COMMUNITY PRESERVATION COMMITTEE
MINUTES
JULY 14, 2015
A regular meeting of the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) was held on Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 6:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Chair Helen Sides, Vice Chair Kevin Cornacchio, Leslie Tuttle, Tim Shea, Joanne McCrea and Ed Moriarty. Also present was Jane Guy of the City of Salem Department of Planning & Community Development.
Arriving later in the meeting was Mickey Northcutt and Bart Hoskins.
Public Comment
There was no public comment at this time.
Review and vote on Determination of Eligibility Applications Received
- Renovation of bathrooms at Forest River Park.
Ms. Guy provided a photograph of the building and noted that the building requested for an eligibility determination is not the multi-use building with the concession stand by the pool, but is the bathroom building near the baseball field.
Ms. Tuttle stated that she felt the proposed work would make it functional for its intended use.
Mr. Shea was in agreement.
Mr. Shea made a motion to find the proposed project eligible, to be submitted through a CPA funding application under Recreation: Restoration. Ms. Tuttle seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Northcutt joined the meeting at this time.
- Historic Common Bandstand Condition Assessment
Mr. Moriarty stated that he felt the history of the bandstand needs to be established. He acknowledged that if it is over 50 years in age it qualifies, but questioned if it is historic, noting that so many structures in Salem easily meet the definition. He stated that he felt the CPC needs to have sharper eye toward what is or is not an historic resource, otherwise the majority of public structures in Salem would be historic per se just based on the passage of years. He felt there should be a higher standard. He would like it to be associated with history, other than pure age. He felt that age per se should not be sufficient to look favorably upon a particular application. He added that he liked if from recreational point of view better.
Ms. Sides stated that its value to public is its location.
Ms. Tuttle stated that she saw Mr. Moriarty’s point, noting that anything built in the 1950’s would meet the criteria as well. She added that she looked at the bandstand as part of the Salem Common historic district.
Mr. Shea stated that its function is very important.
Ms. Guy stated that this is just for the determination or eligibility and that it does meet the age requirement and the requirement that it be listed on the State Register of Historic Places. She noted the application is for a study and that the application can include the recreational and historic aspects. The CPC can then decide to fund it or not.
Mr. Northcutt stated that it is hard to say it is not eligible, noting that it just might be eligible, but a low priority if just looking at historic. He stated that it seems eligible under both.
Mr. Cornacchio made a motion to find the proposed project eligible, to be submitted through a CPA funding application under Recreational Land. Ms. Tuttle seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Moriarty abstained from voting.
- Salem Bicycle Master Plan Update\
Ms. Guy stated that the application was withdrawn.
Review and vote on Funding Applications Received – Bike Circulation Master Plan Update
Ms. Guy stated that the application was withdrawn.
Other Business
Budget Update
Ms. Guy distributed a copy of the budget report as of June 30th and a spreadsheet of the current CPA available funds.
Approval of Minutes
Mr. Shea made a motion to approve the minutes of April 27, 2015 and May 12, 2015. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Correspondence
Ms. Guy read a note received by the Friends of Greenlawn Cemetery, thanking the CPC supporting and approving the restoration project for the Dickson Memorial Chapel.
Discussion on setting aside funds for potential open space acquisition
Mr. Shea asked to discuss reserving money for possible land acquisition in the future. He suggested putting away a little bit each year, so it is available should the CPC be surprised with an available piece of land. He acknowledged it could also be done with bonding.
Mr. Northcutt stated that he liked the idea of bonding and had a hard time putting a significant amount of money in savings account for a hypothetical. He stated he would feel different if thre were not enough applications coming in or if the applications were lukewarm. He stated that he felt there was such a backlog of public projects. He stated he did not want to throw $100,000 into a savings account when there is stuff still crumbling.
Ms. Tuttle stated that a significant part of CPA is open space, which is hard to do in Salem. She stated that the CPC should not throw out its opportunity to protect open space if it gets the opportunity to do so, and if it has to save money to do that, she felt the CPC should be ready.
Mr. Shea stated that the CPC could also put money aside, but not restrict it so tightly that it could never be used if something else comes up. He stated he was all for bonding, too.
Mr. Northcutt stated that he would prefer that there be two or three properties that the CPC was aware, should they become available, but noted that he could not think of an example.
Mr. Shea stated that he had was looking at Footprint, noting that a piece of the land could become available.
Mr. Cornacchio stated that it is a designated port area and any use would have to be marine dependent.
