COMMUNITY PRESERVATION COMMITTEE
MINUTES
April 27, 2015
A regular meeting of the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) was held on Tuesday, April 27, 2015 at 6:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Chair Helen Sides, Vice Chair Kevin Cornacchio, Leslie Tuttle, John Boris, 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 Ed Moriarty and Joanne McCrea.
Public Comment
Karen Partanen, Director of the City of Salem’s Department of Park, Recreation and Community Services and Charity Lezama of the Salem YMCA were present.
Ms. Partanen stated that the City is renewing the lease with the Salem Y for Camp Naumkeag for a 5 year term with the option of renewal for an additional five years. The Y proposes to put investment into the facility that is owned by city and is in dire need of repair.
Ms. Lezama stated that Y serves over 250 children a year. The proposed request for a Master Plan gives an opportunity for city to have long term plan. The Y expects to invest $10,000 per year for 5 years and, if renewed, $10,000 annually for another 5 years.
Mr. Moriarty joined the meeting at this time.
Mr. She asked if the $25,000 request is in addition to $50,000 for first 5 years.
Ms. Lezama stated that the Y will make all the improvements to the site and that they are just asking for funding to develop a master plan.
Ms. Partanen stated that the Y uses the camp three months of the year, Monday through Friday and the city rents out the site on weekends.
Mr. Moriarty stated that he loved the site and the idea of master plan. He stated that he was not comfortable that Y is the applicant with the City. He would feel more comfortable if it separated for purpose of study. He stated that he felt the master plan should be independent of any past use of the property, including private institutions such as the Y. He felt the application should be independent and done through Park and Recreation. He stated that he was troubled that there is only a guarantee for $50,000. H stated that the master plan should be independent of the Salem Y and felt that the application is deficient by marrying a limited lease hold interest with an unlimited master plan.
Mr. Cornacchio stated that he felt this was similar to the Friends of Winter Island application of last year, where the CPC separated the Friends from City.
Ms. Partanen stated that the lease for Camp Naumkeag has been awarded to the Salem Y, with assumption that it will make $50,000 in improvements over the first five years. The study would make sure that their investment is in the best interest of the City.
Ms. Lezama stated that the Y is committed to investing, but also committed to the Salem community and wants to make sure funds invested is in the long-term interest of the city. She stated that they don’t want to trickle down into small improvements. She stated that their commitment is to ask the City to tell them where is the most benefit.
Ms. McCrea joined the meeting at this time.
Mr. Hoskins asked if Salem Parks and Recreation will lead and manage the project.
Ms. Partanen stated that the city would put out the RFP, review proposals and make the award.
Mr. Hoskins stated that that allays some of these concerns, if city is the client.
Mr. Boris stated that he respects the concerns, but noted that there is nothing that says the Y is taking over property. He stated that he felt it was a good investment.
Ms. McCrea stated that she felt it was smart for the city to have a partnership with an entity that is going to invest some of its money in benefit of the community.
Ms. Tuttle stated that she appreciated anyone in city willing to help improve our parks. She felt it was a win-win. She noted that the RFP will go out from Park and Recreation and she felt it is being creative and looking at big picture.
Ms. McCrea stated that the Salem Y is part of North Shore Y and did not feel the City would have a lease if it was a problem.
Mr. Moriarty stated that his concerns are allayed if the Y is not applicant.
Mr. Hoskins moved to close the public comment portion of the meeting. Ms. McCrea 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
Salem Y: Camp Naumkeag
Mr. Shea made a motion to rank this project a High priority. Mr. Boris seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Public Comment
Ms. Guy read an email from Mayor Kimberley Driscoll dated April 27, 2015:
Dear CPC Members,
I regret that due to a School Committee meeting I am unable to attend tonight’s meeting, but I wanted to write to pass along my thoughts and feedback as you weigh your choices for FY2016 CPA funding decisions.
With the state match at just 18% this year, the bulk of CPA dollars are tax dollars, as you are aware. I am hopeful that you will see fit to prioritize public needs over private projects for this fiscal year. As we prepare the FY2016 City budget we are facing some very difficult pressures. The $3.6 million snow and ice deficit, increases in state charges that wash out local aid increases and then some, major increases in education and health insurance charges, and more, are all combining to make this, without question, the most challenging budget for us since I took office. As we work to tackle these challenges in as fiscally judicious a manner as possible, I would be very disappointed to miss out on the opportunity to utilize CPA funding to meet important public needs that would otherwise add strain to
our regular budget or simply not happen whatsoever.
