COMMUNITY PRESERVATION COMMITTEE
MINUTES
April 8, 2014
A regular meeting of the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) was held on Tuesday, April 8, 2014 at 6:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Chair Helen Sides, Vice Chair Kevin Cornacchio, Ed Moriarty, Leslie Tuttle, John Boris, and Joanne McCrea. Also present was Jane Guy of the City of Salem Department of Planning & Community Development.
Mr. Hoskins arrived later in the meeting.
Approval of Minutes
Mr. Moriarty made a motion to approve the minutes of March 4, 2014. Mr. Cornacchio seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Review of FY14 Funding Applications
- 13 Funding Applications
- Draft FY15 budget
Ms. Guy stated that she had a conversation with Stuart Saginor of the Community Preservation Coalition, who informed her that most communities make their FY15 recommendations to the City Council in the spring, prior to the start of the fiscal year. The only time that doesn’t happen is during the first year when CPC’s are getting organized. He recommended that when the CPC recommends its project awards to the City Council, they consider funding from both FY14 and FY15 funds. This means that the CPC has an estimated $880,650 available for funding awards. She also recommended that the FY15 budget and the determination of actual funding recommendations be placed on the next agenda, leaving this meeting for review and ranking of proposals only. She stated that the FY15 funding
applications would still start in the fall and awards would be made in the Spring of 2015, but utilizing the remaining fund balance and FY16 estimated funds. The fund balance, which gets certified by October 30th, includes unspent admin, surcharge fees over the $400,000 estimate, late tax payments and interest. Also, on November 15th, the state will announce the actual FY15 state match. If the State has put in an extra $25 million, the CPC would need to go back to Council with an amended FY15 budget. She noted that some applications submitted may have been requested with lower amounts than desired, due to the belief that there was not as much funds available. Therefore, the CPC has the option to recommend higher levels of funding than requested. Even though there is technically enough money to fund all applications, Ms. Guy cautioned about funding projects that the CPC rates Low. She noted that there is still no
guidance on the blended funds, and that the $50,000 committed by the City will be available at some point in the future. She reminded that the CPC can further research projects, reserve funds for larger projects and/or carry over funds for emergencies. Evaluation forms have been provided for members to use.
Ms. Guy stated that there are a number of members who have conflicts of interest, or the appearance of conflicts of interest. She stated that she will read their disclosures with each application, and those with conflicts will be asked to leave the room during the discussion of those applications.
Ms. Sides stated that the CPC will be reviewing funding applications received for completeness and criteria met, and will rank order each High, Medium or Low. She stated that funding amounts will not be discussed this meeting, but likely at the 4/14/14 meeting, where there will be a vote on what to send to Council. She noted that the City Council has the final vote to approve or reduce recommendations. She added that there will be another funding round in the fall. Ms. Sides invited anyone present who wanted to speak on a specific application to speak now and noted that there will be no public comment during review of applications. She stated that there will be additional comment allowed at end of the meeting.
The CPC reviewed each application for primary and secondary criteria.
Mr. Hoskins joined the meeting at this time.
Congress/Dow Housing - North Shore CDC
A disclosure from Mickey Northcutt was read into the record.
Review: 9 general criteria, 5 Housing criteria
Mr. Moriarty made a motion to rank this project High priority. Ms. Tuttle seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
184 Lafayette Street Wall - Northeast Arc
A disclosure from John Boris was read into the record and Mr. Boris left the room.
Ms. Tuttle stated that they are taking down the wall and not reusing anything that is there. She noted that the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards allows this.
Ms. Sides stated that she was concerned about the amount of funding that the applicant thinks they need. She stated that she felt it would need more money, noting that the application states that there may be a need for footings, which would require more work.
Review: 5 general criteria, 4 Historic criteria
Mr. Hoskins made a motion to rank this project Medium priority. Mr. Cornacchio seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Boris rejoined the meeting.
Salem Public Library Roof
Ms. McCrea stated that it seems pretty critical.
Ms. Tuttle noted the water leaking.
Mr. Moriarty stated that it seems like it is not urgent, because it has been occurring over a protracted period of time.
Mr. Hoskins stated that the damage is already happening and if it were his house, he would call it urgent.
Ms. Sides stated that her husband does some library work and he noted that libraries often receive funding from the State, for which libraries can apply. She wondered if this was sidelining that process by them applying to us and where they might be in line with the state. She questioned if it is the CPC’s place to step in when there is already a track for funding from State. She stated that she would like to know more about it, noting it is a vital library and the busiest one on the North Shore.
Mr. Hoskins stated that the Library has done a lot of work in the past few years, so maybe they have gone to the well enough.
Mr. Moriarty questioned waiting so long to tackle the roof and felt it was deferred maintenance.
Ms. Tuttle stated that everything in the city is deferred maintenance.
Review: 10 general criteria, 5 Historc criteria
Mr. Boris made a motion to table review until further clarification on state funding availability.
Mr. Cornacchio seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Conant & Choate Statues
Ms. Tuttle stated that she preferred to separate the statues into two applications. She felt the Choate was restoration and rehabilitation, but that the Conant statue is more maintenance. She was also concerned about lacquering the Conant statue. She stated that she had printouts on cleaning and maintaining outdoor bronze sculptures, which stated that you just clean it and wax it. She stated she had issues with the application. She stated that it should be coated annually with wax, which is maintenance and that exterior bronze statues are not traditionally lacquered.
Ms. Sides stated if the statues are not currently waxed, then they seemed to have survived pretty well, which is preferable to trying to seal it.
Mr. Hoskins suggested requesting more information on why lacquer is being chosen.
Ms. McCrea questioned if there is a plan to maintain it.
