ZONING AMENDMENT CONSERVATION OVERLAY-SALEM WOODS - PLANNING Planning Board Report to Council
Regarding Zoning Amendment
/ SWnodS
t
'i-ZA -.
Council overrides veto
to protect Salem Woods
By SEAN CORcoRAN Rennard wrote.
STAFF WRITER Commission members say any
overlay district fist must be re-
SALEM—The City Council quested by the commission be-
took another shot at creating a le- fore going to the City Council,
gal barrier against any expansion and finally to the state Legisla-
of the city's nine-hole golf course ture for approval.
last night,when it voted to go for- Last night,commissioners said
ward with a change to the area's they did not understand why the
zoning. council was excluding,them from
By a tally of 8 to 3, councilors the process and ignoring the city
voted to override the mayor's ve- solicitor's ruling.
to of their June vote and create a "Why create a commission and
"conservation overlay district"at then undermine it?" said com-
Highland Park,which includes mission Chairman Mike Kapnis.
the Salem Woods. Commissioners said they
The overlay district was first would meet next Tuesday to dis-
proposed nearly two years ago cuss their legal options.
by former Ward 5 Councilor Kim "It's not a conservation move;
Driscoll as a way to protect it's a move to usurp the power of
Salem Woods. It requires any the commission," said commis-
proposed development there to sioner Pat Curtin."We're not go-
fust receive a two-thirds council ing to sit there and accept it."
approval. Mayor Stanley Usovicz has e
But the Parks and Recreation stood with the commission on the t
Commission,which is charged issue, saying he also wants to Ii
with preserving the city parks, protect the woods,but the coun- o
says the council has no authority cil's procedure is flawed. c
to create the district,no matter But councilors argued last
how well-intentioned its motives night that they respect the com- t
might be. mission and do not have any de-
In July,Assistant City Solicitor 'sire to undermine it. i
Elizabeth Rennard agreed and "If we're all for protecting the
ruled that the commission has le- woods,then here is an opportuni-
gal control over the land,which it ty to provide another layer of
received when the golf course protection," said Councilor-at-
was approved in 1932.By impos- large Kevin Harvey.
ing a conservation district there, Councilors Thomas Furey,
the City Council"strips the com- Leonard O'Leary and Joseph 0'-
mission of its statutory powers to Keefe voted against the zoning
lay out and improve the park," change.
•
iniproves
on MCAS
By BEN CAssELMAN
STAFF WRITER
WAS scores have improved across the North Shore,but
a wide disparity remains between large urban districts and
wealthy suburban ones.
Most local districts saw at least minor
■See city and gains in the high-stakes 10th-grade test,
town pages for which became a graduation requirement
complete results. two years ago,and middle and elemen-
tary school scores generally improved
as well,according to WAS results released by the state yes-
terday. Students took the tests last spring.
But while Peabody and Salem managed to come closer to
state averages—which are also higher than last year—the
rr, smaller,wealthier districts,such as Marblehead and Manches-
ter,further distanced themselves from their statewide peers.
hi Salem,Peabody and Beverly,for example,about 12 per-
cent of 10th-graders failed the English section of the test.
That compares with just 2 percent in Hamilton-Wenham
and 1 percent in Ipswich.
In Manchester,where not a single 10th-grader failed the
Please see MCAS,Page A8
NORTH SHORE WAS RESULTS
Community English* Math*
Beverly.�w _ — — '88' v� '7—
Salem 88 84
_.
,Peabody._ 89 84' 7
Danvers 93 90
Warblehead v _ _ __ _ ®96-
93.
Swampscott _ 97v 92
Citp of Salem, j41a!6g;arbu!6ettq
s Office of the Citp Council
a
��Qmmeo�'� Citp jOall
COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE LEONARD F. O'LEARY WARD COUNCILLORS
2004 PRESIDENT 2004
THOMAS H. FUREY DEBORAH E. BURKINSHAW LUCY CORCHADO
KEVIN R. HARVEY CITY CLERK MICHAEL SOSNOWSKI
JOAN B. LOVELY JEAN M. PELLETIER
ARTHUR C. SARGENT, III LEONARD F. O'LEARY
MATTHEW A. VENO
MICHAEL BENCAL
JOSEPH A. O'KEEFE, SR.
May 18, 2004
Mrs. Denise McClure, f
Assistant Planning Director
Planning Dept.
Salem, MA 01970 MAY 2 U 2004
Dear Mrs. McClure: PR
At a Public Hearing of the Salem City Council, held in the Council Chamber on
Wednesday, May 12, 2004, the enclosed Zoning Ordinance for the creation of a
Conservation Overlay District for Highland Park(Salem Woods) was referred to the
Planning Board for a recommendation. This action was adopted by a roll call vote of 6
yeas, 0 nays, 5 absent.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience to let me know when the Planning
Board has scheduled their Public Hearing and their recommendation.
Very truly yours,
YRY
� 4a&
L A. LAPOINTE
ACTING CITY CLERK
Enclosures
cc: City Council
Walter Power
SALEM CITY HALL • 93 WASHINGTON STREET • SALEM, MA 01970-3592 • WWW.SALEMCOUNCIL.COM
Titu of t*drtn
In the year two thousand and fonr
An Wrdinanre
amending Zoning Ordinance to create a Conservation Overlay
District
Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Salem, as follows:
o Erttan I. (a) Purpose.
The purpose of the Conservation Overlay District is to augment underlying
zoning regulations in designated areas in order to:
(1) promote conservation of soil, water, plants and natural
resource areas;
(2) protect and enhance habitat and wildlife;
(3) preserve historic open space, passive recreation, and
nature study areas within the community;
(4) prevent soil and groundwater pollution;
(5) foster more effective environmental protection;
(6) ensure that such areas are improved in a manner which
is in the best interest of the City.
(b) Applicability.
(1) The Conservation Overlay District shall be established
along the areas designated on the zoning map. The
boundaries of the overlay shall be interpreted as
following the boundaries of Highland Park.
(2) Properties within such district shall be controlled by the
regulations of underlying zoning districts, except as
spedl`ied vvithin th_:s o;cinence In insia;ices of conflicting
requirements, the restrictions listed below shall prevail.
(3) The requirements of this section shall riot apply to work
performed to maintain or repair the existing uses within
Highland Park.
(c ) Uses and Other Requirements
In addition to the general purposes recited above in Section (a), the Conservation
Overlay District is intended to protect Salem's last remaining acreage of historic
natural resource areas, in particular Highland Park, from the negative effects and
intrusion of additional development; to provide for safe, continuous public access
to, from and within Highland Park; and to enhance open space within existing
greenbelts by means of suitable buffer zones to assure and reclaim reasonable
public and visual access to existing natural resource areas.
The following requirements shall apply to all properties and uses within the
Conservation Overlay District.
Unless otherwise exempt pursuant to this subsection, no alteration, addition,
construction, reconstruction, or expansion of any buildings, uses or structures
within the Conservation Overlay District shall be permissible.
The expansion, development, or alteration of existing facilities or uses located
within the Conservation: Overlay District, including the expansion of the existing
municipal golf course, shall be specifically prohibited, with the exception that (1)
the expansion or creation of walking paths and nature trails within the Overlay
District area shall be permissible; (2) the expansion of the existing buildings or
uses associated with the current municipal golf course shall be permissible
provided that any expansion shall not exceed the footprint of the existing area
designated for the golf course; (3) temporary uses customarily and incidental to
existing facilities shall be permissible.
(d) Severability
If any of the provisions of this ordinance are deemed unlawful, the remaining
provisions shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect as provided by City Charter.
In City Council April 8, 2004
A Motion for approval of first passage by roll call vote of 8 yeas, 3 nays, 0 absent
and referred to the Planning Board to schedule a Joint Public Hearing with the
City Council for recommendation for adoption per Council Order#249.
A motion for immediate reconsideration in the hopes it would not prevail was
denied.
Public Hearing of the City Council was held on May 12, 2004
Amotion to refer the matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation was
adopted by roll call vote of 6 yeas, 0 nays, 5 absent
A motion for immediate reconsideration in the hopes it would not prevail was Denied
ATTEST: DEBORAH E. BURKINSHAW
CITY CLERK
I MAR 1 1 2004 „
I.
JOHN D. KEENAN CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS JAMES G.GILBERr
City Solicitor LEGAL DEPARTMENT Assistant City Solicitor
222 Essex Street 93 WASHINGTON STREET 15 Front Street
Salem, MA 01970 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 Salem, MA 01970
Tel: (978)741-4453 Tel:(978)744-9800
Fax:(978)740-0072 Fax: (978)744-7660
Email:jdkeenanlaw@aol.com Email:gilbert®salemlawyer.com
March 10, 2004
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND
FIRST CLASS MAIL
Denise McClure, Deputy Director
Department of Planning and Economic Development
City Hall Annex
120 Washington Street
Salem, MA 01970
Re: Opinion on Legality of December 29, 2003 Public Hearing
Dear Denise:
You have asked for an opinion relative to questions raised by City Councilor Kevin
Harvey via e-mail pertaining to the possibility that the December 29, 2003 public hearing
of the city council, purportedly to discuss proposed amendments to zoning, was held
despite its non-compliance with Massachusetts zoning law. I have reviewed the
applicable provisions of the state zoning statute, and I find that the city council erred with
respect to notice provisions and strict compliance with statutory timeframes. These
failures constitute a fatal flaw in the process, and later attempts to rectify the notice issue
through the clerk's office also failed to,meet the strict timeframes under the statute. The
process initiated by the city council on December 11, 2003 was improper under
Massachusetts law and as such, would not withstand a legal challenge to its validity at
some future date.
As I understand the facts, on December 11, 2003, a member of the city council proposed
the creation of a Conservation Overlay Zoning District for the areas generally known as
Salem Municipal Golf Course and Salem Woods. The city council accepted the proposed
zoning amendment at that meeting and the matter was then referred for a public hearing.
The city council held a public hearing on December 29, 2003, which was advertised by
the city clerk as a joint public hearing with the planning board. However, neither notice
of the public hearing, nor a copy of the proposed zoning amendment, was ever sent to the
planning board within the fourteen day period required under section 5 of chapter 40A.
Denise McClure,Deputy Director
Department of Planning and Economic Development
March 10, 2004
Page 2
Although improperly noticed, two members of the planning board did attend the
December 29, 2003 public hearing and informed the city council of the failure of notice.
On February 2, 2004, apparently in an effort to correct the original failure of notice to the
planning board, the city clerk's office issued a copy of the zoning amendment proposal to
the planning board, and requested that a joint hearing of the city council and the planning
board be held on the matter(attached). On February 5, 2004, the planning board voted to
hold a separate public hearing on the issue.
Section 5 of chapter 40A states in relevant part as follows:
The board of selectmen or city council shall within fourteen days
of receipt of such zoning ordinance or by-law submit it to the
planning board for review.
The initial procedural error was the failure of the city council to notify and to submit to
the planning board the proposed zoning amendment within fourteen days of the
submission of the proposed zoning amendment to the city council.t Likewise, the
February 2, 2004 notice to the planning board also fails to meet the statutory requirement
that the planning board be notified within fourteen days of the submission of the original
December 11, 2003 proposal. Once the statutory fourteen-day window closes, it cannot
be reopened by subsequent action of the city council, or by any subsequent notice
designed to cure the original defect. As such, if the city council still wishes to pursue a
zoning amendment on this issue, it must re-submit the proposed amendment and begin
the process anew.
It is important to note that in the intervening weeks, the Mayor wrote to the city council
to inform them that the administration has no intention of pursuing the expansion of the
municipal golf course, and he requested that the council not pursue a rezoning of the area.
I raise this issue because if that were an acceptable solution to the council, then the
subject in the immediate instance would be moot, and no further action by any party
would be required to conclude this issue.
Finally, I understand that there was some concern raised regarding the effect the lack of
quorum of the planning board at the December 29, 2003 public hearing may have had on
the legal status of the entire proceeding notwithstanding the failure of notice. As you
know, Massachusetts law requires both the city council and the planning board to hold a
public hearing on a proposed rezoning. Under normal circumstances, when an
administrative body sits in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity, all members of the board
must be present at the hearing to be eligible to vote on the mater. See generally, Mullin v.
Planning Board of Brewster, 17 Mass.App.Ct. 139 (1983). However, the definitive text
I Section 5 also provides for additional notices that must be sent to various parties. It is unclear whether
all of the other statutory notices were sent in compliance with state law. G.L. c.40A, ¢5.
Denise McClure,Deputy Director
Department of Planning and Economic Development
March 10, 2004
Page 3
on the issue,Handbook of Massachusetts Land Use and Planning, takes the position that
the public hearing required under section 5 of chapter 40A is purely a legislative or quasi-
legislative matter, and as such, no quorum of the body need be present at a public hearing
in order to fulfill the statutory obligations.2 Therefore, the presence or absence of
members of the planning board at the December 29, 2003 public hearing had no impact
on the legality of the hearing. The legality of that public hearing rose and fell on the city
council's failure to properly notice the planning board in accordance with state law.
I hope this helps to clarify the procedure. As always, if you have any further questions,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sinc rely,
J mes G. Gilbert
Assistant City Solicitor
cc: Stanley J. Usovicz, Jr., Mayor
Kevin Harvey, City Councilor at Large
See Bobrowski,Mark,Handbook of Massachusetts Land Use and Planning, Aspen Law and Business
(2002)at§3.02[C][2].
Citp of �baIem, f tag!6arbugett5
Office of the QCitp Council
<s�W citp fall
COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE LEONARD F O'LEARY WARD COUNCILLORS
2004 PRESIDENT 2004
THOMAS H. FUREY DEBORAH E. BURKINSHAW LUCY CORCHADO
KEVIN R. HARVEY CITY CLERK MICHAEL SOSNOWSKI
JOAN B. LOVELY JEAN M. PELLETIER
ARTHUR C. SARGENT, III LEONARD F. O'LEARY
MATTHEW A. VENO
MICHAEL BENCAL
JOSEPH A. O'KEEFE, SR.
February 2, 2004
Mrs. Denise McClure,
Assistant Planning Director
Planning Dept.
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Mrs. McClure:
The City Council has requested that the enclosed be referred to the Planning
Board to schedule a Joint Public Hearing with the City Council.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience so we can schedule the Hearing.
Very truly yours,
DEBORAH E. BURKTNSHANAI
CITY CLERK
DEB/cl
Enclosure
cc: City Council �31 (;�Ylii.iD
0904 2094
f1 UFflit"NIN9&
SALEM CITY HALL • 93 WASHINGTON STREET • SALEM, MA 01970-3592 WWW.SALEMCOUNCIL.COM
I ,
In the year t w #houeand and three
An (l�rdinattre
CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT
Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Salem, as follows:
�rrtinn 1.
(a) Purpose.
The purpose of the Conservation Overlay District is to augment underlying zoning
regulations in designated areas in order to:
(1) promote conservation of soil, water, plants and natural resource areas;
(2) protect and enhance habitat and wildlife;
(3) preserve historic open space, passive recreation, and nature study areas within the
community;
(4) prevent soil and groundwater pollution;
(5) foster more effective environmental protection;
(6) ensure that such areas are improved in a manner which is in the best interest of the city.
(b) ' '` Applicability
(1) The Conservation Overlay District shall be established along the areas designated on the
zoning map. The boundaries of the overlay shall be interpreted as following the
boundaries of Highland Park.
(2) Properties within such district shall be controlled by the regulations of underlying zoning
districts, except as specified within this.ordinnn^p In imtgnre, of conflicting
requirements, the restrictions listed below shall prevail.
(3) The requirements of this section shall not apply to work performed to maintain or repair
the existing uses within Highland Park.
(c) Uses and Other Requirements
In addition to the general purposes recited above in Section (a), the Conservation Overlay
District is intended to protect Salem's last remaining acreage of historic natural resource areas, in
particular Highland Park, from the negative effects and intrusion of additional development; to
provide for safe, continuous public access to, from, and within Highland Park; and to enhance
Y.
open space within existing greenbelts by means of suitable buffer zones to assure and reclaim
reasonable public and visual access to existing natural resource areas.
The following requirements shall apply to all properties and uses within the Conservation
Overlay District.
Unless otherwise exempt pursuant to this subsection, no alteration, addition, construction,
reconstruction, or expansion of any buildings, uses or structures within the Conservation Overlay
District shall be permissible.
The expansion, development; or alteration of existing facilities or uses located within the
Conservation Overlay District, including the expansion of the existing municipal golf course,
shall be specifically prohibited, with the exception that (1)the expansion or creation of walking
paths and nature trails within the overlay district area shall be permissible; (2)the expansion of
the existing buildings or uses associated with the current municipal golf course shall be
permissible provided that any expansion shall not exceed the footprint of the existing area
designated for the golf course; (3)temporary uses customarily and incidental to existing facilities
shall be permissible.
(d) Severability
if any of the provisions of this ordinance are deemed unlawful, the remaining provisions shall
remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 2: This Ordinance shall take effect as provided by City Charter.
In City Council December 11, 2003
Referred to the Planning Board for schedule of a Joint Public Hearing with the
City Council on December 29, 2003
Public Hearing not held Planning Board no Quorum
Salem Woods Nature Trail in Highland Park
To get to Salem Woods: "
From Highland Avenue(Route 107)
tum onto Willson Street. Proceed Thompson's Horst
1/4 mile pest Salem High school
to Olde Salem Green Muni*al
Goff Course on the right.The _-..
trail begins at the far end of so
the parking loL "
12
we
F •
�'♦ �• 9
♦
• 13 < 97
•• : G• :•4 •\ too
�• / E • • ♦• •\ li
• D ♦ \
i,� •
• •10 ♦ \ ��
• R••i••iWr M••
♦• 1O0 16
,t sf• 9 �1• fir•
�. 1• 17 Y
A ; IO,
D
i
seen •
w�\ Mun oB Course • * Trail Head.
2 L _ _
'(3) Park Boundary(stone wall)
\ \ a • ••••• Primary Trail
\ *y' F'•0 Secondary Trail
\ \ Fra Open Water
\ /• 0 Wetland
Hlph
Seim -++++++ Railroad
school
1
J9eM9m An Elevation On feet)
Q Points of Interest
Trail Mileage S'!ti Trail Intersection
Start to [@ - 0.4 mile /
Start to1Y — 1.1 mass t 7
Start to is - 2.0 miles 400 fast
Stan mend - 2.4 miles AM s•.a.F. T� .d
CITY OF SALEM � i
PLANNING BOARD
NOR P I: O`I
June 23, 2004
Cheryl LaPointe
Acting City Clerk
93 Washington Street
Salem, MA 01970
RE: Planning Board's Recommendation Pertaining to the Proposed Amendment to the Salem
Zoning Ordinance to establish a Conservation Overlay District for Highland Park.
Dear Ms. LaPointe:
The Salem Planning Board was requested by the City Council to make a recommendation
regarding the proposed amendment to the Salem Zoning Ordinance to establish a Conservation
Overlay District. The Planning Board held a public hearing on this matter on Wednesday June 9,
2004. The Planning Board then discussed the matter at their regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday June 17, 2004. At that meeting, the Board voted by a vote of seven (7) in favor
(Power, Puleo, Collins, Lombardini, Sullivan, Moustakis, DiGeronimo) and none (0) opposed, to
make the following recommendation:
L The Planning Board agrees with the intent of the Conservation Overlay District, which is
to protect the Salem Woods as open space for public enjoyment. The consensus of the
board is that the Salem Woods should remain open space in perpetuity.
2. However, according to the City Solicitor's draft opinion dated December 23, 2003, there
may be legal problems with establishing an overlay district that prohibits underlying uses.
3. Therefore, we believe it is urgent that the City Council consults with the Park &
Recreation Commission to establish permanent protection of the Salem Woods as open
space in perpetuity.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Valerie Gingrich in
the Department of Planning & Community Development at (978) 745-9595, extension 31 1.
Sincerely,
Walter B. Power, III
Chairman
120 WASHINGTON SIIdEET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETIS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SAI.E.M.CUM
of #kdr 't
In the year tw .thousand and fo'-.r
�n f�rdtctanre
amending Zoning Ordinance to create a Conservation Overlay
District
Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Salem, as follows:
,erttan 1. (a) Purpose.
The purpose of the Conservation Overlay District is to augment underlying
zoning regulations in designated areas in order to:
(1) promote conservation of soil, water, plants and natural
resource areas;
(2) protect and enhance habitat and wildlife;
(3) preserve historic open space, passive recreation, and
nature study areas within the community;
(4) prevent soil and groundwater pollution;
(5) foster more effective environmental protection;
(6) ensure that such areas are improved in a manner which
is in the best interest of the City.