I respectfully request that for FY2016 the CPC prioritize and fund public projects first, before utilizing these tax dollars to fund improvements at private facilities. Even though these private facilities are valued and important pieces of our community, in this difficult fiscal climate, with the urgent needs we are facing to maintain and preserve our own public infrastructure, I do not believe that this would be the appropriate time to use CPA funds for anything except public investments. I hope you will agree and will vote accordingly in making your project awards tonight.
Sincerely,
Kim
Ms. Guy noted that she inquired to the Mayor how this applies to housing and that the Mayor replied “Since we as a city don't own or maintain affordable housing, we have to rely on partners to conform to CPA requirements within this heading. For instance, affordable housing partners would have to be CDC's, other non-profit developers and/or local housing authorities.” Ms. Guy noted that the City still must meet its 10% requirement for housing funds.
Mr. Moriarty stated that the Mayor has made a very interesting policy argument, but advised that it had no force or effect on this committee. He stated that he is always very concerned about whether the application is promoting public purposes, especially if it is not part of a city planning agency, which is one of his concerns with all the applications that do not come out of Planning. However, he felt the Mayor was mistaken in suggesting that all private applications should go to bottom. He stated that that is not how was designed, nor the intent of CPA and not how it work Commonwealth-wide, in his opinion. He stated that every project done must promote a public purpose, and not dependent on the identity of the application. It is whether the application is consistent and promoting the
objectives of the statute. He stated that the Mayor has a critical mission to find dollars to balance the budget with ever-decreasing resources, but he felt it is a mistake to believe that the applications before the CPC can be segregated between public and private. If the CPC has deemed that the application is consistent with statute, then it is up to the CPC to rate it highly or otherwise and determined the amount of money or not. He stated that it was not fair to any applicant, nor consistent with the statute, nor with the information provided to the electorate that supported the statute, that private would receive a different standard of review dependent whether or not it was difficult for municipalities to balance the budget. He noted that he was totally empathic with the Mayor, and stated that she is great at pointing out that this has been a terrible year, but he did not feel the CPC should immediately put an application to the bottom of the barrel if
the applicant is not the city.
Mr. Hoskins stated that he agreed with that point of view and considers the comment to be totally advisory. He stated that if for whatever reason a non-profit that is managing a critical historic structure in Salem were to find itself unable to perform tasks, and go out of business for all intents and purposes, would the city not be obligated and be left holding the bag with the choice to try to operate it as best as it can. If it is really important, it is really important.
Ms. Tuttle stated that anything that the CPC is looking at, be it the House of the Seven Gables or Hamilton Hall, it fits the criteria inherently of trying to bring other money in. It is kind of like match funding. She noted that non-profits are matching funds all the time for these buildings. The city would have been spending a lot of money on them for years, if these non-profits hadn’t stepped forward and helped.
Ms. McCrea stated that she felt the letter was advice to us as a city committee at a time when the city is having a hard time matching money, but that it is up to the our discretion to make the right choices as we did last year.
Development of Funding Recommendations
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.
The Committee reviewed the following applications that had been previously ranked High, Medium or Low:
APPLICATIONS RECEIVED |
$ REQUEST |
~ |
~ |
HIGH |
~ |
Community Housing |
~ |
NSCDC: Harbor/Lafayette |
$150,000.00 |
Historic Resources |
~ |
Charter St. Burial Ground |
$149,050.00 |
Dickson Chapel @ Greenlawn |
$85,000.00 |
Hamilton Hall: Windows |
$32,450.00 |
Artwork Restoration: Council Chambers |
$25,000.00 |
7 Gables: Hawthorne birthplace roof |
$19,350.00 |
Open Space & Recreational Land |
~ |
Mary Jane Lee Park |
$85,074.35 |
McGlew Park soft costs |
$78,000.00 |
Salem Y: Camp Naumkeag |
$25,000.00 |
Forest River Trails |
$15,000.00 |
MEDIUM |
~ |
Historic Resources |
~ |
Salem Common Fence |
$90,000.00 |
7 Gables: Retire Beckett House restoration |
$86,250.00 |
Open Space & Recreational Land |
~ |
Bates School playground |
$95,000.00 |
LOW |
~ |
Historic Resources |
~ |
7 Gables: Emmerton Hall Restoration |
$158,720.00 |
Hamilton Hall: Fence |
$47,977.00 |
A disclosure from Helen Sides was read into the record covering all three of the 7 Gables applications.
Mr. Hoskins made a motion to not fund the two applications that were ranked Low (Hamilton Hall fence and 7 Gables Emmerton Hall). Ms. McCrea seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. McCrea stated that she was a little bit hesitant to take the Retire Becket House off the list because it is the oldest house on the Gables campus and includes roof work, which protects what is inside.
