Loading...
2013-09-12CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: Community Preservation Committee SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: September 12, 2013 LOCATION: City Hall, Third Floor Conference Room B MEMBERS PRESENT: Wendy Pearl, Marilyn McCrory, Lincoln Williams, Leland McDonough, Henry Pizzo, Heather Richter, John Thomson and Robert Buchsbaum MEMBERS ABSENT: Darien Crimmin OTHERS PRESENT: Environmental Planner- Amy Maxner RECORDER: Kirk Baker The meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. Wendy Pearl turns the meeting over to John Dunn from the City Finance Department in regards to the fiscal aspects of the CPA. He begins by saying that billing will take place over the four fiscal quarters with the first two quarters having lower tax bills than the last two quarters. In preparation for introduction of the CPC to taxpayers they have taken advantage of the new State law which allows them to increase the 1 st and 2nd quarter bills by up to 2 percent so as to avoid too heavy of a burden being imposed in the 3 and 4 th quarters. The total billing cycle should be complete by the end of next May with a projected total of $600,000 annually. He notes it is unknown at this time what the amount of the State matching funds will be, with this time last year being 25 %. Dunn points out that the State generally distributes the matching funds in October. The amount of the funds distributed depends on the number of transactions at the Registry of Deeds. He notes the number of transactions this previous year have been numerous. He reiterates though, that the first two quarters will typically be a lesser amount than the last two quarters. He answers McDonough's question about the funds exchange between the City and the State. Dunn states that there is no transfer of funds between City and State agencies. In respect to how CPA funds are expended, Dunn says there will be a 10 /10 /10 ratio for the first 30% and the other 70% is open- ended. The CPC can increase the 10 /10 /10 ratio, for example, to a ratio of 15/15/15, but the 10 /10 /10 ratio is the absolute minimum required by the legislation. Thomson asks if the 10 /10 /10 portion of the fund is to function as an earmark. Dunn confirms that this is what is intended by the legislation and states that specific fund accounts can be set up for that purpose by the Committee. Williams asks who decides what funds are dedicated to, for example, either an open space project or a low- income housing project? Dunn responds that such a determination is entirely up to the Committee itself. Buchsbaum asks about funds carrying -over to the next year. Dunn answers that the City works off a "general fund" from which all funds must be expended by the end of the year, and if not it gets placed back into the general fund and a new budget begins the following year. He goes on to explain that other accounts are what are called multi -year accounts, which the CPA will be, where the fund amounts from revenue and state - matching amounts accumulate and survive from year to year. McDonough asks Dunn whether they will need a new software package for tracking the CPC accounts. Dunn states they will not need new software and will use the existing MUNIS system, but that some effort will go into getting the system programmed to handle the CPA functions. He says this probably will take no more than $5,000. He further says that figuring out tax bills for individual properties in the City is not complicated; rather, the most difficult aspect arises in the handling of all the different real estate exemptions that are available to the taxpayer. McCrory asks if the City will be notifying citizens of the applicable exemptions. Dunn shows the Committee a sample tax bill. He says the City should include CPA notification pamphlets with the upcoming 3 rd and 4 th quarter tax bills. He states, however, that what can be included in tax bills are regulated by the Department of Revenue. He will check into the matter to find if it will be allowed in this situation. Pearl asks about the time frame for citizens to apply for the exemptions. Dunn says that citizens are required to apply annually for a real estate exemption. The Assessor's office tracks the exemptions from year to year and makes an effort to inform taxpayers of the exemptions available to them that year. Pearl asks when the technical support for the coding of the MUNIS system will need to be in place. Dunn states 30 days but he will not worry about getting reimbursement for the cost until a later time. McDonough asks if there is an Affordable Housing Trust in Beverly. Dunn says he does not think so. Pearl says that the legislation refers to such an entity. Dunn says that a trust could be set up by this Committee in order to accept non - taxable donations. He gives as an example a tax - exempt corporation (Building -A- Better - Beverly) set up by the City for a turf field at the High School. He points out that corporation continues to exist today and is gearing up for other activities such as securing funding for renovations at the Carriage House. Dunn elaborates that setting up a corporate entity is a legitimate, above -board system that allows donors to avoid possible confusion with the IRS who may otherwise argue that a specific donation was taxable. Dunn also thinks that an Affordable Housing Trust set up by the City or the CPA could work the same way. He agrees to research the matter further. McCrory asks if the money in a CPA fund will accrue interest. He states he will need to look into it. Pearl asks if Dunn wants the Committee to participate in drafting the CPA tax notification letter. Dunn responds that the language should come from the Committee. He also comments that a letter should go out prior to any tax bill mailing to alert people about the tax ahead of time. He Community Preservation Committee 09 -12 -13 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 6 suggests that the Committee could use the City's website as an auxiliary means of providing notifications. He also recommends they consider using the newspaper or paying for a repeating announcement on Bev -Cam or even someone from the Committee giving a Bev -Cam interview. The Committee