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