(b) Applicability.
(1) The Conservation Overlay District shall be established
along the areas designated on the zoning map. The
boundaries of the overlay shall be interpreted as
following the boundaries of Highland Park.
(2) Properties within such district shall be controlled by the
regulations of underlying zoning districts, except as
specified within this ordinance. in instances of conflicting
requirements, the restrictions listed below shall prevail.
(3) The requirements of this section shall not apply to work
performed to maintain or repair the existing uses within
Highland Park.
(c ) Uses and Other Requirements
In addition to the general purposes recited above in Section (a), the Conservation
Overlay District is intended to protect Salem's last remaining acreage of historic
natural resource areas, in particular Highland Park, from the negative effects and
intrusion of additional development; to provide for safe, continuous public access
to, from and within Highland Park, and to enhance open space within existing
greenbelts by means of suitable buffer zones to assure and reclaim reasonable
public and visual access to existing natural resource areas.
The following requirements shall apply to all properties and uses within the
Conservation Overlay District.
Unless otherwise exempt pursuant to this subsection, no alteration, addition,
construction, reconstruction, or expansion of any buildings, uses or structures
within the Conservation Overlay District shall be permissible.
The expansion, development, or alteration of existing facilities or uses located
within the Conservation Overlay District, including the expansion of the existing
municipal golf course, shall be specifically prohibited, with the exception that (1)
the expansion or creation of walking paths and nature trails within the Overlay
District area shall be permissible; (2) the expansion of the existing buildings or
uses associated with the current municipal golf course shall be permissible
provided that any expansion shall not exceed the footprint of the existing area
designated for the golf course; (3) temporary uses customarily and incidental to
existing facilities shall be permissible.
(d) Severability
If any of the provisions of this ordinance are deemed unlawful, the remaining
provisions shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect as provided by City Charter.
In City Council April 8, 2004
A Motion for approval of first passage by roll call vote of 8 yeas, 3 nays, 0 absent
and referred to the Planning Board to schedule a Joint Public Hearing with the
City Council for recommendation for adoption per Council Order #249.
A motion for immediate reconsideration in the hopes it would not prevail was
denied.
ATTEST: DEBORAH E. BURKINSHAW
CITY CLERK
v��CONU1TggO'�
CITY OF SALEM
n
9��MrnEo°�P In City Council, April 8, 2004
Ordered:
That the enclosed Zoning Ordinance creating a "Conservation Overlay
District' for the Salem Woods, be referred to the Planning Board to schedule a
Joint Public Hearing with the City Council.
In City Council April 8, 2004
Adopted
A motion for immediate reconsideration in the hopes it would not prevail was denied
ATTEST: DEBORAH E. BURKINSHAW
CITY CLERK
.CO
CITY OF SALEM
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STANLEY J.USOVICZ,JR.
MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET•SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
JOSEPH P.WALSH.JR. TEL:978-745-9595• FAX:978-740-0404
DIRECTOR
May 5, 2004
Deborah Burkinshaw
Salem City Clerk
City of Salem
93 Washington Street
Salem, MA 01970
RE: Planning Board Review of, and Public Hearing Concerning,the City Council's Proposed
Conservation Overlay District Zoning Amendment
Dear Ms. Burkinshaw:
Thank you for your letter of April 20,2004,in which you submitted to the Planning Board for its
review,[pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 51,a proposal from the City
Council to amend the Zoning Ordinances of the city of Salem by establishing a "conservation
overlay district"
This referral from the City Council was received by the Planning Board on April 20, 2004 and
discussed with them at their regularly scheduled public meeting on April 22, 2004.
Your letter of referral also included an invitation to the Planning Board to hold a joint public hearing
with the City Council. As you know,the Planning Board, at its regularly scheduled meeting on
February 5,2004,under the former request concerning the establishment of a conservation overlay
district,had a lengthy discussion on the options to either hold its own public hearing or hold ajoint
public hearing with the City Council. At that meeting,the Planning Board voted unanimously(7-0)
to hold its own separate public hearing on the proposed amendment.
When the Board discussed this issue again on April 22, 2004, they expressed that the vote of
February 5,2004 was still in effect. Therefore,pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws,Chapter
40A,Section 5 which states that the Planning Board in a city or town shall hold a public hearing on a
proposed zoning amendment within 65 days of its receipt.,the Planning Board expects to hold its
own public hearing on this issue.
Furthermore, the Planning Board directed the Department of Planning and Community
Development staff on behalf of the Planning Board to schedule the hearing and advertise the matter
as required in Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Thank you again for the invitation to hold a joint public hearing.I will be in touch with you when
the Planning Board selects a date for their hearing.
Sincerely,
ode
Denise S. McClure, AICP
Assistant City Planner
F 12/30/03 TUE 23:47 FAX 9787400072 JOHN D IIENAN 0002/009
TO: Laura DeToma, Councilor at Large,
Chair, Administration FI an e
FROM: John Keenan, Solicitor
DATED: 29 December 2003
RE: Proposed Conservation verlay District for Highland Park
Please find below a draft opinion on the above captioned matter. I did not
receive a written request for an opinion on this matter, but have tried to answer
questions raised at the City Council meeting (11 December 2003).
Regarding the City Council's proposal to restrict expansion of the Salem
municipal Golf Course by a zoning amendment superimposing a Conservation
Overlay District over the entire Highland Park land, the following questions arise:
1. Can the City Council amend the Zoning Ordinance to create the
Proposed Conservation Overlay District where the Zoning Ordinance
lacks any authorization for"overlay" or"special purpose districts?"
2. Can an Overlay District prohibit a use which is otherwise permitted
in the underlying Zoning District?
3. Do the statutes and ordinances governing authority over park lands
limit or otherwise Impact the City Council's zoning authority where
park land is concerned?
Not surprisingly, there is little authority or commentary on Overlay Districts
(outside the City of Boston, whose own Zoning Ordinance contains ample,
explicit authority for a multitude of such districts). However, based upon what I
have been able to find, I believe that the most likely answers to the above
questions, in the order asked, are: (1) Maybe, (2) No and (3) Maybe.
Prior to addressing these questions, I also want to Clear up the process for a
adopting a zoning amendment. The Zoning Act is explicit as to the timing of
votes. The City Council cannot vote on a proposed zoning amendment until it
either receives a report from the Planning Board (its recommendation) or twenty-
one (21)days from the date of the public hearing has elapsed (in this case 19
January 2004)without submission of a report. Mass. Gen. L. c. 40A, §5,13.
12/30/03 TUE 23:48 FAX 9787400072 JOHN D KEENAN @003/009
More specifically:
1. Can the City Council amend the Zoning Ordinance to create the
proposed Conservation Overlay District where the Zoning Ordinance
lacks any authorization for"overlay" or"special purpose districts?"
I have found no express authority or commentary stating that an Overlay District
can only be created where prior, express authority for such districts appears in
the Zoning Ordinance. However, in the cases I have found, such Overlay districts
were in fact created subject to pre-existing authority to do so in the Zoning
Ordinance. See: KCI Mgt. Inc.v. Bd. of Appeal of Boston, 54 Mass.App.Ct. 254
(2002); Lopes v. Peabody, 417 Mass. 299 (1994).
Where the Salem Zoning Ordinance does not authorize the creation of Overlay
Districts, then I would suppose that any attempt to impose such a district upon a
particular parcel of land would be subject to judicial challenge.' However, it is
readily apparent that the Council may get around this limitation by simply
amending the Zoning Ordinance twice--first so as to provide express authority
to create Overlay Districts, and then a second time to create the precise Overlay
District under discussion. Note, however, that in any case the City Council must
follow the statutory procedure in formally amending the Zoning Ordinance. Mass.
Gen. L. c. 40A, sec. 5.
2. Can an Overlay District prohibit a use which is otherwise permitted
in the underlying Zoning District?
it appears that an Overlay District CANNOT prohibit a use which is allowed as of
right In the underlying zoning district.
One seminal case -- although not, itself, an Overlay District case--was SCIT,
Inc_ v. Planning Bd. of Braintree, 19 Mass.App.Ct. 101 (1984). SCIT stands for
the proposition that a zoning ordinance or bylaw may not require a special permit
1 As you may know,the legal department and planning department have been working
for some time now with New England School of Law Professor Mark Bobrowski on
revising Salem's Zoning Ordinance (author of Handbook of Massachusetts Land Use
and Planning Law, Zoning, Subdivision Control and Nonzoning Alternatives). The
proposed revisions do include a provision for overlay districts. At the some time, I am
aware that at some point, Salem did adopt the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. (see
Section 7-19). 1 have not looked into the specific passage of that; however, that
provision does not address uses. Nor am I aware to any legal challenges to that
provision—at least during the eight years I've been in the legal department. But again,
that provision deals mostly with setbacks and aesthetics. It does not attempt to prohibit
any particular uses allowed by right in the underlying districts.
12/30/03 TUE 23:48 FAX 978740007E JOHN D KEENAN IaOO4/009
for all uses in a particular district. In SCIT, the Appeals Court construed the first
sentence of Section 9 to invalidate a zoning bylaw that did just that- required
all uses in a business district to receive a special permit. The SCIT decision also
held, in the alternative,that the bylaw In question violated the uniformity
requirement of Section 4 of the Zoning Act by delegating authority to the SPGA
without adequate standards. The import of$CIT is that there must be at least
some substantial uses In a district that are allowed as of right without the need
for special permit. SCIT also supports the proposition that a use allowed
as of right cannot be made subject to the grant of a special permit. This last
proposition has obvious implications for Overlay Districts.
In Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Bd. of Bd. of Aooeals of Westwood, 23 Mass.
App. Ct. 278 (1996), the Court applied SCIT and held that"it has been well
settled since the decision in SCIT ... that a use allowed as of right cannot be
made subject to the grant of a special permit inasmuch as the concepts of a use
as of right and a use dependent on discretion are mutually exclusive." Id., at 281.
Here, the argument is even stronger insofar as the proposed amendment would
essentially require a "use variance"(or other determination of the expansion of a
nonconforming use)for any such expansion of the golf course which presently is
a permitted by-right use in the RC-R1 District. (Section 5-2(a)(7)(public and
private golf course)).
The MCLS Massachusetts Zoning Manual notes that, "The effect of the SCIT rule
in the context of an oveday district in which all substantial uses require special
permit relief has not been fully explored by a reported appellate decision -for
example, where all development or use in a floodplain or groundwater protection
overlay district other than conservation of natural areas requires a special
permit. Cf. Boch v. Barwick, 5 Land Ct. Rptr. 16 (1997)(rejecting argument that
SCIT applies only to Euclidian zoning districts and invalidating as violative of
SCIT a waterfront overlay district in which no use was allowed by right).
In 1991,the Supreme Judicial Court approved the ruling in SCIT; see also Gage
v. Town of EgremQnt, 409 Mass. 345 (1991). If a use as of right cannot be
subject to a special permit requirement, then it should follow, a fortiori, that a use
as of right cannot be prohibited. After all, a "use as of right' and a
"prohibited use" are "mutually exclusive" concepts!
However, it should NOT be concluded that a use as of right cannot be
OTHERWISE REGULATED in an Overlay District. After all, the very purpose of
an Overlay District Is to impose additional restrictions and regulations upon the
burdened land:
"Overlay districts typically achieve their objectives without amending the
2 This refers not to geometry but to the seminal case upholding the constitutionality of
dividing land into districts for the purpose of imposing land use restrictions. Euclid v.
Ambler Realty CO., 272 U.S. 365 (1926).
12/30/03 TUE 23:48 FAX 978740007E JOHN D HEENAN 0005/009
underlying zoning by employing a technique in which new, more restrictive
zoning is 'laid over an existing zone in order to further regulate or restrict certain
permitted uses .... The typical overlay district is not an independent zoning district
but simply a layer that supplements the underlying zoning district regulations"
Salsich & 7ynieckl, Land Use Regulation 167 (1998). The more restricted area is
often shown on a transparent material that is laid over the paper zoning map,
hence the name. As the result of the introduction of the overlay zone, parcels of
land within an overlay zone are subjected 'simultaneously ... to two sets of zoning
regulations: the underlying and the overlay zoning requirements.' Nolan, Local
Land Use Controls That Achieve Smart Growth, 31 Envtl. L. 11025 (2001)." KCl
Mat.. Inc. v. Bd. of Aooeal of Boston, 54 Mass. App. Ct_ 254, 259 (2002).
In KCI, the landowner sought to subdivide its land into 23 residential lots and to
construct residential homes thereon. This was a use permitted as of right in the
zoning district. However, a portion of the land was within the Greenbelt
Protection Overlay District ("GPOD"), under whose rules the owner was required
to obtain a "conditional use permit." After the Board of Appeals affirmed the
denial of a building permit, for failure to obtain the required conditional use permit
under GPOD, the landowner appealed further and challenged the legality of the
GPOD. The Suffolk Superior Court(Smith, J.)agreed with the plaintiff and struck
down the GPOD on a variety of grounds. Of immediate interest to us is the ruling
that GPOD violated the unlforinity requirement of Mass. Gen. L. c. 40A, sec. 4,
as expounded by the SCIT decision:
"The GPOD requirements transforming uses "as of right" into conditional uses
violate the uniformity requirements of Section 2 of the Enabling Act. Section 2
allows the City to create uniform districts and makes no exception to this
uniformity requirement for overlay districts, Therefore, the inconsistency between
Section 8's uses "as of right" and Section 29's conditional use provisions has to
be resolved in favor of uniformity.
In Prudential, the Appeals Court, explaining SCIT, established that "it has been
well settled since the decision in SCIT ... that a use allowed as of right cannot be
made subject to the grant of a special permit inasmuch as the concepts of a use
as of right and a use dependent on discretion are mutually exclusive." 23 Mass.
App. Ct. at 281. "The use in the present case construction of single family
residential homes- is a use allowed "as of right" under the terms of Article 8, but
Article 29 then makes this a conditional use if the gross floor area is greater than
5000 sq.ft. No such restriction applies to a "S-5" district under Article 8."The
court in SCIT said "all land In similar circumstances should be treated alike."
SCIT, 19 Mass. App. Ct. at 107. "It is obvious that the present framework sets
up a zoning scheme that would allow another landowner in an "S-5"district
situated right next to plaintiffs parcel, but just outside the GPOD, to build
residential houses without a conditional use permit, where as plaintiff could not."
12/30/03 TUE 23:49 FAX 9787400072 JOHN D KEENAN Q006/009
'The defendants' contention that the GPOD is only a fine tuning mechanism does
not relieve the burden on the City to meet the uniformity requirement. The GPOD
was not created pursuant to a state environmental law that trumps the Enabling
Act's uniformity requirement, nor was it made pursuant to some explicit exception
to the uniformity requirement. Other means can be employed to restrict what
could be done along the GPOD, but changing the uses "as of right" into
conditional uses violates the uniformity requirement."
On further appeal, however, the Appeals Court--while agreeing with some of the
landowner's other arguments --did not agree that GPOD was void for violating c.
40A, sec. 4 and SCS. Essentially,the Court adopted the defendant Board's 'fine
tuning"argument:
"We are,thus, faced with a set of zoning regulations governing the proposed
project that (1)allow the use as of right, (2) require that a conditional use permit
be obtained, and (3) regulate the use through site plan review.
We are aided in our endeavor to harmonize these potentially conflicting
regulations by art. 3, § 3-1A, of the code,which addresses the issue of
competing regulations by providing that when "[a] subdistrict or part thereof or a
contiguous group of subdistricts or parts thereof" has been designated a special
purpose overlay district, "Mn an overlay district the regulations specified for the
base subdistrict or subdistricts shall apply, insofar as they are not in conflict with
special regulations specified for a particular overlay district." Based on this
provision, and the requirement within art. 29 making the design and development
procedures of art. 80 site plan review applicable to the GPOD permit process, we
perceive no general intent on the part of the municipality to convert uses allowed
as of right in the underlying subdistricts into conditional uses. Rather, the
regulatory scheme, unlike the scheme in SCIT. Inc. v. Planning Bd of Braintree,
19 Mass. App. Ct. at 105 n. 12, contemplates regulation of certain projects within
a GPOD by site plan review.
We conclude that the GPOD regulations prescribe valid general rules for
application to developments within a GPOD in accordance with the standards
stated in art, 29, as well as applicable sections of art. 80, and provide a
procedural mechanism that includes obtaining approval from the board in the
form of a conditional use permit, as provided by art. 6. The regulatory regime
subjects uses allowed as of right in the underlying subdistrict to conditions which,
through site plan review, regulate the use but do not prohibit it. Compare Y.—D.
Dugout, Inc. v. Board of Appeals of Canton, 357 Mass. 25, 31 (1970) ("towns
may adopt reasonably flexible methods, consistent with the substantive and
procedural provisions of c. 40A, §4. . . , of allowing boards of appeals to adjust
zoning regulation to the public interest in accordance with sufficiently stated
standards. We look at the substance as well as the form of the attempted
regulation"). Article 29 "warrants no more than the imposition of reasonable
12/30/03 TUE 23:49 FAX 9787400072 JOHN D KEENAN 1?1007/009
conditions in connection with the approval of a site plan" Ibid. See Auburn v.
Planning Bd. of Dover, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 998 (1981) (upholding provisions of
zoning by-law requiring site plan approval through issuance of special permit "for
all buildings to be erected in a business district," because site plan review was
based on specifically enumerated criteria and therefore"the requirement that
a site plan be approved before the issuance of a special permit does not impose
impermissible restrictions on the allowed use"). See also Quincy v Planning Bd.
of Tewksbury, 39 Mass. App. Ct. 17, 21-22 (1995) (where procedural framework
designated the planning board as a special permit granting authority, "[a]pproval
of a site plan special permit application under these circumstances would still
lead to the issuance of a special permit by the planning board as the designated
special permit granting authority under[the by-law]")." Id., at 262-263 (emphasis
added).
Although, Massachusetts courts have not yet examined the application of overlay
districts in the manner now presented, the issue has been addressed in at least
one state. In Jachimek v, Superior Court, the Arizona Supreme Court examined
an ordinance that created an Inebriate District. 819 P.2d 487, 488 (Ariz.
1991)(special permit for pawn shops). This district, which was determined to be
an overlay district, made particular uses within certain sections of an industrial
zone subject to a use permit. Jachimek, 819 P.2d at 4883489.The court found
that"creating an overlay zone and requiring a use permit for uses that are
permitted without such a permit in [identical] districts in the City violates the plain
and unambiguous language of§ 9-462.01(C)that 'all zoning regulations shall be
uniform for each class or kind of. . . use of land throughout each zone."'
Jac imek, 819 P.2d at 489. The Arizona Supreme Court then went on to declare
the ordinance creating the overlay zone void. Jachimek, 819 P.2d at 4913492.
See also Henry v.White, 250 S.W.2d 70 (Tenn. 1952) (deciding that a uniformity
requirement clearly forbids the city from "permitting on certain streets in a given
district the use of buildings for a purpose that is forbidden everywhere else in that
district").
The proposed Zoning Amendment applies, as drafted, only to Highland Park, not
to all the other RC-R1 Olstricts in the city. This appears to violate the uniformity
requirement.
As I read the decisions, an Overlay District cannot contain regulations which am
contradictory to those in the underlying Zoning District. For instance, the Overlay
District cannot subject a use permitted as of right to a Special Permit
requirement; presumably, it also cannot go further and prohibit outright an
otherwise permitted use. However, the Overlay District CAN impose SOME
DEGREE of additional regulation even on a use otherwise permitted as of right,
so long as such regulation is not prohibitive, unduly burdensome, or otherwise
"unreasonable." (For example, the overlay district could likely require site plan
review of an expansion of the golf course.)
12/30/03 TUE 23:50 FAX 978740007E JOHN D KEENAN 0008/009
3. Do the statutes and ordinances governing authority over park lands
limit or otherwise impact the City Council's zoning authority where
park land is concerned?
As to the third question, I do not see (and have not found) any reason to believe
that a rezoning of park land is NECESSARILY violative of any state statutory or
constitutional provision. Mass. Gen. L. c. 45, secs. 1-11 authorize cities and
towns to acquire lands for use as public parks, subject to the provisions and
restrictions contained in the statute. Article 97 (XCVII)of the Massachusetts
Constitution guarantees the right of"dean air and water, freedom from excessive
and unnecessary noise, and the natural, scenic, historic, and esthetic qualities of
their environment; and the protection of the people in their right to the
conservation, development and utilization of the agricultural, mineral, forest,
water, air and other natural resources ..."
