DRAFT Notes from the City of Beverly Community Preservation ComDRAFT Notes from the City of Beverly Community Preservation Committee (CPC)
Special Meeting
Date /Time: September 03, 2019; 7 PM.
Location: Library /Media Center, Beverly High School, 100 Sohier Road, Beverly, MA
01915
CPC Participants: Derek Beckwith; Robert Buchsbaum; Thomas Bussone; John Hall; Nancy
Marino; Marilyn McCrory(Chair); Heather Richter(Vice Chair); Wendy Pearl.
CPC Absent: Christy Edwards.
Committee (acting) Denise Deschamps, Economic Development Planner, Planning and
staff: Development Department, City of Beverly.
Guests: Susan Carleton, Executive Director, Beverly Housing Authority (BHA)
Dawn Goodwin, Director of Modernization and Procurement, Beverly Housing
Authority
Marilyn McCrory called the meeting to order.
CPC members introduced themselves and Susan Carleton and Dawn Goodwin introduced themselves.
McCrory stated the purpose of the special meeting. CPC members were to focus their attention on the
out of cycle application submitted by the Beverly Housing Authority (BHA). The application was
requesting that the CPC award the BHA $100,000.00 which would applied to the proposed $3+ million
rehabilitation of property located at 45 Balch Street that serves elderly persons and individuals with
disabilities. The CPC will be considering and voting on three actions:
1) determination if this project meets the criteria for being reviewed as an out of cycle application;
2) determination of the eligibility of the project to receive CPA funds via the pre - application;
3) review of the full application and a decision as to whether or not the CPC will award funding
requested.
McCrory then asked Sue Carleton and Dawn Goodwin for some clarification regarding the specific
purpose for which the $100,000.00 would be used. The representatives from the BHA re- stated the
information included in the application. The $100,000.00 would be put towards the replacement of 26
exterior doors. The doors along with many other elements have not been replaced since construction of
the building in 1959. It was mentioned that photographs of the doors to be replaced as well as the
interior of at least one unit were included in the application.
McCrory expressed concern that replacement of exterior doors may not be an eligible use of CPA funds
given the guidance provided by the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community
Development (DHCD) via Public Housing Notice 2013 -14 dated May 30, 2013 which included a "partial
list of activities related to existing community housing units that DHCD believes could be classified as
'preservation' and funded by CPA monies...." The list included:
Page 1 of 3
- Building envelope and site work to preserve the structural integrity of the housing
- Roof, siding and window replacements to assure the water tightness of the housing
- Upgrading of dangerous electrical or plumbing services
- Replacement of dangerous building systems which threaten the housing units
- Installation of hard -wired smoke alarms, sprinklers and other building fire
suppression systems ".
There was concern on the part of McCrory that replacement of doors was not specifically mentioned in
the list. Other Committee members noted that this was a partial list. Goodwin also noted that this
memo was guidance but not legally binding. Members briefly considered the possibility of having the
$100,000 applied to another component of the project but after discussion members decided that it was
reasonable to conclude that applying the funds for replacement of exterior doors in such poor condition
could be considered integral to the structural integrity of the housing and an important element
ensuring water tightness per the aforementioned DHCD memo. Wendy Pearl indicated her interest in
making a motion that the project proposed in the pre - application met criteria for an eligible project.
The motion was seconded. Seven members were in favor. One member was opposed. The project was
deemed eligible for funding by the CPC (7 -1).
