COMMUNITY PRESERVATION COMMITTEE
MINUTES
April 14, 2015
A regular meeting of the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) was held on Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 6:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Chair Helen Sides, Vice Chair Kevin Cornacchio, Ed Moriarty, Tim Shea and Bart Hoskins. Also present was Jane Guy of the City of Salem Department of Planning & Community Development.
Arriving later in the meeting was Joanne McCrea.
Public Comment
Ms. Sides stated that the CPC will be reviewing funding applications received for completeness, criteria and urgency, and will rank order each High, Medium or Low. Anyone present who wants to speak on a specific application wass invited to speak. She stated that there would be no public comment during the review of applications, but there would be another opportunity for public comment prior to the CPC developing and voting on its funding recommendations to send to the City Council, which has the final vote to approve or reduce recommendations. It is unknown if the funding recommendations will take place tonight or at a special meeting to be scheduled, if needed.
City Councillor Beth Gerard spoke on behalf of the application for McGlew Park which is to develop the design of the park. She stated that handicapped children don’t have access and that the park really needs some TLC. She noted that lots of new kids have moved into the neighborhood. She stated that she was not aware of any hazardous waste on the site and believed that only household waste was dumped there.
Ms. McCrea joined the meeting at this time.
Mr. Shea asked if the Park and Recreation Commission has been consulted and will weigh in on this.
Ms. Guy stated that Park and Recreation Commission will have to approve any work before it is undertaken. She stated that this is project is to do the design work, have some public meetings for the neighbors and talk about the play structures.
Mr. Shea asked if this park was a priority for the Park and Recreation Commission versus other parks.
Ms. Guy stated that the parks that were submitted for CPA funds this year are likely the top priorities. She noted that Karen Partanen is aware of all the applications submitted. She noted that this is just for design and will have to go before the Park and Recreation Commission before anything is built.
Mr. Hoskins stated that it would be helpful to know if Park and Recreation sat with Karen Partanen to get a rank order so we would know their priorities, in case we have a really hard choice.
Ms. Guy suggested going through the process, reviewing the needs discussed in the application and determining if it is a high, medium or low need.
Ms. Sides was in agreement.
Mr. Shea asked if the CPC is able to add a condition that it is pending a board’s approval.
Ms. Guy replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Sides stated that that is the next phase and that right now we determining whether each package is a high, medium or low need.
Mr. Shea stated that he was okay with that.
Ms. Guy stated that she does not know whether these applications have been discussed at a Park and Recreation Commission meeting and noted that Ms. Tuttle is not present to weigh in. She noted that the Historical Commission has not provided a rank order on the historic resource application.
Ms. Sides stated that we evaluate each on their own merits and we ultimately form an opinion on where we will put this funding. She stated that if the city departments are putting in these applications, they are all priorities and the departments are trying to get us to determine where we will give funding.
Mr. Hoskins stated this is about which ones meet the criteria we set forth.
Ms. Guy stated that the CPC has to also look at the public benefit. While a project may be a priority for Park and Rec, the CPC may find another application may have more public benefit.
Mr. Moriarty stated that he agreed with everyone, and stated that whatever action we take should be subject to Park and Recreation concurrence or veto.
Ms. Sides stated that we are evaluating each on many criteria, including public participation.
Vote to Recommend FY16 Budget (reserves and administration)
Ms. Guy requested a vote to recommend the FY16 budget to the City Council. As in prior years, the draft budget is for 10% in each of the three categories, 5 % in Administration and the balance in the budgeted reserve. Surcharges received over the estimated budget, interest and unspent administration from FY15 will be available in November, as will the extra State match received over the initial estimate from FY15. The FY16 estimate for the State match is 18%.
FY16 ESTIMATED ANNUAL FUND REVENUES |
Estimated CPA Surcharge |
$450,000.00 |
State Match |
$81,000.00 |
City Appropriation |
$0.00 |
TOTAL |
$531,000.00 |
|
|
RECOMMENDED BUDGET |
Administrative Expenses |
$26,550.00 |
Housing Projects Reserve |
$53,100.00 |
Historic Projects Reserve |
$53,100.00 |
Open Space & Recreation Projects Reserve |
$53,100.00 |
FY16 Budgeted Reserve |
$345,150.00 |
TOTAL |
$531,000.00 |
Mr. Moriarty stated that he felt the current $3500 stipend is inadequate and insufficient for the professionalism and attention to detail that the job requires and that Ms. Guy exemplifies and stated that he felt $4000 is more reasonable and consistent with the time, effort and collegiality expended by Ms. Guy.
Mr. Moriarty made a motion to increase the stipend to $4000. Mr. Cornacchio seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Moriarty made a motion to submit the budget as amended to the City Council. Mr. Cornacchio seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Review applications for completeness and criteria met, rank order each High, Medium or Low
Ms. Guy provided a spreadsheet indicated the funding revenues and encumbrances to date. She stated that there is $772,912.75 available to commit, with $1,141,871.36 in funding applications received.