I do believe that there would be a problem If the City Council attempted, through
zoning or any other maneuver, to convert the use of the park land to something
that was manifestly different from a "park use." There is a long-standing rule of
law that land appropriated to one public use cannot be diverted to another,
inconsistent public use without plain and explicit legislation to that end. Town of
Needham v. Norfolk County Commissioners, 324 Mass. 293 (1949); Lkginson v.
Slattent, 212 Mass. 583 (1912). This is the so-called "prior public use doctrine."
As applied to land acquired for public park purposes, this rule was codified by
G.L.c. 45, Sec. 7:
"Land taken for or held as a park under this chapter shall be forever kept open
and maintained as a public park, and no building which exceeds six hundred
square feet in area on the ground shall be erected on a common or park
dedicated to the use of the public without leave of the general court; but, except
in parks in Boston and in parks comprising less than one hundred acres in
extent, structures for shelter, refreshment and other purposes may be erected
of such material and in such places as, in the opinion of the fire commissioners, if
any, do not endanger buildings beyond the limits of such park. The superior court
shall have jurisdiction in equity, upon petition of not less than ten taxable
inhabitants of the city or town in which such common or park is located,to
restrain the erection of a building on a common or park in violation of this
section."
Thus, it appears that the City may not alter the use of land acquired for park
purposes,to something else, except by obtaining special legislation explicitly
authorizing the change of use. See Town of Needham v Norfolk County
Commissioners, supra; Loomis v. City of Boston, 331 Mass. 129 (1954).
However, I do not believe that the proposed restriction — allowing for the
expansion of walkways through the woods but prohibiting use of the land as a
12/30/03 TUB 23:50 FAX 978740007E JOHN D KEENAN Q009/009
golf course— is necessarily inconsistent with use of the land for"park purposes."
Rather, it instead prohibits a presently allowed park use—to wit a golf course.
Lastly, there remains the question of whether the proposed zoning amendment
would require legislative approval as a "disposition"of park land. Article 97
provides that park land "shall not be used or otherwise disposed of except by
laws enacted by two thirds vote, taken by yeas and nays, of each branch of the
general court." Upon question of the Legislature,the Attorney General has
opined that a "disposition"for which a two-thirds roll call vote is required "include:
transfers of legal or physical control between agencies of government. . . " It
appears that the proposed zoning amendment may be a transfer of control (at
least partially) insofar as it would now require a vote of the City Council to allow
the use (another amendment)or the Board of Appeals for a use variance. The
Park and Recreation Commission is no longer able to use a park for a
recreational use (golf course)without approval from another governmental
agency.
I hope the foregoing has been of assistance. If you have any further questions,
please feel free to contact me. I apologize for the last minute response. In
addition to the holidays, I've had several special education cases to deal with in
an expedited manner.
HYD
<Fre) , N ,1st)
fi50-jnd Coastw Committed to enhancing and protecting the
environmental quality of Salem Sound and its watershed
201 Washington St., Suite 9
Salem,MA 01970
978-741-7900
Fax: 978-741-0458
Profecfinj a Common Pesource www.salemsound.org
Dear Salem Planning Board.
Highland Park(Salem Woods) is a truly unique resource for an urban city like Salem and desires
protection as open space in perpetuity. Salem Sound Coastwatch is in full support of the creation of a
Highland Park Conservation Overlay District that would preserve this area as forested open space.
There are many reasons for taking such action:
1. Salem Woods is the headwaters for the Forest River estuary system, an important estuary for
Salem Sound.
2. This 100+acres of urban forest provides economic and environmental benefits
a. Alleviating flooding and pollution from stormwater runoff
b. Reducing heat retention for Salem
c. Filtering dust and particles from the air,thus reducing Ozone, SO2,NO2 and CO2
d. Reduces the overall percentage of impervious surface in Salem
• "If impervious surface(even unconnected) is greater than 30%for a community,
the absorptive capacity of the remaining pervious areas will not significantly
affect stormwater runoff." from Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
3. Its preservation is in keeping with Smart Growth Principles for Essex County
a. Protect,to the maximum extent possible, natural resources,wildlife habitats,farmland and
cultural, scenic and historic landscapes. (Note:This past spring I found otter using Salem Woods,
an indicator species for healthy water. There are also many other animals that find refuge here.)
b. Promote the linkage of a healthy environment and protected open space to the region's
economic future.
c. Promote water resource protection and management that respects natural watershed
boundaries, is comprehensive and integrated, and aims to "keep water local."
By the creation of this zoning overlay,the City of Salem will be preserving Highland Park as forested
open space, a natural resource in limited supply along Massachusetts' urbanized coast, and will be
contributing to the livability of the City.
Sincerely,
cJJCt��ti
Barbara Warren, Program Director, Salem Sound Coastwatch and Salem resident
Richard A. Luecke M. Perry McIntosh
4 June 2004
To: Salem Planning Board, Walter Power, Chairman
Re: Conservation Overlay District
Dear Mr. Power and Planning Board Members:
We regret that we cannot be present for your discussion of the Council's conservation
overlay district proposal for Highland Park. Nevertheless, we would like our voices added
to those who speak in support of the proposal.
As you are aware, our community views the Salem Woods portion of Highland Park as an
irreplaceable asset that must be preserved in its natural state. In late 2003, the City
Council passed a resolution affirming that view—and that resolution passed by an
overwhelming majority. The proposal now before you will give the Council resolution real
teeth and give the Woods the protection it deserves.
Some would argue the defeat of a golf course expansion initiative in fall 2003 makes this
change unnecessary. However, we would remind everyone that the Woods can be
degraded through other means: by draining marshes; building roadways and parking lots;
drilling water wells; and by clearing areas for playgrounds and driving ranges. These are
real possibilities; and most have been proposed at one time or another. A conservation
overlay district would prevent them.
Some would argue that a conservation overlay district would illegally shift control of that
parkland from the Parks &Recreation Commission to the City Council. We see no legal
problem here. Highland Park was given to the City of Salem for the benefit of its citizens;
it was not given to a group of unelected commissioners to dispose of as they please. As a
key asset of the City, the Woods's future should be determined by Salem's elected Council
through its power to control zoning within the City.
Thank you for considering our views.
Dick Luecke and Perry McIntosh
2 River Street 9781740 0381
Salem, Massachusetts 01970 richard.luecke@verizon.net
Oa Ooa
a 0 0
(Historic" `
41:qm P.O. Box 8658
Salem, M 01970
incorporated
Telephone: (978) 744 5-00799799
June 8, 2004
Walter Power, Chair and
Members of the Planning Board
120 Washington Street
Salem, MA 01970
RE: Recommendation for the Enactment of a Conservation Overlay District for Highland Park,
"Salem Woods"
Dear Planning Board Members:
Recognizing its importance as both a natural and cultural landscape, Historic Salem, Inc. listed
Salem Woods on its Most Endangered Historic Resources List in 2002. This listing was based
on the concern that a possible expansion of Old Salem Green could result in a potential loss of
historic landscape,plant materials and archaeological resources within this historic site.
The fact that Salem Woods exists to this day as an essentially undeveloped contiguous 160 acres
of natural land says much about the character of the site. Moreover, it says much about the
history of land use within our community through the last four centuries. The natural topography
of the Salem Woods site made it suitable for the common pasturage of livestock in colonial
times. The site was and is located near a fresh water source, Thompson's Meadow, convenient to
circulation systems, including roadways as well as Salem Harbor, and includes some areas that
are relatively flat. Remnants of a stonewall built prior to 1800 surround both Salem Woods and
the existing golf course and are evidence of the use of the land for the pasturage of livestock.
Today,the Woods are a recognized feature on Salem's Early Settlement Trail and contain three
archaeological sites that are recognized by the Massachusetts Historical Commission.
The presence of fresh water wetlands as well as many steeply sloped areas, ridges, cliff faces,
and gullies have limited the use of the site in modern times. These characteristics made it a
perfect location for conservation and passive recreational uses and with great foresight our City
purchased the Salem Woods site in 1906 for use as a park, then known as Highland Park.
Structures, roadways and the Olde Salem Green, developed in 1932,were located elsewhere on
parkland better suited for development.
Fax: (978) 744-4536 ' Email: hsi@nii.net • Web: http://www.historicsalem.org/
Today, with the combination of Salem Woods and Olde Salem Green,the City of Salem
possesses two unique resources that offer something for everyone in their wide variety of
landscapes, including both active and passive recreational opportunities, nature experiences,
educational opportunities, and plant and wildlife habitats.
While Salem's maritime history has been celebrated, less apparent is how our community has
been shaped by the land and by our relationship to it. Salem Woods has remained undeveloped
for centuries as a result of both its natural characteristics and our community's awareness of
them. Salem Woods provides us insight into the forces that shaped the land use patterns of our
City and provides a glimpse of a landscape character all but gone from Salem. Therefore, we ask
that the Planning Board consider the historic and cultural importance of Salem Woods and work
to preserve this last remaining parcel of Salem wilderness and undeveloped Colonial-era
common land by enacting a Conservation Overlay District for Salem Woods. If you have any
questions, please feel free to call the Historic Salem, Inc. office at(978) 745-0799.
Sincerely,
Patricia Kelleher
Board President
JUN 0 9 2004
-------------
n c e re / Y_
a � � s�1� s 1,i S h G ✓f�`yVt—(r,
=3 0 rt heerAi 117
)'0e ar �c�a r4/c K —
10
5m � (` �G� K
r
C�Vv —
`+ �� s V Slipat le r, c-, U lr_ s _
—
�c���0 V\1 _lam a ✓i c 4 Yd
G V (/ L-f
lt!
Nt l 4PUte_ _
nG� � �a _
►�,�� r S v re r a C o� vt
i
-- — I.�- Cel �e�{-✓ 3 --YJ R
A--`-
-
---inJ
11 e I— v , e 3 t�ev_�
-
LLJ
t
T s i,A RL _
ay
Environmental -ticieCriteria:Environmental Justice Populations E.—cia .(EI)Pµwmw
J4G Cy iii
-w"91 Wo
Lynn, Salem Peabody and Beverly nwme Households earn 65%or
lass of stiEa median
ndmen.1d,nmm
"V/
Q " 25%or more pfrent,
Mpopulebon
selling ro ema dn rty group
_ -..
Foreign-
25%or more wre.danu are
3ro
liddlcn bom foreign-born
\ / ' x _
English 25%ormore of residents Iasi
Danvers Pf0{ICIency English sh language Moroi
Or
f(
t �\ .I � ✓ i1 ". Populations meeting one EJ criterion
> Beverly �'^°°m°
minority Puoulad n
Ilt
brel9n-0gn
Populations meeting heo EJ whine
> >l\ p N�� 1 f� income end mn°ncr hopulafim
Income and Eni poApenry
. -.roma and mmilinmm
ntinoMy POPulafim and Endian profitlenry
' i Peabod
�R y C 1 i " y. mnoMy po,I..and finelgnLmm
Populations meeting three EJ criteria
and EnVl nPun�enlary
^amro a etym°puldew
Lvwfiod 9
mPd o'PMtl E Nig Pmfitlmry
`> y-
S end!E,g9 M P A enry
\�
PoP latons meeting all four EJ were
/ _ 'Salem -_ -nd h&jbm.
r/ on�lsti prasomry dbrtip�dom
MahlnM1eaU i Study Area Statistics
l _ EJStar.pula4 ]S6d6
Percentage b stud,
117,060
t" >✓ � �Z^� 1/;r' _ -.. � Percentage of study area
JI ,h poWlabon maebng EJ Oftede 36.6
L n EJ areas9: a.alas arta� _ 5.7
Sti area: 52.2 33,388
^� Percentage of
shelf dna meeting EJ ullene. 11.66
L �<
Stalevnde Statistics
Stvvm}xntt
( EJ population: t,930,323
Saugus 4 ' Berle hopi 8,119,09]
/1 tl I� Percentageoop4 n menta
n9 ildeda26.9
di-milds
ages
w yf` hteauras: 367 502
S
\ Peran: 0,090 5.1]17 9.191
Mikz Percentage of slate
rJ meeting EJ criteria: 4,11
y�v � 0 I 2 KYanrctm
I
JUN 0 9 2004
c ere!Yi
oV, YLGT � �irL- rQ V 56 Y'J
�Ucz�, 1fec�s vAl N E'Tr7 I i s h G i n — .I
Lv ceuw_1
3 0 .-r-
`SVk3.5
^ ( he 1o� eG OT ah rl v C, G
� 4
�'(r1/CLPec� �. Ye S e r ✓ e Af�
LV- — Q S C Ci a v
GVP l�
y(� e Sr�I A n
4-CA K C r L_CC./-L-�Q/-�l�l-L"
� /C Gr VI S C J,G 4 `
V
/ L
/4- CG m M
rC, LL7 5 p ('
�_Ks� Uyeec oY Yl P CcJ =c�C /ice
( ei�e A P_ w_e S
V1 0 G� C C> v C' z �, cQS V P 0 r-N)
L' Je
a so LLC 6 62'sem a �r � N l e C
L) iU iD i n�� �J__c�v_1"- , S o �, c
4at
)A 1Gq ►—fir ri s( U
� -+p c CJ �?y -e ,—e-< CP A J
in Y
—— 7T
(iV&c r
74
g� —7 S'�' &3
The History of the Salem Woods
Updated: 8-21-03
Early History of the Salem Woods:
In a volume of historical texts published for the Essex Institute in 1860, the early history
of what we now call the Salem Woods is described. As you will read in excerpts below, even
then, just before the great devastation to our country of the Civil War, the Woods had already
been diminished in size, but were celebrated and valued by Salem's citizens for their natural
beauty. The author details the sweeping views from the hills in the Woods,judging them worthy
of any artist's efforts to capture them. He lists numbers of beautiful plants to be appreciated and
advocates that the reader walk in the wildness of the Woods:
"The tract familiarly known as the Great Pasture came down to the present time in this
form [in the hands of special proprietors], but recently the proprietors have organized as a
corporation, under an act passed by the Legislature in 1855. The Great Pasture was
anciently of large extent, as its name indicates, but various portions have been from time
to time set off, so that only some 350 acres remained at the time of incorporation, in the
hands of a few proprietors.
The section of territory formerly included in the Great Pasture, we regard as one of the
most interesting tracts within our domain. Its barren, rocky hills, dotted with a straggling
growth of cedars, savins [junipers], and pines, its alder swamps, with an occasional clump
of maples, birches, or oaks, in its low lands, make up an unique landscape, attractive from
its very wildness and seeming uselessness. There is something peculiarly pleasant and
attractive in its rude untamed scenery. We confess that we delight again and again to toil
over its rough swelling hills, to force the difficult way through its craggy ravines, clogged
with wild vegetation, and to leap its frequent brooks. And it seems always to have been a
favorite resort of our town's people, as we judge from the familiar names which have
long attached to its prominent localities."
"Of the swamps in this section, the chief is Great Swamp, on the line of the Eastern
Railroad, two miles out. Half a century ago it contained 55 acres, and was in a wild,
untamed condition. During the War of 1812, when wood was high in price, it furnished a
great quantity of fuel to our town's people. Its owner, Judge Samuel Putnam, permitted
persons who desired to do so, to remove the submerged trunks and roots of its ancient
forest, and large quantities were raised and carried away . . ."
Other swamps existed nearby, Long Swamp, described by the Rev. Bentley in his well
known diaries that comprise a rich record of Salem's past, and Round Swamp, which emptied
into Derby's Marsh. Several brooks also ran through the Woods and emptied into the Forest and
South Rivers. The Woods were treasured then so much that the author says of his descriptions of
the land,
"We are thus minute and particular in describing these comparatively trivial things, in
order that the names anciently applied to these localities may not pass out of mind . . ." He
continues,
The Woods were particularly lovely in those days, "the brilliant and favorite Columbine
`makes the wild landscape with its beauty gay' in the pleasant days of Spring." "There
are many warm, moist secluded nooks in these pastures, where a wonderful variety of
plants occur in their season; and other more rare flowers are found in occasional
localities."
"One of the spots most delightful to visit in this direction, is a little round meadow of a
couple of acres, at the head of Great Swamp, and a part of it, but separated by the
Swampscot [sic] road. It is a choice locality for the botanist and the lover of fine scenery.
In it and around it, upon the hills and cliffs which beautify and shelter it, we find a varied
and luxuriant growth of plants which love moist and sunny places, and of the trees and
shrubs which are most pleasing in our local scenery. Through the season of vegetation it
presents a succession of our favorite native flowers. In early spring the brave and
beautiful Hepatica triloba, the familiar harbinger of the vernal year, flecks the hill-side
with the abundance of its bright blue blossoms. In mid-summer the purple Cymbidium
puchellum peoples the meadow with a crowd of its showy blooms. And in autumn the
Fringed Gentian (Gentiana crinata) lingers here until the early frost to adorn the spot with
rare beauty."
"From the summits of the hills extensive views are obtained of the landscape towards
Swampscot and Lynn, as well as on this side; and in the valleys and over the hills to the
east, towards the Turnpike, we have one of the wildest, ruggedest and most romantic
regions yet.remaining uncleared in this part of the county. This is the district formerly
known as Timber Hills. And if any one is desirous of a wild, lonely walk, which will
enlist all his strength and energy, let us commend to him a ramble over this region, from
Great Swamp to the floating Bridge. But neither dense thickets, nor treacherous swamps,
nor craggy hills, must deter or alarm the adventurer."1
The City's Acquisition of the Salem Woods:
In a letter to the Salem Evening News in 1997, Christopher Burke, who is now President
of The Friends of Salem Woods, summarized some of the 20th-century history of the Woods:
"In the fall of 1906, the city acquired 264 acres from the Great Pasture Company in three
separate parcels: a) an 18-acre piece bordering Jefferson Avenue (what is now Dove
Avenue) for the purpose of quarrying road materials; b) a 10-acre parcel designated for
the high school (now Salem's middle school); and c) for a nominal fee, 239.4 acres for
Highland Park.
"The park extended from Bertram Field south to Swampscott Road. At that time,
Willson Street did not exist, but using it as a reference, 15 acres of the park lay on the
hospital side of Willson Street and 224 acres lay on the golf course side of Willson Street.
"Its use as park land was specified in the deed and in the City Council orders authorizing
the deal, and in the Park Department's resolution accepting the land. The Pasture
1860, .....
2
a
Company, at its stockholders' meeting, agreed to sell the land for a reduced figure, only if
it would be used as park land.
"The city knew what it was getting and to what it was committing itself. A Salem
Evening News article on September 18, 1906 states: `The land for park purposes is to be
actually purchased by the park commissioners under the park act, and this having once
been done, it must be used for park purposes and no other purpose.'
"Our research shows that when land is granted and accepted as a park in this way, a
contract is created between the seller and the city. It is called a charitable trust and the
park is supposed to be preserved forever. This principle has been enforced by the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in several cases, most notably, in Commonwealth
v. The City of Salem, when the city tried to build a school on Mack Park in 1962. Since
1906, there have been several pieces of land chipped off the original Highland Park. The
transfers were done openly, but quietly, and have not been legally challenged. (My
intent, by the way, is not to challenge what has been done, only what is proposed.) The
following are the three largest takings from the park:
1) In 1966, Bertram Field, and some additional land around it, was transferred from
the Park Department to the School Department. The use of that land as a football field
predates the 1906 acquisition by the city, so that transfer is of little concern.
2) In 1971, a Council order allowed several acres identified as part of Highland Park
to be used for `city or hospital purposes.' The Shaughnessy parking lot and the most
easterly tip of Shaughnessy Hospital were built on the park. Later, when the
Shaughnessy was sold to The North Shore Medical Center, that land was still part of a
separate deed from the rest of Shaughnessy Hospital. The City Council order dated
December 28, 1995, ordered the sale of that parcel, among others, and described the land
as `surplus and excess public property.'
3) On Nov. 20, 1989, the City Council granted for free, and forever, an easement
over a 4.5 acre piece of Highland Park to Salem Hospital. That land was not identified as
park land in the Council order or Grant of Easement. Parking lots were built on the land.
Were the city councilors fully informed that day about what they were giving away? The
paperwork leaves one to wonder, because no mention of Highland Park was made."
The Great Depression and Olde Salem Greens:
In order to understand the economic circumstances under which Olde Salem Greens was
constructed in 1932 and '33, a review of the impact of the Great Depression is needed.
