2013-02-07CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION: Ad -Hoc Community Preservation Ordinance Committee
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE: February 7, 2013
LOCATION: City Hall, Third Floor Council Chambers
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Wendy Pearl, Marilyn McCrory, Shawn Mahoney,
Peter von Zweck, Matt St. Hilaire, Lincoln Williams
Heather Richter and Robert Buchsbaum
MEMBERS ABSENT: Cathryn Keefe O'Hare
OTHERS PRESENT: Planning Director Tina Cassidy, Environmental Planner
Amy Maxner, City Solicitor Roy Gelineau, City Finance
Director John Dunn
RECORDER: Amy Maxner
The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m.
Members review the January 24, 2013 draft meeting minutes and suggest amendments. Cassidy
and Maxner offer to make changes and forward to members for final review.
Pearl states that the focus of tonight's meeting is to start drafting the ordinance by reviewing
Chapters 1 and 2 as prepared by Maxner and examining and borrowing from the model bylaw
produced by the CPA Coalition as well as examples from other cities. She notes that the draft
Chapter 2 addresses membership, appointment authority and terms, with options for how to
address the four at -large seats. She notes that the statute prescribes a seat for the Historic
Commission and it should be made clear in the Beverly ordinance that the Historic District
Commission serves the same regulatory role as the Historic Commission.
Gelineau informs the Committee that based on his discussions with the Mayor and the City
Council President and Vice President, the Mayor is not interested in appointment authority, but
the Council would like to have appointing authority over the four at -large seats. He notes that it
is clear that the Council would not appoint themselves, but rather those seats would go to the
public at -large since the Council would have significant involvement by way of approval /denial
over project expenditures.
Richter suggests that perhaps the permanent CPA committee could be empowered to nominate
the four at -large seats for Council consideration and approval. Discussion ensues as to the
mechanism by which people can indicate interest in serving, with Mahoney expressing his
concern that if the CPA members self appoint it may appear like a closed club that self
perpetuates. Pearl and Buchsbaum make a distinction between appointment authority versus
recruitment efforts to fill vacant seats by commission and board members, which the Historic
District Commission and Conservation Commission do by brainstorming as to who could serve
and then suggesting that those people contact the Mayor to express interest. Richter notes that
she would like for the appointment process to be transparent and not intimidating to the average
taxpayer. Pearl suggests inserting language that is invitational.
Community Preservation Ordinance Committee
02 -07 -13 Meeting Minutes
Page I of 4
Discussion ensues as to what source project proposals will come from, whether they are from
other boards, commissions, local organizations or private citizens, and there is agreement that
projects can emanate from all of those sources.
Options for the source of the four at -large seats are discussed at length, with McCrory asking
Gelineau if excluding people that are already in an appointed position would then exclude
members of other boards and commissions. Gelineau notes that in his opinion it would exclude,
for example, members from the Harbor Management Authority that may have an interest in
serving on the CPA committee, and in his opinion what should really be avoided are paid City
employees like himself from serving. Williams expresses concern that if other appointed people
can serve, a disproportionate representation could occur, if say two members of the Conservation
Commission are seated on the CPA. McCrory would not want to discourage people from serving
if they have skills that can benefit the committee. Williams states that it is important to keep the
process and membership as independent as possible. St. Hilaire suggests that perhaps the 5
statutorily prescribed seats be excluded from any further representation, and that would then
allow for other boards and commissions an opportunity to serve. Cassidy notes that it is often
difficult to find board members that are willing to serve on an additional commission or board,
but there is nothing that necessarily precludes that possibility despite her experience
demonstrating otherwise. Mahoney summarizes that it appears that elected officials should be
excluded, but possibly appointed officials on boards is okay. Discussion ensues as to eligibility
of people that are in paid positions such as firefighters who may wish to have a say and it would
be unfair to exclude those people. Potential language for this section is discussed. Pearl
suggests that perhaps preference could be given to residents that do not currently serve on any of
the already statutorily mandated boards, without necessarily excluding other boards from
serving. Members agree with this approach.
Default appointing authority is reviewed. Cassidy asks for clarification relative to including the
language that directs the Council in appointing people with expertise, skills or demonstrated
interest in the funding categories. Mahoney states that that language would exclude people, but
keeping "interest" makes sense. Williams notes that since the five prescribed seats already have
the experience and skills, then that is already covered. Richter notes that the CPA committee
could reach out to other boards or organizations to gather guidance and recommendations on
specific topics. Pearl states her belief that the at -large positions should be kept as open and
inclusive as possible. McCrory states that it is important for members to have some level of
skills and expertise. Discussion ensues on how best to phrase this, with von Zweck noting that
other skills sets not already mentioned, such as finance and accounting, would be a great benefit
since there will be complex financial decisions being made. He also notes that this ordinance is
essentially a set of guidelines to the Council as to how to make a decision on whom to appoint.
