COMMUNITY PRESERVATION COMMITTEE
MINUTES
September 10, 2013
A meeting of the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) was held on Tuesday, September 10, 2013 at 6:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Chair Helen Sides, Vice Chair Kevin Cornacchio, Bart Hoskins, John Boris, Ed Moriarty, Tim Shea, and Leslie Tuttle. Also present was Jane Guy of the City of Salem.
Joanne McCrea, arrived later in the meeting.
Approval of Minutes
Mr. Borris made a motion to approve the minutes of June 25, 2013. Mr. Hoskins seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Boris made a motion to approve the minutes of July 9, 2013. Mr. Hoskins seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Boris made a motion to approve the minutes of July 16, 2013. Mr. Hoskins seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Review of Draft Information Materials
Ms. Guy distributed a draft Taxpayer Information Guide and a draft Application for Exemptions. She stated that these are the first documents that needed to be completed, as the first tax bill will go out on January 1st. She stated that the Guide was initially drafted by City Assessor Deb Jackson for use by people asking about exemptions. Ms. Guy stated that with Ms. Jackson’s okay, she reworked the draft so that it could be used in conjunction with other public informational materials to be placed on the city website and for use when the CPC has its public hearing and other public outreach. She stated that the Community Preservation Coalition (Coalition) reviewed the draft guide and the current draft includes their suggested amendments. There were no amendments from the City
Solicitor. She noted that she received one suggested edit from Mr. Hoskins, which she has included in the current versions. She asked if the CPC had any further edits.
Ms. Sides stated that it was confusing on how the surchage is calculated and suggest that formula be included.
Mr. Shea stated that he was also confused how on the surchage is calculated.
Ms. Tuttle was in agreement.
Ms. McCrea joined the meeting at this time.
Ms. Sides stated that the rest of the document seems very clear.
Ms. McCrea was in agreement.
Ms. Guy stated that she will add a formula and run it by Ms. Jackson.
Ms. Guy stated that Ms. Jackson took the Exemption Application directly from the DOR information guidelines and made minor changes for Salem’s purposes.
Ms. Guy stated that she did not have additional draft documents, but would like to discuss it further under a later agenda item.
Budget Update and Submittal Timeline
Ms. Guy stated that the DOR has still not provided guidance on the budget for blended communities. In speaking with Stuart Saginor of the Coalition, he was concerned about including the $50,000 in the budget at this time, noting that including it increases the amount of the mandatory 10% for each of the three budget categories. He indicated that once the funds are approved by the City Council for these amounts and it is put into line items, the funds cannot be removed, even if the DOR guidance arrives and it is determined that these funds should not be included. He suggested that unless otherwise provided by the DOR, the budget be submitted to Council without the $50,000, noting that it can be added later. The budget needs to be approved by Council before the tax rate is set. The
tax classification hearings will be on November 21st or December 5th - which means that the CPC would need to submit its budget to Council prior. Ms. Guy suggested that the CPC wait until its October meeting to see if DOR submits guidance and, if none, a revised budget without the $50,000 be submitted for the Council’s October 24th meeting. This will give them October 24th and November 7th to act.
Mr. Shea asked what happens with $50,000.
Ms. Guy stated that she will speak with finance, but that the CPC won’t loose the funds.
Report on Trolley Tour of Salem Housing Authority Properties by Attendees
Mr. Boris stated that the Salem Housing Authority (SHA) has a tour every year. He thanked those who attended and hoped they were able to see how organized the SHA is and that it is the best in the State. He noted that HUD call the SHA for advice on a daily basis.
Ms. McCrea stated that the tour went by many of the SHA sites - some federal and some state funded. She stated that she was very impressed with the former Phillips School, which is now handicapped accessible units.
Mr. Boris stated that part of the fence between Salem State University and Rainbow Terrace will be taken down so that tenants can use various services at the University.
Ms. Guy asked if any needs were discussed that might be eligible for CPA funds.
Mr. Boris and Ms. McCrea replied in the negative.
Ms. McCrea stated that she asked the State representatives if they knew of any communities that used CPA for housing authority propoerties. She stated that only Nahant and Andover may have used it for some small projects.
Mr. Cornacchio stated tha the was impressed that they put money into energy efficiency projects.
