CPC 4_29_2021 Special Meeting Minutes-Final-Approved[2] Community Preservation Committee
April 29, 2021 Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 3
CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION: Community Preservation Committee
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE: April 29, 2021 (Special Meeting)
LOCATION: Remotely held meeting through Google Hangouts Meet
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Heather Richter, Marilyn McCrory,
Robert Buchsbaum, Derek Beckwith, John Hall,
Nancy Marino, Thomas Bussone
MEMBERS ABSENT: Christy Edwards,Wendy Pearl
OTHERS PRESENT: Economic Development Planner and CPC staff Denise
Deschamps
RECORDER: Sarah Scott-Nelson
Call to Order
Chairperson Heather Richter calls the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and reads a prepared
statement introducing the meeting, the authority to hold a remote meeting,public access and
public participation, and meeting ground rules. Richter takes rollcall attendance.
Supporting materials that have been provided to members of this body are available from the
Planning Department, via Denise Deschamps. The public is encouraged to follow along using the
posted agenda.
Community Preservation Committee Debrief following the April 26 Joint meeting of the
Beverly City Council and the Beverly Community Preservation Committee which were
Wined by several other municipal committees and commissions
Chair Richter invites each Committee member to comment on the April 26th joint meeting.
Buchsbaum comments that there was a lot of discussion around maintenance, maintenance of
recreational areas, and felt it should be made clear that CPA funding cannot actually be used to
support maintenance activities. The City needs to have a plan of its own. Bussone states that he
is very concerned about an overreliance on bonding, using CPA funds, to accomplish larger
projects. First, he was concerned that, if, as the Finance Director, stated once funding for a
project is committed, if CPA funding should go away the taxpayer is still committed to funding
the project. This effectively removes control of these projects from the taxpayer which is
incompatible with the spirit of the CPA. Also, if the CPC agrees to dedicate funds to a(eligible)
category of project such as affordable housing, historic resources, etc.,but has no role in
selecting the specific project to be funded, this again is not compatible with the spirit of the CPA.
The CPC follows a clear application process during which projects are thoroughly vetted. The
purpose of the CPC is to select projects on behalf of the taxpayer. He is sure the intent of the
City was not to interfere with the decision-making powers of the CPC but that is what will
happen. The CPC selects projects,perhaps smaller projects, that the City might not take up in
the normal course of events. If the City gives a lump sum of funding to the Affordable Housing
Community Preservation Committee
April 29, 2021 Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 3
Trust Fund the CPC would not have a role in deciding which project would receive that funding
or the amount of funding.
Buchsbaum commented that he was happy that representatives of the Trustees, the Greenbelt and
others were invited to participate in the conversation. He did not see the discussion as an attempt
to force the CPC to fund certain projects. Bussone clarified that he also did not see it as an
attempt to force the CPC to fund certain projects. His concern is that a significant amount of
funds could be tied up in debt service for a very long period as a result of bonding impacting the
CPC's ability to fund other projects. In addition, by awarding a lump sum for a project category
and giving it to another entity, the CPC would not be evaluating projects. They would not have
applications to evaluate.
McCrory suggests that the bonding would be the City's approach for very large projects and does
not have a problem with this approach stating that bonding may be appropriate for some projects.
Richter asks if the City can bond for projects without coming to the CPC for funding. Bussone
responds in the affirmative. Buchsbaum notes that at one point the Finance Director said, that
the City would not return to the CPC for funding for Beverly Golf and Tennis Clubhouse
renovation funding, following receipt of CPA funding for the redesign of the Clubhouse. The
CPC has the right to not agree to fund a bond. Bussone agrees that it is the prerogative of the
CPC, but he does not believe that the City would request bonding for multiple smaller projects.
They would come before the City for 1 or 2 larger bonds that would support multiple projects.
Beckwith expresses concern about the scale and size of the bonds. The Finance Director spoke to
the potential debt service for 30 year bonds. A one million dollar bond with a term of 30 years
would have a debt service of$65,000.00 per year, a $5m bond would result in $325,000.00/year
in debt service, a$10m bond$650,000.00/year in debt service. Beckwith added that with any
project proposed for bonding it would still need to be eligible for CPA funding.
Marino expresses concern about the tone of the previous meeting as she had hoped for unique
projects to be presented for consideration, rather than projects presented as requiring bonding in
order to move forward. Marino also said that the conversation, however, did cause her to re-
evaluate the importance of playgrounds as a tool to create community space and ultimately
preserve neighborhoods. This also invites a conversation about equity and the reality that every
playground is not equally outfitted. Marino notes that she would like to invite the City
Councilors to sit in on CPC meetings and see the Committee's process for approving projects.
Hall states that he agrees with the concern expressed by Bussone and Marino, as to how bonding
impacts the ability of the citizens to re-evaluate the funding of a project in future years. He
thought one motivation for this discussion was the larger than expected cost of renovating the
Clubhouse at Beverly Golf and Tennis. Hall is very interested in the potential of funding
downtown pocket parks,particularly on Rantoul Street.
McCrory notes that it should be clarified that the CPA is not meant to be the sole source of
funding for projects. Richter agrees that it is important to reiterate that the best projects involve
funding from multiple sources. She also wondered if the City would be in a position to request a
large sum for bonding given that it is unlikely that the City would be in a position to begin
multiple large projects at the same time? She also asked the Committee to consider what
Community Preservation Committee
April 29, 2021 Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 3
percentage of the CPC's revenues they might we be willing to commit for bonding and for how
long. Beckwith noted that when projects are proposed to the CPC for funding it is very important
that the CPC make it clear what is eligible for CPA funding.
Marino expresses concern about the recent budget cut to the Recreation Dept. budget. Beckwith
notes that while bonding is a quick fix, it could pose problems 30 years from now, stating his
concern about the size of bonds. Bussone reiterates that he likes the projects that have been
mentioned as possibly in need of bonding, but he does not approve of the suggested approach to
funding. Bussone also is concerned that the CPC would feel like they were forced to support
bonding for fear that a good project might not proceed without it. Buchsbaum notes that like
other applicants,the City can say they cannot proceed without CPA funds. Bussone agrees but
states that the City can bond without CPA funds.
Richter asks if there are additional comments. Deschamps states that given all of the recent
conversation about the Carriage House renovation project she felt that, in the interest of full
disclosure, she should mention that prior to becoming employed by the City of Beverly she
volunteered on the Lynch Park Advisory Committee for seven or so years and that the
Committee focused its attention on the renovation of the Carriage House. Deschamps stated that
she resigned from that Committee after being employed by the City, about eight years ago, and
has not and does not advocate for that project with the CPC. Richter,hearing no further
comments, invited a motion to adjourn.
Adiournment
Bussone: Moves to adjourn at 8:03 p.m. Seconded by McCrory. Richter takes a roll call
vote. The motion carries 7-0.
The next regular meeting of the Beverly Community Preservation Committee is Thursday, May
20, 2021 to be held virtually via Google Meets.