COMMUNITY PRESERVATION COMMITTEE
MINUTES
November 17, 2014
A Public Hearing and regular meeting of the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) was held on Tuesday, November 17, 2014 at 6:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Chair Helen Sides, Vice Chair Kevin Cornacchio, Bart Hoskins, Joanne McCrea, Ed Moriarty, Mickey Northcutt, Tim Shea, and Leslie Tuttle. Also present was Jane Guy of the City of Salem Department of Planning & Community Development.
Public Hearing
Ms. Sides stated that the purpose of this public hearing is to solicit input regarding the development of the FY15 Community Preservation Plan. She stated that the Plan will be used to guide the Community Preservation Committee’s decision-making when reviewing and recommending project applications for Community Preservation Act funding.
Ms. Guy reminded audience members to take a handout and sign in. She stated that in the handout is a survey and that participants may provide comment verbally when the public hearing is opened up and/or may turn in the survey. She noted that additional ways to provide written comment will be provided at the end of the presentation and that the presentation will also be uploaded to the City’s website some time tomorrow.
Ms. Guy provided a PowerPoint presentation overview of the CPA.
Ms. Sides opened up the public hearing to questions and comments.
Councillor Thomas Furey stated that he has been a longtime advocate of the CPA and congratulated the Community Preservation Committee for what they are doing.
Bill Hemming, 15 Lafayette Place, stated that he got the impression that as more communities become part of the program, the state match may decrease over time.
Mr. Shea replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Guy stated that it is also dependent on the Registry of Deeds fees that are collected, noting that last year was one of the lowest total of fees collected, which effects the pool. She noted that in the last couple years, the State has added extra funds due to available budget funds. It has been consistently going down as more communities come on board.
Barbara Schwartz, 47 Washington Square North, asked the administrative expenses the CPC incurs. She also asked if a project was approved in the previous fiscal year, but is not completed, does it need to be reapproved.
Ms. Guy stated that the CPC is allowed to set aside up to 5% for administrative expenses. Last year, it spent approximately $5000, so the remaining funds went back into the project pool. Expenses include her stipend, legal advertisements and envelopes, but can also include planning studies if the committee choices. Whatever is left on June 30th goes back into the project pool. She also stated that once funds are approved by the City Council for a project, it stays there until the Council takes it away. For instance, if a project comes in over the approved budget, the project proponents could find another funding source or could come back to the CPC and, if recommended, it could go back to the City Council, who may or may not approve the additional funds. Conversely, if money
for a project has been sitting unspent and the CPC sees no progress, they could go back to the City Council and ask them to put the funds back into the funding pool.
Ms. Tuttle noted that dues to the Community Preservation Coalition is also an administrative cost.
Pamela Hartford, 10 Orne Square, stated that one of the CPA funding sources from the State is the tax on real estate sales, therefore the CPA money fluctuates based on housing market.
Kara McLaughlin, 68 Dearborn Street, asked if an organization has matching funding from another source, would it impact the ability to apply for CPA funds.
Ms. Guy replied in the negative.
Ms. Tuttle stated that she would consider it helpful to get matching funds.
Ms. McLaughlin asked if the Committee was open to visiting sites to get a feel for the needs at the sites.
Ms. Sides replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Henning asked if religious entities are allowed under this program.
Ms. Guy stated that the overarching requirement is that it be a public use, such as being open to the public, as a museum or being a city-owned building. She stated that some churches across the state have been funded, in exchange for a preservation restriction. There needs to be a public component. One community received an easement in exchange for funding. She noted that the restrictions have to be in perpetuity.
Rick Jones, 55 Warren Street, stated that he is on the Board of a Non-profit and asked if it is recommended to apply for multiple things or to separate them into this year and next year.
Ms. Sides suggested submitting all the needs so they can be considered on their individual merit. The CPC is learning that one of the most important components of the CPA is to assess how public it is, i.e. how many people from the City are able to go to, enjoy, or walk to the place.
Mr. Moriarty stated that a non-municipal entity is not prohibited from applying for CPA funds. He stated that the public purpose needs to be defined. A City agency seeking funding is almost automatically in furtherance of a public purpose. For a non-profit or religious agency, it must be determined how it is promoting a public interest, which is open, free, unencumbered to everybody at all times.
Ms. Guy added that for historic preservation projects, the public can enjoy that a building is preserved, even if the interior is not open to the public. She added that CPA is not to be used for maintenance, but should be more for restoration or capital projects, to improve the value.
Mr. Hoskins stated that there is a fine line between maintenance and preserving or protecting from harm, noting that the Salem Public Library roof is receiving CPA funds because it is preserving and protecting from harm a historic resource and from being damaged irreparably.
Ms. Sides stated that many non-city historic resources are important, significant properties, such as the House of the Seven Gables and Hamilton Hall, and are not discounted because they are not owned by the city.
Ms. Guy noted that there is a two-step process, beginning with an Eligibility Application, which is a one-page application to learn if the proposed project is eligible, before going through the full Funding Application.
Jessica Cain, 201 North Street, asked how much information is needed for the Eligibility Application.