Williams notes that it would be helpful to provide the Council with some criteria, however
general, as to whom to appoint so that there is some mechanism to make the best choice between
two candidates. Gelineau states his belief that it is important to not exclude residents who are
hard working taxpayers who want to have a say as to how their money will be spent, and he
suspects that there will be many people interested due to the fact that allocation of money is
involved. Discussion ensues as to language that speaks to aligning with the goals of the CPA as
Community Preservation Ordinance Committee
02 -07 -13 Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 4
well as equal Ward representation to the greatest possible. Cassidy agrees to draft language for
this section that gleans from this discussion.
Pearl asks if an at -large seat reserved for the Open Space & Recreation Committee (OSRC)
could now be discussed as the Chair of the OSRC has written a letter to express their interest.
She explains why she believes OSRC should have a seat noting that they are the visionaries for
the city with regard to long -term land protection, along with their established partnerships with
conservation organizations. She notes that the Parks and Recreation Commission focuses mainly
on managing existing parks facilities and recreational programming as opposed to passive open
space. Similarly, the Conservation Commission, although it can hold conservation land under its
care and custody, its time and energy are consumed by wetlands permitting. Richter asks what
the OSRC does. Cassidy and Maxner provide an outline of what the OSRC's mission and focus
is. St. Hilaire asks why the OSRC was not included as one of the statutory seats. Cassidy
explains that not every town or city has an open space committee. Williams notes that perhaps
the OSRC could be a non - voting member so that the fourth seat is not taken by an interest
already represented. Mahoney notes that this was discussed and it was suggested that if OSRC
gets a seat, then the other interests of the CPA should get a seat such as affordable housing, and
he expresses his concern that this will start to stack the CPA committee. Buchsbaum notes that as
a volunteer, which this committee and all others consist of, he does not see himself as the
"government" trying to dominate one interest over another. Von Zweck states that since open
space is one of the main objectives of CPA it would make a lot of sense to have OSRC at the
table participating and offering their knowledge. Discussion ensues as to potential for
overlapping membership on other boards (i.e. a Conservation Commission member having a seat
on the Open Space Committee, which would then have a seat on the CPA committee). McCrory
states her belief that the five statutory seats do not adequately represent open space interests.
After some additional discussion, Pearl asks for a show of hands as to who is in favor of OSRC
being assigned a permanent seat on the CPA committee — Buchsbaum, McCrory, von Zweck and
Pearl in favor; Williams, Mahoney, St. Hilaire and Richter opposed (4 in favor, 4 opposed) — no
decision can be reached, and it is agreed to table this issue until a full quorum of this committee
can be assembled to address this.
Staggering and expiration of terms are discussed with McCrory asking that the representatives of
the main interests of the CPA (i.e. historical, housing etc...) have the initial 3 -year terms.
Members do not feel strongly about which seats should have which initial terms. Provisions
addressing term length and dates for expirations, alternates, attendance records of members,
election of officers on the CPA, adoption of rules and regulations, and compensation (there being
none proposed) are also discussed. Gelineau encourages having set terms of 3 years, which is
the standard here in Beverly, that way membership can be reexamined at term expiration and
replacements sought if need be. There is agreement that term limits would hinder the committee
especially if there are no other candidates seeking to serve. Gelineau provides clarification as to
attendance of members and how multiple absences are handled per the direction of the City
Charter. Members agree that a provision for election of a chair is important to include which
could be included under the "Duties" section. Pearl notes that the sections can be borrowed from
the model by -law and drafted for consideration next meeting, with McCrory noting that the
remaining sections are boilerplate that can be taken from the model as a starting point and if
there are other things that members see as important, they could be added.
Community Preservation Ordinance Committee
02 -07 -13 Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 4
Cassidy suggests that the remaining sections of the ordinance be drafted, as they do not seem to
be particularly controversial from here on out. Members agree. Pearl would like for a rules and
regulations that include provisions for communication with the City Council as Newburyport has
provided for.
McCrory passes on an offer from Stuart Saginor from the CPC Coalition to review Beverly's
draft ordinance early on and suggests that we take him up on his offer with Mr. Gelineau's final
review of course.
Cassidy notes that John Dunn had to leave the meeting early, but did have some draft language
for consideration based on his discussions with other communities that have CPA.
Maxner promises to work with IT to create a CPA Ordinance Committee webpage, she explains
has been trying to connect with the person to help in creating a page and from there she can work
on it and she will make it a priority to get done.
Members agree to schedule the next meeting for Thursday, February 21, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. here
in City Hall.
There being no other business, St. Hilaire moves to adjourn the meeting, seconded by
Buchsbaum. The motion carries 8 -0. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Community Preservation Ordinance Committee
02 -07 -13 Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 4