After the Stock Market Crash in 1929, unemployment rose nationally from 400,000 to
18,000,000 in March 1933 2 "After the crash President Hoover announced that he would keep
the Federal budget balanced and that he would cut taxes and expand public works spending."
"At the same time he reiterated his view that while people must not suffer from hunger and cold,
z The Problem of Unemployment,Aubrey Williams,January 16, 1935,FDR Library—the Hopkins Papers.
3
caring for them must be primarily a local and voluntary responsibility."3. The first bank panic of
the Depression occurred in 1930.
"In 1931, no major legislation was passed addressing the Depression. At the same time, more
than half of all Americans were living below a minimum subsistence level; annual per-capital
income was $750; for farm people, it was only $273. A second bank panic occurred in the spring
of 1931 and unemployment rose to 15.9 percent, reaching 23.6 percent in 1932 and ultimately
24.9 percent in 1933. Over 13 million Americans lost their jobs between 1929 and 1932, out of a
total population of just over 123 million, and wages dropped 60 percent. 1932 and '33 were the
worst years of the Depression."4 "From 1929 to 1933, the marriage rate fell by 22 percent and
the birth rate declined by 15 percent."5
Thousands of banks failed across the country (10,000 between 1929 and 1932) and factories
shuttered their doors. In Salem, the Salem Trust Co. with over $3 million in assets and 8,000
accounts,both savings and commercial, closed its doors on December 15, 1931, and a liquidation
agent was appointed by the state banking commissioner. Much of Salem Trust's assets were in
local street railway, gas, electric and water bonds, in real estate loans, and in personal and
demand loans.6 "A third bank panic occurred in March 1933, forcing President Roosevelt to
declare a Bank Holiday to stop a run on the banks."7
Across the country, workers' wages were being cut, resulting in frequent strikes. In Boston in
April 1932, the building trades mechanics went out on strike when their wages were cut 25
percent. A union plasterer was paid $1.62 1/2 an hour before the cuts Following a 10 percent
cut in wages in October 1931, Amoskeag Mills in Manchester, New Hampshire asked its 7,000
employees to take another 10 percent cut just six months later in April 1932. There were fears
that Boston Navy Yard might be closed as part of the economy program on the naval budget.
Lynn firemen got a 10 percent cut in pay for 10 months.
In his fifth inaugural address, Salem Mayor George J. Bates emphasized "the need of
economy".9 Councilor Michael J. McGrath, a long-time councilor-at-large, returned 24 checks
to the city totaling $1,000, representing two years' wages as councilor, with the order to, "Cancel
the checks."10 Unemployed Salem workers anxiously awaited the start of the post office
development program, estimated at $250,000, which would employ the local trades.]] When the
post office job was delayed, the mayor desperately telegrammed the local congressman
requesting assistance and urging that construction begin. The Salem city budgeting process was
page one news and the administration was loath to bond any more projects than absolutely
necessary because of the tight economic times. As the economy worsened, the Salem city
council was working hard to establish hundreds of subsistence gardens for use by Salem's
residents, which was a major local effort to provide food for the needy. These were hard times
and the city was doing everything it could to help its citizens. In January 1932,the city's welfare
'The White House,Web Site,History of Presidents
°Associate Professor of Economics,Brad DeLong,University of California at Berkeley
'Ben Wattenberg,The First Measured Century,PBS
'Salem Evening News,February 12, 1932,p.1.
r Ibid,DeLong.
'Salem Evening News,April 2, 1932,p. 1.
'Salem Evening News,January 7, 1932,p. 1.
0 Salem Evening News,January 8, 1932,p. 2.
Salem Evening News,February 5, 1932,p. 1.
4
department expenditures reach $42,188.22 a month, which was an increase of$20,000 over the
same period (January) in 1931.12
Meanwhile, in golf in 1929, the first Ryder Cup match was held between teams from the United
States and Great Britain. In 1930, the legendary Bobby Jones was a major newsmaker. An
amateur, he made a Grand Slam sweep, an historic achievement. He won the U.S. Open at
Interlachen Country Club in Minneapolis, the U.S. Amateur at Merion in Philadelphia, the
British Amateur on the Old Course at St. Andrews and the British Open at Royal Liverpool in
Hoylake, England. Conceivably, he was the greatest golfer of the 1920s. He founded the
Augusta National Golf Club in 1932 and its now well known Masters tournament the following
year. Like today's phenom Tiger Woods, Bobby Jones dominated golf, capturing the nation's
attention in the depths of the Great Depression.
It was in this atmosphere that the idea of building a municipal golf course in Salem was first
considered. In 1931, the city's park commissioners encouraged the city council to build a golf
course on the Cabot farm along the shore in North Salem, the "greatest and best opportunity" for
a course. They believed that the costs for the land acquisition and construction of the course
would be returned to the city from the course fees. In the same timeframe, they rejected the idea
of building the course in Highland Park.
"In February 1932, City Engineer Frank P. Morse filed a special report with the city council in
regard to the Highland Park site, stating, `In my opinion, a golf course at that particular location
would be difficult to maintain, owing to the large outcrop of ledge and abrupt slopes.' The city
councilors were not persuaded and, pressed by Councilor Dooley,pursued the construction of the
course in Highland Park, "first, as a means of relieving unemployment and second to build a
course which eventually will be paid for by the playing public."unemployment
April 1933, the city council
unanimously passed a resolution, "favoring Salem residents for the jobs on the municipal golf
course."14
The City of Salem Annual Reports for 1931 and 1932 summarize the construction of Old Salem
Greens, which opened to the public on September 13, 1933. The 1932 report states,
"Information was officially conveyed to the Park Commissioners that the Mayor and City
Council wished to make a golf course at Highland Park, as a part of the City's program of
unemployment relief." In May 1932 the Mayor and Council appropriated $20,000 for
supervision, fees, equipment and materials and $5,000 for labor for the course. Stiles and Van
Kleek, golf course and landscape architects, began work in May, with their contract completed in
November. Extensive additional course work was carried out in 1933 by the Parks Department.
Ultimately, $83,808 was spent to construct the course. Nearly half of the labor cost was welfare
labor, described in the 1932 annual report as "6,954 men working for $4.00 orders, totaling just
over $27,000." Soldiers Relief funds were also used, as were monies that had been donated by
all of Salem's city workers, who contributed one day's pay each month to a fund for the
unemployed.15
"Salem Salem Evening News,February 6, 1932,p. 1.
"Salem Evening News,February 12, 1932,p. I
"Salem Evening News,April 18, 1933,p.3.
15 Salem Evening News,April 7, 1932,p.3.
5
Thus, it can be fairly said that the primary motivating factor for building Old Salem Greens in
Highland Park was unemployment relief. In the face of a devastating economic crisis, with dire
local and national effects, the Olde Salem Greens course was built to provide employment for
large numbers of unemployed men, at a time when there was no unemployment insurance, wages
were plunging, and banks were foreclosing on home mortgages. Had there not been such a
crisis, it is fair to say that no golf course would ever have been built in the Salem Woods, as it
would have been much preferred to build it on land along the coast line in North Salem.
Translating the Dollars: The Costs and Figures Used
Using the Consumer Price Index calculator available from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, a
dollar in 1933 would be worth $14.12 in 2003. Thus, the amount appropriated by the City of Salem in
1932 for the golf course would be worth $1,833,368 today. A union plasterer today would be paid $23.00
an hour, using the 1933 wage rate quoted. .A $4.00 order for labor for men to build the course would be
worth $56.50 today. The $42,188.22 expended by the Salem Welfare Department in January 1932 is
equivalent today to $595,698. In 2003, Salem Trust Co.'s 1933 assets would be worth$42,360,000.
6
I
_ GOLF COURSE FEASIBILITY
and OPERATIONAL STUDIES
GOLF DEVELOPMENT CONSULTATION
GOLF SERVICES UNLIMITED, INC.
AFFILIATED WITH GOLF RESOURCE ASSOCIATES -
and THE McLOUGHLIN GROUP _ P.O. BOX 386 • NORTH GRAFTON. MA 01536 • (617)839-3367
r
' OLDF SALEM GREENS GOLF COURSE
' SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
1
1
rEXPANSION STUDY REPORT
1
r
FEBRUARY, 1988
1
r
1
I
' TABLE OF CONTENTS
' SECTION CONTENTS PAGE NUMBERS
1 Introduction & Executive Summary 1 -1 to 1 -3
t2 Site Development Evaluation
Site Analysis 2-1 to 2-4
Summary-Proposed Course Routing 2-5 to 2-6 .
' Clubhouse & Support Facilities
Existing Clubhouse 3-1
' Utilization of Existing Facility 3-2
New Clubhouse 3-2 to 3-4
' Need for Architectural Services 3-4
Additional Parking 3-4
Maintenance Facilities 3-5
Additional Information 3-5
' 4 Cost Estimates
Golf Course 4-1
Clubhouse 4-1
Maintenance Equipment/Parking Areas
Miscellaneous' 4-2 Total Cost Estimate
Architect ' s Cost Estimate 4-3
' 5 Funding Sources
Increased User Fees 5-1
Municipal Bonding 5-2
' Private Bonding 5-3
State & Federal Grants 5-4 .
Public/Private Funding 5-5
' Reprint/Revenue Improvment Bonds 5-6 to 5-7
6 Management Options
' Introduction 6-1
Full Facility Lease 6-1
Contract Maintenance 6-2
' Self-Operation 6-3
Proposed Management Decisions 6-4 to 6-5
Proposed Organizational Chart 6-6
' II
TABLE OF CONTENTS
' SECTION CONTENTS PAGE NUMBERS
7 Proposed Fee Schedules
1 Operational Estimates 7-1
Recommended Fee Schedule 7-2
Comparison of Current & Proposed
Fee Schedules 7-3
6 Revenue & Expense Estimates
Operational Assumptions 6-1 to 8-3
Estimated First Year Revenues 8-4
' Estimated Second Year Revenues 8-5
Estimated Third Year Revenues 8-6
Estimated First Year Expense 8-7 to 8-8
Estimate Revenue & Expense Summary 6-9
9 Other Activities In Highland Park
' Winter Activities 9-1
Nature Study/Hiking Trails 9-2 to 9-3
APPENDIX
Design Criteria For The Public
Course Clubhouse A-1 to A-6
Suggested Storage Shed Layout
For 50 Golf Cars A-9 to A-10
' Urban Self-Help Program A-11 to A-18
SECTION 1
1
INTRODUCTION &
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
1
1 -1
INTRODUCTION
' Golf Services Unlimited, Inc. (GSU), a New England-
based golf course development and operations consulting
firm, was retained by the City of Salem Planning. Department
to conduct on-site investigations and prepare a comprehensive
report on the proposed expansion to 16 holes of the City' s
9 hole Olde Salem Greens golf course. The specific scope of
GSU's report included a study of the physical feasibility
' of expanding the course onto available lands in Highland
Park, along with a detailed estimate of projected operations
' at an expanded facility. GSU' s report did not include
a study of the market area potential for this project,
at the specific direction of the City' s Planning Department.
' As an integral part of this report, GSU commissioned
golf course architect Philip Wogan of Topsfield, Massachusetts
to conduct an evaluation of the available lands in Highland
' Park in terms of their suitability to accomodate additional
golf holes. Mr. Wogan has extensive experience with the
' subject property, having completed previous consultation
and expansion study work for the City' s Parks Department
' some seven years ago.
' GSU wishes to take this opportunity to thank the
following City of Salem personnel for their co-operation
in .providing interviews and information for this report:
Gerald Kavanaugh
William Luster Salem Planning Department
Becky Curran
' Richard Drew Olde Salem Greens Golf Course
James Foley Salem Parks Department
t
' 1 _2
' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
' 1 . Land area in Highland Park not currently used for the
golf course is of sufficient size and character to allow
' for an expansion of the existing golf course to 18 holes.
2. The proposed routing for the golf course expansion has
been planned to cause a minimum of disturbance to critical
wetlands and other areas of important environmental concern.
' 3. A new clubhouse facility, budgeted at a cost of $400,000.00,
' should be located near the site of the present #5 green.
4. The estimated cost for the proposed facility expansion,
including a new clubhouse and all necessary support
facilities, is $1 ,799,750.00. Of this amount, $1 ,111 ,100.00
' is the amount estimated for the additional golf holes.
' 5. The City has a number of different sources that could
be used to fund the proposed expansion, and should be
' highly competitive if it applies for available state
and federal recreation monies.
' 6. GSU recommends that an expanded Olde Salem Greens golf
course continue to use the so-called self-operation
' format of management as a division under the City' s
Parks Department.
' 7. Golf user fees at Olde Salem Greens have historically
been among the lowest within the market area. GSU
proposes an increase in user fees that will provide
needed additional revenues for facility operating expenses
and debt service. The proposed fee schedule will still
be significantly lower than the fees charged at municipal
' courses at Lynn and Beverly.
1
1 -3
8. Estimated revenues in excess of expenses will amount
' to $ 1142,7811.00 during the first three full years
of expanded facility operation.
' 9. Highland Park can accomodate a number of additional
non-golf multi-season recreational and educational
' activities that will provide increased use and
access of the 270 acre park area to Salem residents.
I
10. Revenues generated by an expanded Olde Salem Greens
golf facility should be sufficient to pay for the
cost of bonded debt service for the cost of the new
golf holes, but not sufficient to cover bonded
debt for the new clubhouse and support facilities.
' 11 . .. The City should consider private funding strategies
to complement partial public funding for the expanded
' facilities.
' 12. The City ultimately must make a fundamental decision
about expanded public access and use of areas of
' Highland Park that are not currently used by the
golf course.
1
1
SECTION 2
' SITE DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION
1
1
1
2-1
SITE ANALYSIS
The area of Highland Park contemplated for the expansion
1 of the present nine-hole course to an eighteen-hole golf course
is mostly upland consisting of rolling terrain with numerous
outcroppings of ledge. Most of the ledgy surfaces are relatively
level to the abutting areas where most of the holes will be con-
rstructed. Most of the large and prominent ledge outcroppings
' will be avoided. These areas are vegetated with native grasses,
shrubs and some large trees. On approximately two holes the vege-
tation consists of wooded areas moderately to densely populated.
with trees ranging in size from small to large mature specimens.
For the most part, the areas adjacent to the land to be util-
ized as the golf course are wetlands or rugged and sharply sloping
ledge formations.
The soil depth is fairly shallow on the golf course areas with
deep pockets of soil scattered throughout the area. The soil type
is mostly classified as Gloucester sandy loam mixed with a large
content of boulders. Small areas near Thompson's Meadow contain
some soils classified as Eseex fine sandy loam. These soils are
mixed with a high proportion of small stone. The upland areas are
fairly well drained with the runoff finding its way into the sur-
rounding wetland. The configuration of the terrain will make for
good golf holes with few gradients involving large differences in
' elevation. This factor should allow for reasonably easy terrain
for those golfers who want to walk or use pull carts in playing
the course.
' 2-2
A pond contemplated on the second hole will provide a contrast
to the existing course in making this hole the only water hole on
the course. The excavated material from the pond will be used in
many of the upland areas where the depth of the soil cover is in-
sufficient.
' The expanded golf course will consist of ten new holes, a re-
located clubhouse, and a practice area in place of the present
seventh hole which will be eliminated from the new course
The new course will be 6300 yards in length, with a par 70 .
The holes will consist of two par 51s, twelve par 4 ' s, and four
par 31s. The holes will have a variety of lengths and challenges
which should provide Salem with a first-class, championship-style
course. The proposed layout will provide two starting and fin-
ishing nines at the new clubhouse site. Also, the proposed prac-
tice tee and range would be in proximity with the new clubhouse
site. The present practice green (old 7th green) will be the
location for the new putting green.
The existing nine holes would remain as they are except for
the numbering of the holes and the elimination of the present
seventh which will be utilized as a driving range on the new
layout. The existing 6th hole will become the lst hole in the new
nine. This loss of two holes from the existing layout will be
replaced by two new holes which will be constructed southwesterly
of the present 3rd and extend out towards Thompson' s Meadow and
return from same. The new nine would consist of utilizing the
existing 6th as the lst Hole, The 2nd Hole would be a new hole to
be located in the triangle formed by the junction of the existing
3rd and 4th holes. The new 2nd will necessitate the moving of
2-3
the present 4th tee to the left of the existing 4th. The new 3rd,
4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th will be constructed on the land to the
left of the present 4th hole. The new 9th hole will be built
parallel to the present 5th hole. This will require moving the
' center line of the present 5th fairway some thirty yards to the
right. The length of the new nine would be approximately 3200
' yards with one par 5, six par 4 ' s and two par 3 ' s. The existing
irrigation system will be extended to the new nine from an
existing six inch line located on the 4th fairway. The general
concept invisaged for the new nine would put the emphasis on skill
in shot making rather than on length. Due to the nature of the
terrain, some holes would have island targets in the fairways.
The course would be challenging to all classes of golfers, but
' would not be unfair or unreasonably difficult for the average
public golf course golfer.
The course features would have the following characteristics :
1 . The greens would average 6,000 square feet of putting
surface with moderate contouring and yet adequate cupping
areas. The putting surfaces would range from 5,000 square
feet to 7,000 square feet. The greens would be bunkered suf-
ficiently to tighten up the target and would be of such
a variety of styles that many types of bunker shots would re-
quire different skills to play them. The green construction
would follow the specifications of the U.S.G.A. to provide for
adequate percolating and minimal compaction and at the same
time provide for a good turf medium and for excellent putting
qualities.
2 - 4
2. The fairways would be approximately 40 to 50 yards in
width, narrowing down to 20 yards in strategic areas. The
fairways will follow the natural terrain. Approximately ten
fairway bunkers would be considered so as to provide variety,
challenge, and experience.
3 . The tees would average about 5, 000 square feet with
a range from 3,500 on the. long holes to 7,500 square feet on
the par 31s. Multiple tees would be employed to take advan-
tage of the terrain and to provide alternate routes to the
landing areas.
4 . Golf cart paths would be routed thoughout the course
so that powered golf carts can be used.
5. The practice area will contain a large practice tee
of approximately 10,000 square feet.
6 . During the clearing operation, great care will be exer-
cised to save all specimen trees and other woody growth that
would enhance the playing characteristics of the holes.
7 . All areas abutting the various holes will be kept in
their natural state so that the integrity of Highland Park
is maintained. Approximately 83 acres, measured by a polar
planimeter, would be utililized by the golf course, practice
range, new clubhouse site, maintenance and parking areas.
8 . Many of the existing nature paths and many new paths
will be developed throughout the areas not used by the course.
Obviously, there will be crossovers at some locations which
should not interfere with either activity.
Z-5
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED COURSE ROUTING
HOLE #1--Existing Hole #6
Hole #2--A new par-3 water hole of 135 yards running from the
vicinity of the existing 6th green to the vicinity of
the existing #4 tee.
HOLE #3--A new par-4 hole of 375 yards running from a location
behind the existing- 3rd green over some undulating and
knolly upland out towards Thompson' s Meadow.
HOLE #4--A new par-4 of 415 yards running in a north/north-
westerly direction up through an upland valley.
HOLE #S--Anew par-4 of 430 yards in a southeasterly direction,
slightly downhill, along an undulating upland meadow.
HOLE #6--A new par-5 of 515 yards running in a north/northwest-
erly direction parallel to the preceding hole. This
hole is slightly uphill.
HOLE #7--A new par-5 of 360 yards is a sharp righthand dogleg.
The hole runs in an easterly direction on the first
portion of the dogleg and then turns southerly. The
green is located just over a small ravine.
HOLE #8--A new par-3 of 180 yards, playing from an upland knoll,
over a ravine to an upland green located near the exist-
ing shelter near the present 5th tee.
HOLE #9--A new par-4 of 390 yards which runs parallel to the
existing 5th hole. The landing area for this hole would
be a portion of the o exist-
ing
pen land now occupied by the exist
ing 5th. This will require the moving of the 5th fairway
some 30 yards to the right.
2-6
HOLE #10--Existing #8 hole. Consideration has been given to
rrelocating the present teeing area.
HOLE #11--Existing #9 hole.
HOLE #12--Existing #1 hole.
HOLE #13--Existing #2 hole. Consideration has been given to
relocating the teeing area to a knoll some 250 ft. south
of the present 2nd green to produce more visibility of
the green and to make for an attractive short hole.
HOLE #14--Existing #3 hole.
HOLE #15--A new par-4 of 390 yards starting behind the exist-
ing 3rd green and running more or less southerly over
undulating upland meadow to the vicinity of Thompson' s
meadow.