Discussion Methods of Community Education and Solicitation of Input
Ms. Guy asked if the CPC members had had a chance to look at other communities’ websites, plans and application materials and if they had any favorites. She stated that she has pulled several communities’ applications and plans, but still needs to review them to see which would work best with Salem.
Ms. Tuttle stated that she was no wild about Gloucester’s. She stated that it it is too large, no one will look at. She stated that she liked West Tisbury’s application. She aslo liked Lexington’s plan, which refers to their open space plan and other plans and that you don’t have to wade thru the minutia. Ms. Tuttle stated that she tried to zero in on cities rather than towns.
Ms. Guy stated that Newton has a good website.
Mr. Shea asked if, when talking about a plan, are we talking about deciding on what Salem’s focus will be on the use of these fundsand trying to come up with our goals, as opposed to just keeping it wide open and looking at any applications coming in. He asked if the CPC will decide if there are certain priorities tha the CPC would like to see addressed.
Ms. Guy stated that the CPC needs to start the community outreach and solicitation of input, in order to prepare the plan. The CPC will be asking the public what they feel are the priorities and needs.
Mr. Shea stated that the CPC decisions can be based on the public input, depending on who we ask and how we ask.
Ms. Guy stated that this is also why the CPC needs to look at the Open Space Plan, Master Plan, Capital Improvement Plan, etc. She stated that at the public hearing, the CPC could pose the question to the public on what they feel are the prioritys from the recommendations in the various plans. Another question could be, “What do you think the CPA should pay for, rather than the City budget?” After soliciting public input, the plan is developed, which will include criteria for selecting projects. She stated that the CPC can start developing applications, but probably can’t finalize them until the priorities and criteria are developed. Based on the priorities and criteria developed, the CPC can then decide which projects to recommend.
Mr. Hoskins stated that we will go to our respective boards and commissions and ask them for input and that the at-large members have a more challenging job of going out into the community. He stated that his thought for the plan is setting forth the criteria for which we are going to judge applications. He stated that the CPA defines the categories. He stated that if no one comes in with an application for acquiring Open Space, it tells us it probably not a real priority for the City. But if we get 27 applications for historic preservation, we will need criteria. Within the plan, how will we decide is going to be a big part of what the Council and the public is going to look for.
Ms. Guy stated that you don’t have to reinvent the wheel. A lot of these communities have criteria.
Ms. Tuttle stated that the City of Newburyport has good comparable criteria. They have an overview of general evaluation criteria and then they have evaluation criteria of each for the sub-categories:
- It has to be eligible for CPA
- Has to be consistent with the Master Plan, Open Space and Recreation Plan, Land Use and other planning documents that have received prior public scrutiny
- Preserve and enhance the essential character of the city
- Protect resources that would otherwise be threatened
- Serve more than CPA purpose
- Produce an advantageous cross-benefit value
- Demonstate practicality and feasibility
She stated that there are good things out there that are applicable to exactly what we are doing.
Ms. Sides stated that conceptually, she felt the CPC nees to work through picking one of those documents and making it our own in order to bring us all on board on how to respond to people’s requests. She felt the other way around seems so open ended and felt she was not sure the CPC could evaluate applications before having a plan.
Mr. Cornacchio agreed it would be to big to put arms around it.
Ms. Guy stated that the plan and criteria needs to be in place before you can evaluate applications. She noted that the CPC talked about having a two-step application process, so there can be an eligibility application prepared, continue to work on the plan and criteria, and then have the funding application. She stated that specific steps need to be outlined for what will be done for public outreach and education, besides the public hearing and the members going back to their boards. She also asked if there was anything on the flyer that the CPC would like included. For the public hearing, the Coalition has offered to send a representative to speak and explain the CPA. If the at-large members are going out into the public, where are they going and what do they want to take with them.
She stated that it could be an FAQ’s with “What is the CPA”, “What is the CPC” with a list of committee members, “What are the next steps” and the chart of how to determine if a project is eligible. She stated that the CPC talked about a mailing in the water bills. She stated that there are three districts and the water bills go out to one district each month, so to reach the whole city would take three months. She asked if this was a good idea to take three months to get the information out. She stated that Ms. Sides stated that there would need to be a press release explaining the three month lag.
