Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-12-05-CPC-min Minutes of the Community Preservation Committee Monday, December 5, 2011 3:00 pm Legion Room Cary Memorial Building Present: Board Members: Wendy Manz,Chair; Joel Adler, Norman Cohen, Marilyn Fenollosa, Vice-Chair, Jeanne Krieger, Sandy Shaw, Betsey Weiss, Dick Wolk. Leo McSweeney arrived at 3:45. Administrative Assistant : Nathalie Rice Also in attendance were David Kanter of the Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC), and Town resident Bob Pressman. The meeting was called to order at 3:00 pm. by Ms. Manz. 1.Minutes – Minutes of the November 21st meeting were not ready to be approved. Ms. Manz reviewed the CPC’s vote on the Visitor Center Project over which there had been some confusion. 2.Archives and Records Management/Conservation – Donna Hooper, Town Clerk, and Nasrin Rohani, Archivist/Records Manager, met with the CPC to present an FY13 request for $150,000 to preserve important Town records. Ms. Hooper handed out a Project Update, dated December 1, 2011, and explained the progress to date of the five year project. Ms. Hooper detailed the work that has been accomplished to date, and explained that funds left over in any particular fiscal year are rolled over to the following year to allow for the continuation of archiving and preservation work. She described the proposal for FY13 which includes the conservation, preservation, digitization and microfilming of the following records; voter registration, Selectmen’s meetings, cemetery records, vital records and deed and agreement files. The Committee was interested in the commonality between Ms. Hooper’s project and the proposal Susan Bennett has submitted on behalf of the Historical Society for similar document preservation. The CPC specifically questioned whether all historic records could ultimately be accessed and viewed in a single location. Ms. Hooper said that the initial phases of work would be separate, but that there would be a common portal on the Town’s website that would ultimately allow for the viewing of all historic Town records. Mr. Kanter suggested that public availability in years 4 and 5 would 1 be optimal, even if it meant certain aspects of the actual document preservation had to be postponed to years 6 and 7. 3.LexHAB Set-Aside Funds – Mr. Kennedy, Chair of LexHAB met with the Committee to request $500,000 in “up front” funds for the acquisition of affordable housing. He said the proposal was similar to last year’s proposal, with a slightly higher dollar amount. Mr. Kennedy updated the CPC on the acquisition of the Wilson Road home, which LexHAB is in the progress of purchasing. Members were interested in the amount left in the LexHAB account after the purchase, which Mr. Kennedy said would be $45,000. There was a discussion of how this money would be used. It was generally felt that such funds would either go toward renovation costs or toward the acquisition of a future home in FY14, as long as the purchase price was below the $525,000 cap established by the CPC. The CPC questioned whether any of the FY13 funds, (if appropriated at Town Meeting), would be used for the possible construction of units on the Leary or Busa properties. Mr. Kennedy replied that in all likelihood, the funds would not be used for either of the two housing developments. Ms. Fenollosa inquired about the accounting of the LexHAB funds, to which Ms. Rice replied that the funds are held by the Town and expended as needed when LexHAB submits bills to be paid (or wire transfers in the case of a closing). All remaining funds, (i.e. the $45,000) remain in the Town’s accounts and are either expended for renovations in the present fiscal year or are available for use the following fiscal year. Any unspent funds in the LexHAB account continue to gain interest until withdrawn. 4.Greeley Village – Construction of Four Accessible Housing Units – Mr. Steve Keane, Director of the Lexington Housing Authority (LHA), met with the CPC to request $555,336 in funding for the construction of four accessible units. He explained that under DHCD (Department of Housing and Community Development) guidelines, Greeley Village should have 5% of its units accessible. He said none of the units were presently accessible, but that there was a demand for such apartments. There are other handicapped accessible units available in other LHA housing, he noted. In response to a question from Ms. Manz, Mr. Keane said the Housing Authority had made a formal request to the State for supplemental funding. He did not expect the request to be fruitful however. There was a general discussion of the construction costs of the units. The LHA is applying for $555,336 for FY13 and plans to apply for a similar amount in FY14. Mr. Kanter asked if only two units would be constructed the first year, to which Mr. Keane explained that all the units would be bid at the same time, and that construction would start on all four. He said there was an 2 $8,000 savings if the job was bid in FY13. In response to this, Mr. Kanter suggested that the