- 7 Gables: Hawthorne Birthplace Roof
Mr. Shea made a motion to recommend $19,350 plus up to $500 for a 18”x24” construction sign from FY16 Historic Resources Reserve under Historic Resources: Rehabilitation/Restoration, which includes the public benefit that The House of the Seven Gables grant the City a preservation restriction. Mr. Moriarty seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
A disclosure from Mickey Northcutt was read into the record. Mr. Northcutt was not present.
Ms. Guy read DHCD’s Public Housing Notice 2013-12 into the record.
Mr. Shea asked if CPA funds can be used to rehabilitate exiting units.
Ms. Guy stated that funds can be used to preserve existing units with limitations, but cannot be used to make the units aesthetically pleasing.
Mr. Shea stated that he was concerned that the CPC’s application budget summary form states that construction can refer to new construction, rehabilitation, preservation and/or restoration work.
Mr. Moriarty stated that felt the applicant should be here to help determine the work to be undertaken with CPA funds. He stated that he appreciates that they understand what the state says and have put language in the application that mirrors it, but it appears they have thrown in things that they shouldn’t have and suggested they be brought in. He stated that he originally thought this was a slam dunk.
Ms. Guy noted that construction is over $2million, so it is easy to specify for what CPA funds can be used.
Mr. Hoskins stated that the budget summary doesn’t break out whether the other funding sources are restricted. He stated that it seems like it wouldn’t be cramping the project to state that it can’t be used for upgrades.
Mr. Shea stated that he suggested lowering the amount, that the CPC would be guessing at it and that he preferred the applicant be here to explain some of these things. He stated, for kitchen and bath renovations that we can’t support, that we make the stipulation on whatever amount that we approved, that it can’t be used for those things. He stated that he felt $100,000 would be reasonable.
Mr. Shea made a motion to recommend $53,100 from FY16 Housing Projects Reserve and $46,900 from FY15 Budgeted Reserve under Community Housing: Preservation, which includes the following conditions:
- that a 4 x 4 CPA project construction sign be installed (cost may be taken from the CPA award);
- that the applicant grants the city affordable housing restrictions on the buildings/units; and
- that the work funded with CPA only include preservation activities as provided by the DHCD Public Housing Notice 2013-12, including:
- Building envelope and site work to preserve the structural integrity of the housing;
- Roof, siding and window replacements to assure the water tightness of the housing;
- Upgrading of dangerous electrical or plumbing services ;
- Replacement of dangerous building systems which threaten the housing units; and
- Installation of hard wired smoke alarms, sprinklers and other building fire suppression systems.
Ms. Cornacchio seconded the motion. Ms. Sides, Mr. Cornacchio, Ms. Tuttle, Mr. Boris, Mr. Shea and Mr. Moriarty voted in favor. Mr. Hoskins and Ms. McCrea voted in opposition. The motion so carried.
Mr. Boris made a motion to recommend $15,000 from FY16 Open Space/Recreation Reserve under Recreational Land: Rehabilitation/Restoration. No sign. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
- Artwork Restoration: Council Chambers
Mr. Cornacchio made a motion to recommend $25,000 from FY16 Historic Resources Reserve under Historic Resources: Rehabilitation/Restoration. Mr. Shea 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.
Ms. Tuttle was concerned about what is planned for the lighting and about where the fencing was going.
Ms. Sides stated that they will be hiring an architect to design a plan.
Ms. Guy acknowledged that there is some debate on where the fencing should go.
Ms. Tuttle stated that a little plan was provided, but she is having trouble understanding what the plan meant, such as LED path lighting or lighting from above.
Ms. McCrea stated that vandalism is a big problem.
Ms. Guy stated that the main thing is the tomb and headstone work, the landscape architect’s design, stone dust materials and the landscaping.
Ms. Tuttle stated that preserving the headstones is incredibly important. She stated that right now the cemetery is very pretty and feels historic and that she was concerned about the 180 sections of chain fencing on the paths.
Ms. Sides agreed that it was not a good idea.
Mr. Hoskins stated that the architect should be able to come up with some ideas on how to discourage people to not walk amongst the stones.
Ms. Sides stated that signage and clearly marked paths were appropriate.
Mr. Hoskins stated that lighting does deter crime.
Ms. Tuttle stated that there is a lot going on with lighting. She stated that we are trying not to over light our parks, so we should not be over lighting our cemeteries.
Ms. McCrea stated that if you don’t have lighting, a camera is not going to work. She stated that she is for the lighting.
Ms. Sides stated that the CPC needs to know what it is.
