2013-09-19CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE:
LOCATION:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT
OTHERS PRESENT:
RECORDER:
The meeting begins at 7:15 p.m.
Community Preservation Committee
September 19, 2013
City Hall, Third Floor Council Chambers
Wendy Pearl, Marilyn McCrory, Leland McDonough, Henry
Pizzo, Heather Richter, John Thomson and Robert Buchsbaum
Darien Crimmin & Leland McDonough
Stuart Saginor — Executive Director Community Preservation
Coalition & Amy Maxner — Environmental Planner
Amy Maxner
Stuart Saginor, Executive Director of the Community Preservation Coalition, introduces himself
and asks if everyone could introduce him or herself and give a little background on their position on
the Beverly Community Preservation Committee (CPC). Each member introduces him /herself and
provides a brief summary of their backgrounds and relative board representations.
Saginor proceeds to provide a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which on CD is being provided to
the CPC this evening. He begins with an outline on the Coalition's partners, structure, executive
board members and organization funding sources. He explains the Coalition's role in providing
technical and advocacy support to the various Community Preservation Act (CPA) participating
communities. He gives a brief overview of the Coalition's website and the resources available on
line as well as by way of its technical assistance hotline.
He provides an overview of the towns and cities that have adopted CPA and some general statistics
as to total funds collected from CPA inception and numbers and types of projects undertaken as a
result.
Saginor explains the initial responsibilities of the CPC, which include familiarizing themselves with
the Statute, local Ordinance, open meeting and conflict of interest laws. He notes most importantly
the CPC is charged with developing a community preservation plan, a set of project selection
criteria and application process to guide its administration of the CPA. Within the first year the
CPC must study the community needs, possibilities and resources of the City through a
collaborative process involving the various boards and commissions and the public. He explains
other responsibilities that involve project application review and funding recommendation, budget
preparation and yearly public hearings to engage citizens in updating the plan and gain public input.
Saginor provides details relative to the budgetary process and accounting on slide # 10, 11 and 12,
noting that the budget needs to be completed before the tax rate is set. He explains the funding
sources are comprised of local tax surcharges and a trust fund at the State that receives money from
a charge for each real estate transaction at all of the Registries of Deeds across the State.
Saginor notes that the requirements of the CPC's yearly budget is to place all the monies into
dedicated account and divided into reserve accounts broken down as follows: 10% to open space,
10% to housing, 10% to historic and the remaining 70% into an undesignated budgeted reserve, and
up to 5% can be set aside for administrative costs. He offers to provide a sample budget for this
Committee to tailor and encourages that a budget be submitted to the Council even if using
estimated numbers. In response to Maxner, he notes that keeping the maximum of 70% in the
reserve is best, as it does not tie that money up in any other specific category and keeps it flexible.
Additionally, he explains that once the 10% is placed in a particular category account, that money
cannot be taken out, that money stays there. He also notes that any unused administrative funds get
placed back into the undesignated budgeted reserve at the end of the fiscal year. In response to
Pizzo, Saginor explains that the 10% reserves should be first set aside and then the recommendation
for spending in that category be submitted mainly because projects do not always use every penny
of the category budget. Left over money can be more easily tracked and the CPC can make sure it
has spent the reserved 10 %.
Thomson asks if the budget needs to be presented at a certain time of year and when project
recommendations should be submitted to the Council. Saginor explains that because so many of the
CPA communities are towns, budgets and project recommendations happen in the spring at the
town meeting, but with City governments there is more flexibility in timing with both tasks. He
notes that some city CPC's submit their pro -forma budgets during the city's normal budgetary
process and wait to make project recommendations in the fall. Pearl clarifies that the CPC would
have to go back to the Council if it wishes to make changes to the budget. Saginor confirms.
Saginor explains bonding against CPA funds, noting that bonds can only be against the local
surcharge, not the state distribution and that a 2/3 vote of the Council is required to bond projects.
He adds that the debt service on bonding each year accounts for the % in whatever category reserve
account and would be satisfied for that category.
Thomson asks if there are any penalties should the CPC not spend /reserve the requisite 10% in a
category or if the money is spent on a non - qualifying project. Saginor explains that the DOR will
catch any shortfalls of the 10% requirement and send the CPC /City a memo to that affect, but there
are no real repercussions or fines written into the statute. He notes that, although rare, there have
been times that non - qualifying projects have been funded, and in that case the recourse is a 10 -tax
payer lawsuit, which needs to come between the time the Council appropriates the money and
before the money is spent. Saginor adds that the CPC's most difficult task is determining the
eligibility of a project and therefore he highly recommends that the project review process be as
long as possible to make sure the CPC has time to perform its due diligence.
Pearl asks if the project database from other towns and cities that have been doing CPA for a while
is a reliable reference to gage allowable projects. Saginor states no, explaining that many times the
reporting deadline tends to sneak up on people and they are relying on their memory to describe
projects to the database and often times the descriptions are not accurate and some towns or cities
have different interpretations etc... he notes the database is self reporting. He suggests that the
applicant should be made to circle a box in the table of allowable uses, which he will get to next.
Community Preservation Committee
12 -19 -13 Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 3
He suggests that a two -step application process is very helpful and can vet out allowable projects
before the applicant invests too much time and resouces in a full explanation.
He provides a detailed overview of allowable expenditures under administrative expenses on slides
# 13 and 14. Thomson asks a clarifying question as to the CPC's due diligence, noting that this
activity can be part of administrative expenses. Saginor states yes, explaining that things such as
obtaining appraisals for a piece of open space is perfectly allowable to ensure the CPC knows the
cost estimate is reasonable. Site investigation (21E), survey encroachments of property etc... are
also allowable expenditures. Williams asks if these activities shouldn't be what the applicant
should be doing. Saginor notes that comes down to a policy decision. Feasibility studies could be a
fundable project depending on the scope of the project.
Responding to Pizzo, Saginor explains that it is advisable to be prepared with an appraisal for a land
acquisition and then the final funding recommendation to the Council would include that appraisal
price along with additional costs related to closing and recording the deed, drafting conservation
restrictions and such, so that it is one package to complete the acquisition entirely. He also notes
that a one -time endowment for management of a conservation restriction is allowable as part of a
project cost.
Saginor moves on to slide # 16 to show how the CPC determines allowable uses and eligible
projects and states that the verbs are the critical litmus test, noting that projects must: acquire,
create, preserve, rehabilitate, restore or support. He reviews the allowable use chart and notes that
this is the most important reference document for the CPC to use when considering projects.
Saginor recommends that the CPC focus on core CPA projects for funding and steer clear of the
projects that fall into the gray areas. He also recommends that the first few projects should be high
profile and be seen to benefit the quality life of as many citizens as possible in really positive ways.
Saginor explains the basic tenets of CPA on slide # 17 relative to allowable uses noting that the
funds cannot be spent on supplanting of general municipal revenue or of existing staff services. He
notes that recreation category is for outdoor recreation projects only.
Saginor provides guidelines for how the CPC should structure its project funding recommendations
and refers to slide # 18. He reviews slide # 20 that details the limited actions that the City Council
can take relative to the CPC's project funding recommendations, noting that the CPC can attach
conditions /contingencies to its recommendations.
Thomson leaves the meeting.
Saginor finishes his presentation by providing a brief rundown of actual projects that have been
funded throughout the state.
There being no further business this evening, members thank Saginor for his time and expertise.
Buchsbaum moves to adjourn. McCrory seconds the motion. The motion carries 6 -0. The
meeting adjourns at 9:20 p.m.
Community Preservation Committee
12 -19 -13 Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 3