Mr. Shea stated that he felt the three months could work with a little explanation.
Mr. Hoskins stated that it might worry peoople and suggested a robo-call referring people to the website.
Ms. Sides stated that people are always coming to meetings complaining that they don’t know of a particular issue. She stated that, at a certain point, it is your civic responsibility to know a little be about what is going on in your city.
Ms. McCrea stated that if it is on the city website, there is no excuse.
Mr. Hoskins suggested coming up with a strawman plan, by adapting other communities plan parts to Salem and then alerting people that we have a draft plan that we are looking for comments on.
Ms. Guy stated that she believed the public hearing is supposed to be held before the plan is developed, in order to help develop the plan.
Mr. Hoskins stated that it could be an outline stating what the plan will consist of.
Mr. Cornaccio stated that it could be a foundation.
Ms. Tuttle stated that the City of Cambridge has a basic fact page.
Ms. Guy stated she could adapt Cambridge’s to Salem. She suggested that if there are other plans, applications or documents that members like, that they give her that feedback.
Ms. Sides suggested that each person who has expertise in one of the four categories, look at those pieces in other communities’ plans (Newburyport, Lexington, Cambridge, etc).
Ms. McCrea asked what historic properties that the city owns would be eligible.
Ms. Tuttle also asked what properties were on the National Register. She stated that it was helpful viewing the map showing the open space in Salem from the Open Space Plan.
Ms. Guy stated that most of the planning documents are on the City website under Studies and Reports. She stated that if there is a document that if there is a document that is not on the webstie that the CPC needs, she will get it to them. She added that it would be helpful to have the Open Space map within the CPC’s plan.
Ms. Tuttle stated that in order to prioritizing, it would be helpful to know what we have and asked if there was a master list of SHA properties
Ms. Guy stated that she can provide a master list of SHA properties.
Mr. Boris suggested a few volunteers meet with the City of Peabody or other community and asked to review their documents and review their processes.
Ms. Sides stated that most of those documents are on line. She felt that we just need to do our homework and vist those websites.
Ms. Guy suggested that members send her their feedback.
Ms. McCrea suggested giving the public some examples of projects that could be completed with CPA.
Ms. Sides asked members to review plans and to get back to Jane within 1 week.
Ms. Guy stated that the format of the plan, application materials, public handouts and criteria for selecting projects are the various pieces.
Ms. Boris added that how they distribute to the public is another piece.
Ms. Guy stated that the Coalition website has a lot of information on projects that have been done successfully with CPA.
Ms. Guy stated that the informational piece handout would be the next document she will work on.
Ms. Sides agreed, noting that it is the piece she needs to go back to the Planning Board.
Ms. McCrea suggested adding examples of projects from other cities that have been done to give people ideas of what could be done in Salem.
Ms. Tuttle asked if there is a SHA master plan and if there was a City Preservation Master Plan.
Ms. Guy stated that there is a Preservation Master Plan, which is very old. She stated that there is also a city owned property maintenance plan. She does not have digital copies of either. She will check on what plans she can forward to the CPC, including the State Register of Historic Places, which will include local historic districts and National Register properties. She stated that some of the plans should be referenced in the CPC’s plan or include pieces of those plans (i.e. maps). There can be an inventory section showing a list of housing authority properties, city-owned histori properties, open space properties, etc. Then there can be a list of reports, such as the Open Space Plan.
Ms. Tuttle stated that those plans have already had public input and have set priorities.
Ongoing - Action Steps
Ms. Guy distributed a draft list of Action Steps, noting that it continues to be a work-in-progress for her to keep organized, pose questions and for CPC members to weigh-in on.
Other Business
Ms. Guy stated that at the next meeting she would like the CPC to finalize a one-page handout and finalize the steps for soliciting input, such as when scheduling the public hearing, when sending out information in the water bills and when everyone is going back to their boards.
Mr. Moriarty stated that he understands the need to move quickly, but wants members to be careful to adhere to public meeting laws. He did not see any problem with people corresponding to Jane, but there should not be communication between CPC members. It should just be providing information.
Next Meeting Date
Tuesday, October 8, 2013, 6:00 p.m.
There being no further business, Mr. Cornacchio made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Boris seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Administrator
| 
