Loading...
CPC Minutes.05.21.2020 -FINAL-APPROVEDCITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES COMMITTEE /COMMISSION: SUBCOMMITTEE DATE: LOCATION: MEMBERS PRESENT: Community Preservation Committee May 21, 2020 Google Meet Virtual Meeting Chair - Marilyn McCrory, Vice Chair - Heather Richter, Derek Beckwith, John Hall, Tom Bussone, Nancy Marino, Christy Edwards, Robert Buchsbaum, Wendy Pearl MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Denise Deschamps - Economic Development Planner, Planning Department, acting as Committee staff, Bryant Ayles - Director of Municipal Finance; Fred Hopps with Solar Now; Jodi Byrne - Recording Secretary 1. Call to Order Chair Marilyn McCrory calls the May 21, 2020 meeting of the Beverly Conservation Committee to order at 6:30 p.m. and informs everyone that the meeting will be recorded. Chair McCrory takes a verbal roll call and then reads the following: Pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 Order Suspending Certain Provisions of the Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 30A, §18, and the Governor's March 23, 2020 Order imposing strict limitation on the number of people that may gather in one place, this meeting of the Beverly Community Preservation Committee will be conducted via remote participation to the greatest extent possible. No in- person attendance of members of the public will be available, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time, via technological means. In the event that we are unable to do so, despite best efforts, we will post on the City's website an audio or video recording, transcript, or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting. Applicants and /or representatives required to appear before the Beverly Community Preservation Committee must make arrangements to present remotely as there is not a physical meeting location. Documentary exhibits and /or visual presentations must be submitted 3 business days in advance of the meeting to Denise Deschamps via email at ddeschamps @beverlyma.gov. If you wish to have a comment and /or question read during the meeting please submit them to Denise Deschamps at ddeschamps @beverlyma.gov. Chair McCrory repeats that the meeting is being recorded, and all participants are given the option of turning off their video and audio. She says that anyone who would like a copy of documents from tonight's meeting may contact Denise Deschamps. Chair McCrory states the rules of conduct for the meeting. She says that after the Board speaks, she will call upon members from the public to speak. Chair McCrory asks all participants to use their mute button when they are not speaking. She states that all votes will be taken in a formal roll call vote, and she requests that the chat feature only be used only for technical issues. 2. CPC Budget Review Bryant Ayles gives an update on the CPC budget. He says that he will show current balances and explain the necessary steps for the budget to be in compliance with the statutes and time requirements for all funding submissions. Ayles displays a spreadsheet that tracks the annual budget and its ability to project how much money is left in the fund at any time. He says that this internal tracking report provides the most accurate budget number. Ayles reports that there is a current balance of $1.6 million. He shows the Committee the way the report tracks all funding projects and their funding category in order to help determine how to accurately fund project categories. Chair McCrory says that when the Committee votes on a project, they do not specify a dollar amount for categories. She reports that, instead, the Committee determines how funding for the project is divided amongst the possible funding reserves available and presents that to the City Council. Deschamps says that she then writes the CPC's draft letter to the Council and sends it to both Chair McCrory and Vice -Chair Richter for their review. Ayles says that he will implement some communication strategies to be sure the correct information goes to the Council. For example, he says that in the last round of funding requests, some of the recommendations exceeded the available category funds. Ayles says that he will work with Deschamps to gather data, and that they will then inform the Committee of findings. Chair McCrory says that she may have been using an outdated budget sheet, and that Deschamps would have had no role in this. Ayles says that the category funding issue is entirely fixable, and that it is not an issue with which to be concerned. Deschamps says that the spreadsheet shows that in Column G (the community housing reserve) funds appear to be available, yet when the funding request for the housing authority was requested, it was not the correct number of what was available. Ayles says that this is an easy fix, and that he will put a request to transfer $22,260 from the reserve to cover this negative, and $28,501 to the other reserve to remedy. Ayles says that he will do this by the end of the fiscal year in order to have correct and accurate accounting. Ayles reports that with the two pending F requests (Solar Now and The Beverly Farms Cemetery) the CPC has a remaining budget of $1.1 million. John Hall says that he thought the CPC had already voted on the Beverly Farms Cemetery Project. Deschamps says that while the CPC did vote, the project will not be voted upon by the Council until Council's next meeting. Richter reports that the dues for the CPC are not shown in