Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-01-09-CPC-min Minutes of the Community Preservation Committee Monday, January 9, 2012 2:00 PM Ellen Stone Room Cary Memorial Building Present: Board Members: Wendy Manz,Chair; Marilyn Fenollosa, Vice-Chair; Joel Adler, Norman Cohen, Jeanne Krieger, Leo McSweeney, Sandy Shaw, Betsey Weiss and Dick Wolk. Administrative Assistant : Nathalie Rice Also in attendance was David Kanter of the Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC). The meeting was called to order at 2:03 pm. by Ms. Manz. 1.Approval of the Town Report – Ms. Manz asked for any further additions/corrections to the Town Report, which had been distributed the previous week. With no additional comments, the Committee voted (8-0) to approve the Report. (Mr. Wolk had not yet arrived.) 2.Amendments to Projects – Ms. Manz noted that Mr. Goddard, Director of rd Facilities had submitted an amended application on January 3, for the White House Stabilization project. She explained that he had reviewed the demolition costs and found that some of the stabilization costs had been counted as demolition. When the costs breakdown was corrected, the CPC portion of the project (which did not include any demolition costs) came to $232,410 – an addition of $30,410. 3.Straw Votes – Ms. Manz then called for straw votes on the 14 projects that are before the CPC for consideration. The voting is recorded below: a.) Archives and Records Management, (9-0) b.) Center Playfields Drainage, (9-0) c.) Historical Society Records Preservation (9-0) d.) Buckman Tavern HS Report/Restoration Plans, (8-1) e.) Muzzey Senior Center Upgrades, (9-0) f.) Battle Green Master Plan Implementation, (9-0) g.) Visitor Center Renovation/Expansion, (0-9) h.) Cary Memorial Building Upgrades, (7-1) i.) White House Stabilization, (5-3) j.) Paint Mine Barn Preservation, (6-1-1) k.) LexHAB Set-Aside for Housing Acquisition, 1.) With the project “as is” – (4-2-2) 2.) With the funds dedicated to the construction of new single or multiple units on the Leary and/or Busa properties– (6-2) 1 3. (Continued) l.) Greeley Village Accessible Housing Project, (8-0) m.) Land Acquisition – CC-sponsored, vote postponed until next meeting n.) Land Acquisition – Wright Farm, vote postponed until next meeting Regarding the Visitor Center Renovation/Expansion, the CPC noted that it had not received the details on Options 1 (renovations only) and 2 (renovations and limited expansion) as requested. The Committee felt such details would give them a better perspective on the alternatives to the project as presented. They generally agreed that the project should be vetted and sponsored by the Facilities Department, and that appropriate Town participation had not been sufficient. Mr. Adler expressed his views on the project and stated that he would not be voting to pass the project along to Town Meeting. In response to a question, Ms. Fenollosa noted that the Historic Districts Commission (HDC) had not yet taken a position on the project. Mr. Cohen said he felt the Visitor Center needed to be upgraded, but that the project was not yet “ready”. Ms. Weiss echoed this sentiment, stating that it would be irresponsible to vote on the project without reviewing the necessary financial information for the project. Mr. Kanter of the CEC stated his opinion that there is a need for enhancement of the Visitor Center, but that a year delay in the project might be appropriate. The CPC will take its final th vote on this project at its January 18 meeting. The Cary Memorial Upgrades project was also the topic of discussion. Mr. Kanter said he felt the project needed a more thorough review by Town Committees, to which Ms. Fenollosa replied that there had been extensive review by the Permanent Building Committee, the Town Facilities Department and various other stakeholders. She noted that the Historical Commission (HC) and Historic Districts Commission were both in full support of the project, and that this is arguably the most important historic building in Lexington. The renovations proposed are critical to the continued viability of the building, not a “wish list” of desired enhancements. Ms. Shaw stated that the total project cost was not unreasonable given a recent analysis of Hancock Church, which needed upgrades costing $15 million. Ms. Weiss expressed her opinion that the project should not be fragmented. There was a general discussion of the relationship between the D&E request of $550,000 and the subsequent FY14 application for $7.2M. Committee members noted the dilemma of passing the full D&E request for FY13, yet later deciding only to fund priority items in FY14. Regarding the White House Stabilization project, members further discussed the recent increase in the funding request, and the possibility of moving the structure. Ms. Fenollosa reported that the HDC will likely not allow the 2 structure to be moved to a remote site should a request be made to the Commission. She reported that they, and the HC, are in full support of the present project, however. Mr. Adler raised questions regarding the Paint Mine Barn Restoration project. He said he had done a cost analysis of the renovation work, and had come up with a total for the construction costs of $7,600. He said he felt the estimate of $34,770 was extremely high. Members questioned who had put together the request. The cost analysis was compiled by Mr. Goddard and the Minuteman Career and Technical High School Carpentry Lab. There was a lengthy discussion of the LexHAB proposal for Set-Aside Funds. Mr. Cohen reported that he had spoken with Mr. Kennedy, Chairman of LexHAB, and that Mr. Kennedy had said that LexHAB would be agreeable to using the set-aside funds for construction of new units at sites such as the Leary or Busa properties. Ms. Fenollosa voiced her