HOLE #16--A new par-4 of 410 yards returning from the vicinity
of Thompson' s meadow, slightly downhill, running par-
allel to the 15th, returning to a green site behind
the present 3rd green.
HOLE #17--Existing 4th hole. A new tee will be constructed for
ithis hole to the left of the present tee.
HOLE #18--Existing 5th hole with the center line of the fairway
moved thirty yards to the right.
IPRACTICE AREA--Located on the existing 7th hole with the tee just
below the present practice green (the old 7th Green) The
practice fairway will run in a southeasterly direction.
PUTTING GREEN--Located on or near the site of the present practice
green.
77
� -- � LEGEND
• .�I(`\\! .,, \' ,. .' �` ..,,\ /i-��, ,"1� 1:� �; 9� � \ 12
[a s
m. ena Lfr
KO 8=
\ \ \\J \ 1 `'� s �\, � 'vf I �. ,�' r`d�` 1 a i I f.•, / '/ � � roao wL'ei;
1 , \ 17I /
s • In �• /I CARD
i
14
/ � / 1�1 \` � ` � \a. ( wu ..roa r• .ae uo w 1 ' ` I
� \ .•,>. '' t , (/\\/ T .• 111 e - . . our aaae » le alae as
' _ � / �. _ .. (' o , L . ' .. - row o•s ro
I
OLDE SALEM GREENS
SALEM. MASS
/ . /
..tee....,
I � [ee[.ne•.>.
,
,
r
' SECTION 3
r
rCLUBHOUSE & SUPPORT FACILITIES
r
r �I
4
1
1
1
I 3-1
EXISTING CLUBHOUSE
iThe existing Olde Salem Greens clubhouse is a
portable "class room"-type structure that was placed
ron site when the original 1930' s era clubhouse was
destroyed by fire several years ago. The building
is approximately 300 to 400 square feet in size and is
of wood construction. The interior of the building
includes a combination counter/snack bar area for
collection of green fees and sale of light refreshments,
an area for tables and chairs seating approximately
16-20 people, two restrooms, and limited storage and
bulletin board space. Visability from the counter
area provides good control of the practice putting
green and the 9th green (finishing hole ) areas.
However, the building does not sit high enough on the
site to provide maximum visual control of the first
tee starting area or more scenic views of the golf
course and Highland Park. The existing clubhouse is
not handicap accessible, nor is it outfitted for cold
weather/all-season use, such as for across country ski
area control center. The building is beginning to show
' signs of age and deferred maintenance, and will likely
require some significant capital expenditures over the
next two-to-three year period.
The existing paved parking area is approximately
230 feet long by 90 feet wide and can accomodate up
to 70 automobiles. (at the recommended 300 square foot
area per car)
r
t
3-2
UTILIZATION OF EXISTING CLUBHOUSE
The City could continue to use the existing
clubhouse site and structure by playing an expanded
18 hole course as a loop with the first and eighteenth
holes converging at the clubhouse site. With refurbishing,
it is estimated that the existing clubhouse could
rwithstand increased facility user "traffic" for at least
the first two full years of the expanded course' s
operation. It does not appear, however, that the
r existing clubhouse will last indefinately and that it
would begin to detract markedly from the projected '
financial success of an expanded golf course facility.
GSU suggests before any decision is made on continuing
use of the present clubhouse facility, that the City
should retain a qualified structural engineer to review
the building' s status as to safety, estimated cost of
refurbishing/repairs, and the projected useful life
span remaining on the structure.
NEW CLUBHOUSE
GSU recommends that the City give serious
rconsideration to locating and building a new clubhouse/
golf control center near the present # 5 green and
#6 tee, as noted on the conceptual site plan as the
"Proposed Clubhouse Location. " Based on site evaluations
r GSU believes that this location would be ideal for a
new clubhouse facility. Because of its location on one
r of the higher knolls in the Northern portion of Highland
Park, this site would provide maximum visability of the
starting and finishing holes on each side (nine holes)
of the course, and would provide an impressive and scenic
view of the course and the Park for both administrative
personnel and the facility' s patrons.
r
r
3-3
GSU recommends that a new clubhouse structure
should be budgeted within an overall facility expansion
plan so as not to exceed the sum of $400,000.00.
Based on current cost estimates for municipal clubhouse
construction of between $100.00 and $125.00 per square
foot, this budget figure would allow for a building of
1 between 3,200 and 44000 square feet. Clubhouse structures
at three recently built municipal 18 hole golf courses
in Massachusetts (Towns of Dennis, Brewster & Yarmouth)
rhave all been within this size range. Unless the City
finds that there is a clearly demonstrated need for
extensive restaurant, banquet or meeting facilities
at Highland Park, this size of clubhouse would adequately
service both golfer and other park patrons' projected needs.
The proposed Olde Salem Greens clubhouse building
would ideally include all of the following items:
' 1 . A control center/counter area for fee collection
and golf car rental.
2. Limited snack bar/food preparation area.
3. Table and chair seating for 20-36 people.
4. An outside deck area to allow for expanded food
service operation in good weather.
5. One or two administrative offices.
6. A limited area for display and sale of golf and
cross country ski equipment and clothing. (in season)
7. An area capable of seating 20-25 people for
educational/audio-visual sessions. When not being
used for educational purposes this area could also
be used for the food service operation.
8. Adequate mechanical and storage space.
9. Basement storage for 40-50 golf cars.
t
3-4
NOTE: While golf car storage would ideally be located
in the basement of the proposed clubhouse/golf control
center, local and state building codes and the need for
special ventilation may make this type of storage
prohibitivally expensive. Storage for 40-50 golf cars
would require a separate building of between 1800 and
' 2500 square feet (40-50 square feet per car) with cost
estimates of between $40.00 to $60.00 per square foot
($72,000 to $150,000) Secure storage might also be
maintained with a chain link fence structure at
substantially lower cost. The construction budget
for the clubhouse facility and parking and any site
constraints should ultimately dictate the selected
method for golf car storage.
NEED FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
Before a final decision is made on a new clubhouse
structure, the City should consider retaining a qualified
and experienced golf clubhouse architect or an experienced
architectural firm to prepare conceptual studies and
detailed cost estimates for any proposed buildings.
The city should also insure that any building architect
iselected should work in close co-operation with the
golf course architect and the Olde Salem Greens
administrative staff to make sure that the clubhouse
is properly and functionally sited within the proposed area.
ADDITIONAL PARKING
The conceptual site plan shows a proposed parking
area expansion of 300 feet long by 120 feet wide,
enough space to accomodate an additional 150 + cars.
With existing parking areas, the expanded facility could
accomodate approximately 250 cars. GSU recommends that
the golf course architect and clubhouse architect should
also work together as to the proper siteing of this new
parking area in relation to the new clubhouse.
1 3-5
MAINTENANCE FACILITIES
If the golf course maintenance department is allowed
to have complete use of the existing maintenance area
buildings, there is adequate space to house and service
' the current golf course equipment inventory and any
needed addition of turf maintenance equipment for an
expanded facility. Further site plan studies in advance
of the proposed new clubhouse will show the best routing
for a road .from the existing parking area to the new
clubhouse site. This new road may necessitate the
moving or demolition of the smaller of the two existing
i maintenance buildings and an extensive landscape/fence
buffering of the yard area. There are sufficient areas
near. the larger of the two existing maintenance buildings
that could accomodate an equivalent addition of
replacement floor space, if it was found that such
replacement is needed.
rADDITIONAL INFORMATION/ CLUBHOUSE AND SUPPORT STRUCTURES
Several sample floor plan layouts for clubhouse and
golf car storage areas are included in the appendix of
' this report.
r
r
r
r
r
' SECTION 4
' COST ESTIMATES
L
' 4-1
GOLF COURSE
The estimated cost of expanding the Olde Salem
Greens Golf Course, as determined by golf course
' architect Philip Wogan, is ONE MILLION, TWO HUNDRED
SEVENTY SEVEN THOUSAND, SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS.
( $1 ,277,750.00 ) This figure includes estimated
costs for all planned construction of ten new holes
' plus a practice area, architectural fees, and a
FIFTEEN PERCENT (15%) contingency. Mr. Wogan' s
report of estimated costs of golf course construction
can be found at the end of this section of the report.
CLUBHOUSE
' As detailed in a previous section (Section 3) of
this report, GSU recommends that a new clubhouse/golf
control center be constructed at a budgeted cost not
' to exceed FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS. ($400,000 )
This would allow for a building of between 3,200 and
4,000 square feet in size. This budgeted figure would
include all plannned construction, architectural fees,
' and a contribution towards the construction of the
additional parking area and access roads.
MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT/PARKING AREAS/MISCELLANEOUS
' The estimated cost of needed additional golf
course maintenance equipment, new parking areas and
entrance roads, and miscellaneous items to complete
the golf course expansion is ONE HUNDRED TWENTY TWO
' THOUSAND DOLLARS. ($122,000) Of this figure, SEVENTY
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($70,000) is the portion set aside
for maintenance equipment purchases, and FIFTY TWO
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($520000) is contributed towards the
cost of the additional parking area, access roads, and
any needed miscellaneous items.
4-2
TOTAL COST ESTIMATE
A summary of costs associated with the expansion
of the Olde Salem Greens Golf Course is as follows:
i
' ITEM ESTIMATED COST
Golf Course Construction . . . . . $ 1 ,111 ,100.00 .
Clubhouse (Budget item not to
exceed . . . . . $ 400,000.00
rAdditional Maintenance Equip. . . $ 70,000.00
Parking Areas, Road Access,
Miscellaneous Items $ 52,000.00
TOTALS . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1 ,633,100.00
15% Contingency (Course Const. ) $ 166. 650.00
1
TOTAL (With contingency) $ 1 ,799,750.00
1
r
r
r
i
4-3
P44 -4 Woyan
GOLF COURSE ARCHITECT 17 WALKED ROAD, MA01983
887.36
- (817)887.36722 -
January 8, 1988
Mr. John LaPoint
Golf Services Unlimited Inc.
North Grafton, MA 01536-0386
Dear John:
Following is the estimate of the construction cost of the proposed
addition to Olde Salem Greens:
OLDE SALEM GREENS
' Salem, MA 01970
ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION COST
Ten New Holes and Practice Area
' 1. Clearing and Grubbing 13 Acres @$4000.00 $52 ,000 .00
2. Cutting and Fillings 10 , 000 Cubic yards @$3 .00 30 , 000 ..00
3 . Fairway Development 34 Acres
Loaming target areas 17,000 cubic yards @$15. 00 255, 000.00
Fine Grading, Fertilizing & Seeding @$2000. 00 68 , 000 .00
4. Fairway Bunkering 10 @$2000.00 20 ,000 .00
5. Pond Development 2nd Hole 30, 000 Square Feet
' 12 , 000 Cubic Yards @ $4 . 00 48,000.00
6. Ten Greens 6,000 Average Square Feet in Putting Surface
10 Greens @$26,000 260,000 . 00
' 7. Tees for New Holes plus new tee for existing 4th
Total teeing area would be 55,000 sq. ft. @$1.00 55. 000 .00
8. Irrigations System extended to new Holes 200,000. 00
' 9. Drainage & Culverts-Lump Sum 10 , 000 .00
10. Practice Tee 10,000 Sq. Ft, in Area @$1. 00 10.000 . 00
11. Cart Paths 6Ft. Wide, 4000 Lin. Feet @$10. 00 40, 000. 00
12. Architects Fee 6 Percent of Foregoing 63 , 000 .00
SUBTOTAL $1, 111,100. 00
FIFTEEN PERCENT CONTINGENCY (Rounded Off ) $166,650.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $1 ,277,750 . 00
Sincerely yours,
Philip A. Wogan
PAW:tbp
MEMBER AMERICAN SOCIETY OF GOLF COURSE ARCHITECTS
SECTION 5
' FUNDING SOURCES
i
5
' While we are not experts in municipal bonding regulations,
GSU is generally aware that the new federal tax laws have
restricted the amount of borrowing available to most
municipalities. The City should check with its outside
' bond counsel before making any commitment to fund the
course expansion through the sale of municipal bonds.
' PRIVATE BONDING
' The sale of small denomination Revenue Improvement
Bonds (RIBS) , as detailed in the reprinted article from
' the November 1987 issue of American City & County magazine
found..at the end of this section of the report, may be a
potential funding source worth exploring. While GSU is
not aware of any municipal golf course in New England
that have yet been funded by this method, the idea is
relatively new and would seem to have considerable merit
given the circumstances that initiated this expansion .
' study report. A strong argument can be made that the
golfers who petitioned the City Council for expansion
' of the Olde Salem Greens facilities should also be the
same people willing to support the cost of expansion
through a combination of increased user fees and purchases
of small denomination bonds. Several golf industry sources
that GSU talked with in researching this report also pointed
' out that these Revenue Improvement Bonds would be attractive
investments in their own right, considering the volatility
' of the investment market at present.
' 5-4
STATE & FEDERAL GRANTS
Two outdoor recreation/conservation grant programs
would appear to offer Salem the best opportunities for
assistance in financing the proposes golf course expansion.
These programs are the federal Land & Water Conservation
Fund and Massachusett ' s Urban Self-Help Program. The City
' is eligible for both programs and would apply for both
through the State ' s Division of Conservation Services.
Of the two programs, the Urban Self-Help Program
' offers the most immediate prospect for help with project
funding. According to the Division of Conservation Services,
Salem would be eligible for upwards of 75% reimbursement
for development within Highland Park. Legislation passed
in late 1987 funded the program at a $10 million yearly
level to be distributed on a competitive basis among the
state' s 351 cities and towns. Massachusetts has a good
' record of funding municipal golf course construction and
acquisition projects and in the 1986 and 1987 funding
years seven cities and towns have requested funding for
various golf-related projects. Applications for the
Urban Self-Help Program must be made by July 1st of each
' funding year. A summary of the program' s rules and
regulations are included in the appendix of this report.
' GSU believes that if Salem were to make an application
under the Urban Self-Help Program, that the City would be
highly competitive within the rating system for eligibility
of funding. An expanded Olde Salem Greens golf course would
serve a multi-town regional population, and should be particularly
attractive to people in Marblehead and Swampscott. Other
•recreational and educational activities that may be proposed
for Highland Park would also contribute to increasing the
' City' s prospects of substantial funding from these grant programs.
5-5
' PUBLIC/PRIVATE FUNDING
t As noted in the Executive Summary of this report, GSU
believes that increased user fees will generate sufficient
excess revenue over expenses to support debt service for
building the expanded golf course, but not for building a
new clubhouse facility. With this funding situation in
' mind, and without any type of final guarantee for state or
federal reimbursement, the City might consider encouraging
' the formation of a private non-profit group, made up of
both golfers and citizens interested in a range of multi-
seasonal recreation and education activities at Highland
Park.
' Such a group would be expected to raise necessary
monies, enter into a land lease for the clubhouse site
with the city, and contract to build the facility under
guidelines set up by the City. Such public/private
' ventures have increased in recent years due in part to
municipal budget cuts for recreation facilities. Muni-
cipalities such as Anaheim, California, Worcester, Mass-
achusetts and Westchester County, New York have also
found their "Friends of the Parks" organizations can
' facilitate projects of this type. GSU believes that
there would be sufficient motivation for formation of
' a non-profit ad hoc group if the City were to commit
funding to do the golf course expansion contiggent on
the raising of private monies to complete the entire
Highland Park Project as planned.
�-o
Cole Slaw Not Included
With This RIB Order
Revenue-improvement and other types of citizen bonds are
' becoming popular as cities and counties look for less-complicated
ways to finance projects.
By Mark Henricks
' Judson Bailiff got used to peo- face value, compared with the usual more than planned. The accounting
ple asking, "Do you like yours municipal bond priced at $5,000. That problem, he says, was because the city
with cole slaw or potato makes them more attractive to local had established no facility to deal with
salad?" investors. But Petersen says, "They are the potential need to redeem bonds.
' The wisecracks were understandable. Germantown's bonds,'like most, were
After all, the signs at the Fort Worth, of the zero-coupon or capital-apprecia-
Texas, City Hall advertised "Will Rog- Financial tion variety.These carry no coupons for
ers RIBS For Sale." But, despite ap- bearers to clip and send to the issuer in
' pearances, the city finance director had Alternatives order to receive regular interest pay-
not decided to go into the barbecue ments. Instead, the bonds are sold at a
business. discount to their face value. The bearer
Bailiff was just trying to sell an of- so small, typically there is no secondary is able to cash them in at maturity for
fering of Revenue Improvement Bonds market for them." That means, should the full face value.
(RIBS) 1987, a $1.7-million debt issue a bondholder wish to sell the bond be- In the case of the zero-coupon RIBS,
to fund a new parking garage at the fore it matures, finding a buyer may be a$1,000 face-amount bond maturing in
city-owned Will Rogers Equestrian.- difficult. 1990, which carried an interest rate of
Center. Instead of obtaining an under- In order to ensure bond buyers will 6.25 percent, was sold for $834.97. At
writer,credit rating and prospectus, the not be stuck with their investments, the other end of the scale, a bond ma-
RIBS were sold directly to the public in some issuers build in a "put" feature _ turing in 2006 costs$226.51 and pays 8-
small denominations from a window at requiring the city to buy back the bonds percent compound interest.
' City Hall. from borrowers wishing to cash out Such low prices for tax-exempt mu-
According to Bailiff, residents bought prematurely. Most often, issuers re- nicipal bonds are attractive to a wide
the entire issue of RIBS a week after quire 30-day notice and assess some sort range of constituents. Bailiff figured the
they went on sale. Bailiff saved an esti- of penalty when bondholders exercise Fort Worth bonds mostly would be
' mated $30,000 by not paying fees for thew put option. bought by people in the horse breeding,
rating and marketing the bonds while The put option, while a necessary showing or training business, who
the city got positive publicity and feed- feature, places the issuer at some risk, would be the biggest users of the garage
back from the community on its financ- especially if the bonds' attractiveness is and related equestrian facility.
ing method. seriously diminished by a rise in interest "We targeted horse people but most
Other experiences from local govern- rates making other investments more of the buyers didn't care whether they
ments issuing citizen bonds tend to be appealing. were financing a horse barn or not,"
similarily positive. But getting informa- "Theoretically, were rates to go up Bailiff says. "They were buying them
' tion on RIBS may be difficult. Bond dramatically, you could get a lot of because they were municipal bonds of
counsels tend to be unfamiliar with them back and you would have to refi- the city of Fort Worth." Bailiff now
them. Because such bonds usually are nance," Petersen warns. But Bailiff sees citizen bonds as suitable financing
sold locally to investors who are not says, "So far, we have not been con- vehicles for other projects that do not
very active in the bond market,they ex- tacted by anyone wanting to unload have much public support.
ist outside the ordinary circle of the fi- them." In Germantown, Canary says the fi-
nance industry. Even an unused put feature can be Y 8
Despite some apparent advantages, technical problem. Two years ago, Hal not the project being financed, ap-
citizen bonds have some built-in poten- Canary, director of finance for Ger- peared to be the overriding concern of
' tial for problems. "Liquidity always is mantown, Tenn., presided over a $2- the bond buyers. There, he applied for
a source for concern," according to million citizen-bond issue to buy park ratings on the bonds,but the bonds sold
John Petersen, senior director of the land and build roads. The bonds were out before the ratings had been as-
Washington research center of the Gov- sold in a week, the city saved money signed.
ernment Finance Officers Association and received good publicity. Bailiff did not seek a rating, figuring
(GFOA). But,unexpectedly,Canary was forced Fort Worth's AA rating might be
Citizen bonds usually are sold in to recognize the bonds as a short-term enough to convince citizens to buy.
small denominations of $200 to $1,000 debt, loading down the city's balance That turned out to be the case, and
Antert ein City i Cotinty/Nowmbor 1987 59
helped save money on the offering. But would run. The larger issues make bet- 5—7
the actual savings of citizen-bond offer- Cit/Zen 1�OnC1$ ter use of.promotional efforts, which, in
ings is uncertain. Salt River's case, consist of inserts in
Canary says he warned city officials become .more 500,000 utility bills, newspaper adver-
that citizen bonds might offer no eco- tisements and coupons mailed to cur-
, nomic advantage. Part of the reason is, rent bondholders.
while underwriting and,sometimes,rat- popular When On the other hand, Williams notes,
ing fees are saved, staff time must beince/es - "When you sen to an underwriter, you
used to sell the bonds. t rates rife. get one check. If you mail out 20,000
No one has ever put a pencil to the pieces of information,you may get back
staff time," Bailiff says. "Of course, 8,000 checks." Processing all that pa.
with any type of issue there's always issue is a determining factor in deciding perwork takes extra time.