the budget sheet. Chair McCrory asks if the dues come out of the administrative budget. Ayles explains that at the beginning of the year, they earmark an administrative budget, so that the dues are already accounted for. Richter then requests the CPC available fund balance after the round seven project funding votes. Ayles reports that there is $1,098,146. Richter confirms the budget for both open space ($610k) and general funds ($500k) with Ayles. Chair McCrory asks Ayles where the administrative expenses are reflected on the report, and Ayles says that they are in a set aside budget estimate for FY20. He says that at the end of the year, any unspent funds will go into the funding balance. Buchsbaum notes that they are spending less than the planned budget creating a surplus, and Ayles says there is usually one year of reserve within each yearly budget of the CPC. Chair McCrory confirms with Ayles that the FY20 balance of $936,279 is the current budget, and that this number includes the carry -over from previous years. Ayles says that when it comes time for the new FY21, he will request getting back on the CPC agenda in order to review the new budget with the Committee. Ayles estimates that this will happen in August or September 2020, as the City Council will not approve FY21 until that time. He says that FY21 monies cannot be spent until that time, but if there are any initiatives in excess of available funds, the Committee could look at how to expedite the process. McCrory thanks Ayles for clarifying the CPC budget. 3. Review of Meeting Minutes from May 7, 2020. The May 7, 2020 minutes are reviewed and amended. Buchsbaum motions to approve the May 7, 2020 minutes as amended. Beckwith seconds. A formal roll call vote is made with all voting yes: Chair Marilyn McCrory, Vice Chair Heather Richter, Derek Beckwith, Robert Buchsbaum, Thomas Bussone, Christy Edwards, John Hall, Nancy Marino, and Wendy Pearl. The motion passes (9 -0). 4. Discussion of the Solar Now Application for CPA Funding Chair McCrory provides a review of the Solar Now project request. She says that this project falls under the historic resources category for preservation and restoration. Chair McCrory 3 reports that the project request is for $25,000.00, and that this is the reported total project cost. Chair McCrory says that the scoring rate of this project was numbered 5 out of the 6 projects. She says that the project description is to restore the Inverter House and to preserve some of the historic solar panels. Chair McCrory then asks Richter to comment on the questions that were posed to the Solar Now group. Richter reports that she and Fred Hopps spoke on the phone and worked through the issues the Committee was having. She says that all Committee members have a copy of the answers to the questions from the Committee. Richter reports that the applicant received a signature approval from the both the Mayor and Mike Collins (Commissioner of Public Services and Engineering), and that the applicant has been in contact with the City regarding procurement. Richter reports that she feels comfortable with the project application. Chair McCrory invites questions and comments from the Committee. Beckwith says he has no major questions, but wants to refer to Mike Collins' email where Collins says that he will work closely with the applicant around project development and procurement. Beckwith says that this is different from being listed as project manager or as the recipient of the funds. Beckwith asks if funds would go to Solar Now or if they would flow through a particular City department. Richter says that funds would flow through a City department, but that she does not know specifically which one. Beckwith says this would fall in line with the Beverly Farms Cemetery project and also with the Gillis Park project, in that the funds would go to a particular City department. Beckwith says that it is important that the application reflect this more clearly. Hopps says that the Commissioner Collins reported that the funds would come through the City, and that he would relinquish the monies through them. Deschamps asks Beckwith to read the portion of the email from Deschamps to Commissioner Collins. Beckwith reads this out loud to the Committee. Chair McCrory asks Beckwith if this is sufficient to address what he is looking for, and Beckwith confirms with Deschamps that when the Committee votes, they would be voting to have the project funds distributed to the City. Deschamps says that she is comfortable with the language in the email. Wendy Pearl states that she appreciates the clarity in separation of the three project parts: the panels, the Inverter house, and the project display. Pearl adds that she has concerns about the third part of the project, as the archived documents are usually first reviewed by the HDC to see if they are eligible. She says that the conservation and preservation focus needs to first be determined to see if the documents are significant, and that this has not yet happened. Chair McCrory says that she is not clear what the basis of the $25,000.00 project cost identified. She says that the request shows contractor estimates, but that she does not see this adding up to 0 the $25,000.00 requested. Chair McCrory reviews the budget and says that the CPC needs a new budget sheet. She asks if other Committee members are comfortable with the budget estimates, and questions the basis for some of the line items. Richter says that when she spoke with