04-25-19 CPC Minutes-FINALCITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES -FINAL
COMMITTEEXOMMISSION: SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE:
LOCATION:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Community Preservation Committee
April 25, 2019
Beverly City Hall, 191 Cabot Street
Chair - Marilyn McCrory, Vice Chair - Wendy
Pearl, Nancy Marino, Christy Edwards, Heather
Richter, Derek Beckwith, John Hall, Tom Bussone
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Robert Buchsbaum
Amy Maxner - Environmental Planner;
Todd Rotondo - President, Ward 2 Civic Assoc.
Recorder: Blakely Calabrese
McCrory calls the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. She notes that the Committee will evaluate
the remaining projects and hopefully vote on final recommendations to forward to the City
Council. She notes that the application from Edenic may be tabled pending submission of
more information but perhaps this can be discussed later in the agenda.
City Clerk - Historical Municipal Document Preservation
McCrory states that Wes Slate had provided additional information to the Committee's
questions at the last meeting. She notes that the roving archivist's report provided
recommendations on storage methods but did not evaluate the actual documents in current
storage. She notes that the CPC wanted to discuss the possibility to fund an archival
evaluation so that document restoration can be prioritized, also discussed was methods of
document restoration and the City's need to go out to bid for any project over $50K. She
invites comments and discussion.
Beckwith notes the importance of record preservation and is in favor of this application as
well as the need for an archival assessment to prioritize documents and a plan for a map of
the future to aid both the CPC and the City Clerk. Bussone agrees and is in favor of the
application and suggests that any future request for CPA funding, or funded by City Clerk
budget, should be for a proposed archival assessment. The Committee discusses the request
for $100,000 and the requirement to go out to bid for anything over $5 OK.
Hall asks if this is a project that will be funded forever into the future and whether there is a
sense whether other CPA towns do the same thing. Richter states that she would be in favor
of funding at a lower amount, which could benefit the archival assessment if applied for in a
future CPA cycle. Pearl notes that City Clerk has underspent in other rounds. Maxner
confirms that one cycle was underspent, but this past cycle was overspent and thus requiring
the Clerk to take from his budget to cover the overage. Discussion ensues as to past funding
cycles.
Pearl states she would like to make it clear that the CPA money is used to preserve
historical artifacts and not just aging documents and the scope of the work should prioritize
the historical value of the documents and if preservation of information results in loss of the
artifact and she just wants to make sure that the historical significance of these artifacts is in
keeping with the spirit of CPA. She notes that consistent funding of aging document
restoration may be viewed, by some, as supplanting the City Clerk's operating budget for
this activity. Bussone needs clarification on who would perform the evaluation and
determine what is historically significant.
Marino confirms that 100 years or older is the current criteria and the CPC is looking to
understand within that group of 100 year old documents what is the most historically
significant. With Pearl adding in addition to their physical form. Hall notes that the
physical form of how the documents were housed or bound was what raised his questions
on this issue.
Discussion ensues as to the list of documents slated for this round, with Hall noting that
there are two items indicated as "sew" and questions if these are bound volumes and
whether the volumes themselves are historically significant.
Discussion ensues as to level of funding that should be recommended this round. Beckwith
notes that there is a significant cost difference between preserving documents and
preserving bound volumes and that the process would benefit from an archival assessment,
and believes that Round 6 should be fully funded with the understanding that the next
application should propose an archival assessment.
Bussone makes a motion to fund the project at $100,000 with the requirement that only
historically significant documents or artifacts are preserved. Beckwith seconds. Discussion
ensues as to the motion that the scope of work should prioritize historically significant
objects. Maxner states that this requirement seems to change the scope of the project and
involves evaluation of the artifact and significance of a document and she is not sure how
that can be monitored. Maxner reads from the application narrative that explains examples
of records can include bound journal sized books or (in most cases) loose sheets of paper
maintained within metal cases (similar to card catalogue style). Pearl notes that she just not
sure if historically significant objects are being destroyed by way of the preservation
process. Edwards states that she is in favor of funding the project but with the
understanding that an archival assessment be undertaken, and could be funded by CPA.
Bussone offers an amendment to the motion to fund the project at $100,000 to preserve
loose leaf documents, but to exclude preservation of bound or "sew" volumes. Marino
seconds the amended motion. Discussion ensues as to which of the documents are bound or
not.
Pearl offers an amendment to fund to project at $94,430 and to exclude preservation of
bound or "sew" volumes. Bussone accepts the amendment to his motion. Marino seconds
the amended motion. The motion carries 6 -2. Hall & Richter opposed. Hall and Richter
note their objection is to the amount of funding. Pearl notes that it may be useful to ask
Historic Beverly to attend a meeting with Wes in attendance to review their archival
preservation of artifacts.
Parks & Recreation Department/Ward 2 Civic Assoc. - Herlihy Park/Livingston Playground
Community Preservation Committee DRAFT April 25, 2019 Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 3
McCrory notes whether documentation of expenses are accurate or whether they are
ballpark figures. The Committee discusses that the CPC funds are only a portion of the
entire project so they would like to see CPA funds used last or in concert with Recreation
and private fundraising money.
Edwards moves to award $70,000 with the contingency that the Recreation Department's
matching funding of $15,000 be used first before any CPA funding is disbursed. Marino
seconds. Motion carries 8 -0.
Edenic Development. Inc. - Community Gardens at Standley Street
Brief discussion ensues as to the lack of City signature on the application, as well as no City
personnel designated as point person for the project. Beckwith inquires as to whether the CPC
should reach out to the City to gather more information, with the majority of the members noting
that is not the CPC's role. Bussone moves to not fund the application due to the reasons as
discussed. Edwards seconds. Motion carries 7 -1 with Beckwith opposed.
Maxner notes that she will forward the Committee's final funding recommendations to the City
Council and estimates that the Council will hold its public hearing on May 20t
Review of Draft Minutes
Members review the draft minutes from March 21, 2019 and offer edits. Bussone moves to
approve the minutes as amended. Seconded by Richter. The motion carries 5 -0.
Other Business
Maxner agrees to invite Chief of Staff Kevin Harutunian to the next meeting to discuss signage.
Members briefly discuss PR strategies to raise the level of awareness around CPA in Beverly — it agreed
to place this for discussion on an upcoming agenda.
Adj ournment
Bussone motions to adjourn the meeting at 7:15p.m. Edwards seconds the motion. The
motion carries 5 -0. The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 7:00pm in
Beverly City Hall.
Community Preservation Committee DRAFT April 25, 2019 Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 3