Loading...
Community Preservation Comm 1_21_2021 Minutes -FINALCITY of BEVERLY COMMUNITY PRESERVATION COMMITTEE 191 Cabot Street Beverly, Massachusetts 01915 Phone (978) 921 -6000 Fax (978) 921 -6187 Mayor Members Michael P. Cahill Robert Buchsbaum Nancy Marino Chairperson Thomas Bussone, II Marilyn McCrory Heather Richter Christy Edwards Wendy Pearl Vice Chairperson John Hall Derek Beckw ith PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: Community Preservation Committee SUBCOMMITTEE: N/A DATE: January 21, 2021 LOCATION: Remotely held meeting through Google Hangouts Meet MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Heather Richter, Vice Chair Derek Beckwith, Robert Buchsbaum, Thomas Bussone, Christy Edwards, John Hall, Nancy Marino, Marilyn McCrory, Wendy Pearl MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Planning Director Darlene Wynne, Finance Director Bryant Ayles; Denise Deschamps, Economic Development Planner and CPC staff. RECORDER: Sarah Scott - Nelson Call to Order Heather Richter calls the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Richter reads the virtual meeting guidelines and notes that the meeting is being held in accordance with temporary Open Meeting Law adjustments due to the State of Emergency associated with the COVID -19 outbreak. Deschamps takes roll and confirms member access to meeting. Review and approval of Meeting Minutes January 16, 2020 McCrory moves to approve the minutes as amended. Seconded by Beckwith. Deschamps takes a roll call vote. The motion carries 9 -0. Page 1 of 5 April 16, 2020 McCrory moves to approve the minutes as amended. Seconded by Hall. Deschamps takes a roll call vote. The motion carries 9 -0. September 17, 2020 Beckwith moves to approve the minutes. Seconded by Bussone. Deschamps takes a roll call vote. The motion carries 9 -0. December 17, 2020 Beckwith moves to approve the minutes. Seconded by Bussone. Deschamps takes a roll call vote. The motion carries 9 -0. Review and accept 2021 CPC meeting schedule The Committee reviews the CPC's meeting schedule for 2021 and notes that September 16th is Yom Kippur, so the Committee agreed to change the date of that meeting to September 9 but otherwise accepted the schedule as presented. Revisit MOU Extension for Green Hill Trails Deschamps reiterates the opinion of the City Solicitors office, as it was previously shared by her in an email to the CPC, relative to whether or not the CPC could enter into a fourth MOU extension despite the time gap between the expiration of the previous decision. The City Solicitor's office stated in their opinion that, based on the facts of this particular situation, it is appropriate to execute a 4th extension of the MOU and amend paragraph 3 to reflect the new term of 7.3 1.2019 to 8.30.2021. The CPC would need to take another vote with the particular finding that there is good cause for the extension to that date. To repeat, this advice is based on the specific facts and history of this particular issue and would not be applicable to any other projects. Wynne comments that the solicitor was comfortable with the MOU extension and city does not need to reapply. Wynne comments that these decisions are not precedent setting, but that in this case, the justification was that good cause was due to a clerical error, the legal matters which took longer to resolve, and the pandemic which result in good cause for the extension. Beckwith states that he is comfortable with that decision. Bussone expressed concerns that this action would be precedent setting and while he supports the project he does not agree with the opinion of the City Solicitor's office. Beckwith moves that the Community Preservation Committee approve a fourth extension to the Green Hill Trails MOU to August 30, 2021 due to the fact that there is good and reasonable cause for extension to that date. Seconded by Hall. Deschamps takes a roll call vote. The motion carries 8 -1, with Bussone voting no. CPA budget The Committee action items for this discussion: o Review budget o Review status of open projects o Disposition of CPA funds associated for those projects that either came in under budget or that did not advance (throughout history of CPA in Beverly) Richter introduces the agenda item. Bryant Ayles is present for this discussion. Ayles explains that he has provided the CPC with two separate documents, one of which details revenues and Page 2 of 5 the other details grant awards. Richter asks if this includes the Camp Paradise bond payment for 2021. Ayles states that he is not sure but will double check. McCrory argues that the bond payments should continue to come from the general reserve so they can continue to build the fund for open space. Ayles confirms that it is his preference that it come from the general reserve and that it consistently come from one fund. Shifting the source of the funds for bond payments creates significant additional administrative work. Ayles states that sticking with one fund simplifies the process, and suggests that a better solution would be to shift the bond payments to the open space