Hopps, that he said the budget is largely an estimate. Richter says that she agrees with Pearl's point in validating the historic documents, and that this budget item is for $1,200.00, but that the other numbers are estimates that may change. Richter says that if the funds are running through the City, that she doesn't know how the numbers could be more precise. Chair McCrory asks that if the City is committed to this project, will the City be on the hook for anything that could be over the requested $25,000.00. She asks that if the city is both managing and running the project with the assistance of Solar Now, what happens if the project goes over $25,000.00. Richter says that she cannot speak for the City on this. Pearl says that in the past when projects have not been fully defined because there is a design component, there is usually a way to consider granting the funding with controls so that there is an understanding that the work being done remains in the framework. Chair McCrory asks if Pearl could state this within a motion. Pearl confirms this stating that if there is a design, the Committee could see this design with the cost estimate as well as the winning bid. Pearl says that in the past when projects have exceeded the estimate, the CPC has been generous with funding. Chair McCrory says that the Committee needs to make sure that they have some solid cost estimates before approving this project so they know what they are getting into. She states that an approval could include the provision that there are milestone reviews that need to be determined by staff. Buchsbaum says that the historic documents could be deducted or included in the project but contingent upon approval from the Historic District Commission. Hall also asks if this could be added with a contingency as these papers could be important. Bussone says that he shares Chair McCrory's concerns that the costs are just estimates. He says that he doesn't want to stop the project, but wants to be sure the vote offers some type of protection for public funds. Edwards says she still does not have clarity in the budget application, and that the estimates provided for roofing work and windows appear to exceed the budget in the original application. She asks Hopps to speak to this. Hopps says that he likes the interim review suggestions and the archival cost estimate, and that he wants to clarify his work with the City. Hopps says that he wants to defend this project, and that he has done much work with the City. He says that as a general contractor, he can always complete the project (if it goes over - budget). Hopps reports that there is no other plan to preserve this important site other than Solar Now's plan, and that he would be honored to work with the CPC. He says that he is not asking for anything more than $25,000.00, and reports that Collins said he would be willing to do some work, and that Hopps could plan volunteer work as well. Hopps reports that the roof and windows are not 5 guesstimates, but actual estimates that he received. He says they could add a `not to exceed' budget for this project. He clarifies the roof costs changed because he received a new number from a roofing contractor. Hopps says that he is open to an interim review (such as a milestone review) as Pearl suggested, with funds for the project awarded to Mike Collins and the DP S. Chair McCrory says that she still needs some backup numbers, and Hopps says that as a general contractor he knows what the design and rendering costs are. He said that he reached out to Siemasko Designs to see what they would charge for the design, but he did not receive a reply. Chair McCrory says the Committee usually receives more detail such as hourly rate for designers. She says that the current numbers have nothing behind them (except for the windows) and asks the Committee if they are comfortable with this. Richter says that until the project gets further along, it may be difficult to have exact numbers. Hopps says that if it needs to be written into the application that the request not exceed a number, then he is perfectly willing to do this. He also says he did not understand the level of detail that the Committee was looking for. Pearl says that she is comfortable in a budget with dedicated funds in which the City has control. She wonders if they should just fund a design project right now to determine if it fits in CPA eligibility, and then Mike Collins can figure out how to get this done. Hopps says that there is a sense of urgency as the developer is planning on demolishing the site by the end of summer 2020. Hopps says that the funding will go a long way in establishing the integrity and legacy of the site, and that the physical work needs to be underway before the developers finish their work on the new solar array. Edwards asks why the process is happening in this way, and Hopps answers that the emergency regulation for public utilities around incentives was on hold for months. He says that they are now looking to move forward with solar projects as the process has been restarted. Edwards asks why the Inverter House restoration needs to be underway before the construction is complete on the solar field. Hopps says that if they have the funding, it is a protective stance to establish the value of this site, in that it is being funded and that there is something important to be preserved. Pearl asks if Hopps can work with Mike Collins and have the moving of the panels done outside of the CPA