Ms. Guy stated that the CPC does not have to limit itself by requiring a set amount to put away each year, but can look at the applications as they come in and can then decide what to spend based on the priorities.
Mr. Shea stated that he would like to designate a percentage of the balance available to go into fund annually. He stated the he did not want to lock it up so tight that it can’t be accessed. He would like to start growing a chunk of money that might be important down the road. He suggested talking to some other people, noting it is not a rush.
Mr. Moriarty stated that he like it.
Ms. Tuttle stated that she loved the idea.
Ms. Guy noted that the CPC also has the $50,000 from the blended account.
Mr. Shea suggested taking out a set percentage of the balance remaining annually, so that the CPC does not have to debate the amount each year. He stated that the decision does not need to be made tonight.
Ms. Guy noted that the CPC would probably not need to use those funds for small projects, and large projects would likely be bonded; therefore, this would probably be for emergency projects that fall somewhere between, where only CPA funds will be used.
Mr. Shea stated that it also wouldn’t hurt to have a chunk of money available and then bond for the rest.
Discussion on City Council process
Mr. Moriarty stated that he found it very unsettling regarding the process of approval by the City Council of the CPC’s recommendations, noting it was a fire storm. He stated that it was in doubt whether the CPC’s recommendations were going to be accepted or rejected and he would like not to have that occur in the future. He stated that the biggest problem that a large minority of Councillors had was that they questioned why public funds would be used to assist a private enterprise. He stated CPA funds public purposes as defined by the statute, regulations and best practices. He stated that the CPC needs to do better job and should have a policy or practice not to say no to private projects, nor to put them as a very low priority so that they are not funded. He stated that the CPC has not
done a satisfactory job of trying to explain what the public purposes are of certain applications that it has approved and we didn’t talk enough about the City actually obtaining an ownership interest in the property in perpetuity. He stated it would be helpful if it is part of the process. He stated that the CPC needs to be prepared to explain what everybody in the City gets back in return.
Ms. Guy stated that the requirement for restrictions provided in the CPC’s annual Preservation Plan and in the recommendation report provided to the City Council.
Mr. Moriarty suggested being a little more obvious.
Mr. Shea asked if the requirement for restrictions will be in the agreements with the non-profits awarded funds.
Ms. Guy replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Sides asked audience member, Stan Usovicz, if he would like to comment.
Mr. Usovicz stated that he is the President of Hamilton Hall and is also here as a private citizen. He stated that the legislation came up in mid-80s, for which the genesis was to preserve open space. He stated the conditions under which the CPC operates represents the best of what the CPA is all about. He stated the legislation gives you a wide breadth of flexibility to say what is important. He stated that he felt the City Council struggles with the issue of what CPA is all about, which was made clear at the last meeting. He felt it would be a disaster to exclude anything that is allowed by law. He stated that it makes sense to keep as many options as possible. He stated that it is important that the City Council understand there will be preservation restrictions placed on any
property that receives CPA funds for structural purposes. He noted that the list is endless on what the CPA can fund. He stated that what the CPC does really needs to be conveyed to the City Council and that there is no need for the Council to have the degree of misunderstanding they enjoy today.
Mr. Hoskins joined the meeting at this time.
Mr. Northcutt suggested having the Community Preservation Coalition provide assistance, such as a presentation in November.
Ms. Sides noted that Stuart Saginor wrote a great letter that was distributed to the City Council and it did summarize the issues and restrictions, but that they just did not seem to get it.
Mr. Cornacchio stated that the City Council almost got personal.
Mr. Northcutt noted that properties such as the 7 Gables and Hamilton Hall are our judgement test and that the CPC is not just going to recommend funding for any old house.
Mr. Hoskins stated that there is a perception that people see an admission fee and think that they are making all this money. We had a little peak under the lid and they need every dollar they can to keep it our most critical property from falling apart.
Ms. Sides noted that there was an opinion from both Councillor O’Keefe and Councillor Furey in the Boston Globe this Sunday.
Mr. Usovicz stated that there is a fallacy in the city in thinking that non-profits are sitting on big trust funds. He noted that Hamilton Hall nearly went under about two years ago.
Next Meeting Date
Ms. Guy stated that the next regular meeting date is scheduled for Tuesday, September 8, 2015, where the CPC will review meeting assignments for collecting board and commission comments.
There being no further business, Mr. Northcutt made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Cornacchio seconded the motion; all were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Administrator
| 