' considerable staff time that we don't how cost-effective self-marketing is But for Salt River,as with most other price out." compared to hiring an underwriter. if citizen-bond fanciers, public exposure
However, having city staff answer issues are kept about the same size as and acceptance are the real aims of
phones, take orders and send out certif. Germantown's$2-minion offering,costs what appears to be the country's busiest
icates costs something, even if less than may be about the same as underwritten issuer of these securities.
an underwriter would charge. Advertis- issues. "We sell them primarily for public.
ing costs do not seem to be a big con- The opposite is true at Arizona's Sale relations purposes," Williams says.
cern. The Germantown issue, for ex- River Project,a public utility licensed as "We want people to read our prospec-
ample,sold out after one ad ran once in a municipality by the state, where $112 tus and learn about us."
' the local newspaper. Other advertise- million worth of citizen bonds have During the same period, Williams
ments, prepared in advance for what been issued in eight offerings since 1979. says the project raised more than$2 bil-
was expected to be a much lengthier The bigger the issue, the more costef- lion through regular sales of bonds.
sales campaign, were never used. fective the marketing becomes, accord- "The mini-bonds are not the way we
' Petersen says holding citizen-bond ing to John Williams, treasury consul- raise the capital to rtin our operation,"
sales in conjunction with larger sales of tant. he adds,
regular, underwritten bonds can help Salt River started out with$1 million As a public-relations tool, however,
generate interest and hold down costs. and $2 million issues, but its latest was citizen and mini-bonds appear to be po-
Some issuers arrange to have citizen- a double issue of $10 million in $200 tent. Williams says they received more
bond issues rated the same as they have capital-appreciation bonds and$20 mil- than 20,000 requests for information
simultaneous issues of regular bonds, lion in $300 face-value interest-bearing for their last sale. Each caller gets a
increasing the buyer's perception of fi- bonds. copy of the prospectus, which includes
nancial stability. With that size, Williams says, costs detailed descriptions of Salt River's op-
GFOA studies suggest the size of the are about equal to what a regular issue erations and history.
"We want the local people to know approval of bond sales in an states, be- looking for information that might help
who we are and what we are doing in cause selling outside of Arizona is con- save money on future financing proj-
' the community," Williams says. "And sidered too complex for the utility. But ects. "I was just interested in how the
we think it has worked very well. Williams says larger, more populous big boys did it,"Turner says. But Can.
Everywhere you go, if you say you're states probably would be able to sup- ton did have some prior experience with
with the Salt River Project, they say, port larger, in-state sales of citizen selling bonds to local citizens.
'You're the ones with the wonderful bonds. Two years ago, the city needed $1.1
bonds.' It's a message you hear over Sometimes getting even local ap- million to finance a water-treatment
and over." proval is difficult. In Fort Worth, the plant. The state Water-Development
state attorney general investigated the Board only was willing to put up
Small IfEuea only
' offering to make sure it conformed to $800,000. Turner hired a financial con-
The public-relations value of citizen state requirements. It passed scrutiny, sultan to structure debt securities that
bonds make them more popular with but Bailiff says he had to hire extra le- would raise enough to fill the gap. Mar-
mayors, city councils, city managers gal counsel to ensure the issue was keting was simple, he says. "I just got
' and other elected officials than with fi- properly constructed. on the telephone,and in 30 minutes had
nance director appointees.That was one Citizen bonds also become more pop- $300,000 sold to about eight local
reason why Boston, which has an ular when interest rates rise and financ- residents." ❑
elected head of its finance unit, is one ing becomes more difficult.
of the leading issuers of citizen bonds. "We have seen cycles of activity," stark Henricks is a correspondent for
"Certainly city council people will Petersen says. "There was a cycle in the American City A County based in
bring this up as an option to get more late 1970s and there was a cycle around Irving, Texas.
citizen involvement and interest in fi- 1984 and 1985. Now, rates are relatively
mincing some of the projects and facili- low and underwriting costs are thin, so
ties in this town," Petersen says. How- there probably hasn't been the feeling
ever, finance directors have to know they need to do it."
when enough is enough. Interest remains, however, and one
"Arizona isn't that big," Williams factor any citizen-bond issuer needs to
says. "If we get $25 million a year out consider is the Flood of requests for in-
of Arizona, that's very good. If we tried formation by other cities. Fort Worth
to sell $200 or $300 million, there just prepared a packet of information that
doesn't seem to be that market there." has been sent out to about 20 callers so
The Salt River Project limits its sales far, Bailiff says.
to Arizona because securities laws vary One of those callers was Gerald
from state to state. One of the jobs un- Turner, director of finance and plan-
derwriters handle is getting regulatory ning for Canton, Texas. Turner was
1
SECTION 6
MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
1
1
1
1
1
6-1
INTRODUCTION
Municipal golf facilities in New England typically
conduct operations using one of three different management
formats. These formats are :
' 1 . Full facility lease
2. Contract maintenance
3. Self-operation
For comparison purposes, each of these formats are briefly
outlined under the appropriate heading.
tFULL FACILITY LEASE
* Involves city contracting with an experienced vendor
for course management services.
* Vendor typically is an individual, such as a PGA
Golf Professional, or a professional corporation
' with prior golf facility management experience.
* Lease periods usually run from one to five years,
with provisions for similar renewal periods.
Longer term leases are typical outside of New England,
' with term length dependent upon the amount of
financial investment for capital improvements or
new facilities.
* Contractor collects all fees/revenues, pays municipality
a negotiated fee.
' * Lease payments to municipality usually range from
8 to 15% of the facility' s gross income.
* Approximately 20-25% of municipal course in MA.
are operated under this format. Vendor payments
' range from $1 .00 to $150,000 per year.
* Examples of full facility lease management in the
' Salem area are Beverly Golf & Tennis Club in Beverly
and Mt. Hood Golf Course in Melrose.
6-2
Leasing is usually recommended for facilities that
have consistently lost money due to historically
low user fee rates or where municipal labor contracts
mandate more manpower than the facility needs or
at rates inconsistent with the facility' s revenues.
# Lease management is also a popular option for
municipalities that have recently purchased existing
golf facilities and where the municipality has no
prior performance record in operating a golf course.
CONTRACT MAINTENANCE
1 * Involves municipality contracting with an outside
vendor for ground maintenance services only.
* Under this format, municipality manages clubhouse
and fee collection operations, pays vendor a
' negotiated fee for maintenance services.
* Typical contract term is for one to three years.
Vendor should have prior golf course experience,
chemical applicator licenses, and be able to
acquire insurance coverage in sufficient amounts
to meet all legal requirements.
* Four Massachusetts municipalities operate courses
under this format.
* Vendors may use a combination of their own turf
equipment and "left-overs" from a prior city
self-operation, or may be required to provide
' 100% of the required equipment.
* Contract maintenance is usually recommended for
municipalities that do not have the technical
expertise to maintain large areas of fine turfgrass
or ;where budget limitations prohibit necessary
' equipment purchases and replacements or where the
negotiated cost of municipal labor is a concern.
6-11
SELF-OPERATION
* Typical operating format used at Olde Salem Greens
Golf Course and at 60% of all New England municipal
courses.
' * Staffing consists of full time municipal employees
and seasonal workers.
* Some staff members are not "full" municipal
employees, that is, they provide services and are
compensated on a retainer plus basis. Many golf
professionals at municipal golf courses are employed
in this manner.
* Format allows flexibility of adding or subtracting
from staffing levels depending on the yearly budget
or income and expense projections.
* Golf course is typically placed under the auspices
' of a Parks & Recreation Department or, in some
instances, a separate municipal golf department.
* Course revenues may go to the municipality's general
fund or, increasingly, the course may be operated
under a -separate enterprise account.
* Needed additional services, such as snack bar/
restaurant operation, clubhouse cleaning, etc. ,
may be contracted out as needed under the self-
operation format.
6-4
PROPOSED MANAGEMENT DECISIONS
The City of Salem should plan to operate the expanded
golf course facilities at Olde Salem Greens using the
self-operation method similar to that currently in
effect at the course.
There is a long-standing history of municipal self-
operation at Olde Salem Greens with a strong record
of financial success in recent years.
The existing inventory of golf course maintenance
equipment and the success of current golf course
maintenance operations do not suggest the need for
using the contract maintenance format.
# Based on projected revenues for the expanded 18 hole
' golf course, full facility leasing might generate a
bid/payment of $30,000.00 to $50,000.00 in yearly
lease revenues. This sum is lower than projected
self-operation profits, nor will such revenues
successfully cover projected debt service costs.
Leasing revenues at this time do not justify a
change from the current operating format.
' # GSU' s observation of current golf course operations
and the administrative personnel suggest considerable
' knowledge of good management practices and a strong
commitment to the facility. The current personnel
should be given the opportunity to take on greater
responsibilities at an expanded facility. For
example, GSU believes that the current golf course
superintendent is capable of assuming full administrative
responsibilities for an expanded facility in the
proposed creation of a position called "Golf Operations
Manager. "
r
6-5
# Available professional training opportunities,
such as the Oglebay Golf Management Program, should
be scheduled for selected administrative personnel
during the expansion construction period.
If necessary, it is relatively easy to switch to
an alternate management format, after an initial
period of self-operation (recommendation- j years )
at an expanded Olde Salem Greens facility.
The following page of this section of the report
outlines a proposed organizational chart for
management at Olde Salem Greens during the first full
year of expanded operation. Adjustments in the
number of .personnel needed for each subsequent year
' of operation should be made based on actual income
and expense figures and any identified facility/
patron needs that can be serviced in a cost effective
manner.
I
I
o PROPOSED ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
OLDE SALEM GREENS GOLF COURSE
PARKS DEPT./
Director
GOLF DEPARTMENT
Olde Salem Greens
GOLF
OPERATIONS
MANAGER
MAINTENANCE CLUBHOUSE
DIVISION DIVISION
I CONTRACT
PROFESSIONAL
ASST. GOLF SERVICES HEAD CASHIER/
COURSE ADM. ASST.
SUPT 1
I ( K R SST.
SNAC
(Lease) CASHIERS
MECHANIC EQUIPMENT (2)
OPERATORS/
LABORERS (2) GOLF STARTERS
PROFS RANGE HELP
1 2
SUMMER CROSS
HELP COUNTRY
(2) SKI
INSTRUCTOR
NATURALIST
1
1
SECTION 7
PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULES
1
r
j
1
i
I
7-1
OPERATIONAL ESTIMATES
The basic theory behind the pricing of public golf course user
fees (greens fees, memberships, golf cars, etc. ) is similar
to the pricing of any other product for public consumption.
The fees are based on the costs of production and operation,
tempered by the estimated number of unit sales, with a marketing
decision based on the comparison of existing prices and demand
for products and services in the immediate area. The fees .and
charges which are set at any given golf facility must reflect
a reasonable markup when considering the competition in the
area, the potential user, and the type of facility offered.
' In developing a fee schedule for an expanded and publicly
accessible Olde Salem Greens Golf Course, Golf Services
Unlimited gave consideration to the following factors :
' 1 . Fee schedules at publicly accessible golf facilities
within the Olde Salem Greens market area and their
general practice of offering annual membership fees
or annual passes. Care must be taken to assure, however,
that the membership fee structure does not unduly dilute
revenues while still providing a base of local support.
2. The anticipated design, playability and maintenance
standards of the Olde Salem Greens Golf Course will be
' equal or superior to existing public golf facilities
in the golf course' s market area.
The following schedule of fees and charges is based on 7_2
' Golf Services Unlimited' s investigation of the market area
and those factors outlined above.
RECOMMENDED FEE SCREDULE *
Olde Salem Greens Golf Course
Salem, Massachusetts
SEASONAL PASSES
Single $ 450.00
Senior $ 225.00 (Mon.- Fri. only)
IJunior $ 80.00 (Mon.- Fri. only )
DAILY GREEN FEES
Weekday - 9 holes $ 6.00
Weekday -18 holes $10.00
' Weekend -18 holes $13.00
GOLF CAR RENTALS
10 holes $15.00
9 holes $ 8.00
' Source: GSU Projections
' For first two full years of 18 hole operation. GSU estimates
have projected an approximate 7% fee increase starting with
the third full year of 16 hole operation.
t
i
1
1
COMPARISON OF CURRENT & PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULES Olde Salem Greens Golf Course
PROPOSED FEES CURRENT FEES
Resident % change Non-Resident % change
SEASONAL PASSES
Single $ 450.00 $225.00 + 100% $300.00 +50%
Senior $ 225.00 $100.00 + 125% $225.00 -0-
Junior $ 80.00 $ 60.00 + 33% -NA- -NA-
DAILY GREEN FEES
Weekday - 9 holes $ 6.00 $ 5.00 + 17% $ 6.00 -0-
Weekday - 18 holes $10.00 $ 6.50 + 35% $ 7. 50 +25%
Weekend - 18 holes $13.00 $12.00 + 8% $14.00 (8%)
GOLF CAR RENTALS
18 holes $ 15.00 -NA- -NA-
9 holes $ 8.00 -NA- -NA-
NOTE: Current fees are 1987 figures
M IM M M M Mao r M M M
/
1
1
1
SECTION 8
REVENUE & EXPENSE ESTIMATES
'i
1
i
i
i
1
1
i
/
d-1
The following estimates are based on the assumption that
the expanded version of the Olde Salem Greens Golf Course
would be operated as a fully accessible public golf facility.
Projections of play are determined by estimated market
' support based on anticipated participation at Olde Salem
Greens Golf Course as a quality 16-hole regulation length
facility, the applicable GSU recommended fee schedule, and
' certain assumptions of management. Revenue and expense
estimates are, of course, predicated on the employment of
knowledge management.
Orerational Assumptions
r1 . The "season" for a typical public golf facility in the
Salem market area is 210 days or 7 months. This figure
' includes 147 weekday days and 63 weekend/holiday days.
2. National Golf Foundation research figures show that an
' 16 hole public golf course can accomodate 300 to 350 rounds
per day at capacity. With given daylight hours in the
' Salem area, 300 rounds per day would be considered as
a comfortable capacity figure.
L3. Eighteen hole municipal golf courses in New England
realistically play to capacity on weekends ( 63 days
at 300 rounds = 18,900 rounds) and to 40% of capacity
on weekdays (147 days at 120 rounds = 17,640 rounds)
for a total of 36,540 rounds.
4. GSU projects that the Salem market area will allow an
expanded Olde Salem Greens Golf Course to accomodate
330000 rounds of play during its first full year of
operation. The course can reasonably expect rounds
tplayed figures to increase by 5% during both the
second and third full years of operation.
d-2
5. GSU estimates that 45% of the total rounds played at
an expanded facility will be played by season pass
holders and 55% will be played by green fee players.
60% of green fee rounds will occur on weekends/holidays
and 40% of green fee rounds will occur on weekdays.
75% of weekday green fee rounds will be at 18 holes and
25% of green fee rounds will be at 9 holes.
6. It is estimated that in the first year of operation
following expansion that 200 individual, 100 senior
and 25 junior season passes will be sold. In order
to keep revenue projections from season pass holders
in line with overall revenue projections, it may,
after the first year, be necessary to institute an
upper limit of sales of season passes at the projected
' volume levels.
7. A 7% fee increase is projected for the third full year
of expanded golf course operations.
6. It is estimated that the use of golf car rentals will
' equal the results of the National Golf Foundation/
PGA of America GOLF COURSE OPERATIONS SURVEY, which
indicated that golf facilities in the New England
region of the United States experienced a golf car
rental rate of 110% of rounds played.
' 9. Expenses are based on typical costs incurred to operate
a quality 16-hole publicly accessible golf facility in
the New England region and include estimates for golf
course maintenance and golf car expense based on GSU
research. Second and third year expenses are based on
an annual increase of five percent. The annual expense
projections do not include provision for debt service.
I
1
' d-3
The following pages detail estimated revenues and expenses for the
first full three years of operation based on the operating assumptions
outlined above. Many of .the totals in the tables for estimated
revenues and expenses are the result of rounding of extensive
calculations and as such these totals mary vary from what may
appear to be the more obvious total. These slight variations
are insignificant to the results of the overall estimates and
should be disregarded.
Although the revenue and expense estimates are based on actual
operating averages as obtained from research which has been
conducted by the Golf Course Superintendents Association of
' America, the National Golf Foundation, the PGA of America,
and other organizations, as well as Golf Services Unlimited' s
on-site research, it should be noted that the management
structure, maintenance expense, and other variable expenses
can fluctuate greatly from facility to facility. In addition,
increases or decreases in the number of competitive facilities
within a market area can significantly affect market share.
` These estimates, therefore, should not be construed as definitive,
' but as realistic appraisals of anticipated performance based on
existing market conditions.
6'4
ESTIMATED FIRST YEAR REVENUES
Olde Salem Greens Golf Course
Salem, Massachusetts
Revenue Source Rate Volume Amount
Seasonal Passes:
' Individual $450.00 200 $90,000.00
Senior $225.00 100 $22,500.00
' Junior $ 80.00 25 $ 2,000.00
TOTAL PASSES 325 $114,500.00
' Pass Rounds (Est. ). 14,650 (45%)
Green Fees:
Weekdays
18 holes $10.00 5,445 $ 54,450.00
9 holes $ 6.00 1 ,815 $ 109890.00
Weekends
16 holes $13.00 100890 $1419570.00
TOTALS: 18,150 (55%) $206,910
Golf Car Rentals:
18 holes $15.00 3713 $ 55,695.00
9 holes $ 8.00 1238 $ 9,904.00
' TOTALS: 4951 $ 65,599.00
Snack Bar Income (Lease) $ 1 ,500.00
GROSS OPERATING INCOME $386,509.00
' ESTIMATED SECOND YEAR REVENUES
Olde Salem Greens Golf Course
Salem, Massachusetts
' Revenue Source Rafe Volume Amount
Seasonal Passes :
Individual $450.00 200 $ 90,000.00
' Senior $225.00 100 $ 22,500. 00
Junior $ 80.00 25 $ 2,000.00
TOTALS: 325. $114,500.00
ROUNDS: (Est. 45%) 15,593
Green Fees :
Weekdays
' 18 holes $ 10.00 5,717 $ 57,170.00
9 holes $ 6.00 1 ,906 $ 11 ,436. 00
' Weekends
18 holes $ 13.00 11 ,434 $148,642.00
' TOTALS: 1
9,0 57 $217,248.00
Golf Car Rentals :
18 holes $ 15.00 39899 $ 58,485. 00
i9 holes $ 8.00 1 ,299 $ 10,392.00
' TOTALS: 51198 $ 68,877.00
Snack Bar Income (Lease ) $ 1 ,500.00
GROSS OPERATING INCOME $402,125.00
1
8-6
ESTIMATED THIRD YEAR REVENUES
Olde Salem Greens Golf Course
' Salem, Massachusetts
Revenue Source Rate Volume Amount
Seasonal Passes:
Individual $485.00 200 $ 97,000.00
Senior $240.00 100 $ 24,000.00
' Junior $ 85.00 25 $ 2,125.00
TOTALS: 325 $123,125.00
ROUNDS: (Est. 45%) 16,371
Green Fees :
Weekdays
18 holes $11 .00 6002 $ 66,022.00
9 holes $ 6.50 2001 $ 139007.00
' Weekends
16 holes $14.00 12,005 $168,070.00
TOTALS: 20,006 $247,099.00
Golf Car Rentals
' 18 holes $16.00 4,093 $ 65,488.00
9 holes $ 9.00 1 ,364 $ 12,276.00
TOTALS: 5,457 $ 77,764.00
Snack Bar Income (Lease) $ 1 ,500.00
' GROSS OPERATING INCOME $449,488.00
1
8-7
ESTIMATED FIRST YEAR EXPENSE
Olde Salem Greens Golf Course
Salem, Massachusetts
Source of Expense Total Expense
' Golf Course Maintenance Labor:
Salaries & Wages
Assistant Superintendent $22,000.00
Mechanic/Laborer 20,000.00
Laborers (2 Full Time) 40,000.00
Laborers (2 Part Time for 25 wks. 12,000.00
at $6.00 per hour)
, Sub-total $94,000.00
Payroll Expense/Benefits (25%) $20,500.00
' Total Golf Course Maintenance Labor,Expense $114,500.00
Golf Course Maintenance Supplies:
Agricultural Supplies $20,000.00
Utilities 4,500.00
Equipment Repair & Reserve 4,000.00
' Fuel & Lubrication ,,500.00
Shop Tools 500.00
Meetings, Dues & Subscriptions 1 ,000.00
' Telephone 750.00
Miscellaneous 1,000.00
' Total Golf Course Maintenance Supplies $ 37,250.00
Total Estimated Golf Course Maintenance Expense $151 ,750.00
Golf Car Expense (45% of revenue ) $ 29,519.00
' Clubhouse Administrative/Labor Expense
Salaries & Wages
Golf Operations Manager 311,000-00
Head Cashier/Adm. Assistant 18,000.00
Assistant Cashiers (2 at 30hrs.