project. She asks if designating a place for panel storage involves CPA funds or is it just an arrangement with the City. Hopps answers that storage was a part of the $6,200.00 CPA budget request, and that it is planned to be in the form of a shed or shack of some type that would be constructed for this purpose. Chair McCrory asks about Hopps' vision. Hopps says that the plan is to remove the panels now C. and store them, in order to get them out of harm's way while the design is determined. Hopps says he will find a way to get this done - that he will preserve this site, the panels, and the Inverter House. He says that he wants to work with the CPC, but he feels frustrated that he cannot answer the posed questions. Chair McCrory explains that this is a process, and that the CPC just wants to insure that they are being responsible with the public's money. Pearl requests specification around the $6,200.00 labeled for the preservation of vintage panels. She says that this project has multiple components that can put the site at risk, and she asks what needs to happen before August. Hopps answers that they need to store the panels, and need the materials or construction of a shed to put the panels in. He confirms that the $6,200.00 is for a storage shed, but that he could have the vocational school build this. Pearl states the school could not do this before August. Beckwith asks if the panels need to be stored immediately, and if it would make sense to store them in the Inverter House until work begins. Hopps says that while this would mean moving the panels twice, that it is possible. Beckwith also says that if the first milestone were for the design, there would then be a budget for the work that needs to be done for the Inverter House as milestone two. He says that if milestone one is designated for the design, then the rendering and budget for the work that needs to be done should be set not to exceed a set amount for the actual report. Beckwith says that if the panels could be stored in the Inverter House, it would solve the immediate problem of finding a storage place before construction begins. He says that in this example, the CPC could be presented with the budget before each milestone continues. Beckwith says that the $25,000.00 could be the funding amount, with indicated milestones set within this amount. Hopps says that he thinks this is a good idea, but that he does not want to put things in the Inverter House before work begins. Hopps says that he will try and find another storage place on the site. Chair McCrory asks if the Committee could return to Pearl's thoughts on the design phase, and if Hopps would be able to have Kearsarge store the panels. She says that this could allow time for the HDC to review and get a better sense of the budget for restoration. She asks Hopps if this phased approach would work, and he says that he feels the design and construction work should be at the same time. Hopps' audio is problematic so McCrory suggests that he call into the meeting on his phone. Hopps joins from phone audio. Chair McCrory asks if the Committee favors funding a design phase in order to give Hopps a realistic schedule for an HDC approval of the design before construction begins. She says that this will provide a better estimate of cost. Hopps says that this is not a good construction theme. He says they know the cost of the roof and windows, and that the $6,200.00 may be the only item in question. He says that the design should be in tandem, and that taking the construction money away addresses the urgency of the project. He says that he 7 thinks the timing would work fine with the design and construction together. Richter says that she feels this is a time - sensitive project, and that she favors the milestone approach over the phased approach. She states that this is not a huge budget project, and that the milestone request can monitor both the design and revised budget. Pearl says that the design is not just the roof and the windows, but also the rehabilitation of a design to a house. She says that this project will include how the panels will be displayed and hooked up so that people can see how the panels worked. She asks Hopps about some type of deck or display to allow the community to see what is being built. Pearl says that it is important to have a vision of the entire project before it begins. She says that she also feels that the milestone plan provides a good process as the City is involved and can keep in communication with the CPC. Bussone says that the $6,200.00 is needed to build and preserve the panels until the Inverter House can be restored. He says that he is willing for the CPC to provide this money, and then the Committee can later fund the design with time to look at the plan for the roof and windows. Bussone says that Hopps needs the resources to get the panels removed and stored, and that the Committee can determine the other things later. He states that the CPC should decide on providing emergency money to preserve the panels. Chair McCrory says that this would be funded through historic resources, needing to be in accordance with these standards, and that it would take time to review this. She says that she is not sure if the reviews could all be done by August. Buchsbaum says that he supports the milestone approach as this is a small budget item and supported by the Committee. He says that they could preserve the panels and complete one milestone with the work on a design, and that he would