COMMUNITY PRESERVATION COMMITTEE
MINUTES
July 16, 2013
A meeting of the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) was held on Tuesday, July 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Chair Helen Sides, Vice Chair Kevin Cornacchio, John Boris, Joanne McCrea, Ed Moriarty, Tim Shea, and Leslie Tuttle. Also present was Jane Guy of the City of Salem. Bart Hoskins arrived later in the meeting.
FY14 Budget
Ms. Guy stated that she had emailed a copy of an amended Draft FY14 Budget (July 1, 2013 - June 30, 2014) to the CPC (attached). She noted that the budget has to be in place before the tax rate is set and that it does reflect specific projects. She read an email from member Mickey Northcutt who was unable to attend (attached). She stated that the CPC will need to make a motion to recommend a budget to the City Council.
Mr. Boris made a motion to recommend the budget as drafted to the City Council. Ms. Tuttle seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Discussion of Action Steps
Ms. Guy distributed a list of draft Action Steps that she stated will help members think about what the process will be moving forward. She stated that the CPC needs to decide if they want to do the one or two step application process, to draft application(s) and to develop selection criteria. She suggested that members look at what other CPA communities are doing by looking at the examples on http://www.communitypreservation.org/ . She stated that she will start to prepare
draft documents and recommended that CPC members forward any suggestions to her. The CPC will need to determine how to do outreach, including using the city website and press releases. Members will need to solicit input from their respective boards and there will need to be a public hearing to solicit input. She stated that the CPC would likely meet in September to finalize the forms and that the public hearing would likely be in October. Following, the plan would need to be developed. The deadline for the applications would be after the plan is developed. With regard to applications received, they will need to be reviewed for eligibility. If there is a two-step process, she stated that the question will be whether all applicants would be invited to back to submit full application or if there would be criteria to prioritize them and invite back only those determined a priority.
Mr. Tuttle stated that she looked at what other communities have done and noted that some gave priority to projects that fit into more than one eligible category. She stated that there are a lot of good ideas on the website. She stated that the two step process prevents people from putting a lot of time and effort into a project that doesn’t fit.
Ms. Guy noted that after having a deadline for the initial applications, there will need to be a meeting to review the applications to determine which are to be invited back, followed by another deadline for final applications. Once reviewed, projects recommended for the fiscal year would then be submitted to the City Council. She stated that if there are projects that eventually may be worthy, but are not quite ready (i.e. needs bonding or needs more money than is available), the CPC can use its admin funds for appraisals, or cost estimating consultants, etc.
Ms. McCrea asked if there were cost estimates done for the Salem Common fence.
Ms. Guy stated that the City has cost estimates from the study that was done and will also have better numbers from the current phase construction work.
Ms. Guy noted that the City has set aside $50,000 for the CPA, which she included in the Draft budget. She stated that the DOR has not yet put out information regarding blended funds. However, she included it in the budget, thinking it was better to have it in and take it out of the budget, than not having it in the budget and not being able to use it for the match. She noted that it is not set aside for a specific project.
Mr. Boris asked, if the CPC decides to do the fence, but establishes that it will take two or three years to accumulate enough money, if can the funds be reserved and carried forward until there is enough.
Ms. Guy replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Shea stated that it could also be bonded, so that the job can be done sooner and paid later.
Ms. Guy stated that these are the types of things that will need to be included with the recommendations of all projects to the City Council, such as cost estimates and how each would be paid for in its entirety (bonded, multi-year, etc.). She stated that the CPC will need to get its ducks in a row with regard to the application process and the criteria to be used to determine what are good projects.
Mr. Hoskins joined the meeting at this time.
Ms. Guy also noted some dates, including that the tax rate gets set in January and that the City does not actually receive any State match funds until November, 2014.
Mr. Moriarty stated that he appreciates that there appears to be a lot of shovel ready projects, which appear to be municipal projects. He stated that he took from the training that this is a community preservation act, not a municipal preservation act and that stated he was not wed to only listening to and approving funding for municipal, shovel ready projects. He stated that the CPC is responsible to get the good news out to the entire community that non-governmental, private entities are on equal footing. He stated that the CPC needs to reach out to other people to indicate that everybody has an equal opportunity to participate to improve the community within the guidelines of the ordinance and the statute. He stated that there needs to be a learning curve for the community and that thought
should be given to outreach, such as a previously suggested mailing, or going before the Rotary or Lions. He suggested that people on the committee step up and talk about what is being done and the limited funds available, noting the broad scope that we envision for the future and the things we can do with everyone participating. He stated that he was concerned about being under tight time constraints and that the only applicants we might consider will be for shovel-ready municipal projects, no matter how meritorious they are. He stated that he was not suggesting that such projects were without merit, but that he would like to also give an opportunity for non-profits and other entities that might have good ideas and might be able to do things on a smaller basis, perhaps with smaller funds, that the CPC may be able to assist this fiscal year. He stated that he did not know how to get that news out, and suggested that it might take presentations before
different groups.
Mr. Hoskins agreed that there should be balance.
Mr. Boris stated that it was mentioned putting a mailing out with the water bills, noting that a lot of the non-profits are not taxable.
Mr. Moriarity stated that a flyer would give the biggest bang for the buck.
Ms. McCrea stated that perhaps it was a good idea. She noted that the CPC is an advisory group. She stated that represented boards also make recommendations to the city about things that need to be fixed. She added that one might consider that those are experts in those needs for the city and that it was important to consider what those needs and costs are, since we have a limited amount of funds.
Ms. Sides stated that the idea that everyone should know about it is completely right and that everyone of us should make an effort to spread the information to whomever we speak to and to clarify this. She stated that this is so brand new and that there is a need to establish the documents. She stated that everyone is on a big learning curve and that she cannot think about who is coming forward with applications until she knows what the application is.