Ms. Tuttle stated that she would like to take out the fencing and lighting for now.
Ms. Tuttle made a motion to recommend $8250 from FY16 Housing Projects Reserve and $82,300 from FY15 Budgeted Reserve for a total of $90,050 plus up to $500 for a 18” x 24” sign under Historic Resources: Rehabilitation/Restoration. The motion is also to keep the application open to allow the City to come back for lighting and/or fencing. Ms. Hoskins seconded the motion. Ms. Sides, Mr. Cornacchio, Ms. Tuttle, Mr. Hoskins and Mr. Moriarty voted in favor. Ms. McCrea voted in opposition. Mr. Shea and Mr. Boris abstained from voting. The motion so carried.
Mr. Hoskins noted that it is very expensive to do environmental testing.
Ms. McCrea made a motion to recommend $40,900 from FY15 Budgeted Reserve and $38,100 from FY16 Open Space/Recreation Reserve for a total of $78,000 plus up to $1,000 for a 4’x4’ construction sign under Recreational Land: Rehabilitation/Restoration. Mr. Shea seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Moriarty stated that he was opposed to any funding for Hamilton Hall in any amount. He stated that he did not feel that it serves an appropriate public purpose consistent with the letter and spirit of the CPA, unlike the House of the Seven Gables that provides free admission to all Salem residents. There is nothing akin to that at Hamilton Hall. There is no existing program to provide education or information or tours regarding the inside or outside. He stated that absent that commitment to have program consistent to the sign that says “public welcome”, he could not vote to give funds to Hamilton Hall, because he did not feel it meets the definition of a historic structure that has a public purpose.
Mr. Shea stated that he was in agreement with Mr. Moriarty.
Ms. Sides stated that the funding they proposed is to complete the entire project. She stated that she felt the work could be undertaken over time, and they could choose which windows are the priority, and that she would be fine lowering the amount to put towards the project. She stated that she was sympathetic to what Mr. Moriarty was saying.
Ms. McCrea stated that she felt Hamilton Hall is one of the top 5 historic buildings in the city.
Ms. Sides agreed, noting that this was why she felt it was important to recommend funding for it.
Ms. McCrea stated that she thought the public could get into it. She noted that it is always on the various tours as being designed by Samuel McIntire and it has an incredible floor for dancing.
Mr. Boris stated that it was not open when he tried to get in randomly during the middle of the day.
Mr. Moriarty stated that he also attempted to gain access and could not gain access consistent with the sign saying the public was welcome on a weekday in the middle of the day.
Ms. Tuttle stated that with Hamilton Hall and the House of the Seven Gables, the CPC needs to look at getting a bang for its buck, because they are not subject to prevailing wages, so it is a bargain compared to Old Town Hall.
Mr. Hoskins noted that Hamilton Hall is part of the tours, people go by and hear about the exterior.
Ms. Tuttle noted that windows are something to see from the exterior.
Ms. Sides stated that the busses and trolley go by it and visitors are told about that building. She stated that it is a pretty important building and it is the flagstaff of the McIntire District.
Ms. Tuttle noted that they would have to execute a preservation restriction.
Mr. Hoskins stated that this falls under the category that if a non-profit were not tending to it, the city would be under some pressure to keep it alive. I would be a shameful thing for the city to let it go.
Ms. Sides stated that she was sure they would love to be open if they could afford somebody to man it.
Ms. Tuttle agreed they are struggling.
Mr. Cornacchio made a motion to recommend $20,000 from the Fund Balance under Historic Resources: Preservation, which includes the condition that a CPA 18”x24”construction sign be installed and with the public benefit of the applicant granting the City a preservation restriction. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. Ms. Sides, Mr. Cornacchio, Ms. Tuttle, Mr. Boris, Mr. Hoskins and Ms. McCrea voted in favor. Mr. Shea and Mr. Moriarty voted in opposition. The motion so carried.
- Dickson Chapel @ Greenlawn Cemetery
Ms. McCrea made a motion to recommend $8,575 from FY15 Budgeted Reserve and $69,787.75 from the Fund Balance and $7637.25 from FY16 Budgeted Reserve for a total of $85,000 plus up to $1,000 for a 4’x4’ CPA sign under Historic Resources: Rehabilitation/Restoration. Mr. Boris seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
- Salem Y: Camp Naumkeag Master Plan
Mr. Shea made a motion to recommend $25,000 from FY16 Budgeted Reserve under Recreational Land: Rehabilitation/Restoration conditional that the award is made solely to the City and that the City manages the project. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy stated that this is needed for the City to honor a commitment made to replace the grass taken by the installation of the splashpad. She added that the City is applying for PARC funds, which requires matching funds. There is a lot of demand on CDBG, and although some CDBG funds will also be used, there is not enough to fund all of it.