also be okay with supporting the whole project with both milestones and City oversight. Hall says that he agrees with this. He states that this is an important project, and that given the imminence and importance of the construction, he would like to make a statement of support that it is funded with a milestone approach. Hall asks if the new storage company (located near the project) could be an option for panel storage. Hopps says that moving everything offsite is not preferred as it is better to keep the panels close to where they are as costs and liabilities for moving them off site are unknown. Hopps says that the shed could be used as a training facility in order to give it a dual purpose, stating that he knows that the shed is not a part of the CPC mission. Chair McCrory speaks to clarify the Committee's position, reporting that, in general, the Committee's view is to fund the full project, but with a series of milestones and with City oversight. She also notes the Committee's plan to make sure that the milestones include an HDC review. Chair McCrory then asks if she missed anything in her review statement. Marino says that she wholeheartedly supports this project and that whatever means need to be taken to fund E:7 should be implemented. Marino states that the Committee has supported funding projects with fewer specifics and for a lot more money. Marino states that she would like to move forward in the funding of this project as it is an important project for both Hopps and the City. Marino suggests a motion to move forward. Pearl motions that the CPC fund the Solar Now project for the total amount of $25,000.00, with the agreement that Solar Now works closely with City staff (Mike Collins). Pearl includes in the motion that there be a priority to safely preserve and store the panels as soon as possible with the approved funding of $6,200.00 to do so. The motion also includes the agreement that Hopps returns to the CPC with a design and cost estimate for the remainder of the project which would be either approved or not approved, and with input from the HDC regarding the preservation of the historic documents before any funds are spent on those documents. Hall seconds. A formal roll call vote is made with all voting yes: Chair Marilyn McCrory, Vice Chair Heather Richter, Derek Beckwith, Robert Buchsbaum, Thomas Bussone, Christy Edwards, John Hall, Nancy Marino, and Wendy Pearl. The motion passes (9 -0). McCrory thanks Hopps and the Committee for their patience, and says that they look forward to working with Hopps. Hopps says that it is an honor to work with the group, and that he looks forward to moving ahead. McCrory notes that it is 8:14 pm and that there will not be enough time to address all items on the agenda before the meeting's planned close at 8:30 pm. The Committee agrees that they can continue beyond 8:30 pm. 5. Report Out by the CPC Emergency Housing Relief Subcommittee Chair McCrory thanks this group for all of their work: Heather Richter, Derek Beckwith, Thomas Bussone, Nancy Marino, and Subcommittee staff Denise Deschamps. She then asks Richter to report on the subcommittee's work. Richter reports that she sent a report to the Committee members that outlines their work and then she asks for confirmation that all of the members have had time to review. Richter says that the subcommittee feels that they need a vote from the full Committee on the program parameters they have proposed as well as next steps. She states that each day provides new information regarding the funds available on the state and national level to provide housing assistance, and that they are trying to keep track of all of this. Richter says that their research began with an assessment of need in the City, with data showing that unemployment in Beverly has risen from 2.5% to 26.6% as a result of the pandemic. Richter reports that the subcommittee contacted several area agencies for information and that a matrix was attached with all of these attributes. Richter says that it is still unclear which segments of the Beverly community are being most affected. She notes probable need in the coming months and says that the Subcommittee is M recommending that a local agency be put in place to administer the funds, and that agency would provide a structure for the process of receiving and reviewing applications and distributing the funds. Richter reports that after much discussion, the subcommittee put together a list of parameters for Committee review: 1. No administrative fee for partner agency; 2. Funding for rental assistance only - not for mortgages; 3. Available only for Beverly residents at 100% or lower of AMI per household (which would be $119,000 for a family of four); 4. One application per household, with proof of income, assets and COVID-19 related need 5. Funding not to exceed three months rent, with proof of rent amount from landlord, allowing for up to 60% of rent for three months and with a cap of $3,600.00 /annually; 6. Proof that the household is not eligible for other forms of housing assistance; 7. A CPC budget for this fund of $200,000.00 or up to 50% of the remaining balance of the CPC general funds - whichever is higher for total funds. This agreement with the partnering agency would be reviewed or perhaps renewed every three months. Richter says that before moving to next steps, the subcommittee would like to solicit discussion and a vote on these parameters by the full Committee. Chair McCrory says that she supports these