concern about the LexHAB request, stating that since FY08, LexHAB has only contributed 10 units to the Town’s affordable housing stock with CPA funds, while the Lexington Housing Authority (LHA) has benefitted 148 units with their CPA monies.. She also noted that LexHAB contributes very little of its own funds and does not seek grant assistance, thereby eliminating any possibility of leveraging CPA funds. She acknowledged that creation of new affordable housing units was an important goal for the CPC, and suggested that the approval of the Lexington Housing Authority request to construct 4 accessible units might be a better use of CPA funds. Mr. Kanter noted that LexHAB will have leftover monies from the purchase of the Wilson Road home made with last year’s grant of set-aside funds, and that keeping the funding at $450,000 (instead of increasing it to the requested $500,000) for FY13 might be adequate. He added that given the state of the economy and current housing prices, FY13 could also be the year for a hiatus. Ms. Weiss noted that LexHAB may not have undertaken the construction of new scattered-site units because there was little available Town land for doing so. Though she said she understood Ms. Fenollosa’s and Mr. Kanter’s points of view, Ms. Manz said she felt LexHAB had recently shown genuine willingness to work with the Board of Selectmen and CPC to establish units on parcels with pending development plans. She asked for a vote of the Committee (1) for the project as it was submitted, and (2) with the caveat that CPA funds be used to develop new single or multiple units at properties previously purchased with CPA funds (Busa, Leary). There was greater support for approving the LexHAB request if CPA funds were targeted for new unit development. The Committee discussed the Greeley Village Accessible Housing Project, noting its large FY13 request of $1,110,673. While members were discussing the pros and cons of the project, Mr. Sweeney received a call from Steve Keane, Director of the Lexington Housing Authority. Mr. Keane informed Mr. McSweeney, and the Committee, that he had just received word from the 3 Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) that the DHCD had awarded $300,000 in funding for the construction of the accessible units. In light of this news, the Committee’s discussion of the project was favorable. There was no discussion of the two Land Acquisitions, since there were no new developments on either proposal. 4.Presentation of the CPA Financial Model, Mr. Addelson – Mr. Addelson joined the CPC to give a summary of the CPA budget. This included the project costs, of which the Committee was aware, and more importantly, the projected revenue. Mr. Addelson explained that the revenue projections were based upon a property surcharge estimate of $3,493,000; a State Match estimate of $768,000 (at 23%); and projected investment income of $17,000. This totaled to $4,278,000, which then determined the 10% amounts for each of the designated “buckets”. After allocating all the FY13 project costs to the appropriate buckets, Mr. Addelson’s model showed that if all FY13 projects were funded, the remaining unspent CPA balance would be approximately $815,653. Part of this total was due to the fact that $499,970 would be turned back to the Open Space bucket at the end of FY12 from the Town Meeting appropriation of Article 8(k) for $1,300,000 in debt service payments for Cotton Farm. (The Town was reimbursed $500,000 in the form of a State LAND (Local Acquisitions for Natural Diversity) grant for this acquisition.) Relative to the possible acquisition of the Wright Farm, Mr. Addelson also showed the projected first year Debt Service Payments on a possible $4M land acquisition. Such payments would be $960,000 for a 5-year bond, and $560,000 for a 10-year bond. When questioned by Mr. Kanter and Committee members, Mr. Addelson said it would be likely that the acquisition cost of a large land purchase would be BANned the first year, resulting in a relatively small outlay of funds in FY13. (This scenario is favorable to the CPC, since all remaining debt (from Busa and Cotton Farms) will be retired in FY13.) 5.Policy Discussion regarding the CPA Reserve – While Mr. Addelson was still in attendance, Ms. Manz raised the topic of the CPC’s policy of keeping approximately $2M of CPA funds in reserve. She said she felt there was a need for this discussion, since the CPC reserve would fall to $800,000+- if all the FY13 projects were approved. She noted that the reason for a large reserve was partly to be able to move quickly on conservation acquisitions – a need she commented might be unnecessary since large acquisitions are customarily bonded. Mr. Kanter suggested that the CPC might table this discussion until th after the Committee made its final votes on January 18. He suggested the Committee could see “where it came out”, and then might have a better indication of the true reserve balance. Ms. Fenollosa questioned Mr. Wolk if there were any other large conservation acquisitions planned in the near 4 future, to which he replied that he did not believe there were. Members agreed to postpone the discussion of the CPA reserve until the next meeting. 6.Future Meetings – Members scheduled the next CPC meeting for th Wednesday, January 18 at 1:00 The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 PM. The following documents were presented at the meeting: (1)“Town of Lexington – FY 2013-FY2014 Capital Improvement Projects, White House Stabilization” dated 19-Sep-09 with a revision date of 03-Jan” (2)“FY13 CPA PROJECTS AND ACCOUNT BALANCES” dated 010912. (3)And, an untitled CPC budget analysis submitted by Rob Addelson, Assistant Town Manager of Finance. Respectfully submitted, Nathalie Rice Administrative Assistant Community Preservation Committee 5