Ms. Guy stated that it just needs to have enough of a description so that the Committee knows what is being proposed in order to determine if it is eligible. There is no need to describe the merits, include the cost or explain the need for funding. She suggested explaining why it is eligible under the category that they are checking off.
Ms. McLaughlin asked if the eligibility is based on the project or the organization.
Ms. Guy stated that is based on the project.
Ms. Hartford asked if there was a big discrepancy in the number of applications received between the three categories and if there was a category the CPC feels it should see more applications, based on this one year’s experience.
Ms. Sides stated that there were several public park and recreation space applications submitted.
Mr. Shea stated that there was a significant amount of historic restoration applications submitted.
Ms. Tuttle stated that affordable housing was the smallest.
Ms. Guy stated that there were no open space applications at all, but there is little open space in Salem. She stated that she did not feel there was a proportion that the Committee is looking for. For all the applications received, they talked long and hard on them. She noted that there were only two or three projects that didn’t get funded, but she believed that even if there were less applications received, those projects still would not have been funded. The Committee still has funds that were not spent from FY14.
Ms. Sides stated that they were not flooded with applications.
Ms. Guy stated that ten projects are a lot of projects, but they are small chunks of money. She did not feel that the Committee is looking to see more of a type of application or that they felt there was not enough of applications in a particular category. She stated that proponents have a need and they need to decide if this is the year that they want to request funding.
Ms. Hartford stated that it was interesting to hear that assessment and the number that the CPC found worth funding and that it was a wonderfully positive report on the first year.
Mr. Shea stated that the CPC has yet to see a request for a larger project that would require bonding.
Ms. Guy stated that if a proponent has a multi-year project, the Committee could consider request to fund an entire project and with a specific portion to be released first phase. She stated that there are different ways of funding projects and the CPC is open to them. Once the funds are approved by City Council, it does not have to be spent in that fiscal year. The application should indicate the timetable.
Ms. McCrea noted that there is a website that has examples of projects funded across the state.
Ms. Sides noted that the CPC is soliciting comments from the various city boards and is open to broad suggestions.
Mr. Shea stated that he would encourage that each individual phase of a multi-phased project be able to stand on its own.
Councillor Beth Gerard asked how a project starts and if the proponent meets with the CPC regularly.
Ms. Guy stated that the Eligibility Application can be submitted at any time, but there will be a deadline set for consideration for this funding round. The CPC will review the applications and will issue a letter if it is determined eligible or not. Those determined eligible will receive a funding application which will also have a deadline for consideration for this funding round. The proponent could also wait to submit the following year. The funding application is lengthy and asks questions about the merits, requires cost estimates, photographs, concepts, recommendation letters, etc. The CPC may ask for more information. It will usually take a couple of meetings to determine whether or not to fund the project and for how much.
Mr. Jones asked if three estimates are needed.
Ms. Guy replied in the negative, noting that it is not a bid, but that there should be a qualified estimate.
Ms. McLaughlin asked if there is an estimate on when a response on funding would be available.
Ms. Guy stated that the goal is to go to the City Council before the end of the fiscal year. She stated that, if all goes well, the Step 1 applications will be due February 10th and the Step 2 applications will be March 20th. It would go to the City Council, hopefully, in May, which would give the City Council a couple of meetings to make a decision. Once approved, she would send a letter. For non-city projects, an agreement would need to be executed, including any conditions for funding, such as a project sign.
Mr. Henning asked if there were any projects that made it through to the funding application that were not funded.
Ms. Guy replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Tuttle stated that as we look at these we have to prioritize and consider cost benefit, if it is parlaying grants, how many people it benefits, whether it fits in more than one category and, for historic preservation, if the building is significant in the City of Salem.
Mr. Northcutt stated that there is a whole list of priorities that the CPC looks at. One that comes to mind is a priority for projects that the city taxpayers would otherwise have to pay for, although not to the conclusion to something else.
Ms. Guy stated that the Community Preservation Plan from last year has the Evaluation Criteria. It is possible that the criteria may be tweaked, but felt that it would be pretty close to what it is currently. It is available on line.
Mr. Shea noted that the CPC has been on a learning curve and will continue get better at making its decisions. In one case, by the time the project was discussed in Step 2, the CPC felt it was ineligible, even though it was initially deemed eligible.
Councillor Gerard stated that, despite the learning curve, she felt that with the projects that the CPC picked last year, they hit it out of the park.
Ms. Guy stated that comments are being accepted through November 26th.
Mr. Hoskins made a motion to close the public hearing. Ms. Tuttle seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Approval of Minutes
Ms. Tuttle made a motion to approve the minutes of October 14, 2014. Mr. Hoskins seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Ms. Guy read a comment letter submitted by the Salem Historical Commission and an email from Tina Lynne Cook.
Ms. Guy hopes to have a draft of the Community Preservation Plan for the December 9th meeting.
Ms. Guy distributed copies of the Year-to-date budget report and the FY15 CPA Tax Guide.
Next Meeting Date
Ms. Guy stated that the next meeting date is scheduled for Tuesday, December 9, 2014.
There being no further business, Mr. Cornacchio made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Northcutt seconded the motion; all were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Administrator
| 
