Loading...
CPC Meeting minutes from February 27, 2020-finalCITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES COMMITTEE /COMMISSION: SUBCOMMITTEE: Community Preservation Committee DATE: February 27, 2020 LOCATION: Beverly City Hall, 191 Cabot Street MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair - Marilyn McCrory, Vice Chair - Heather Richter, Derek Beckwith, John Hall, Tom Bussone, Robert Buchsbaum, Nancy Marino, Christy Edwards, Wendy Pearl MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Denise Deschamps - Economic Development Planner, Planning Department, acting as Committee staff Jodi Byrne - Recording Secretary; Fred Hopps, Heidi Roberts, Brad Bradshaw; Bruce Doig; Mary McCaffrey; Lori Sullivan; Rachel Hertzberg; Stephano Basso Chair Marilyn McCrory calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Approval of Minutes Denise Deschamps provides copies of the minutes for November 21, 2019 and January 30, 2020. The approval of minutes is deferred due to time required to review funding applications. Wendy Pearl arrives at 7:04. Deschamps informs the Committee that Beverly Historical Society [Historic Beverly] has asked for an extension of the MOU for the Hale Farm Property relative to the project's landscaping. She explains that the MOU is set to expire in March, and that Beverly Historical would like to extend it to September 30, 2020. Deschamps says that Historic Beverly encountered some issues related to the porch and with winter approaching needed to pause the project until the spring of 202o but Executive Director Sue Goganian is confident the project will resume in the spring. It is decided that this topic will be added to the end of tonight's CPC agenda. Continue Review of Funding Applications i. Solar Now Fred Hopps presents on behalf of the Solar Now application. Heidi Roberts (member of the Solar Now board) is also present. Chair McCrory outlines the major areas of clarification that the Committee sought after review of the application at the last CPC meeting: 1. A missing page (page 2) of the application (it is stated that this has been since added). 2. Solar Now's status as a nonprofit. (It has been provided.) 3. Information showing that Solar Now is seeking funds from other sources. (Solar Now is not currently seeking funds from other sources.) Hopps says that Solar Now is in the early stages of planning for the preservation of this historical site, and that this application is just the start of a bigger concept to come. Hopps states that he has spoken with New England Biolabs, but that this will be for a later stage of the project. He also says that Solar Now is fully prepared to seek money elsewhere to fulfill the vision for this site. He says that Solar Now would like to create a fundraiser, either selling or auctioning off the vintage panels, as they can no longer be used for functioning solar energy production. Wendy Pearl explains the historic guidelines for projects such as this related to preserving the panels and restoring the character of the Inverter House. Hopps says that this is part of their plan and that after meeting with the high school, Solar Now plans to provide access to classes for educational purposes. John Hall questions why only a small number of panels are planned to be saved. Hopps explains that they want to keep as much intact as possible, but that it is not good stewardship in their current condition to save a large number of panels. Hopps says that their goal is to save the front row of the panels. Tom Bussone asks about project funding, other potential sources of funding and what happens if there is no other funding secured other than through the CPC. Hopps says that with only CPC funding, Solar Now would aim to preserve the Inverter House. Hopps shares his vision of a state -of- the -art visitor center representing the history of the site as well as the future of clean energy. He says that currently the Inverter House has leaks in the roof and it is not functional or safe, and that the CPC funding would help to preserve this site. Wendy Pearl asks about the access improvements and Hopps answers that this first stage only includes the panels and Inverter House. He says that the design information is included in the report as the next part of the vision. Pearl asks who will be designing this first phase of the work and if they have a site control manager who would execute the contract for the work. Hopps acknowledges that there is no site manager and adds that he could complete the work, but that work could also be outsourced if required. Hopps says he has been in contact with the City and has already committed many years of volunteer work. Pearl explains the processes that the City and partner groups can provide in regard to the permit and legalities. Nancy Marino states that the use of the property will not change and that much work has been done on the property on behalf of the City with no agreement. Pearl references that the Edenic Garden Group project that was proposed to the CPC several years ago was similar, and that it proved problematic. Deschamps refers to the letter (page 2, #3) that references that the project has two phases. She asks if the $7800.00 is for the design plan, and if so, what is in that plan. Hopps answers that the design includes how the building can be further upgraded, but also the basics for preservation such as fixing the roof and adding panels to the ceiling. Deschamps explains that a plan can be broad - not only construction - but also for the future plans for the property, curriculum, and display. Hopps acknowledges that he hopes to preserve the building but also to plan for the next stage. 