Ms. Guy stated that there are a few 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.
The CPC reviewed each application for primary and secondary criteria.
Mr. Hoskins stated that Mr. Northcutt had raised the question of bonding and wondered if discussion floated around and got any initial response.
Ms. Guy stated that the Finance Department went to the City’s bonding agent. She distributed a copy of a debt service projection for 20 year bonds in $1 million increments..
She stated that it was explained to her that bonding is really meant for when a project can’t be broken up into pieces, such as when you want to purchase a piece of land. She stated it was not recommended to her to break up projects. There is concern about using a bond to spend that kind of interest in the long term for projects that can be broken up into piece.
Ms. Shea agreed that bonding was not appropriate for anything in the current pile, but noted that if land at the power plant is put for sale, it would be good use. He suggested also considering keeping some money each year for potential future purchases.
Mr. Hoskins agreed bonding is good for emergencies so as not to miss opportunities.
A disclosure from Mickey Northcutt was read into the record. Mr. Northcutt was not present.
Mr. Shea made a motion to rank this application with a High priority. Mr. Cornacchio seconded the motion. Ms. Sides, Mr. Cornacchio, Mr. Shea, Mr. Hoskins and Ms. McCrea voted in favor. Mr. Moriarty voted in opposition. The motion so carried.
Ms. McCrea made a motion to rank this project Low priority. Mr. Cornacchio seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Cornacchio made a motion to rank this project High priority. Mr. Shea seconded the motion. Ms. Sides, Mr. Cornacchio, Mr. Shea, Mr. Hoskins and Ms. McCrea voted in favor. Mr. Moriarty voted in opposition. The motion so carried.
Mr. Shea made a motion to rank this project Low priority. Mr. Moriarty seconded the motion. Mr. Shea, Mr. Moriarty and Ms. McCrea voted in favor. Ms. Sides, Mr. Hoskins and Mr. Cornacchio voted in opposition. The motion did not carry.
Mr. Cornacchio made a motion to rank this project Medium priority. Mr. Hoskins seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
- Charter St. Burial Ground
Mr. Shea stated that his business abuts Charter St. Burial Ground and abstained from the discussion and sat in the audience.
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. Mr. Shea abstained from voting.
- 7 Gables – Emmerton Hall Restoration
A disclosure from Helen Sides was read into the record covering all three of the 7 Gables applications. Ms. Guy read a thank you note from Kara McLaughlin.
Mr. Shea made a motion to rank this project Low priority. Mr. Cornacchio seconded the motion. Ms. Sides, Mr. Cornacchio, Mr. Shea, and Mr. Hoskins voted in favor. Mr. Moriarty and Ms. McCrea voted in opposition. The motion so carried.
- 7 Gables: Retire Beckett House Restoration
Ms. McCrea made a motion to rank this project Medium priority. Mr. Hoskins seconded the motion. Ms. Sides, Mr. Cornacchio, Mr. Shea, Mr. Hoskins and Ms. McCrea voted in favor. Mr. Moriarty voted in opposition. The motion so carried.
- 7 Gables: Hawthorne Birthplace Roof
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.
- Dickson Chapel @ Greenlawn Cemetery
Mr. Shea made a motion to rank this project High priority. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
- Artwork Restoration: Council Chambers
Mr. Cornacchio made a motion to rank this project High priority. Mr. Shea seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Shea made a motion to rank this project High priority. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Shea made a motion to table the discussion and ask the applicants to come to the next meeting to answer questions concerning the goals of the master plan, maintenance of the property, and funds leveraged and to provide a copy of the lease. Mr. Cornacchio seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Shea made a motion to rank this project High priority. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Moriarty made a motion to rank this project Medium priority. Mr. Shea seconded the motion. Mr. Moriarty, Mr. Cornacchio, Mr. Shea, Mr. Hoskins and Ms. McCrea voted in favor. Ms. Sides voted in opposition. The motion so carried.
Mr. Moriarty made a motion to rank this project High priority. Mr. Shea seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Development of Funding Recommendations
The CPC determined that the funding recommendations will be continued to a special meeting to be scheduled during the week of April 27th.
Other Business
Review of any Step 1 FY15 Determination of Eligibility Applications Received
Ms. Guy stated that no new applications were received.
Budget Update
Ms. Guy distributed copies of the monthly budget report.
Approval of Minutes
Mr. Cornacchio made a motion to approve the minutes of March 10, 2015. Mr. Shea seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Project Updates
Ms. Guy provided photographs of the sheds installed by Salem Community Gardens.
Ms. Guy stated that construction at 15 Ward Street parked started yesterday and that they expect a June ribbon cutting.
Next Meeting Date
Ms. Guy will determine a date during the week of April 27th for which the most CPC members are available for a special meeting.
Ms. Guy stated that following the special meeting, the next regular meeting date is scheduled for Tuesday, May 12, 2015, for which she would like to review how this year’s process worked and hear any recommendations for changes, as well as to propose the FY16 annual process.
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
| 