Mr. Shea stated that if this is not approved, it would leave the park unfinished, after all the work that is being done.
Mr. Hoskins stated that at the Conservation Commission, the public’s concern was the loss of grass and trees to the splashpad.
Ms. Tuttle stated that this was also expressed at the Park and Recreation Commission meeting.
Mr. Shea made a motion to recommend $85,075 plus up to $500 for a 18”x24” project sign from the FY16 Budgeted Reserve under Recreational Land: Rehabilitation/Restoration. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Tuttle asked how normally school playgrounds are funded.
Mr. Boris stated that he thought it was from the School Department budget.
Mr. Hoskins stated that there were a bunch of playgrounds built in the 1990’s and two recent projects as community built.
Ms. Sides asked what other playgrounds have that rubber surface.
Mr. Cornacchio stated that it is at Splaine Park and the splashpad.
Ms. Sides stated that this is kind of the new trend to prevent injuries.
Mr. Shea stated that money has already been recommended for McGlew and MaryJane Lee, so he would be supportive to recommend some money to this. He thought the cost of the structure was a lot. He noted that they have to raise a lot more, so maybe this will spur them on, excite them and get them going. He noted that they have only raised $4400. He stated that they will not be able to spend it until they have raised the other funds. He stated that he also likes that if CPA is used toward the entire project, it is not for a specific piece of equipment and then the CPC gets trapped into buying a piece of equipment for every park.
Ms. Tuttle stated that she feels she doesn’t know enough about what the schools normally do. She is concerned that it is similar to sidewalks that CPA can’t do because it is something that the City is supposed to do and that CPA is not supposed to replace it.
Mr. Boris stated that he was concerned that it is a parent group that changes as students then go on to other schools and if CPA funds half of it and it is in escrow, how long can they have it or it just drags out.
Ms. Guy stated that they do not get any money until there are ready to build.
Mr. Shea stated that the total cost of the project is almost $170,000 and if the CPC funds half of what they want, they are only getting about twenty-five percent of the project. He stated that this might be enough to spur them on to raise the rest of the money somehow. He added that nobody is going to send their kids across that street.
Mr. Cornacchio noted that the project was rated a medium priority.
Ms. Guy stated that she will need to determine the conduit on how the PTO can either give the raised funds to the city to put toward the structure or can donate the completed structure and the improvements to the city.
Mr. Shea made a motion to recommend $45,000 from FY16 Budgeted Reserve under Recreational Land: Rehabilitation/Restoration (no sign), which includes the condition that it be determined how either the raised funds or the completed structures and improvements can be gifted back to the city. Mr. Cornacchio seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Cornacchio stated that he would like to keep the project going.
Ms. Sides was in agreement.
Mr. Hoskins stated he was not crazy about the idea of just slamming the brakes on it.
Mr. Shea expressed concern over spending all the available funds, noting that he would like to keep some in reserve in case any property acquisition opportunities arise.
Mr. Moriarty recommended funding two thirds of the requested amount. It shows a commitment by CPA, but also sends a message that this is a lightning rod. He stated that people do talk about it being an endless process and that maybe the fence should be taken down.
Ms. McCrea stated that those people aren’t people who really care what the city looks like.
Ms. Guy noted that there is an existing sign for CPA sign on site.
Mr. Hoskins noted that $10,000 requested is soft costs.
Mr. Moriarty made a motion to recommend $60,000 from FY16 Budgeted Reserve under Historic Resources: Rehabilitation/Restoration, which includes the condition that CPA funding only go toward construction and not soft costs. Mr. Boris seconded the motion; Ms. Sides, Mr. Cornacchio, Ms. Tuttle, Mr. Boris, Mr. Shea, Mr. Hoskins and Mr. Moriarty voted in favor. Ms. McCrea voted in opposition. The motion so carried.
- 7 Gables: Retire Beckett House Restoration
Mr. Moriarty made a motion to accept the application for future consideration. Mr. Shea seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. McCrea made a motion to send all the recommendations to the City Council. Mr. Hoskins seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
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 stated that she distributed the budget report at the April 14th meeting and did not get an updated report for this meeting. A new report will be provided at the May 12th meeting.
Approval of Minutes
Ms. Guy stated that the April 14th minutes are not ready. They will be on the next meeting agenda.
Project Updates
Next Meeting Date
Ms. Guy stated that 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 any recommendations for changes and 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
| 