' a week Q $6.00/hr for 10 wks )$10,800.00
Starters/Practice Range Help
(2 at 25 hrs/wk. @ $5.00/hr.
for 25 weeks ) $ 6,250.00
' Teaching Professional (Retainer) $ 7,500.00
Sub-total $75;550.00
1
' (continued)
Estimated First Year Expense (Cont. )
' Payroll Expense/Benefits (25%) $12,750.00
' Total Clubhouse Administrative/
Labor Expense $ E38, 300.00 .
' Other Administrative Expense:
Advertising/Promotion $ 2,000.00
Printing & Postage $ 2,000.00
Utilities $ 3,000.00
Building Maintenance 2,500.00
Meetings, Dues, Subscriptions $ 1 ,000.00
' Telephone $ 1 000.00
Miscellaneous $ 3,000.00
' Total Other Administrative $ 14,500.00 '
TOTAL ESTIMATED FIRST YEAR EXPENSE(before debt service $ 2649069.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED SECOND YEAR EXPENSE* $ 298,271 .00
' TOTAL ESTIMATED THIRD YEAR EXPENSE* $ 314,999.00
Note* Reflects a 5% per year increase on all expenses except golf
car revenue/expenses which are reflected at actual expense
increases as based on percentage of rental income.
' Source: GSU
1
1
8-9
ESTIMATED REVENUE AND EXPENSE SUMMARY
O1de .Salem Greens Golf Course
Estimated First Year Revenues $ 388,509.00
Estimated First Year Expense $ 284,069.00
' Net Surplus (Deficit) $ 104,440.00
' Estimated Second Year Revenues $ 402,125.00
Estimated Second Year Expenses $ 298,271 .00
' Net Surplus (Deficit) $ 103,854.00
1 Estimated Third Year Revenues $ 449,488.00
Estimated Third Year Expenses $ 314,999.A0
Net Surplus (Deficit) $ 134,489.00
Estimated Three Year Surplus (Deficit) $ 342,783.00
(before debt service)
r
' SECTION 9
' OTHER ACTIVITIES IN
HIGHLAND PARK
1
9-1
' While not within the specific golf-related scope
' of this report, GSU feels compelled to comment briefly
on a number of multi-season recreational and educational
activities that could complement expanded golf activities
at Highland Park. Such activities could give non-golfing
Salem residents an opportunity to enjoy increased use of
270+ acres of City-owned land, and would enhance the City' s
prospects of qualifying for state and federal recreation
' funding.
' WINTER ACTIVITIES
According to James Branch, President of Sno-Engineering,
Inc. , a Lyme, New Hampshire winter recreation consulting
company, golf course fairways make an ideal setting for
' a system of cross-country ski trails. With recent
technical advances in snowmaking and irrigation systems,
the golf course irrigation system could serve a dual
purpose, allowing for cross-country ski activities
notwithstanding Salem' s coastal location. The proposed
' new clubhouse facility would also be ideal to complement
this type of winter activity. Ski Industries America's
Cross-Country USA program could be a helpful source in
setting up a viable, self-supporting program. The City
' should contact Ski Industries America (8377-B Greensboro
Drive, McLean, Virginia 22101 703-556-9020) or Sno-
Engineering in New Hampshire for initial consultation
in implementing this program.
' 9-2
NATURE STUDY/HIKING TRAILS
' Highland Park has been the site of a potentially
excellent nature trail system for a number of years.
To be honest, the trail has not been given the best of
' care, for a variety of reasons, and has fallen into
serious disrepair. Many observors note that the
trail ' s condition has directly contributed to decreased
use of Highland Park by non-golfers. An interpretative
' guide for the trails, written by students from Salem High
School, is currently out of print.
' GSU and golf course architect Philip Wogan have
given special attention during site evaluations and route
' plan studies to leave corridors both on the perimeter
park lands and between the new golf holes to accomodate
an expanded and improved trail system. This network is
outlined on the conceptual site plan found at the
conclusion of this section of the report. These trails
could also be used during winter months if a snow-shoe
rental program were to be implemented.
GSU also believes that the City should set a long
' range goal of making selected nature study areas, such
as the scenic overlooks at Thompson' s Meadow, fully
' accessible to the handicaped.
' The planned for education/audio visual room in the
proposed new clubhouse should be used as an important
complement to the on-trail activities. Because golf
' will continue to be the major revenue producing activity
in Highland Park, GSU suggests that the City should use
' some of this revenue potential to fund and actively
promote the nature -study-related activities. Specifically,
' GSU suggests that a surcharge system of 50� per golf round
9-3
(both fee players and season pass holders ) be implemented,
with the proceeds going into a separate fund that would
be used for maintenance of the trail system, re-printing
of the trail guide, and the possible funding of a part-
time naturalist to conduct expanded educational programs.
With GSU projections for 33,000 golf rounds in the first
full year of operation, there is a potential of generating
$16,500.00 for the nature study and trail related activities.
1
1
1
1
APPENDIX
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
DESIGN CRITERIA FOR THE PUBLIC COURSE CLUBHOUSE
There is a basic set of requirements for the clubhouse to serve the
"public links" golfereitherat a municipal or a daily fee facility.
Beyond those requirements , the site , scope and nature of the club-
house need be limited only by the taxpayers' indulgence in one case
or the owner' s resources and imagination in the other.
Concepts for the municipal or daily fee clubhouse begin with the
assumption that the average customer is going to be primarily inter-
ested in playing a round of golf, enjoying a small refreshment,
visiting briefly with friends and going on his way. Generally he is
1 a golfer who will "play out of the trunk of his car," where he will
carry his clubs , his shoes and other paraphernalia.
' In most cases this precludes the necessity for much in the way of
locker rooms , showers and the amenities that go with them, such as
saunas , steam baths and exercise rooms. Rare is the public golf
course clubhouse in which facilities such as these are anything more
' than a waste of space and money.
Public golf clubhouse facilities range from the temporary mobile home
' at one end to a major municipal recreation center at the other. In
the former, frequently a stopgap measure at 9-hole courses before
any permanent structure has been erected, there would be enough room
for the operator to collect green fees , sell a few items of equipment ,
' set up several vending machines and provide a restroom. The recre-
ation center, which is becoming more popular in connection with
municipal golf courses , may serve the needs of a large community with
' meeting rooms , game rooms , areas for crafts and hobbies , and facilities
to serve a swimming pool, tennis courts and other sports areas..
In recent years federal funding for municipal recreation has been siphoned
away from single purpose facilities such as golf courses and swimming
pools toward multiple-use facilities which incorporate the some-
thing-for-everyone concept. This obviously will have a large bearing
on the nature of municipal clubhouse architecture in the future.
In considering golf only, there are minimum space requirements for a
public course facility'. Where crowded conditions are apt to exist ,
there could be as many as 60 to 80 golfers waiting to tee off. Many
of them will be around the practice range or practice green, but many
others will want to be inside visiting, having a snack or a drink or
shopping for equipment or clothing. Add to these the 20 to 40 golfers
who have finished their rounds of golf and are lingering for refresh-
ments and fellowship.
The lounging facility, therefore , must take into consideration the
non-sport needs of the players. It is falseeconomy to provide the
absolute minimum of facilities necessary to collect fees , sell golf
A-2
' balls and provide restrooms. The lounging area around a municipal
or daily fee course can often be a source of pleasure to the users
and certainly a source of income to the owners or concessionaires if
put to proper use.
The clubhouse architect must decide how much loun in space he will
allocate for users who might be waiting in the clubhouse during a
sudden rain shower or for any other reason. It can hardly be the
20 square feet per person provided for luxurious seating in a private
club , nor can it be "standing room only," or about four square feet.
' As a rule of thumb , provision should be made for accommodating about
half of those people seated and half standing.
DAILY FEE BUILDINGS VARY
' In a daily fee operation, the owner can designate design in whatever
form he feels will properly accommodate the type clientele his course
will attract. That is , he may want to provide for a coffee shop
instead of a full dining room or vice versa. He may want a large and
sumptuous lounge if the liquor business is going to play a large role
in his total operation or merely a smaller space in which to store and
dispense bottled beer. Normally, he will want a reasonably large pro
shop for the display of hard and soft goods since, if this is not his
own business , it will help him in attracting a competent professional
who will want to stock and sell his own inventory.
Some locker room space might be made available , particularly if the
owner expects to sell "memberships" or annual fees and to cater to a
number of regular customers. This might include three or four showers
for the convenience of his regulars and, in some cases , up to 100
lockers. It is imperative , however, that the owner predetermine the
type of operation he will conduct and ascertain the need for lockers.
If he does not, he may find himself with a great deal of wasted space
and much unnecessary expense.
The same is true in the provision for golf club storage and cleaning
or repair facilities. Many daily fee courses , particularly those
' with annual members and private club characteristics , will have a
number of regular players who will want to store their equipment at
the course and expect the pro and his staff to keep them in good repair.
Others will have .no need whatsoever for this service. Management can
pretty well dictate this policy by the space and facilities it provides .
In any case, the daily-fee operation probably is more functional if
' all is placed under a single roof with facilities so arranged that a
minimum of personnel will be able to "mind the store. " Not infre-
quently in a smaller operation the professional is alone to sell green
fees , dispense beverages , cook hamburgers , try to make equipment sales
and control play all at the same time. Obviously, he must be able to
do this in a compact area with a good command of all facilities as well as
the golf course itself.
SEPARATE AREAS FOR CONCESSIONS
' On the other hand, the municipal clubhouse and sometimes the larger
daily-fee operation might be better designed with separate areas.
Very often two or three different concessionaires are involved in
the operation of a municipal course, each conducting a separate
business requiring its own personnel , equipment , security measures
and utilities.
A municipal golf course, for example , might provide a separate station
or room for the starter, usually a municipal employee responsible for
collecting all green fees and controlling play. The golf shop would
be a self-contained unit for the display, storage and sale of equip-
ment with an office from which the professional could conduct his
business. Still another area would house the food and beverage ser-
vice, . possibly with separate entry as well as service doors for
suppliers. If locker room and showers are included in the complex,
they might be situated in still another separate and distinct area or
structure.
' One well-arranged municipal clubhouse in California provides for all
of these facilities under one roof, but with separate sections connected
only by breezeways. The municipality provides only the bare building,
L leasing out each separate area to a concessionaire who is obliged to
provide his own fixtures , equipment, inventory and personnel and
operates on a percentage-of-income lease basis.
In most cases where space permits , the single-level clubhouse is prob-
ably the most logical and efficient for a daily fee or municipal
' operation. Where the clubhouse is situated on the side of a hill,
however , the square footage of the structure can be increased immensely
without adding to roof area by the construction of lower levels to
accommodate such elements as golf car and club storage , locker rooms ,
general storage areas and other service facilities.
This type of structure can often provide the golf shop , lounge or
' dining room areas with sweeping vistas of the golf course, adding to
the general appeal. It can also provide access at a lower and some-
times hidden level for storage and service facilities with less
eye-appeal.
While there are many old multi-level clubhouses in the country, very
few new facilities are being built on a two-story plan. It is true
that under certain circumstances an upstairs banquet or meeting room
might serve a given situation well in separating formal and informal
activities. But few daily fee or municipal operations have much call
for such facilities.
I
1 CONVERTING OLD BUILDINGS
Often the developer of a daily fee golf course and, in rare cases ,
even municipal officials , will find there is an existing structure
on the property which might be converted into a clubhouse. This may
be a large old home or even a well-kept barn. Before any buildings
on property earmarked for a new golf course are torn down, the
possibility of their renovation should be thoroughly explored. But
to turn an old building into a maintenance shop or a storage shed
is one thing and to remodel it into a clubhouse is another.
It is just as important that an architect be consulted for remodeling
as for original design. He is needed first to determine the
structural soundness of the existing building and whether or not it
•� represents genuine economy to remodel rather than to build from
scratch. Once he has decided that the existing building will offer
economic advantages as well as adding to the charm and attractiveness
of the total project, the architect can set about turning it into a
functional golf center.
' Just as the preservation of large old trees gives a new golf course
the appearance of fitting comfortably into its surroundings , the
preservation of old structures may give many new golf facilities a
charming look of maturity.
` Summing up , it is important that the planners of a golf project have
a clear image of what type of facility it will become, what type of
' golfer it will serve and what services are feasible to offer him be-
fore commissioning the design of the clubhouse. The over-built clubhouse
can become an economic drain and a white elephant for the public golf
operator. But the under-built clubhouse can retard the growth and
success of the business .
Just as it is advisable in developing a golf course to obtain extra
' land for future expansion or development , it is often a wise course
to plan' clubhouse development in stages as the demand for space and
service grows. Here again, the skill of the architect is needed.
L Superimposing the projected needs over the immediate , he can design a
clubhouse to be built in logical, economic steps over a period of time
and maintain the appearance of a finished product through the entire
expansion process.
AMPLE PARKING NECESSARY
Finally, the exterior of the clubhouse in terms of parking areas and
landscaping should also be a vital concern to the owners. The municipal
golf course operator will want an abundance of surfaced parking spaces ,
perhaps 250 to 300 or more , with a good traffic flow pattern to
facilitate the movement of golfers into and away from the course. The
number of spaces , of course, will be determined by whether the clubhouse
also houses or supports other recreational facilities or meeting rooms .
If it does , several acres of parking might be indicated.
A-5
The daily fee operator probably will be able to make do with fewer
parking spaces since his usually is a single-purpose facility and
normally not as busy. However , in situations where the restaurant
or bar has also become a popular place for golfers and non-golfers
alike, his parking needs may be doubled. For example, a service or
civic club might hold weekly luncheons at the clubhouse on days when
play is heavy, creating a parking problem unless ample spaces are
available. Where these circumstances exist or are expected 400 or
more spaces must be planned.
Landscaping can contribute greatly to the general enjoyment of the
' golfing experience for the customer. It can also add to maintenance
expense if overdone. Here again, the concentration of traffic will
have a bearing. Municipal courses probably are better served by large
surfaced areas to accommodate heavy foot, pull cart and power car
traffic. Where the practice green can be worked into and between
surfaced path areas , the general beauty- of the surroundings is
enhanced. But such areas as flower and shrubbery patches are rarely
practical around municipal clubhouses.
Daily fee courses , on the other hand, can incorporate as much beauti-
fication outside the clubhouse as the owner desires and considers
necessary to attract and please his customers. It can be just such
subtle extra touches that enable the daily fee operator to compete
' with municipal courses while offering his clientele some of the
atomosphere of a country club.
OL
t
t.
L3 :
k'
When R Is not feasible to situde a muNdpal clubhouse so as to proelds a load control poo for play from the Eafl Shop,a etarW$Stand an be
an eaallant,tmcthMl and ewn abracflss arwe r.This one,at the Eastwood Municipal OC,R I A t r,ohm.,Is afluated some distance from the
clubhouse but between the 1st and 10th teas,enabl"the starter to maintain a smooth flow of play.A drawback to this system Is the necessity of
additional personnel.
Edmund Orgill Golf Course A-6
Millington,
Bolognai
Memphis,
Native alone,concrete pillars and circular
design produce attractive and serviceable
clubhouse of average size for this coun- 7
ty."n*d course.All needed faciliti"are 3
provided on a single level and under one
roof, except a starter's booth near to". 8
Indentstions In the circle offer P0831blll-
it" for future expansion. Interior has 4
anily-maintainod surfaces and ample
10 as
1. Poll cart momps
2. 00100
3. loan's locker room
4. mon-S Sholwars and toilets
a. women-S restroom
4. Snack bar
7 Food serVift 1000
8: pro
9. storage
to sischanical equipment
I,: Go"car storage
If
AC
In I
�S
� ..
m
...
r
rs g »��77TT
��-�� r... 11.1 -! iii � �• \
- `.,a,Q < _ `• .� , sal#y t •
F
A-7
1. Terrace
8�aIN
a Pre
•NrY1eN
a. Wemar�i'e•netreom
T. neboom
a. Goll ur plekup aMlter
1
r
i
Z s
a
--------------
3
- _-_-_-3 4 B
Category:
*4unicipal
General obligation bands o1 $110,000 paid for this straightforward
Weatherwax Golf Course structure bunt in 1972 to serve $8 holes of "N. It measures 5,840
Middletown, Ohio 80uars feet,Including• large basement storage and service garage
for W 9011 sen. Elated setting provides a vies, at first tee and
Architect: Brandenburg and Switzer finishing grown of each separate nine holes, large lake and practice
green.Simple, uncluttered plan provides priority apecas and allows
Middletown, Ohio for operation by minknum staff in$lack periods.
I
IQuail Creek Golf Course
North Liberty, Iowa
' Architect: Moore Design Center
Iowa City, Iowa
' 1. Snack bar dining was / 2 \\
1 Food preparation was I \ 1
S. Pro shop
e. Business 011ie.
S. Mes's lockers and shorn I
a. woman's lockers and skewers
T. Professional's oelce
a. Mechanical and storage I
9. Food supply$WOO@
10. Living quw%M t 6
7
4 g
5 10
Pro shop forms the hub of this pian which
separates dining area, locker rooms and
living quarters formanager In three- - e
element arrangement within a circle. Ex-
tedor picture, taken from 90111 course
aide,shows sweeping use Of glaas to pro-
ride risibility and control from pro shop,
' and effWlw, modernistic use of stone
and beams. Some stonework and
beamed ceignge dominate Interior decor.
L_
�7
1 A-3
SUGGESTED STORAGE SHED LAYOUT
1 FOR 50 GOLF CARS
1 (Courtesy of Club Car, Inc. )
1 SEE NDTE NO 6 SEE NOTE NO.6
SEE NOTE NO 6
' 6F
0&0 O O O O
. _ SEE NOTE N0.2 _
SECTION-A A
1
1
60�-0
1 _ rear door
optional
SERVICE AREA
1 f5 -Cr
Tr P)
75,-O"
1
(over)
1 National Golf Foundation,Inc. • 2wend Drive 0 North Palm Beach,Florida 33408 0 AC 305-8042500
A-10
' NOTES:
' 1. Layout shown is based on a 60' by 75' standard size prefabricated
metal building.
2. Cars are stored 12" from wall with 12" between cars. Bumpers for
rear wheels should be installed on floor as shown to prevent damage
to cars and building walls.
3. Aisles should be a minimum of 9' to provide easy entrance and exit,
and to allow for passing in aisle.
' 4. All buildings must be properly ventilated to keep the hydrogen level
below 2 per cent. The volume of air in the building should be changed
5 times per hour. Extreme care must be taken to put exhaust fans at .
the highest point of the roof. Gases can accumulate in,cupolas,
penthouses, dormers, etc. and are explosive. All ventilation systems
should be designed by a local HVAC engineering firm.
' S. Separate 20 amp circuits should be provided for each charger.
However, electrical codes vary from area to area and must be
adhered to in installation.
' 6. Chargers should be shelf-mounted approximately 6' from the floor.
These shelves should be a minimum of 12" deep.
7. There should always be two entrances to the car storage area; one '
for incoming cars and one for outgoing cars.
8. A wash rack should be provided to clean each car as it comes is
from the golf course.
' 9. There should be as few supports in the roof of the golf car shed
as possible to prevent possible damage to cars.
A-11
301 CMR: EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
301 CMR 5.00: URBAN SELF-HELP PROGRAM -
' Section
5.01: General Provisions
5.02: Planning Requirements
5.03: Project Policies, Allowable Costs
5.04: Assurances
5.05: Application Step Procedures
5.08: Post-Completion Responsibilities
5.07: Conversions
' 5.08: Relationship to the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Program
5.09 through 5.98: Reserved
5.99: Appendix
5.01: General Provisions
' (1) Definitions.
Act means Chapter 933, Acts of 1977, as amended. _
Applicant means a Commission which has applied to the Division for a grant
under the Program.
Commission mons a park, playground or recreation commission or any
' - combination thereof as authorised by M.G.L. c. 45, or conservation
commission as authorized by M.G.L. c. 40, s. 8c.
