally referenced on page 5 [of the King Information Systems inventory], and he agrees that more information is needed. Bussone states that more answers and specifics need to be added to the application. He favors the concept but feels the application and bid are not well - prepared. Beckwith suggests that the project should result in the hiring of a company that has the capacity to catalogue what documents exist, their condition, prioritization for treatment, and storage needs. Beckwith asks that if a qualified company were to work on this organization, the existing application could be amended for this necessary step. McCrory states that this change would require a new application with new cycle material. She also notes the possibility that if the project is not funded, it could result in loss of these documents. McCrory offers the option that the CPC could take a break from funding this project for the current year. The project funded in Round 6 was recently put out to bid. Pearl says that there are examples of projects funded with CPA funds, to determine how best to proceed. She explains that the CPC could use their administrative funding to hire a consultant who would create a better plan. Beckwith asks about the proposed, new storage space, noting that it is at a school. He suggests that if the documents are to be moved to this new space within the next year, that it may prove prudent to organize materials as a part of this move. John Hall questions the act of spending money to have artifacts returned to questionable storage. Nancy Marino asks the reason for such a vast amount of saved paperwork and the order of the preservation for the documents. While she notes that the Committee cannot judge the importance of the documents, she feels that there should be a prioritization of document importance. Marino suggests that critical documents be stored in a school where history classes could have access and incorporate them into their curriculum. Marino states that she does not see a value to the project as it is presented at this time. Bussone requests the details in the specific funding request of $25,000. It is noted that $1o,000 of this is from a grant and that perhaps some of this could be used to organize and prioritize documents. Heather Richter suggests that the new City Clerk take the lead on this project. McCrory notes that current City Clerk Wes Slate plans to remain available to answer questions about the project after his impending retirement. Beckwith states that Slate intends to be available to help and lend his opinions. McCrory agrees with Richter's idea to involve the new City Clerk in this project. Richter states that she is not comfortable with the $1oo,000 request in this current application. Bussone agrees, and notes that the Committee is just in the discussion stages. Bussone feels that the CPC should plan a respite from this project or request some clear answers to the continuing questions with this project. Beckwith asks if there are top priority documents that could be prioritized and stored properly. Buchsbaum suggests the option that the CPC could fund this project at a lower dollar amount, until it receives a better sense of the project's priorities. Bussone states that over the past three -year period, he has not felt secure in the project's trajectory. He further suggests that the CPC ask that a more specific budget be created, instead of offering a blank check that provides no clear idea how funds will be used. At this time, Bussone states that the application does not hold the support needed from the CPC for the total requested funding. Marino wonders if the CPC can provide guidance to applicants. While Pearl indicates that no one currently does this, Bussone suggests if the CPC has the tools, this could help applicants to adhere to criteria. Richter says that the CPC is asking for a preservation plan. Bussone requests a plan that the CPC can both understand and accept. McCrory references a letter from the Commonwealth's archivist, noting that it prioritizes documents dated earlier than the year 1800 so this supports effort to preserve /conserve the older documents first. Beckwith states that this application does not reflect this same prioritization. Pearl asks if the public will be able to search for the records to be preserved, and requests confirmation that the project includes the contents of both the basement and upstairs vaults. McCrory states that the numbers do not match (adding up to $1oo,000 request). It is noted that the attached expenses list does not present accurate numbers. Pearl asks if there is an included narrative for the project. It is discussed that while there is a letter, there is no real narrative in the application. Deschamps mentions that there is a letter from the City Clerk describing the project that is part of the application. Hall reports that the letter from the archivist does address the way things are bound. Pearl feels that the Committee needs more detail in this application. McCrory asks that if documents are just to be microfilmed, if that qualifies as preservation. Marino recalls that the library was previously told no to this same request. Pearl states that the library's request was to index [and to digitize images now on microfilm] so this is different [because the Library does not have the original newspapers]. Pearl says she would be okay with film being an acceptable archive for documents, but that they should defer this question to an archivist. She feels that the CPC should not be making these decisions. The Committee agrees that they would like to see the details on what they are being asked to fund. McCrory reads her notes back to the Committee to ensure she has their questions correctly noted: 1. Buchsbaum - What is the intention of the clerk in the recommendations of the assets, and how does the clerk's proposal fit into the record management plan? 2. Beckwith - The inventory in this plan is inadequate as there are no categories, just a list with no prioritization that does not answer the questions of the Committee. Question of more storage than preservation. 3. The application needs to be specific about what is being preserved and why. 4. The application needs to justify for what is to be preserved. 5. The project request does not address the CPC evaluation criteria. 6. Information needed for when the new storage space will be available. 7. Question of whether or not this is a time to prepare for a move rather than to fund more document preservation. Specifically, Deschamps wants to make sure the new storage area meets the criteria for proper storage. Bussone adds that he would like the archivist experts to answer the CPC questions including what the CPC is being asked to preserve and if it really needs to be preserved. He would like to see a list of old city records. Pearl agrees, and wants to know where the project is on a completion timeline. She requests knowing if this is an annual program instead of a project to be completed. 8. Request for a rationale for documents to be preserved and how they will be preserved. 9. The source of outside grant funding. io. A list of documents that are in critical need. ii. A plan with a detailed budget with correct numbers. 12. Pearl - clarification if the budget includes the $37,5oo at the end of King Information Systems report, and what that is specifically for (i.e. materials, preparing for move, records management). Marino wants to know when this project will end. Hall says it seems to be ongoing. Beckwith notes that while some work will be ongoing, it should eventually involve only a small number of documents. Buchsbaum says City Clerk Slate feels that this is an open - ended project. Bussone asks at what point are paper documents stored digitally. Pearl states that the city needs to fully understand how it will benefit from this project. Pearl also asks that if the City Clerk's office just bid last year's work, does that mean that any new funding won't be bid until next January. She notes that the schedule seems off as they will be managing a project now, while holding one until the other is completed. McCrory says the CPC could vote to take a break from funding this project. She states that the proposed schedule does not show a bidding schedule at the full request amount. Beckwith feels that this is an important project as these artifacts are the history of our city, but that it is not being presented in the detail that is expected. Buchsbaum notes the importance of prioritizing documents. Pearl leaves the meeting at 7:51. 13. Evaluation of the new storage space, and asking if a professional needs to oversee. McCrory asks if there are any other questions to be presented to the applicant. The Committee agrees that all questions are included in McCrory's notes, and that they will not vote until they get answers to these questions. Bussone suggests another Committee review before inviting the current City Clerk in for another meeting. He also notes that the in- person meeting could be saved for the new City Clerk. Deschamps will send CPC's questions to Wes Slate and Assistant City Clerk Lisa Kent. Once they have the opportunity to respond to the questions, a date will be scheduled for them to meet with the CPC to discuss the project in more detail. Approval of Minutes Deschamps provides copies of the minutes for November 21, December 19, and January 2. McCrory suggests holding November as they were just received without time to review. Bussone motions to accept the December minutes as amended. Beckwith seconds. The motion passes (6 -0) with Buchsbaum abstaining. Bussone motions to accept the January 2, 2020, minutes as amended. Hall seconds. The motion passes (6 -0) with Beckwith abstaining. Adjournment Bussone motions to adjourn the meeting. Richter seconds. The motion passes (7 -0). The meeting is adjourned at 8:0o pm. The next Committee meeting will be Thursday, February 27, 202o at 7:00 pm in Beverly City Hall.