2011-03-CEC-ATM-rpt - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2011 ATM more-extensive explanation for each of those issues, at this point,we feel it is sufficient to just list them not necessarily in order of importance as follows: 1. As with all owners in any of Lexington's Historic Districts, compliance with an HDC requirement has always been a responsibility of all owners in that development, from day one; 2. The property was sold by the Town without warranty, "as is", and with a re-sale cap; 3. This proposal was to benefit only a fraction of those owners of affected by the window-replacement requirement; 4.Notwithstanding that it was only a fraction of that fraction of the owners who expressed a current interest in benefiting from the proposed loan, the CPC proposed to request the full, original, amount to Town Meeting 5. Although the reluctance of some of the unit owners was reported as their concern about there being a lien placed on their property to ensure repayment of the no-interest loan to the Town upon the sale of the unit; we're told that the Association will, itself, effect the replacement and place its own lien on the unit if not done by the unit owner; 6. The no-interest loan was purported to represent no burden to the Town, but this Committee saw several real burdens to the Town; 7. As the repayment of the loans is only required upon the sale of the unit, such repayment will most likely extend over many, many, years if not decades, and this Committee saw many financial- accounting problems; 8. There was no means test whether even of just income or, more properly, income & assets of the prospective beneficiaries of this public support; 9. It has been said that this assistance is warranted as the beneficiaries are in affordable units, but the request is not being made under the community(affordable)housing category of the CPA and our Town Counsel has advised that category should require such use of the CPF to ensure or enhance the community-housing stock; not to benefit individual owners; 10. There is no external requirement on when to effect the replacement; only an Association requirement; and 11. During the debate at the 2007 ATM on the funding of the Muzzey Condominium Architectural Study (Article 26(1), $53,500 from the CPF), the building windows were explicitly mentioned as an issue that would have to be faced and at the end of the debate, the question was explicitly raised as to whether Town Meeting would, subsequently, be faced with a request to fund the corrective measures identified by that Study and the answer was reasonably taken to be"no". Project Description(CPA Category) Amount Funding Committee Recommends Requested Source (i) Vynebrooke Village Drainage $364,800 CPF (Cash) Approval(5-0) Improvements (Community Housing) "This project follows upon a design study funded in FY 2011 of the drainage problems at this state- funded public housing development. At present, water accumulates around the units and flows into the crawl spaces below the apartments. Each apartment is equipped with a sump pump,but the pumps are not adequate to handle flow from large storm events, and this situation has worsened over the years. This project to preserve community housing would fund the construction of a drainage system around the perimeter of the units that would tie into the storm drain system; a venting system to prevent inflow into the units; and the installation of a dehumidification system in each unit." [Brown Book, Page XI-17]. 35