Director means the Director of the Division.
Division means. the Division of Conservation Services.
Participant means a Commission whose preliminary application for a grant
under the Program has been approved.
_ Program means the Urban Self-Help Program created by the Acta
Project means the acquisition, restoration or rehabilitation of land subject to
reimbursement by a grant under the Program.
Regional Usage means usage of a recreational facility which serves s regional
' population of at lost 35,000 people, as determined from the most recent state '
census data, who reside within a circle having a radius of 25 miles of which
' the facility is the center. - -
SCORP (State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan) is a report which
id- ewes through public input open space and recreation needs statewide
and strategies for addressing these needs.
' Secretary mons the Secretary of the Executive Office of Environmental
Affairs.
Statewide Usage means usage of recreational facility which is located within
one .hour driving tine from more than one Metropolitan Statistical Area;
-_. provided, how war, that it shall also be deemed ,to mean usage of a
recreational facility on Nantucket Island, Martha's Vineyard and the towns of _
Provincetown, Truro, Wallflest, Eastham, Orleans and Chatham.
(2) Autho ' 301 CMR 5.00 has been approved by the Secretary and is
promulgated -y the Director pursuant to the authority granted to him under
the Act and M.G.L. c. 21A, s. 2.
' (3) Pu se.
(a These regulations are promulgated to clarify the provisions of the
Act and to establish uniform grant procedures and requirements.
(b) These regulations complement the Act and have the force of law. .
(4) Eligibility. ,
(a) A Commission in any town with a population of more than 35,000
year-round inhabitants or in any city regardless of size is eligible to
1
' A-12
301 CMR: EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
5.01: continued
participate in the Program. The most recently Published state wide
census shall be used to determine whether a town's populations excWfitz
---35,000 year-round inhabitants.
(b) The Secretary may waive the town population requirement for a
Project with Regional or Statewide Usage. Any applicant from a town with
a Population of 35,000 or fewer year-round inhabitants shall submit
evidence satisfactory to the Secretary that the Project will have Regional
or Statewide Usage.
(c) Any such proposed project, to be eligible for grants pursuant to this
program, must involve a recreational facility that conforms to the
following additional requirements and to other -requirements of these
regulations:
1. The facilities must provide adequate comfort stations and outlets
' for potable water, consistent with the standards and ratios contained
in the state plumbing code and with a design capacity to accommodate
peak user population as indicated by the public ,transportation and
parking accommodations.
' 2. The project must Provide parking facilities to accommodate at.least
100 vehicles (at least 200 vehicles in the case of a facility with
Statewide Usage) and must include handicap spaces. The Director may
waive these requirements, however, if direct access to a Public
transportation route with regularly scheduled hourly service is
' available at the Project site.
3. In general, a facility with Regional Usage may Provide multiple
opportunities for pitnicing, walking, canoeing, boating, .fishing,
children's recreation, and swimming. A facility with Statewide Usage
may provide for the above opportunities but will also provide for more
' dispersed or uncommon opportunities such as equestrian trail use,
overnight camping, nature center programs, golf, group Picnicing,
/ large beach use, skiing and live animal yiewing such as zoos.
(d) Program grants are avaijabie for projects to acquire, undertake new
construction, or restore or rehabilitate land for park and outdoor
- recreation purposes. Restoration or rehabilitation Projects may include
construction related to the restoration or rehabilitation.
(a) To be eligible for assistance, cities and towns must be in compliance
with the Affirmative Action Regulations of the Executive Office of
Enviromental Affairs, 301 CMR 50.00, and Executive Order No. 215,
misting to local housing polities and state development assistance.
5.02: Planning Requirement
(1) No application will be considered by the Division until the Applicant has
filed an acceptable open space and recreation plan, or has certified that a
plan in underway.
(2) The planning requirements in effect at the time of the publication of
•these regulations appear in the Division's Self-help regulations, 301 CMR
7.00.
5.03: Proiect Policies, Allowable Costs
(1) All participants shall provide for fair and equitable treatment of persons
and businesses to be displaced as a result of the Project. Participants shall
abide by the requirements of M.G.L. c. 79A as amended. Titles 11 and III of
the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Act
of 1970 (P.L. 91-646) shall be complied with if the participant is seeking
toneurrent fede90 financial assistance or if subsequent development stages
am contemplated with the use of federal funds.
. ' (2) All reasonable costs associated with the Project shall be eligible for
reimbursement. Costs for appraisals, title searches, surveys, recording
fees, costs associated with 301 CMR 5.03(1) as well as the actual approved
purchase price, engineering, design and constructtion supervision are
' deemed to be eligible Project costs. The Secretary shall retain the right,
however, to set a fixed limit on the reimbursement of Project costs.
(3) Federal funding sources such as Community Development Block Grants
or Revenue Sharing which are deemed by the federal government to be local
1 A-1
301 CMR: EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
5.03: continued
'
moneymaybe used to match program funds. However, as required by law,
reimbursement under the program will occur only after the Participant has
expended an amount equal to the total cost of the project.
(4) Commissions shall apply concurrently for assistance under the federal
Land and Water Conservation Fund whenapplying for a program grant, to
enable the Division to combine funding sources for projects.
(5) All Properties to be acquired shall be appraised in accordance with the
Division's requirements. The appraisal requirements in effect at the time of
the Publication of these regulations appear in the Division's Self-Help
regulations, 301 CMR 7.00. The Director shall Provide a current copy of the
applicable requirements to any interested Person upon request.
' (6) Only projects which are to be developed for suitable outdoor recreation
purposes shall be considered for funding. Structures in parks must be
consistent with M.G.L. c. 45, s. 7. Structures in other areas will have no
such limitations. However, structures not in direct support of the outdoor
recreation facility will not be allowed. Examples of such eligible facilities are
comfort stations, field houses, maintenance buildings, bathouses,
interpretative buildings, gazebos, contact stations, and related parking
facilities. - Participants shall agree to cause the property to be usable for
such purposes within a reasonable period of tints.
' (7) In Project areas where public transportation is unavailable or existing
parking is inadequate, off-street Parking may be required, in the discretion
of the Director.
' (8) The annual filing deadline shall be July 1st of each year unless Public
notice to the contrary is given to 411 potential applicants by the Director at
least 90 days before the change. -
5.04: Assurances
(1) Each Applicant shall certify that:
(a) The Applicant possesses legal authority to apply for the grant and to
' - finance and construct the proposed facilities;
(b) A resolution, motion or similar action 'has been duly adopted or
Passed as an official act of the Applicant's governing body which:
1. authorizes the filing of the application, including all
understandings and assurances contained therein; and
2: directs and authorizes the person identified as the official
representative of the Applicant to act in connection with the
application and to provide such additional information as may be
required. -
' (21 Each Applicant shall give, the Division through any authorized
representative access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers,
documents or other data related to the Program grant.
' (3) Each 'Participant shall cause work on the Project to be commenced within
a reasonable time after receipt of notification from the Division that funds
have been- approved and shall Prosecute the Project to completion with
ress enable diligence.
(4) Each Participant shall require the Project to be designed to comply with
the Massachusetts Architectural Barrier Board Rules and Regulations,"
521 CMR 3.00, and with the "American Standard Specifications for Making
Buildings and Facilities Accessible to, and Usable by, the Physically
' Handicapped," ANSI A117.1-1961(R 1980) or Uniform Federal Accessability
Standards (UFAS) 41 CFR 101 at sec., as amended from time to time. and
other relevant and- successor federal regulations and shall conduct
inspections to insure compliance with these specifications by the contractor.
In case of any confQct with the foregoing two standards, the Participant
' shall require the Project to be designed to comply with the standard which
Provides easier access.
(5) Each Participant shall operate and maintain the Project in accordance _
' 301 CMR: EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
5.04: continued
with the minimum standards as may be required or prescribed by the
applicable federal, state and local agencies for the maintenance and operation
of such facilities.
(6) The Participant shall not dispose of or encumber its tjtie or other ^
interests in the Project site except as permitted under 301 CMR 5.07.
' 5.05: Application Step Procedures
(1) Step 1. Commission requests Program preliminary application form from
the Director before purchasing land (in the case of a project involving land
acquisition) or before undertaking construction (in the case of all other
Projects) and ascertain deadline for filing the application. The application
form in effect at the time of the publication of these regulations appears in
' Appendix A for the convenience of the public. The Director shall provide 1
current preliminary application form to any interested person at no charge.
Also, Commission submits articles to be placed before City Council or in
Town Warrant to the Division for review before Town Meeting or City Council
' vote after consulting municipal counsel in drafting the article or order. The
article shall describe the Project and, in the case of a Project involving land
acquisition shall cite the particular parcel or parcels to be acquired. The
article shall contain authorization to seek funding under the Act and to enter
into any contracts therefor. Similar authorization is necessary for federal
' Land and Water Conservation Fund and state Self-Help Fund assistance.
(2) Step 2. Commission files complete preliminary application in triplicate
with the Director before purchasing land (in the case of a project involving
land acquisition) or before undertaking construction (in the case of all other
projects). Applicant also provides evidence satisfactory to the Director that
a public meeting was held presenting the project and that a response has
been made to any opposition to the Project. No incomplete preliminary
applications will be accepted.
- (3) Stop 3.. Preliminary application assigned by Director to Assistant
Regional Forests and Parks Supervisor for field examination.
In Emergency cases involving land acquisition in which the land must be
acquired prior to approval action, the Director may grant permission to
' proceed with an acquisition Project provided a field examination has been
completed and a complete preliminary application has been submitted to the
Division. This clearance to proceed with acquisition in no way obligates the
Commonwealth to fund the Project. No such preliminary approval will be
given by the Division for construction Projects.
' (4) Step 4. Interagency review and priority rating by the Division and
Open Project Selection Committee. Consultations with the Commission, if
necessary. Priority ratings shall be assigned to each Project utilizing the
' criteria which are found in Appendix F.
(5) Step S. Preliminary application reviewed and approved or rejected by
Secretary. -
' (6) St_6. Project approval. Final application, billing forms and Project
Agreement for approved Projects sent to Participant. .The forms in effect at
the time of the publication of these regulations appear in Appendices A. C,
D, and F, for the convenience of the public. The Director may alter any of -
these documents from time to time. The Director shall provide current copies
of these forms to any interested person at no charge. Funds are obligated at
this Stop 6 for approved Projects. Preliminary applications which are not
approved are returned to commission with brief explanation of why the
Projects were rejected and rKrrnnmendations, if any, regarding resubmission.
(7) Step T. Town or city votes to appropriate, expend from available
funds, or borrow an amount equal to the total cost of the Project stated in
the application. A city or town may vote to borrow funds in anticipation of
state or federal reimbursement prior to receiving agreement of
reimbursement; however, the borrowing cannot actually take place until state
A-) 5
301 CMR: EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
' - 5.05: continued
_ or federal consent of reimbursement has been given. Municipal vote of
approval may take place. prior to Step 1 (301 CMR 5.05(l)), but the
Commission must ensure proper compliance with these regulations before
aS-t�e r_2 (301 CMR 5.05(2)) takes Place. Approval in Step 6 (301 CMR
5.05(6)) may be withdrawn if Participant's vote fails or if Participant
exhibits lack of progress in obtaining such vote or in meeting time shcedules
established as Part of approval conditions.
(8) Step 8. Participant files final application, including final site
' development plans, final boundary Plan of site, find construction Plans, all
required permits, signed project agreement and evidence satisfactory to the
Director of the vote required by Step 7 (301 CMR 5.05(7)].
(9) Step 9. Purchase takes place or construction starts having received
' - Town Meeting or City Council and Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
approvals.
(10) Step 10. Billing form filed with Division after Project completed. The
following documents, in duplicate, must accanpany the billing form:
(a) For Land Acquisitionm act&:
1. Certified copy of deed or order of taking, as recorded. The
grantee clause of all deeds granting lands or interest therein to cities
.and towns in which the Commission is applying for Urban Self-Help
' funds shall contain the fillowing "... hereby grant(s) to the city/town
of through its commission 'for
sdmimstntion, control and maintenance under the provisions of
General Laws, ChapterSection as amended with
convenants the land in bounded and -
deras o lows-." -
2. Municipal counsel's certification of title (statement relative to the
condition of the title). The porticipant must receive clear title to all
property.. .
3. Vote of Town Meeting or.city Council authorizing the purchase of
- said parcels of land.
4. Attested statement of the City or Town Treasurer indicating the
amount of poyment, data paid and authority of payment together with a
photocopy of the cancelled check or checks. In cases of owner
unknown or refusal to accept pro tanto payment; the treasurer shall .
certify M.G.L. c. 79, s. 70.
5. Evidence of compliance with M.G.L. e. 79A as amended and P:L.
91-646, if applicable.
6. Copy of recorded Urban Self-Halp Project Agreement. A copy of
' this contract must be recorded at the Registry of Deads either at the
same time the dead for land comprising the Project is recorded or later
as an adjunct to the dead.
7. As acquired plan of land (survey is desirable but not essential).
' 8. Evidence, in the form of a photograph, that a permanently fixed
sign, which identifies the Project as a cooperative venture between the
Commission and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts under the
Program, is in place at a prominent access point to the Project- site.
This sign must be constructed of sturdy material to be permanent and
must be large enough to be clearly visible.
(b) F%Constrvetien Proieets:
1. JW_;idvertissanant, which must include reference to Program
assistance and Project number.
' 2. Canvass of bids.
3.. Notice of sward.
4. Notice of proceed.
5. Signed contracts for construction and design, if not previously
submitted.
.' 6. Copies of front and back sides of cancelled checks with Project
name and number included) attached to construction and design
invoices and a Professionally prepared audit prepared at the
Participant's expense. All checks must be arranged in chronol6cical
order beginning with the earliest payment to most recent regardless
' - of whom the Check ,s for. A Cost recap sheet should precede the
invoices and show the name of the vendor, date of check, check
1 A-1 6
' 301 CMR: EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
5.05: continued
number, and check amount. If the reimbursement documentation does
not include the above it will be returned for corrections.
7. Copies of all change orders. -
6.Written acceptance of the work by Participant.
9. Evidence in the form of a photograph, that a permanently fixed
sign, which identifies the Project as a cooperative venture between the
Commission and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts under the
Program, is in place at a prominent access point to the Project site.
This sign must be constructed of sturdy material to be permanent and
' must be large enough to be clearly visible.
10. As built engineering plan.
11. A list of facilities developed.
12. Park boundary plan of land. -
(11) Ste�11. Billing form and documents an reviewed by the Director for
any changes from the Project application. For .construction Projects, a final
Inspection is conducted by a field representative.
' (12) Step 12. Director reports to Secretary and requests approval to make
payments.
(13) Step 13. Invoice prepared and submitted for payment.
' - (14). Stop 14. Payment made to municipality.
5.06: Post-Completion Responsibilities
(1) Operation and Maintenance. Property acquired or developed with
Program assistance shall be operated and maintained as follows:
(a) The property shall bc- maintained so as to appear attractive and
inviting to the public.
(b) Sanitation and sanitary facilities shall be maintained in accordance
with applicable health standards.
(c) Properties shall be kept reasonabley safe for public use. Fin
prevention, lifeguard, and similar activities shall be maintained for proper
public safety.
(d) Buildings, roads, trails, and otherstructures and improvements
shall be kept in reasonable repair throughout their estimated lifetime to
prevent undue deterioration and to encourage public use.
(e) The facility shall be kept open for public use at reasonable hours
ane Limp of the year, according to the type of area or facility.
' (2) Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Race Color National Origin, Reli-
gion, or ex. Property acquired or developed with ogram assistance shall
be open to entry and use by all persons who art otherwise eligible regardless
of nu, color, national origin, religion, sex or physical handicaps.
(3) Nondiscrimination on the Basis o/ Residence.
(a) With respect to property acquired or developed with Program
assistance, discrimination on the basis of residence, including preferential
' ressi"ation, membership or annual permit systems, is prohibited except to
the extent that reasonable differences in admission and other fees may be
maintained on the basis of residence. I ,
(b) Fees charged to nonresidents cannot exceed twice this* charged to
residents. Where then is no charge for residents but a fel is charged to
nonresidents, nonresident fees cannot exceed fees charged for residents
at comparable federal, state or local public facilities. Reservation,
membership or annual permit systems available to residents must also be
available to nonresidents and the period of availability must be the same
for both residents and nonresidents.
' (4) Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap. No qualified person shall.
on the basis of handicap, be excluded from participationin, be denied
benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination regarding entry or
use of property acquired or deveioped with Program assistance.
(5) Reasonable Use Limitations. Participants may impose reasonable limits
on the type and extent of use of areas and facilities acquired or developed
A-17
t
' 301 CMR: EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
5.00: continued
' with Program assistance when such a limitation is necessary for maintenance
or preservation. Thus, limitations may be imposed on the numbers of
persons using an area or facility or the type of users, such as "hunters
only" or "hikers only." All limitations shall be in accord with the applicable.
' Program contract.
5.07: Conversion
Property acquired or developed with Program assistance shall be retained
' and used for public outdoor recreation. Any property so acquired or
developed shall not be wholly or partly converted to other than public
outdoor recreation uses without the approval of the Director. Any substitute
property shall be of at least equal fair market value and of resonably
' equivalent usefulness. The Director has authority to disapprove conversion
requests and to reject proposed property substitutions.
(1) Conversion applies bility. Conversions generally occur In the following
'four situations:
(a) Property interests am conveyed for non-public outdoor recreation _
uses.
(b) Nen-outdoor recreation uses (public or private) are made of the
Project area, or a portion thereof.
(c) Non-eligible indoor recreation facilities are developed within the
Project area.
(d) Public outdoor recreation use of property acquired or developed with .
Program assistance is terminated.
' (2) Exceptions. The following two situations do not constitute conversions:
(a Underground utility easements that do not have significant impacts
upon the recreational utility of tho Project will not constitute a
` conversion.
(b) Proposals to construct public facilities when It an be shown that
' then is a gain or increased benefit to public recreational opportunity will
not constitute a conversion. Fianl review and approvalof such cases
shall be made on a case by case basis by the Director.
(3) Pmreguisitiea to Consideration of Conversions. The Division will only
' consider conversion requests if the toilowing prerequisites have been met:
(a) All practical alternatives to tho conversion have been evaluated and
rejected by the applicant.
(b) The fair market value of the property to be converted has been
established and the property proposed for substitution is of at least equal
fair maket value as established by an appraisal of both properties
approved by the Division in accordance with its appraisal requirements in
effect (a" 301 CMR 5.03(5)1. Property improvements shall be excluded
from all fair market value consideration for properties to be substituted.
' - Exceptions are allowable only in those cases when property Proposed for
substitution contains improvements which directly enhance its outdoor
recreation utility.
(e) The property proposed for replacement is of reasonably equivalent
' usefulness and loction as that being converted. Dependent upon the
situation and at the discretion of the Director, the replacement property
need notprovide identical recreation experiences or be located at the
same sitr, provided it is in a ressonabley equivalent location. It must,
however, be administered by the same political jurisdiction as the
' converted property. -
(4) The property proposed for substitution meets the eligibility
requirements for Program assisted acquisition. The replacement property
must constitute or be part of a viable recreation area.
(e) All necessary coordination with other State and local agencies has
' been satisfactorily accomplished.
(f) The proposed conversion and substitution am in accord with the
SCORP.
(g) Staff consideration of the above points reveals no mason, for
' disapproval and the project lilts are so documented.
(h) It should also be noted that the acquisition of one parcel of land may
be used in satifsction of several approved conversions. However,
previously acquired property cannot be used to satisfy substitution
requirements.
p
A-1 c
301 CMR: EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
' 5.08: Relationship to the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program
' (1) Plans prepared and approved pursuant to these regulations will also
qualify for state certified municipal harbor plans, provided they comply with
regulations promulgated by the Coastal Zone Management Office (CZM) at
301 CMR 20.09.
' (2) These regulations insofar as they apply to projects in the coastal sone
are intended to be consistent with and form part of the Massachusetts Coastal
Zone Management Program, as established by the CZM office pursuant to
M.G.L. a. 21A, s. 2 and regulations adopted at 301 CMR 20.09.
' (3) These regulations of the Division, however are adopted independently
of and do not depend for their forces and effect on the CZM Program of the
CZM Regulations.
' 5.08: Severability
The previsions of 301 CMR are serverable, and if any provision or the.
application thereof is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid,
such invalidity shall not affect any other provision of 301 CMR 5.00.
1