efforts, but needs to first ask the CPC if they should fund this emergency funding program, and if this is what the Committee wants to do. She requests a "thumbs up" and receives this response from all Committee members. Chair McCrory asks if Richter next wants to have general comments given by members about the proposed program parameters or if she would prefer they discuss each parameter individually. Richter invites general comments. Edwards thanks the subcommittee for all of their work and asks if it is reasonable for households to be able to provide the necessary documentation in order to qualify. Bussone says that families can have agency help to go through the process. Pearl asks if the requested CPC contribution of $200,000.00 to be set aside and the $3,600.00 maximum benefit per household, will be adequate to serve everyone with need or if there will be some type of preference. She asks if there will be some way to prioritize in the event that they run out of money. Bussone says that the people on the lower income scale will have other avenues to pursue, and that it is the higher gap that will not have other resources. Bussone says that these funds will not supplement those already receiving other funds. Pearl asks if there would be a ranking, and how those decisions will be made. Beckwith answers that in the next step, the subcommittee will be talking with various agencies who would have the capability for administering a program like this, and that they could provide feedback on how to best administer funds. Beckwith says that the statewide RAFT program helps those 50% and below the AMI, and that this CPC funding aims to meet the needs of people who are at 50% to 100% of the AMI. He says that the bulk of assistance would fill this gap, with funds designated for those 10 with no other income assistance. Beckwith says that they don't think the funds will run out, but that they cannot know for certain. Beckwith states that the subcommittee wants to do something meaningful, and so if there is not a need, the money will not be spent. Chair McCrory confirms that the $119,000.00 income determination level is per household, and that this number comes from the 2018 census. Richter says that the Department of Housing and Urban Development provides the AMI information for each community. Chair McCrory says that her hope is that CPA funds may be used and that she is supportive of emergency funds, but she is also looking for more permanent affordable housing solutions. She states that she is uncomfortable with this going beyond an emergency fund as it is not funding mortgage assistance (just rental). Richter says that CPA - funded mortgage assistance is only allowed for deeded affordable housing units. Pearl asks if Northridge qualifies, and Beckwith says that there may be a few households living there that qualify. Bussone says that they are a co -op, and therefore in a different category. Pearl asks if it hurts to include this category if there is a need. Marino says that during the seminar they attended, they were told that the property must be deed restricted, so that this is criteria that has already been laid out. Marino says there will be other permanent projects coming later, but unless people can be kept in their homes now, demand will be overwhelming for affordable housing in the near future. Marino says that they don't know how many people will apply, and that many people now affected, are people who have never experienced things like food lines and money needs. Marino says that while it is unknown who will need these funds, she feels the need to step up with this, and that the $200,000.00 is just a number to start with. Hall says that the group researched this well, and agrees that it sounds like something to step up on. Chair McCrory says that she is confused about the parameter suggesting a renewal every three months, and asks if this is being seen as permanent or temporary program. Richter states that it is emergency assistance due to COVID-19 and that they do not know for how long there will be increased need or even what the response will be to the program. Beckwith says that this is also one of the reasons why they put in the economic hardship parameter "due to COVID-19 ". He says that people are expecting a resurgence in the fall. He says that they put a review at three months in place in the case of another surge that will require the Committee to re- evaluate the situation. Beckwith states that there is a cap of three months on rental assistance of $3,600.00. Chair McCrory asks for clarification on the amount of the proposed program funding, $200,000.00 or up to 50% of the CPC balance, and Beckwith clarifies that the amount is to equal whichever is higher, but the intention is not to deplete the general fund. Chair McCrory asks the subcommittee what they are requesting the full Committee to vote on. Richter says that after the initial vote on whether or not to initiate such a program, the Committee would then vote on the proposed parameters of the program and then finally give the 11 subcommittee permission to engage in next steps, principally the identification of a partnering agency. Pearl asks if the vote to approve the funding should happen within the same time frame of the City budget work for the next fiscal year. She says that they (CPC) could vote to appropriate the funding so that it is in place to be sent to the City Council, as soon as all of the details are worked out, but not send the recommendation