Loading...
2013-03-07CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: Ad -Hoc Community Preservation Ordinance Committee SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: March 7, 2013 LOCATION: City Hall, Third Floor Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Wendy Pearl, Marilyn McCrory, Shawn Mahoney, Matt St. Hilaire, Lincoln Williams Heather Richter, Robert Buchsbaum and Cathryn Keefe O'Hare MEMBERS ABSENT: Peter Von Zweck OTHERS PRESENT: Planning Director Tina Cassidy, Environmental Planner Amy Maxner RECORDER: Amy Maxner The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. Mahoney explains that he contacted Kathy Roth, the Associate Director of the Community Preservation Coalition, and asked her several questions with regard to developing a sound ordinance. His first question was what would the worst thing this Committee could do with the ordinance, with Kathy responding allowing the Mayor to make all of the appointments, noting that she preferred the idea of two appointments by the Council and two by the Mayor. He asked her what the best thing they could do, and she encouraged the most flexibility and broadest outreach as possible. She also explained that, relative to active citizen participation, it seemed that the size of the pot of funds dictated the level of interest with a larger pot of money seeing the greatest pool of interested citizens. She noted that Northampton, (with a population of 28, 500) needed to conduct a runoff election to fill two at -large seats. He goes on to describe her advice relative to the Committee's efforts with Ward representation, as she offered the following language: "achieve the broadest representation without excluding strong candidates ", noting that this is providing guidance to the Council as to what is desirable, but not tying their hands as to choices. He also asked her what types of qualifications or backgrounds should be sought in candidates, to which she responded that the "financial people" tended to be negative and unimaginative. Mahoney notes that she offered to review what we have so far. Members thank Mahoney for gathering that feedback. Members agree to vote on whether to prescribe a seat to the Open Space Committee when O'Hare arrives. Williams suggests that a time be designated for this vote so that it doesn't get pushed to the end leaving no time for thoughtful exchange. Cassidy agrees to give everyone a reminder at 7:30 p.m. for the vote. Pearl moves to the next item to be established in Section (b) (ii), which provides guidance as to desired attributes of the at -large representatives, asking if, given Kathy Roth's feedback, this may need to be further tweaked. Buchsbaum is not crazy about the language in general, with the word "interest" seeming obvious if someone applies for a seat they would have interest. Williams notes that this is intended to provide guidance and rationale for the Council to explain their choice in a candidate. Buchsbaum notes that there may be someone who was completely Community Preservation Ordinance Committee 03 -07 -13 Meeting Minutes Page I of 4 against CPA and would want to participate to exert a contrary agenda. Discussion ensues as to keeping the language as flexible and broad as possible. Williams states that he would want to keep the language to provide some basis or rationale for making a choice in a pool of candidates. Extensive discussion ensues as to removing or keeping "municipal finance and accounting practices ". Richter inquires as to the process for consultation with the City Finance Department relative to fund allocation and if municipal finance and accounting practices won't already be fully vetted relative to CPA funding choices. O'Hare arrives. Cassidy explains that since the final funding choice will be the Council's decision, it will inevitably be referred to the City Finance Director, as is common practice of the Council when financial decisions are made. Mahoney and St. Hilare note they are satisfied with the language as it stands considering how much time was spent at the last meeting discussing this. Pearl asks for a show of hands for those who would like to keep the language as is, with St. Hilare, Mahoney, Williams, O'Hare and Pearl voting to keep the language as is. Brief follow up discussion ensues with everyone finally agreeing to leave this section as is. Pearl notes the next section for discussion is Section (iii) Ward representation, and reads an email from Peter Von Zweck who could not attend this evening. Von Zweck suggests the following language "As supported by qualified applicants, the City Council should fill the at- large positions so that the committee membership as a whole would include representation from all Wards." Discussion ensues as to alternative language with Pearl noting that the City Solicitor cautioned against wording "to the greatest extent possible" as that would constitute a directive rather than a suggestion. Buchsbaum states that the seats being "drawn" from all Wards is more broad rather than targeting Ward representation in particular, this way the City's interests as a whole are represented. Pearl asks if everyone is satisfied with this section as is. Members agree they are. The next clauses (iv) — (xi), that deal with appointment authority and time frames for filling seats are reviewed, with Cassidy noting that the word "shall" has been added to the Council's responsibility for appointing seats for the other statutory boards should those bodies fail to appoint, and then the Mayor shall have appointment authority if either the boards or Council fail to carry out their duties in that regard. Members review these clauses. Pearl asks if everyone is okay with these, members agree they are. McCrory notes that a provision requiring the CPA Committee to operate with a quorum should be included. Discussion ensues as to where the quorum requirement should be placed whether it be under Rules