2 McCrory says that the CPC is only being asked to fund this first stage, and that the next phase of design may not be eligible for funding through the CPC. Deschamps asks for clarification as to what the plan is for the proposed design (since design is identified as a budget item). Hopps says that the solar panels will need some electrical design so that they can become functional. The plan is to preserve them and also to illustrate how the panels will be fixed to the roof. He says that the design also includes the educational plans and space behind the fence. Hopps says that he sees all of this as a part of the site preservation. Brad Bradshaw from Solar Now adds that this is the only historic site with these panels. He explains that they are trying to determine the best way to preserve this history. He says that the building and existing first row are the first step, but that in needing to communicate history, the plan be developed to determine how this information will be shared. He explains that this may include displays with placards and a row of living panels outside that would have been manufactured within the last 50 years and wired to show different designs. He states that Solar Now wants to make the space safe for people to visit and self - sustaining with panels that generate energy for heating. He says that this project is not difficult or complicated but is designed for public use. Hopps says that it is not an issue if the work is required to be put out for bid. Bussone is not concerned about the bid, but requests confirmation as to whom the money will be given (will the City administer the funds or SolarNOW or some other entity ?). Hopps asks for guidance in the necessary procedures. It is explained that clarity around this issue must be obtained before funding is approved. McCrory requests that Solar Now return with a signature page that holds the Mayor's signature. The page was signed by the applicant but also needs to be signed by the property owner. She also says that the Mayor will probably assign a city entity to manage the project as a type of liaison. It is explained that someone on the City side has to take ownership of this project. Pearl says that if the Mayor authorizes Hopps to have a ten -year contract for site control that this would need to be a signed agreement by the Mayor. Pearl explains that this would allow any funds to be contingent upon this agreement. It is noted that there may be a need to send the project out to bid or to get several estimates for the cost of the work or they might be able to contract with SolarNOW. It is recommended to Hopps that he speak with the Mayor. McCrory asks about *3 page 2 (of the application), the two -phase description, maintenance and repairs, stating that maintenance does not qualify for CPC funds. She wants to clarify that the activities to be funded cannot be maintenance in general. Hopps explains that Solar Now wants to preserve the building by repairing, and Pearl feels that this is a good example of preservation. Pearl expresses that she is not sure if the educational plan is eligible in phase 2. Christy Edwards reminds the Committee of a past project that asked for preservation funds for an educational site. She says the CPC funded a site plan for preservation but not for the educational signage. Pearl says they rehabilitated the site for public use. John Hall asks if the Inverter building is functioning. Hopps answers that three of the panels are functional, but not in use. Hall says that if it was a currently functioning building that it would be deemed maintenance, but if it's putting it back to how it was, it qualifies as preservation. Hopps explains that he met with the Principal and the science department at Beverly High school and that there is excitement for the future of this site, indicating that preservation now is 3 for the benefit of later. He says that Kearsarge is preserving the panels with a contract from the City. The panels will be stored on the site and can be used potentially as part of a fundraiser. Hopps also says that these objectives are not a part of the initial grant, which is to preserve so that phase 2 can later occur. Bussone suggests that Solar Now ask the Mayor to sign the application and then to assign a City entity to oversee the project. Edwards asks if the City has agreed to this project. She requests that the row of panels be retained as is, and that this application be signed off with commitment by the Mayor either directly or in an agreement with Solar Now to manage on behalf of the City. Edwards wants in writing that the 15KW will be preserved, and Hopps says that this is part