area, which would be unencumbered and available for projects in the future. Ayles states that this change would be better than going back and forth. Beckwith asks if there is a possibility to fund the bond payments in a one -off fashion if needed. Ayles replies that this is not possible procedurally. Ayles states that the bond payment is annually just over $50,000.00. Beckwith states that he does not think that it is that big of deal as to which fund it comes from given the amount. Ayles also confirms that the general reserve account, by law, cannot be depleted and must always have a balance of $50,000.00. Pearl states that what has been happening seems to be working and defers to McCrory, but suggests sticking with the system if it is working. Ayles further explains the formula. Richter asks if there is anything that needs to be addressed on any of the open projects. Edwards states that it seems that the Harborlight project (2 Hardy Street) is not listed as open, but is listed on the excel spreadsheet for open projects. Deschamps explains that for all intents and purposes, that project is closed, they had just submitted their final invoice and final report. It is just a matter of paying the final invoice. Deschamps comments that the Committee has been provided with a list of open CPA projects and suggests that an open projects update be a standing monthly agenda item moving forward. Richter asks Deschamps to discuss those projects that have come in under budget or failed to advance. Deschamps references the letter she sent to the CPC identifying those projects and the amount of CPA funding associated with each of them. The next step is for the CPC to vote to release the funds originally awarded to those projects. Edwards moves to approve the take - backs. Seconded by Bussone. Deschamps takes a roll call vote. The motion carries 9 -0. Richter addresses the invoice received from the [Massachusetts] Community Preservation Coalition for annual membership dues in the amount of $3,500.00, stating that the Committee will need to vote to continue membership in the Massachusetts Community Preservation Coalition. Buchsbaum moves to approve payment of the coalition dues. Seconded by Beckwith. Deschamps takes a roll call vote. The motion carries 9 -0. McCrory notes for the record, that the Community Preservation Coalition provides technical assistance to the committee, so it is important. Richter asks whether the COVID relief fund is accounted for in the financial snapshot. Beckwith and Ayles locate it. Beckwith reports that NSCAP is reviewing the application of a person who may be the first recipient of the COVID -19 relief fund, as they maxed out on RAFT. Beckwith comments that the big thing is the state is far behind in its ability to move quickly on RAFT decision making, which is impacting the determination of whether there are people who can benefit from Beverly's housing assistance fund. Just beginning to see the benefit of the fund with the first viable applicant in the last few weeks. Wynne comments that Harborlight recently shared easy -to- Page 3 of 5 understand flyers for renters and home owners for where to get help, which may be helpful for the Committee to see. Commence review of CPA Round 8 Funding applications Richter comments that only five full applications for the CPA funding have been submitted. Cabot House HVAC Upgrade Buchsbaum begins the initial review of the applications by discussing the application submitted by Historic Beverly for the Cabot House HVAC upgrade. He notes that all five applications were worthy applicants. Buchsbaum comments that he does not have air conditioning in his house and does not see air conditioning for office space as an equal priority with humidity control for protecting artifacts. Buchsbaum also notes the graphic displayed (on page 9 of the application). It appears to be somewhat misleading, because of the way the graph is drawn it shows much more fluctuations in humidity than the data really warrants. Pearl mentioned that it would be standard practice to track humidity levels for a year. Beckwith comments that he thinks their weakness in the application is in its failure to delineate which part of the construction the funding would cover. The project budget form should be revisited as well as the project schedule. Project milestones should be added to the latter. Edwards expresses concern about the HVAC system, noting that the piece of equipment costs more than their entire request. McCrory expresses similar concerns about the cost of the HVAC system, which seems to be part of a much larger project. Pearl comments that while AC sounds like a luxury, it is important for preserving the textiles and paintings, so she really supports the project. Buchsbaum asks if there was only one letter of support, which was from the library. Richter comments that there was also one from the Essex National Heritage Center. Beckwith comments that there were five letters in total. Richter suggests inviting the applicant in to discuss the project at the next Committee meeting. McCrory suggests that Deschamps compile a