2013-01-24CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE:
LOCATION:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT
OTHERS PRESENT:
RECORDER:
The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m.
Ad -Hoc Community Preservation Ordinance Committee
January 24, 2013
City Hall Conference Room B, Third Floor
Chair Wendy Pearl, Marilyn McCrory, Shawn Mahoney,
Peter von Zweck, Cathryn Keefe O'Hare, Heather Richter
and Robert Buchsbaum (arrives at 7:50 p.m.)
Matt St. Hilaire, Lincoln Williams
Environmental Planner Amy Maxner, City Finance
Director John Dunn, City Solicitor Roy Gelineau
Amy Maxner
Maxner introduces John Dunn, City Finance Director and Roy Gelineau, City Solicitor.
Dunn explains that in communicating with other towns' and cities' finance and assessing
departments, there is need for clarifying language in the ordinance regarding aspects of
administering the CPA that has come to his attention. He notes that in particular, language that
specifically lists the elderly and low to moderate income exemptions as well as a specific
timeframe from when abatement applications can be applied for and when the applicants must
submit their applications and when they are eligible for the exemptions should be included. He
heard anecdotally that the assessors of other towns have encountered disputes with people
regarding what the state law says and what the ordinance says, and language would be helpful in
neutralizing these situations and giving clear guidance.
Discussion ensues as to where this language should be placed, and whether there are
disadvantages to placing this into the ordinance. Gelineau suggests that these types of issues are
best addressed at the second stage with the permanent CPA committee through rules and
regulations. Von Zweck notes that getting some sort of communication out early to explain these
issues would be helpful but thinks that this is beyond the scope of this committee. Pearl suggests
that reiterating what the exemptions are would be helpful but that procedures for exemptions
should be handled with the finance /assessors office. Mahoney would like to see most protection
for the City and that it may make sense to include this in the ordinance. Dunn will draft
language that the committee can decide if it wants to place it in the ordinance.
Lengthy discussion follows as to real estate tax billing cycles and when residents can expect to
see the CPA charges, with Dunn noting that the surcharge will not appear until the 3 rd and 4 th bill
for next year due to not having values and tax rate information during the first 2 billing cycles.
McCrory notes her concern that the charge should be seen on a quarterly basis. Dunn explains
this is due to state requirements for reporting, limited space to place information on bills and
software limitations, and because values and tax rates are not established until December, but
that this is only for the first year. Pearl suggests that a FAQ sheet be posted on the website that
Community Preservation Ordinance Committee
01 -24 -13 Meeting Minutes
Page I of 3
explains this more clearly. Richter agrees that there needs to be a way to clearly explain this to
the taxpayers. Dunn agrees that a letter can be included in the first tax bill to explain when the
CPA surcharge will be assessed and possibly a follow up letter in the third bill could explain it
further.
Gelineau notes that he reviewed the minutes from the last meeting and would like to explain
parts of the Open Meeting Law that members of this committee should pay attention to. He
notes that the committee cannot deliberate outside the public realm, explaining that a quorum of
any body cannot meet and discuss a topic, nor can deliberation (serially or otherwise) be
conveyed by email. General administrative issues (agenda items, meeting locations, material
forwarded to discussed and considered at the next meeting etc...) can be exchanged, but any
offering of opinions or back and forth communication is prohibited.
Gelineau goes on to explain that throughout the CPA campaign process his office was consulted,
with Assistant City Solicitor Bob Munroe being most involved in providing assistance in that
regard. With Munroe retiring shortly, Gelineau notes that he will be picking this up and
therefore will need some time to better familiarize himself with the CPA and associated
materials. He offers his assistance to the committee in any capacity including drafting ordinance
language.
General discussion as to what elements should be included in the ordinance itself and options for
how much detail should be included and where the rules and regulations would expound on the
ordinance in more detail; with the permanent CPA committee being the body to establish rules,
regulations and a "master" plan that lays out its mission, goals objectives and criteria for
choosing projects among other things. Pearl notes that the ordinance should include an
overarching vision that communicates what Beverly wants and a way to keep it an open inclusive
process. Gelineau recommends that members review sample ordinances and come to the next
meeting with a list of what they would like to see in the ordinance for Beverly and then go
through it as a group to decide.
Mahoney asks if it is worth hearing from other towns and cities that have adopted CPA and
getting their first -hand recommendations based on their experience with administering the law.
Pearl notes that Peabody and Gloucester might make sense as they are both cities and having
adopted CPA several years apart, with Gloucester the most recent. Gelineau states that may be
beneficial, but cautions that may take up a lot of time and the information gathered may not be
fully utilized while the committee should concentrate its efforts on drafting the ordinance
Buchsbaum arrives.
Lengthy discussion follows as to membership of the permanent CPA committee, with Pearl
suggesting there seems to be general agreement that there should be nine (9) members. Members
agree. The five (5) seats as prescribed by statute include representatives from the Conservation
Commission, Planning Board, Housing Authority, Parks & Recreation Commission and Historic
District Commission — these representatives to be designated by their respective boards and
commissions. Pearl notes that she believes the Open Space & Recreation Committee should
have one of the four (4) remaining seats, as that expertise would be advantageous. Von Zweck,
Community Preservation Ordinance Committee
01 -24 -13 Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 3
Buchbaum and McCrory agree. Maxner clarifies that the Conservation Commission holds open
space and conservation land under its care and custody, but that the majority of its time is taken
up by wetlands permitting, while the Open Space Committee fills that gap in their active efforts
to inventory and prioritize open space acquisitions and stewardship issues. O'Hare notes that if
open space receives additional representation, then affordable housing should receive the same,
preferably from a local non - profit organization so as to balance what she sees as the narrow
mission of the Housing Authority. Mahoney expresses his concern that this would appear to be a
quota system by stacking the permanent CPA committee with certain interests as opposed to a
more broad base representation of citizens' interests. Maxner notes that Gloucester's ordinance
encourages equal Ward representation to the greatest extend possible. Discussion ensues as to
logistics for achieving Ward representation. It is suggested that the people seated in those four
remaining positions should (to the greatest extent possible, may or shall) have
skills /expertise /demonstrated interest of the four main categories of the Act (open space,
affordable housing, historic and recreation).
Brief discussion ensues as to whether Beverly has an affordable housing trust fund and where
monies from the CPA surcharge would be deposited for the other three categories, with the
understanding that that money does not go to the general fund. Maxner offers to find out
regarding the housing trust fund and report back.
Appointment authority for the four (4) remaining seats (i.e. the Mayor or the City Council, or a
combination thereof), default appointing authority, as well as what body has veto power over
recommended appointments is discussed at length. Gelineau offers to inquire with City Council
President and Vice President to see if there is interest on the Council in taking on that
responsibility and to get clarification as mechanics on veto definition/process. Maxner offers to
draft the "Membership /Appointing Authority and Term Section" of the ordinance for
consideration at the next meeting.
Members ask that the actual ballot, which was voted on, be forwarded so as to have the exact
language to refer to. Gelineau offers to obtain the ballot. Discussion ensues as to the possibility
of establishing a temporary website to post this committee's agendas and minutes, etc... Maxner
offers to work with the IT Department to create a webpage on the City website.
The draft minutes from the January 17, 2013 meeting are reviewed. Von Zweck moves to
approve the minutes with minor amendments, seconded by Buchsbaum. The motion carries 7 -0.
Members agree to schedule the next meeting for Thursday, February 7, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. here in
City Hall.
There being no other business, Mahoney moves to adjourn the meeting, seconded by
Buchsbaum. The motion carries 7 -0. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Community Preservation Ordinance Committee
01 -24 -13 Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 3