of the contract between the City and Kearsarge. Buchsbaum asks if a new Inverter will be built for the new panels and Hopps confirms. Edwards asks about the preservation of the vintage panels and how the cost will cover this (referring to page 81 She asks if this is just for the storage of the panels. She suggests a breakdown. In addition, she asks for added specifics on page 6, where it lists the budget item "preserve some vintage panels." Pearl asks for a description of the $6200 funding, and Hopps says that it is for mostly the electrical work, moving and setting up, but that the exact design is not yet determined. McCrory requests a specific breakdown and backup for the budget to include quotes for new windows, doors, etc. from vendors. She also requests that the design plan and budget be specific. Derek Beckwith asks for the specifics of "catalogue, organize, storing" of records for $1200. Hopps acknowledges that Solar Now will need to research and add more specific information, and that they will do this. McCrory notes that Page 7 is left blank and that "C" on page 70 "Repair Structure" is also left blank. Hopps says that as he reviews the application with the Committee he sees that more money will be needed. Pearl suggests that he can price things on the web and cut and paste estimates. When asked for a timetable to make these changes and additions, McCrory suggests one month (to occur before the next meeting). Pearl says that this is an exciting project and that if crafted carefully, it could be a good funding project. She says that she wants Solar Now to know that this is not a negative review, but that the Committee works to provide standards for all applicants. Hopps agrees and thanks the Committee for its review. Deschamps clarifies the specifics of the Solar Now project review: 1. Meet with the Mayor and ask for his signature on the application and the process /party to execute the contract. 2. Inquire about a lease or agreement option for legal authority for Hopps /Solar Now to continue working on this project. 3. Obtain either an agreement with the City or work with the City as a partner, and then the City will put it out to bid if necessary or find vendors to do the work. 4. Provide back -up information to justify cost of expenses mentioned 0 5. Revisit page 7 and that "c" on page 70 "Re[pair Structure" is also left blank A Solar Now board member says that Hopps has been contributing to this site for 15 years as a volunteer, and that if it were not for him, Kearsarge would have already torn this site apart. Beckwith applauds the group for their work but says that the funding request triggers some type of legal agreement. Hopps says that he will contact the DPS (Beverly Department of Public Services) and the Mayor for support of the project. 2. The Cabot Lobby Restoration Both the Development Coordinator, Rachel Hertzberg, and one of the architects (Stephano Basso) are present to represent the application for the Cabot Theater Lobby Restoration. McCrory indicates the items that will be reviewed: 1. Identify the two items that will be funded through the CPC as the application shows $49ok on budget form and $275k as the line item. The Development Coordinator answers that the correct number for CPC funding request is $275k, and will include the restoration of the arched ceiling, rose window, lobby walls and floor. It is also answered that $49ok is the amount for the total project. 2. Confirmations of funding from two other potential funding sources that are noted in the application as pending. The Development Coordinator says that they need to wait until May or June for a reply from these funding sources. She also reports that they already have received $88o,000 in donations and $13ok from sponsors, which will cover the current amount needed for lobby preservation. She says if they do not receive total requested funds that the elevator renovation may have to go on hold. 3. Assurance that the deed to verify ownership was received. The Development Coordinator says that the property is owned by the nonprofit and proof was provided. The Development Coordinator reports that the lobby rehabilitation will begin in June 2020, and McCrory states that work does not begin until there is a signed agreement. Hall asks the status of the current work, and the architect reports that current work includes the uncovering of the lobby, the revealing of the original ceiling, a removal of a large furnace, and the performing of needed prep work. He says that they have not done the restoration work as they are waiting for the funding. The Development Coordinator asks the CPC if they could meet the anticipated building schedule, and McCrory answers that the CPC can usually submit funding decisions by May, so that this should meet the timeline. The architect says that this particular work would probably not begin until August. McCrory asks the Committee to state their thoughts about protecting a public investment in a private property. Bussone says that any grant from a public entity to a private one will require some type of guarantee. He suggests an agreement with a stipulation that if the property is sold