Ms. Tuttle stated that the CPC really has a year and that, the more she learns about this, she does not feel we should be blowing the $450,000 immediately. She noted that Acton has two funding rounds.
Ms. Guy stated that right now there is no list of projects and that the list will be what the CPC creates. She stated that there are plenty of places to collect information, such as the Capital Improvement Plan, the Open Space Plan and other plans that already exist. There will also be a public hearing. She noted that she got a letter from the Salem Common Neighborhood Association who is looking $45,000 from the CPA for the McIntire Arch. She stated that she let them know there will be a formal process. She noted that the CPC recommendation could be, for example, to spend a portion of the budget on some small project this year and to carry the rest over so that they can do more research on the other projects. The CPC will have to make those decisions.
Mr. Boris stated that the key is reserving it so it is not lost.
Ms. Guy agreed that the budget is the key thing that the CPC needs to do every year, so as not to loose funding.
Mr. Shea stated that he agreed with Mr. Moriarty’s comments and felt it may be the role of the at-large members to promote to the community. He stated that the at-large members should take the lead on getting the word out to those other areas.
Ms. Sides was in agreement, noting that there could be an assumed prejudice and that avoiding that is the point of the at-large positions.
Mr. Hoskins stated that a press release should be released in advance of the public hearing.
Ms. Guy stated that developing the plan comes before reviewing and recommending the projects. She recommended that, before the next meeting, members look at the Coalition website and what other communities are doing in terms of applications and plans. She stated that she will try to tweak available documents toward the City of Salem and try to get drafts to the members for further tweaking. The CPC will need to develop criteria on how the CPC will pick worthy projects.
Mr. Shea stated that the plan will come first and then the CPC will decide if the project fits the plan.
Ms. Guy stated that CPC members talking to their constituencies will help guide what the criteria will be.
Ms. Sides asked if everyone feels confortable with the concept of a two-step process. She stated that she preferred it.
All were in agreement.
Ms. Tuttle asked to get a copy of the Open Space Plan. She stated that she believed there was a lot about waterfront access in it, which should be on the CPC’s radar screen. Ms. Guy will forward a copy or link of the plan.
Ms. Sides clarified that all comments should be sent to Ms. Guy.
Ms. Guy stated that she will collect all the comments, and noted that CPC members cannot deliberate by email.
Other Business
Mr. Hoskins noted that there were members of the public present and wondered if the CPC should have a period of time where people who come to a meeting can ask a question or state their reason for attending.
Ms. Sides noted that it is not a public hearing.
Mr. Shea suggested that the CPC decide if people can speak. He stated that he would be in favor of listening to the people who took the time to come out.
Mr. Boris stated that in his experience with boards, under other business, it was always allowed within limits. He stated that the chair has a right to cut off discussion. He stated that if someone comes out and has a sincere interest, he felt it was appropriate to allow.
Ms. Sides wondered if it was premature because it is so new that she was not sure if she could respond to questions.
Ms. Guy stated that the CPC could give it a shot and the CPC could try to answer questions.
Mr. Hoskins stated that the public may come up with questions that we haven’t even thought to ask yet and the CPC can be more prepared for the eventual public hearing. He stated that it may not be advertised as a public meeting, but all of the meetings are public meetings and that it should be part of the routine.
Ms. Sides stated that there is a distinction between a public meeting and a public hearing. She stated that if the members want to open the meeting up to the public, someone should make that motion.
Mr. Shea made a motion to open up the meeting to the public. Mr. Boris seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
James Sullivan, 15 Heritage Drive, Salem, MA stated that it does seem like it is very early in the process. He stated that he did not have comment for the board seeing that it is just getting underway. He stated that he had not known what to expect and appreciated the meeting being opened to public discussion.
Jim Lorose, Danvers, MA stated that he agreed that it is all new and noted that nobody knows what to expect. He stated that the questions that will come up include how much this will all cost, get collected and be distributed. He stated that prioritizing projects is one thing, but that most important is that people want to get the best bang for the buck.
Ms. Guy stated that to the best of her knowledge, the Assessor’s Office is still working it out with the Department of Revenue and that they don’t have all the answers yet. The Assessor will get that information out, so when people see it in their tax bill, they will know what it means. The city website has a page for the CPC which will be updated with the information as it comes out, as well.
Mr. Lorose asked if the one percent surchage will stay at that level for the first five years.
Ms. Guy stated that one percent is what was voted in and that it won’t change during the five years.
Ms. McCrea made a motion to close the public meeting. Mr. Hoskins seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. McCrea stated that the trainer had suggested putting out something in the water bills.
Ms. Guy stated that she believed the Asssessor’s Office will draft something. She noted that the CPC can pay for anything the CPC wants to do above and beyond what the Assessors does.
Ms. McCrea stated that it behooves the CPC to talk about how it is collected and distributed, so the nuts and bolts of how the CPA is going to work in Salem is clear.
Ms. Guy stated that the plan the CPC develops is also a document that will explain this.
Mr. Boris stated that there is a separate list of all non-profit and non taxpaying properties in the city, in case the CPC does not want to do a mailing to everybody.
Next Meeting Date
Tuesday, September 10, 2013, 6:00 p.m.
There being no further business, Mr. Moriarty made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Cornacchio seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Administrator
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 2:34 PM
To: Jane Guy
Subject: Re: CPC Agenda 071613
Hi Jane
Unfortunately I can't make it next week.~
My two cents is that we allocate the funds 10/10/10 to the three funds, 5% to admin, and the balance to the general fund. ~
I'm opposed to spending any $ until we've established priorities for the fund through a public process, in case it comes up at all next week to do any projects now.~
Thanks,
Mickey
| 