Ms. Tuttle questioned if they still have to wax each year, then why lacquer at all.
Choate Review: 7 general criteria, 4 Historic criteria
Conant Review: 6 general criteria, 4 Historic criteria
Ms. Tuttle made a motion to continue the review of the application. Mr. Hoskins seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
House of 7 Gables/Phippen House
Disclosures from Ms. Sides and Ms. Tuttle were read into the record.
Mr. Moriarty questioned how a resource this size has not been able to fund this work.
Ms. Sides stated that they are a small non-profit, which she believed has lost a lot of their funding, resulting in a change in the way they do their mission. She noted that there are eight buildings that they take care of.
Mr. Moriarty stated the he felt it is an outlying building, which is not as important .
Review: 6 general criteria, 4 Historic criteria
Ms. Tuttle made a motion to rank this project Medium priority. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion . Ms. Sides, Mr. Cornacchio, Ms. Tuttle, Mr. Boris, Mr. Hoskins and Ms. McCrea voted in favor. Mr. Moriarty voted in opposition. The motion so carried.
Old Town Hall
Review: 8 general criteria, 4 Historic criteria
Mr. Cornacchio made a motion to rank this project High priority. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Salem Common Fence
Review: 8 general criteria, 4 Historic criteria
Ms. McCrea made a motion to rank this project High priority. Mr. Boris seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Winter Island: Fort Pickering - Friends of Winter Island
Disclosures from Mr. Moriarty and Ms. Tuttle were read into the record. Mr. Moriarty left the room.
Ms. Sides stated that Fort Pickering is a ruin, in a sense, and there is beauty in that ruin.
Review: 7 general criteria, 4 Historic criteria
Ms. Tuttle made a motion to rank this project Medium priority. Mr. Cornacchio seconded the motion. Ms. Sides, Mr. Cornacchio, Ms. Tuttle, Mr. Boris, and Mr. Hoskins voted in favor. Ms. McCrea voted in opposition. The motion so carried.
Mr. Moriarty rejoined the meeting.
Winter Island - Fort Pickering (City)
Review: 7 general criteria, 4 Historic criteria
Mr. Hoskins made a motion to rank this project High priority. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Winter Island - Multi-Purpose Path (City)
Review: 7 general criteria, 10 Recreational criteria
Ms. McCrea made a motion to rank this project High priority. Mr. Moriarty seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Salem Community Gardens
Disclosure from Ms. Tuttle and Ms. Sides were read into the record.
Ms. Sides stated that she did not like the idea of six foot fence, stating that she felt it was exclusive. She noted that it is a wonderful experience to come to the garden and talk over a fence.
Ms. Tuttle noted that the reason the fence is the way it is now, is because it can’t be climbed. She stated that if a six foot chain link fence is put in, the kids will climb it. Once it becomes rigid, the people that they are trying to keep out are the very ones that will easily climb over it.
Ms. Sides stated that deer is not an issue. She stated the her husband who tends to the garden, talks about the wonderful experience of people coming to the garden, talking over the fence and then coming in. She felt that no one is going come in if there is a big six foot fence. She stated that it is not promoting what they are about.
Mr. Hoskins stated that if it were 4’ or 5’ with a narrower mesh, someone can’t put a toe in to climb over. He stated that five foot is still sort of approachable. He noted that it will last longer if it has a bottom rail.
Ms. Sides stated that she liked the wheelchair accessibility and the shed.
Ms. Tuttle stated that she did not know if the sheds or fence have been approved by Park and Recreation Commission, unless it happened at the last meeting, which she was not in attendance.
Ms. Sides stated that she did not want just any shed on city property.
Ms. Guy stated that the CPC could reserve funds, but make it conditional upon design review.
Ms. Tuttle stated that she felt the chain link will do nothing that they want it to do.
Ms. Sides stated that she did not mind the existing fence and felt the fence should not be taller than four feet. She stated that she thinks it is random that people are steeling vegetables.
Ms. Guy cautioned about have too narrow mesh, because it then looks solid.
Ms. Sides stated that her husband feels vegetables are stolen by other gardeners. She felt it was not a controllable condition and was the nature of community gardens.
Mr. Hoskins stated that the black coated chain link disappears into the landscape better.
Ms. Sides agreed and stated that she did not mind them neatening it up, but did not feel it should taller than. She stated that it was fine to have a lock.
Ms. Tuttle suggested tabling.
Mr. Moriarty made a motion to continue the review pending additional information. Mr. Hoskins seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy will ask the applicant to answer: What has been approved by the Park and Recreation Commission? Would they consider lower fence?
Mr. Moriarty suggested also asking if there is a zoning issue.
Mr. Hoskins noted that the fence is specified as galvanized in the estimate but is black coated in the photograph, a more expensive but nicer option. He questions if the price quoted is what they think it is.
Review: 10 general criteria, 5 Recreational criteria
Mr. Moriarty made a motion to continue the review. Mr. Hoskins seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
15 Ward Street Pocket Park
A disclosure from Mickey Northcutt was read into the record.
Review: 10 general criteria, 5 Recreational criteria
Ms. McCrea made a motion to rank this project High priority. Ms. Tuttle seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Great Spaces for Great Places Pocket Park Rehabilitation
Review: 9 general criteria, 4 Recreational criteria
Mr. Cornacchio made a motion to rank this project Medium priority. Ms. Tuttle seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Review of Determination of Eligibility Application’s (DOE) Received
There were no applications received.
Year-To-Date Budget Report
Ms. Guy provided copies of the year-to-date budget report.
Next Meeting Date
Ms. Guy stated that the next meeting date is Monday, April 14, 2014.
There being no further business, Ms. McCrea made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Moriarty seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Administrator
| 