to the City Council until that time. Chair McCrory confirms with Pearl that the Committee will vote on the funding and the parameters. Chair McCrory says they need to be specific in what is being proposed to the City Council. Marino suggests they are as specific as possible, and Edwards says that this funding would have to come from their general fund. Chair McCrory says that there is $590,000 in the CPC general reserve. Beckwith asks if $25,000.00 of this will be going to Solar Now. Richter says that they have a negative balance in the CPA community housing and historic preservation funds so money needs to be taken out of the CPA General Reserve and that withdrawal from the General Reserve would bring the general reserve to $477,000. McCrory wonders if they need to provide a specific number to the City Council, or if they could just use the number that the subcommittee proposed. Richter agrees that the CPC can present the amount of CPA funding for the housing assistance program as "50% of the general fund" as the number. Richter motions to approve the parameters proposed by the CPC Subcommittee on Rental Housing Relief due to COVID-19. Chair McCrory amends language to add that the Committee approves an emergency housing program within the stated parameters. Bussone asks about appropriating the money in the vote, and Richter says this will be a special motion. Chair McCrory says that the money is mentioned in the parameters. Bussone says they can use the $240,000.00 figure if they need to have a specific number. Buchsbaum asks where the $240,000.00 figure comes from, and it is answered that it is approximately 50% of the remaining balance in the CPC general fund. Richter amends her motion to establish an emergency rental assistance fund due to COVID-19 with the parameters proposed and dated May 21s and as presented to the full CPC, and with the sum of $240,000.00 (which is approximately 50% of the remaining balance of the CPC General Fund), to be available three months after the Massachusetts state of emergency expires. Marino seconds. A formal roll call vote is taken with all voting yes: Chair Marilyn McCrory, Vice Chair Heather Richter, Derek Beckwith, Robert Buchsbaum, Thomas Bussone, Christy Edwards, John Hall, Nancy Marino, and Wendy Pearl. The motion passes (9 -0). Richter would like to invite comments from City officials regarding the program, before approaching potential partnering agencies, so that everyone knows what is going on. Chair 12 McCrory states that this is wise. At the next subcommittee meeting they will discuss how they will do this and will then start identifying agencies. Chair McCrory thanks the Committee for their work. The subcommittee members compliment Richter and Deschamps for their leadership. 6. Report re Proposed Language for Contract with The Cabot relative to Preservation Restriction Chair McCrory says that Deschamps has been committing much time to research and conversations with The Cabot and the City solicitor. She then thanks Pearl and the HDC, Emily Hutchings, and Deschamps for all of their hard work on this, and asks Deschamps or Pearl to report on what needs to be considered. Pearl says that the purpose of their conversations has been to find out if The Cabot was willing to accept the traditional form of a preservation restriction or if something else would be preferred. She says that The Cabot has expressed a preference for something other than a legal restriction, so they looked at other options such as a requirement that the work be maintained over a certain number of years as well as a claw -back provision, in effect for approximately fifteen years. Pearl says that the model language in Boston's Grant Agreements could be used in Beverly's Grant Agreements and that the language specific to the claw -back provision would outlive the term of the Grant Agreement for the specific work being funded. Deschamps says that she could take the Grant Agreement template that she has been sharing with the HDC and insert the CPC's agreed upon language into that template. She could then submit this to the City Solicitor to formalize. She asks what type of language or mechanism could be used to insure that certain provisions of the Grant Agreement outlive its typically brief life that would end when the work funded by the CPA is completed. Deschamps says that she will ask the City Solicitor about this option. Bussone says that in the past when the federal and state gave people money, the agreement was always recorded with the Registry of Deeds to insure that funds would be repaid if the property owner sold the property within the time frame of the 15 year claw back provision. Chair McCrory asks if this will be a burden to the City Solicitor, and she wonders if they would be willing to do this. Pearl says this is not too difficult of a process. Bussone confirms that all that is required is that someone needs to drop the agreement off to the Registry of Deeds, and that it has to be notarized. Chair McCrory asks Deschamps if she can draft the Grant Agreement. Deschamps says that she will ask the Solicitor's office about this process and then will inform the Committee on what must be done. Bussone says it is the only absolute protection they can get. Buchsbaum says he will be happy to ask the City Solicitor. Deschamps says she will tell the City Solicitor (when she drafts the Grant Agreement) that the 13 Committee would like this Agreement to be recorded at the Registry to ensure that the provisions will be