within io years, the CPC funding will be repaid. Bussone also says that the transaction could be 5 recorded in the registry. He says that the applicant needs to accept this type of restriction and that it would be included in the MOU. Deschamps provides the following example: if there is a recapture clause over a ten year period meaning if it sold after x years, l00% is recaptured, and after x years io% is recapture, and so on. Deschamps also speaks of the importance of allowing public access given that public money will have helped to fund the project if the CPA grant is approved. This could mean allowing access by the general public once or twice a year in the form of a tour. The Development Coordinator says that they are open to this conversation. McCrory says that a preservation restriction is absolutely required only when CPA funds being used as part of an acquisition. Bussone states that in order to give the funding, there needs to be a recapture clause. Pearl asks about the grandeur of the lobby being restored. She asks if the finishes envisioned are replicating what is there or preserving what is in its place. The architect answers that the work to be funded with a CPA grant is a full restoration project, following the Secretary of the Interior Standards. He says that they always try to restore all original items, but sometimes this is not possible, and that any items not meeting this standard are not a part of the CPC funding request. He also notes that some old poster cases have been recovered and will be restored. He is asked to make sure that all work is inspected and must include the plans of what has been recovered and the plans to restore them. The applicant is asked to document and provide narrative of how the work being funded by the CPC is a restoration project, what items have been uncovered, and how they are being restored. The architect then shows the Committee the 192o's blueprints. He says that in the 196o's, builders covered over the old structure, ultimately keeping it protected behind the paneled walls. Gillis Park Stairs Bruce Doig (Parks and Recreation) and three other citizens are present to represent the application for the Gillis Park Stairway Project. The Committee asks who will be overseeing this project for the City (since this is City owned property), and Bruce Doig answers that he will be the project manager. He also says that he reviewed the site to see if the stairs should be repaired or replaced, and that repair was determined to be best. Doig says that the funds will go to a capital fund created by the auditor's office. Richter asks the projected life of this repair, and Doig says that the brick mason said that it would last 50 years. Richter notes climate change and other outlier issues, and that Aaron Clausen told her that the city incorporates climate change into all city projects. Bussone asks for the cost estimate of a repair verses a replacement. It is answered that the brick was deemed the historic material, and that they are proposing just repairing the current brick. It is reported that the stairs have had little maintenance over the past 30 years and that the hope is that these repairs will have a long life. McCrory asks if these repairs meet the Secretary of Interior Standard, and it is answered that whoever is doing the work will be required by the RFP to meet all historic requirements. A Buchsbaum asks how often these stairs flood, and it is reported that they have never flooded. Richter notes that the future climate survey shows that in 30 years these stairs are determined to be underwater. McCrory asks about the price quote, and if the Parks and Recreation Committee will contribute. Doig answers that there may be other sources of funding if needed. It is also noted that the estimate includes a 1o% contingency. Beverly Farms Improvement Society (BFIS) Mary McCaffrey and Lori Sullivan are present to represent this application. Pearl asks about the reported brick fundraiser and where these bricks are being laid. It is answered that the bricks would be located in a walkway that is alongside the fire station on West Street to the library. It is currently an area with blank bricks. It is also reported that the bricks are would be sold at $loo each. The Committee asks for information as to whom in the City will be managing this project. McCaffrey answers that the Beverly Farms Improvement Society is managing the project with a City partner. She says that one year ago, their group was looking for a big project when they met with Kevin Harutunian, who gave them the suggestion of the cemetery fence. She reports that Cassidy Brothers won the bid to restore the fence. She also says that the Mayor has signed the application, and that Commissioner Mike Collins has approved the project. Commissioner Collins is managing the project as a restoration not a replacement. McCaffrey says that the BFIS paid for the first part of the project, which was to de -lead the fence. She says that because the project was so massive they made the decision to do the project in phases. McCaffrey says that their fundraising is now just for the middle section of the fence. Pearl