list of questions, which came up during this meeting and invite the applicant to answer either in writing. Deschamps asks for clarification about what one of the questions to be asked of the applicant related to the scope of the project. Richter clarifies that the applicant needs to describe specifically the purpose for which the CPA funds would be used. Buchsbaum suggests they should mention the past funds they have received (from the CPA) for emergency repair of the heating system and how it will be integrated into the proposed new HVAC system. Buchsbaum states that his point about AC was just that he thinks focus should be on preservation of the documents and the AC for meetings of people did not enhance the proposal. Pearl commented that upon re- reading the application, attic installation and storm window installation was also mentioned, and requests that the applicant clarifying the scope in general as far as energy efficiency. Congress Street Pocket Park Richter moves to the Congress Street pocket park, the second project. Richter raises questions about what the CPA funding would go towards, Phase I or Phase II of the project, and what the distinction is between the two work phases. Is the storm water mitigation and rain garden part of Phase 2? Marino and Beckwith also ask for clarification on the allocation of the funding. In some cases the applicant states that either Beverly DPS or a private contractor will do the work. Would the CPC funds go to Beverly DPS? Who is pursuing the permitting, design consultant? Page 4 of 5 There should be back -up for the $4000.00 estimate for tree work. Beckwith adds that the applicant should more adequately communicate their eligibility for open space. McCrory expresses concern with the site control piece. Wynne comments that there was an assumption that this road was not a public way, which delayed the project. Now, research is being conducted which is finding that it is a public way, but it must be proven, otherwise the City would have to arrange an agreement to acquire the rights from the neighbors who do, in fact, seem amenable to the project. Bussone asks if this means that the application is premature. Bussone suggests getting formal permission from the neighbors now before approving the project to avoid further confusion and delays. Wynne comments that the City is acting on the belief that it is a public way, but it must be proven on paper. Pearl and Bussone reiterate their concern about the authority of the City to build anything in this area. Pearl comments that the other issue is that the City may have to re- designate this land anyway, so that the area is formally designated for recreational use via Article 97 protection. Marino asks if the property has been tested, for environmental pollutants given the history of the adjacent property and expresses her concern regarding whether the parcel is clean for public recreational use and suggests that it be looked into before continuing. Edwards raises questions about what accommodations can be made for those with more severe mobility issues given the topography of the site. Dodges Row Cemetery Project Richter asks for questions from the Committee regarding the application. Richter notes that Mayor Cahill will attend the next CPC meeting to share his comments on the proposed project. Edwards asks if the cost associated with preparing the nomination to the National Register of Historic Places is eligible for CPA funding. In response to Edwards' question, Pearl suggests that having the property listed on the National Register likely makes it eligible for grant funding from other sources, but the Committee could ask the applicant about it. Beckwith comments that a better analysis of what steps need to be taken, provided by a couple of experts with cost estimates, would give the application better support and expresses concern that there were no letters of recommendation from the community. He states that he likes the project but thinks that the application was wanting in a few areas. McCrory comments that she is wondering what the backup plan is if the MHC grant is not awarded. Wynne replies that she does not know and will defer to Emily [Hutchings] and the Mayor who want to discuss this project with the Committee soon. Edwards comments that it would be useful to have the timeline for getting the professionally prepared quotes as part of the evaluation. Richter raises a question about public access to the Cemetery, which is not clearly illustrated on the maps provided, and whether the abutters are on board with the project. Pearl asks how much work on inventorying individual stones this will require or whether the preservation plan will take a big picture view, and requests that the applicant clarify their priorities. Richter comments that at the February meeting, the Committee will try to get through the initial review of the final two project applications and address the questions on the first three projects. Adjournment Bussone moves to adjourn at 9:06 p.m. Seconded by Hall. Deschamps takes a roll call vote. The motion carries 9 -0. Page 5 of 5