discusses getting a funds appropriation order from City Council for the Committee's start-up activities. Dunn suggests the Committee draft a budget, which includes all reasonable expenditures to be recommended to the Council through the Mayor. He notes that he can set up a fund to which these charges can be applied with the understanding that the expenses will be covered by the end of June. As a timeframe he notes that expenditure approvals are typically processed within two Council meetings. Dunn offers to attend a future a CPC meeting to help draft a request to the Mayor. Pearl asks if the members have additional questions. Richter asks if the CPA assessment will appear on the regular tax bill. Dunn says that, in his opinion, it is required. Dunn thanks the Committee for its time. Members thank Dunn for coming to the meeting. Pearl turns discussion towards the Committee's progress towards devising a set of guidelines over the next few meetings. She points to three items on the agenda: 1.) Decision criteria and review process; 2.) Consultation with other Boards; 3.) Public Hearings. Pearl also discusses the previous weeks homework assignment where everyone was requested to write up what criteria they think is important and then send it to Maxner who collated the results to discuss at tonight's meeting. Pearl asks the group if it would be feasible to have a draft set of guidelines by the end of the calendar year. Thomson suggests having the drafts done earlier would allow the members time to take them to their respective Boards. Pearl points out that all the Boards should meet in November for consideration of the CPA guidelines criteria. Williams mentions that the group has thus far focused on the Gloucester set of guidelines but states that he has also been studying the Newburyport guidelines and suggests they may be more amenable to this Committee's purpose. The Committee is looking at having a public hearing in December. McDonough offers that it is necessary to get the public hearing done in December, regardless of whether the guidelines are set in stone because, after that, the taxpayers will start seeing the CPA charges on their tax bills in January. In that regard, all members should be prepared to present draft guidelines at their November meetings. Buchsbaum asks a question about there being a separate Conservation Commission criteria. Pearl responds that the guidelines categories are set by the legislation with those being Open Space, Historic Preservation, Affordable Housing, and Recreation. Pearl points, however, that Conservation, while not being an explicit category, is implicitly contained within the Open Space and Recreation categories. Pearl suggests they move on to the tabulated guidelines criteria outlined on the Draft Collated Criteria document provided by Maxner to the members. Maxner introduces the categories of criteria. Pearl notes that the main cluster of guidelines, predictably, comes from the Gloucester and Newburyport guidelines while some of the others reflect criteria derived by the individual Committee members. Community Preservation Committee 09 -12 -13 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 6 McCrory questions the potential use of the criterion specified in the tenth bullet of General Criteria (page 1 of the Draft Collated Criteria document) which states: "Preserve or improve use /utility of city -owned assets." Pearl asks if the Committee should then strike that item. Buchsbaum expresses reservations about striking it but that it should be a priority of the Committee to ensure a level playing -field between and the City and citizen projects. Thomson expresses his concerns about the CPC being used by the City, otherwise lacking funding due to fiscal and budgetary constraints, to fund City - preferred projects. After additional discussion the Committee agrees that this criterion should be removed from the list. McCrory questions the generality of the criterion concerning "advantageous cost /benefits ratio' in that she feel that it is too vague to apply. Buchsbaum responds that improvements to Lynch Park which provided additional revenues to the City exceeding the cost of the improvements themselves, are a specific and clear example of an advantageous cost -to- benefit ratio. Pearl states that she would rather see the text say that a project is "advantageous" to the public benefit due to the term "cost" implying a highly quantitative component in contrast to the term "benefit" which is qualitative in its connotation. Thomson disagrees with this stating that he would not necessarily interpret that language as being definitively quantitative in nature but could also be construed to mean that a project is proportionally beneficial to the public interest in a general sense not conveyed numerically. Williams says he thinks most of the criteria will not be applicable to most projects, and, in particular, this criterion most likely won't apply to about 80% of the projects. Richter points out that criteria that do not apply to 80% of the projects should not be in the general criteria list. Pearl suggests that it should be considered a budget line item, especially, if it can be quantified. After discussion the Committee decides that the "advantageous cost /benefit ratio' language should be included on the application but that "provides public benefit" should be on the general criteria list. Pearl then states that she would like to suggest a revision to the general critieria: "to preserve and enhance the essential characteristics of the City..." to include, "...City and neighborhoods Pearl suggests leaving it in places the burden on the applicant to show how they will meet the CPA requirements by which their proposal is being assessed. One member then poses the question of what is the essential character of the City? Maxner asks what is an appropriate characterization of Beverly? Thomson feels wary about summing up the City by a single characteristic. Pearl offers that the City's Comprehensive Master Plan probably includes a characterization of the City as a whole in its Executive Summary. Pearl turns the conversation to special zoning issues and to public /private partnerships as a criterion. McCrory states she thinks