2008-12-15-CPC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Community Preservation Committee Monday, December 15, 2008 Selectmen’s Meeting Room 4:00 pm Present: Betsey Weiss, Chair; Marilyn Fenollosa, Vice Chair; Joel Adler, Norman Cohen, Jeanne Krieger, Leo McSweeney, Nathalie Rice, Admin. Asst.; and Sandy Shaw. David Kanter, CEC liaison was also present. The meeting was called to order at 4:05 pm. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Town Offices Building Project, various policy issues and to begin to take straw votes on the projects for FY 2010. 1.Photo taken for the Annual Report – David Tabling took photos of the CPC for the Annual Report. Members Wendy Manz and Dick Wolk were absent, and it may be necessary to retake the photos at a later time. 2.Town Offices Building Renovation Project - Mr. Canter updated the Committee on recent progress of the Town Office Building project, stating that the Town had met with the consultant, and that there were divergent views about moving forward with the requested 1.2 million requested from the CPC. He said the design committee was considering requesting only additional design monies, not the full 1.2 million. The CPC had a general discussion of this project, in which the Chairwoman voiced her concern that 1.2 million for upgrades to the interior of the building was a great deal of money in the present economic climate. Ms. Fenollosa also voiced concerns about the project, stating that she did not feel it was an appropriate use of CPA funds and questioned whether the interior renovations could be realistically termed “historic preservation”. Mr. Cohen pointed out that the interior renovations to other structures, such as the Hancock- Clark House, were not all necessary historic in nature. Mr. Adler added that the availability of CPA funds enables the Town to do certain projects at a significant discount, and he questioned whether an important opportunity would be missed if the Town Office project was delayed. 4. Policy Discussion – A general discussion of policy matters ensued. The Committee grappled with the dilemma of increasing numbers of large projects, some of which might not meet the strictest definition of the CPA, against the background of expected dwindling future state matching funds. 1