and Regulations, Membership or its own section (section (d)) with language about providing cost estimates to the Council. Members agree to add this as section (d) and consult with Roy Gelineau as to whether this is appropriate place for it. Members move on to the Duties section (c) (i), with Pearl noting the first sub - section was discussed at the last meeting relative to a community preservation plan versus a set of guidelines and it was agreed that a plan was not necessarily required under the statute but this Committee wanted some sort of guidelines to be established so that project review and fund appropriation Community Preservation Ordinance Committee 03 -07 -13 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 4 could happen relatively quickly. Discussion ensues as to the timeframe or deadline within which these guidelines should be developed and published. Pearl reads from Von Zweck's email where he suggests that guidelines should be established before the Committee's study and /or recommendations for project funding and he was not sure establishing a hard deadline would meet those objectives, noting that an intended sequence of activities may be more beneficial. Buchsbaum thinks that guidelines would be an obvious first step and recommends guideline completion within six months of CPA committee formation. Williams explains that using this group as an example, it will take three to four months for this relatively straightforward task to get accomplished and considering that a preservation plan is more complicated, and therefore suggests that completion of the plan be required within nine months to a year adding in public hearings which is still tight. Extensive discussion ensues as to whether the studies, plan or guidelines come first and how long each task may take, what level of public input should be required for those tasks, as well as what the studies, guidelines and plan would consist of Discussion also touches upon the logistics by which project applications are reviewed and if public hearings should be required for that part of the process, with Cassidy clarifying that the City Council will hold a public hearing for any expenditure. Members agree that guidelines (to be interpreted and determined by the permanent committee) shall be developed and published within six months of the first meeting of the permanent committee and that process should include a public hearing. Cassidy asks if there are any other parts of that paragraph that need attention. Members review this paragraph, and after some discussion agree to separate it into three paragraphs and amend the public hearing language to require at least one annual public hearing but allow for other hearings to be held at the committee's discretion. Cassidy alerts members that it is now 7:30 p.m. and members wanted to consider voting on the open space seat. Pearl explains that this vote is to decide whether one of the four at -large seats should be dedicated to the Open Space and Recreation Committee, leaving three at -large to the residents. Mahoney notes that considering Kathy Roth's suggestion about keeping it as broad as possible, he is not in favor of locking up a seat for the Open Space Committee. Richter agrees with Mahoney's sentiments. McCrory would like to argue that the Open Space Committee does not believe that open space interests are adequately represented with the five statutory boards. Pearl asks for a vote for all in favor of designating a seat to the Open Space Committee — Buchsbaum, McCrory, O'Hare and Pearl are in favor. Mahoney, Richter, St. Hilaire and Williams opposed. Members agree to leave this issue, but communicate to the City Council of this committee's extensive consideration and lack of clear consensus on this matter. Members move on to reviewing the remaining sections of the ordinance. Pearl notes that the next section (ii) speaks to the CPA committee making recommendations to the City Council. This section is discussed and no changes are suggested as agreed by the members considering this language is straight from the model by -law. Section (iii) is discussed with members agreeing to add language that speaks to the required 10% of funds having to be spent on each Community Preservation Ordinance Committee 03 -07 -13 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 4 category and Cassidy offering to revise this paragraph to make it easier to read without changing its substance relative to setting aside funds for future spending to include Roy Gelineau's review. Review of Rules and Regulations is taken up next, with Cassidy noting that (i) and (ii) address election of chairperson and limits to how long the chair can serve were added based on discussion from the last meetings. Minor modifications were suggested for the sections that follow. McCrory asks if sections on Severability and Effective Date should be included. Cassidy explains that there is an umbrella severability clause for the all of the ordinances for the City, so she is not convinced that this language is necessary in the individual ordinance. She goes on to explain the process by which ordinances become effective, essentially culminating with the Mayor's signature, which would be the effective date. Members review the draft February 21, 2013 meeting minutes and offer suggestions for amendments. McCrory moves to accept the minutes as amended. Seconded by Williams. Motion carries. Cassidy and Maxner agree to make the amendments as discussed this evening. Members agree to schedule the next meeting for Thursday, March 14, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. here in City Hall. There being no other business, Mahoney moves to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Williams. The motion carries 8 -0. The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Community Preservation Ordinance Committee 03 -07 -13 Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 4