enforced. Pearl also asks that an added annual touch -base with The Cabot to confirm that the ceiling and window that received CPA funding is still in good condition. Bussone says that the burden should be on the recipient, but that they may need to be reminded. Deschamps says that language has been requested by The Cabot to address a scenario in which The Cabot experiences extreme damage or loss (such as in a fire). Bussone says that they can do that if they add the City onto their insurance policy so that the CPA fund could be paid if there were ever a disaster. Pearl confirms that this refers to a total loss not just smoke damage. Bussone points out that if they are awarded money, and a fire damages the area before the preservation work occurs, the CPA should be given back the funded money. The amount of money the City is allowed to recapture should match the amount allowed by the insurance company. Pearl works on the wording of a stepped -down repayment per number time band, and Bussone says this should be recorded at the Registry of Deeds. Deschamps will return to The Cabot with the expectations. Pearl asks if the claw back includes the repayment or the insurance, and Bussone answers that it should include both. Bussone says it should go in the agreement and should be recorded. McCrory says she is hesitant as City Council voted to approve the funding request and that they were quite excited about all this does for the City. She hesitates to put unnecessary burdens on The Cabot. Bussone states that it is not a big burden on them. He says that it is his recommendation that it should be recorded with the Registry, and that the CPA should be named in the insurance policy. Bussone says this is the appropriate way to protect the taxpayers' money. Beckwith says that it looked like this was a request from The Cabot, so that this is very reasonable that the CPC be added as a loss payee. Buchsbaum asks if this would be an extra fee for The Cabot, and Bussone answers that it would not. Deschamps asks if this has come up with any other properties, and Pearl answers that in the past they used preservation restrictions. She says that if this approach works, that it could be a mode to encourage other downtown buildings to get some work done on them. The CPC agrees upon the language of the recapture clause: a length of fifteen years with a percentage of recapture for each time band. If sold before 5 years, the recapture is 100 %; before 10 years, 75 %; and before 15 years, 50 %. There will also be a clause regarding maintenance of the work completed, in the Grant Agreement and it will be recorded at the Registry of Deeds. There will also be an annual inspection of the ceiling and window at The Cabot performed by the CPC or its representative. The agreement is to certify that no changes were made to the features that were improved using City money, and that the City /CPA would be named as a loss payee and that this status would be confirmed annually. Deschamps says that the Agreement will also state that The Cabot agrees to several annual tours of the building that will be open to the general public, free of charge. Pearl motions that the CPC approve the conditions to the grant for The Cabot including the 14 recapture step down percentages as outlined in Deschamps' summary. Pearl includes in the motion that the maintenance requirement is for fifteen years, and that the agreement be recorded at the Registry of Deeds. In addition, the motion includes that in exchange for adding the clause regarding insurance proceeds in the event of a total loss, that the City of Beverly be added as a loss payee on insurance. Pearl amends her motion to include the public access requirement (as stated in Deschamps' review) and the annual certification by The Cabot that the window and ceiling remain in good condition. Bussone seconds. Buchsbaum and Hall ask if the CPC usually votes on the language in Grant Agreements. Chair McCrory says that this is different as they are not requiring a preservation restriction, and as a new policy the CPC is voting on this policy approach as an alternative to a preservation restriction. Pearl adds that they voted provisionally as they said it is pending approval of funds but they are agreeable. A formal roll call vote is made with all voting yes: Chair Marilyn McCrory, Vice Chair Heather Richter, Derek Beckwith, Robert Buchsbaum, Thomas Bussone, Christy Edwards, John Hall, Nancy Marino, and Wendy Pearl. The motion passes (9 -0). 7. Request for MOU Extension for Powder House Proiect Deschamps reports that Emily Hutchings is available by phone if more information is needed, but that the letter is quite detailed. It requests a two month extension until August 30, 2020 as some work was delayed due to COVID-19. Buchsbaum motions to extend until August 31, 2020. Edwards seconds. A formal roll call vote is made with all voting yes: Chair Marilyn McCrory, Vice Chair Heather Richter, Derek Beckwith, Robert Buchsbaum, Thomas Bussone, Christy Edwards, John Hall, Nancy Marino, and Wendy Pearl. The motion passes (9 -0). 8. Confirm Date of Next CPC meeting The next meeting of the CPC is scheduled for June 18, 2020. 9. Adiourn Bussone motions to adjourn, Edwards seconds. A formal roll call vote is made with all voting yes: Chair Marilyn McCrory, Vice Chair Heather Richter, Derek Beckwith, Robert Buchsbaum, Thomas Bussone, Christy Edwards, John Hall, Nancy Marino, and Wendy Pearl. The motion passes (9 -0). The meeting is adjourned at 9:26pm. 15