it's getting too much into the zoning domain. Members arrive at the consensus that the language "endorsement from other Boards" already covers the public support criteria. Thomson observes that many of the criteria on the list are more like questions to be asked on the application. The other members agree with this assertion. Pearl asks for other topics. Buchsbaum adds that an applicant's providing proof of having a positive track record for completing projects should also be a consideration whether or not to support funding. Maxner interjects that specific language can be added to the application which warns the applicant that incomplete applications will be tabled until such time as all required information is submitted. Community Preservation Committee 09 -12 -13 Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 6 Pearl notes the time at 8:20 p.m. and asks everyone if they are okay with covering additional topics. McDonough says that he must leave at 8:30 pm. The topic turns to discussion of the criteria in the Open Space category. Thomson states that the coastline is one resource, which is most certainly special about Beverly versus other towns like Danvers or Peabody, are its coastal areas. Members agree to add a criterion that includes "preserve and enhance coastal waterfront and access thereto'. Pearl draws comparison to the agricultural use criteria and includes the working waterfront as an important resource characteristic. Buchsbaum points to Moraine Farm as another example of a publicly beneficial agricultural use. He also envisions that CPA funds can be used to purchase land in another town. The members decide to revise this criterion to say "preserve and expand and expand agricultural use ". The Committee then discusses the criterion "to preserve scenic views ". Pearl suggests the City has the discretion to designate any road as a scenic road. The Committee distinguishes between a "scenic road" which is a recognition that the corridor design should complement the visual appeal of the natural environment, and, the more official status of a "designated scenic road" that would be eligible for CPA funding. Under the "protects over 10 acres" criterion Pearl questions why start at 10 acres? She points out that many worthy projects may be less than 10 acres. Thomson makes the suggestion to use the language "protect significant parcels" which can refer to other factors used to evaluate a parcel other than its size. Pearl raises the consideration that the "over 10 acres" language perhaps will sound like the Committee is scoping out for big projects to which to give special consideration. Buchsbaum gives as an example, weeding out those properties with complicated environmental histories such as a hazardous waste site and further elaborates that it would be unfortunate to expend CPA funds on a site only to find out later that costly hazardous environmental conditions exist. Pearl responds that such a property could be considered if it came with funding to mitigate pre- existing environmental conditions and that the topic would serve as a good question on the CPA application. Thomson asks about the use of CPA funds for due diligence studies. Pearl notes this is a good question for Stuart Sagninor. Pearl asks whether using CPA funds for environmental education is a legitimate expenditure? The members agree to strike "active recreation" from the Open Space criteria. McDonough departs the meeting at approximately 8:35 pm. Pearl moves on to other business. Maxner conveys the City Solicitor, Roy Gelineau's determination that even a subcommittee, while not having a quorum of Committee members, is still considered to be a governing body and thus subject to the public meeting requirements specified by law. In regards to email exchanges, Gelineau determined that any expression of opinion about a matter that is pending Committee consideration, electronically circulated among any of the members, even when no one responds, is considered by law to be a "deliberation ". Factual information, on the other hand, is permitted in the context of email exchanges among the Community Preservation Committee 09 -12 -13 Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 6 Committee members. The members agree that the City Attorney's determination on the matter was clear and needs no further discussion. Pearl turns to the discussion of the CPC web page. Maxner says she will make updates to the site and the Committee can comment and critique during the upcoming weeks. Pearl asks if everyone has had a chance to review the minutes. She states that she does not remember saying anything about "campy" imagery pertaining to the website as is denoted in the minutes, rather, she thinks that the discrepancy is probably related to comments she was making in response to Crimmin's statement comparing the CPA website to the campaign website. The Committee agrees to strike the sentence from the minutes. Willaims makes a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Thomson seconds the motion. The motion carries 7 -0. Maxner reminds the Committee about the upcoming training session on September 19 here is City Hall. Members discuss October 3 rd as a possible next regular meeting date. Pearl also asks if a consensus could be decided by email. Maxner agrees to pose the date to everyone by email. Pearl asks the members whether they believe that when they present the criteria to their respective Boards if they should present their category - specific criteria only, or, if they should instead present the whole set of criteria to each Board. She states that there are some areas of overlap. McCrory says she assumed that she would only be presenting the category - specific criteria. After some discussion the members decide that while the focus of each Board and Commission should be category - specific, each Board can venture into any category of criteria that they see as being relevant to their respective topic. Pearl asks Maxner to make updates to the general and open space criteria as discussed this evening. Maxner agrees to do so. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 pm. Community Preservation Committee 09 -12 -13 Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 6