notes that this is a public property and so work should be completed by companies vetted by the City. Pearl requests that the City Solicitor explain this process to the CPC. She says that because this is public money it should go through public procedures for a public bid. Pearl also says that City site control is needed. McCaffrey says that they met with the City before doing anything. Edwards says that the CPC should be informed of what documents are required. Bussone says that the City (Cemetery Commission) should be involved and receiving the funds. McCaffrey says that she feels they did their due diligence through meeting with the Mayor and with the Commissioner. Bussone explains that they did nothing wrong, but that the CPC needs specific forms in order to fund. Sullivan asks for direction in these next steps, and McCrory asks Deschamps to contact the City Solicitor. McCrory says that because the BFIS has a signed contract with the vendor, the City needs to be a part of that contract so that the BFIS will not be exposed to liability. Deschamps will speak with the City Solicitor on behalf of the BFIS. It is noted that the fence was last replaced in 1899. Deschamps explains that the CPC is looking for a consistency of standards, and suggests that the site control be indicated in the application so that the money will go to the assigned municipal entities. Edwards says that the application does ask for proof of site control, but that it does not include information of what site control is and it does not identify the fiscal agent for the site. 7 It is suggested that the best plan for this group is for the City to sign the contract with the vendor, citing BFIS as their partner. Then, the City would decide who manages the project. The BFIS is complimented on their hard work in this process. They are asked to identify who has the legal authority to enter into the contract with the vendor. Marino addresses that private citizens often improve Beverly Farm areas, but that the difference here is that this funding is from public tax - paying dollars. McCaffrey and Sullivan say that they will wait to hear from the CPC regarding Deschamps meeting with the City Solicitor when they will be informed if they need public bidding, to whom the funding will be sent, and if the city is financially responsible. McCrory confirms that the CPC will be in contact with them with these answers. Other Business 1. A discussion is held regarding the request for an extension for the Hale Farm Project. Deschamps explains that Historic Beverly has asked for this delay for the MOU relative to the landscaping part of the project. Set to expire in March 202o, Beverly Historic is asking for an extension until September 2020. Bussone motions to extend the MOU of Hale Farm Project from March 2020 to September 2020. Beckwith seconds. The motion passes (9 -o). 2. The City Clerk application will be discussed at a future CPC meeting when both the City Clerk and Asst. City Clerk are available to be present. 3. The Committee discusses ideas for improving the CPC funding application process. Deschamps asks if it is appropriate for her to reach out to applicants in order to assist them in the next steps, and it is answered that it would be a good idea. Pearl suggests a City partner to guide them. Deschamps says that Susie Lamont expressed how difficult the application process is for the public. It is suggested that although the application process is explained at the public hearing, perhaps it could still be made more user friendly. Bussone mentions that when a group is designated as pre - eligible by the CPC, they think they are in, and they don't understand the necessity of providing the details required in the application. He also says that the application should not be a barrier for applicants. He suggests that a sample application (an A+ version) could be posted on the website for new applicant review. Pearl offers suggestions for each category/ criteria. Bussone suggests that each pre - applicant be offered a workshop to show how to fill out the application before filing. Deschamps asks if someone outside of the CPC needs to provide a training. Bussone stated that the training didn't need to get into the specifics of each potential project. Pearl also notes her concern in the small number of applications. She suggests an online form to simplify the process. Bussone says that although there are not many applications, that all are solid project suggestions. McCrory also says that several projects are upcoming. N McCrory reviews the timetable of these project requests, stating that after the requested application updates are received, that voting could begin. A current budget snapshot is requested for the next meeting. Deschamps says that Emily Hutchings requested fliers be given to the Committee regarding an upcoming community event related to the Beverly Historic Preservation Plan. Deschamps distributes the fliers. Adjournment Bussone motions to adjourn the meeting. Marino seconds. The motion passes (9 -o). The meeting adjourns at 9:15 pm. The next Committee meeting will be Thursday, March 19, 202o at 7:00 pm in Beverly City Hall.