The conversation then turned to whether or not the project was eligible to be considered as an out -of-
cycle project. McCrory reviewed the CPC's criteria for consideration as an out -of -cycle project. Carleton
and Goodwin described events that led them to apply for CPC funding. They had originally intended to
apply for another source of funding, DHCD Sustainability funds, to cover the cost of the exterior door
replacement. But on August 15 they learned that the Sustainability program no longer covered the cost
of replacing exterior doors. They were advised by a BHA Board member that CPA funds may be an
alternative source of funding that should be explored. BHA representatives also mentioned that the
bulk of the rehabilitation funds would come from DHCD's MocIPHASE Initiative program to which they
are applying. Other sources of funding include DHCD's Accessibility Funds ($122,289.00) and Special
Programs funds for asbestos removal ($187,500.00). The BHA will also contribute $664,486.09 in FY22
Formula Funding. The deadline for the MocIPHASE application is September 13, 2019. In the past the
BHA had not applied for these funds because other projects took precedence. But they were in a
position in this funding round to apply and the need for rehabilitation at 45 Balch Street is serious. Pearl
moved that that the CPC vote to accept the application out of cycle because it meets the CPC criteria for
an out -of- cycle application. The vote was seconded and the vote was unanimous (8 -0) that the
application satisfied the criteria for review of an out of cycle application.
The CPC then took up the matter of considering whether or not to award funding to the proposed
project. Goodwin noted that if CPC funds were awarded they would not be used unless full funding was
received for the project via grant requests to other funding sources. Committee members reviewed the
application within the context of its General Evaluation Criteria and within that list its Category Specific
Evaluation Criteria for Community Housing projects.
The proposal for rehabilitation of existing affordable housing units that serve low and very low income
households is consistent with the City of Beverly's housing plan. The City needs to have these units
preserved. The BHA is going to have future discussion with the City's Director of Planning and
Development, Aaron Clausen, regarding the BHA portfolio. The BHA has a very limited source of funds.
If they receive full funding for the entire project this could sustain the units for 20 years. The
rehabilitation project would be managed by a team including BHA executive staff, such as Carleton and
Page 2 of 3
Goodwin, their financial director, facilities manager and representatives of DHCD. So the BHA does have
the capacity to undertake the project.
There was a question from CPC about what would happen to the existing residents during
reconstruction. BHA representatives stated that they would be relocated to other properties in the BHA
portfolio. Residents could elect to remain as residents of those units to which they were relocated once
the rehabilitation is complete or they could return to the newly rehabilitated units. It was noted that
residents of 45 Balch Street are very fond of their location, they enjoy the neighborhood and have a
strong sense of community.
It was noted by BHA Board member that the BHA has successfully applied for grants over many years
bringing in millions to maintain their properties. The BHA noted that the State (DHCD) encouraged local
housing authorities to apply for CPA funds in their local communities and stated that the award of CPA
funds would be looked upon favorably and could leverage an additional 5 points during the application
scoring process.
Another BHA Board member stated that BHA residents feel like they are a part of the community, not
treated as second class citizens and this type of rehabilitation will only serve to bolster that sentiment.
The BHA was asked to and did confirm that these units would remain affordable per their mission as a
housing authority. The project would clearly rehabilitate existing units, they are set aside for very low
and low income households. These buildings are harmonious in design and scale with the
neighborhood.
The BHA would anticipate project completion in FY22.
Pearl moved to approve that the CPC award the BHA the full amount requested, $100,000. The motion
was seconded and all voted in favor (8 -0). McCrory stated that despite the initial concern she expressed
about the replacement of exterior doors not being explicitly mentioned in the 2013 guidance provided
by DHCD, she is indeed strongly in favor of the overall project.
Next steps in the process were reviewed. The CPC would makes its recommendation to the City Council.
Given that the City Council will not reach its decision until after the BHA must submit its application for
MocIPHASE Initiative funding, the CPC will provide a letter to the BHA with its recommendation for
funding.
There was discussion as to which reserves(s) funding would be taken so that information could be
conveyed to the City Council. It was mentioned that the primary source of funding would be the CPA
community housing fund and the remainder will come from the general reserve fund.
CPC members were reminded that the next CPC meeting will take place on September 19 at which
Bryant Ayles will present the FY20 budget.
McCrory said she would entertain a motion that the meeting be adjourned, said motion was made,
seconded and unanimously adopted (8 -0).
Page 3 of 3