request for CPA funding be reflective of the true project timing and costs. He said it would be more reasonable to request the entire project cost of $1,110,673 in FY13. The CPC concurred with this suggestion and Mr. Keane agreed to submit a new proposal to the CPC. 5.Battle Green Master Plan Implementation, Phase II – Ms. Dawn McKenna, Chair of the Tourism Committee had been asked to return to the CPC to further discuss this project. She was joined by Mr. David Pinsonneault, Manger of Operations at DPW. The exact cost of the proposal was in flux, since the CPC removed $60,000 in costs for a traffic study at Town Counsel’s direction. This cut then translated to lower supervision, design/engineering and contingency costs. Mr. Pinsonneault reviewed the revised budget, which included: $22,130 in Design and Engineering Costs, $110,650 in construction costs, and an $11,065 contingency. He described the FY13 project as it related to work previously approved in FY12. There were fine differences between the two projects. For instance, Phase II (FY13) will include costs to stabilize the sand paths around the circumference of the Battle Green, while Phase I (FY12) funds will be used to stabilize the paths from the perimeter path to the monuments themselves. (This particularly applied to the work near the obelisk.) Mr. Pinsonneault added that he will be supervising the work in Phase II. There was a general discussion of the Town approval process for the Battle Green project. This issue arose because members were uncomfortable with approving the proposed FY13 project without Selectmen input. Mr. Cohen read the minutes of the Selectmen’s meeting from March 14, 2011, where the Board voted to approve the Master Plan subject to retaining “jurisdiction to make final decisions regarding design details”. Mr. Cohen noted that the th project will be discussed at the December 12 meeting of the Selectmen. This will presumably give the CPC the direction it needs to assess the project within the context of necessary Town approvals. Ms. McKenna was questioned about grant applications, and whether any grants could be expected for the Battle Green project. Ms. McKenna said she would be applying for a grant under the “Save America’s Treasures” Program, but that the application deadline was in May, well after Town Meeting would vote on the project. She added that there may be funds available through the National Park Service’s “American Battlefields” grant program. Mr. Cohen added that the Selectmen had recently received a $10,000 contribution toward renovation of the Battle Green, and that this money would be appropriate to help fund the Battle Green Master Plan project. 3 6.Visitor Center – Ms. McKenna was also invited to the CPC meeting for further discussion of the Visitor Center Project. The CPC had requested that Ms. McKenna provide details on the square footage of the existing structure and the associated breakdown of the design and construction costs. Ms. McKenna explained that 42% of the square footage of the final building was attributable to the existing structure. In terms of the construction costs, however, 51% of the construction costs were tied to its renovation. She explained that this discrepancy was due to the fact that renovation would be more expensive than new construction. Ms. McKenna described the Visitor Center project, noting that the addition was planned to accommodate a larger number of visitors and to provide a greater range of services. She stressed the need for the project, citing a State statistic that indicated that tourism generated $50 million dollars for the Town in 2010. She noted that the hotel and meals taxes, in particular, have contributed increased revenue in the past year. Mr. Wolk questioned whether the Chamber of Commerce, whose offices are in the top floor of the Visitor Center, would be willing to pay some of the construction and renovation costs. Ms. McKenna said they did not have the funding for such a commitment, adding that the building is Town-owned. She noted that even a contribution from the Chamber seemed unlikely. Mr. Kanter asked what costs the Chamber shoulders and if the organization pays rent. Ms. McKenna replied that they only pay utilities. (A subsequent email from Ms. McKenna reported that the Chamber pays internet and phone, while the Town carries the electric and heat.) Ms. McKenna noted that the draft Visitor Center Report detailing the costs of the project would soon be finalized, and would be sent out to the CPC. 7.Tourism Sign Project from ’07 – Ms.Weiss had asked Ms. McKenna to provide an update on the Tourism Sign Project approved by the CPC at the 2007 Annual Town Meeting. Ms. McKenna reported that the Tourism Committee is waiting on the final drawings for a panel sign for the Green. Once received, the artwork can then be taken to the fabricator. The Committee urged Ms. McKenna to push this project to completion, and suggested that the tricentennial provided a good incentive for doing so. 8.Updates – Ms. Manz update the Committee on the upcoming CPC meeting th and Public Hearing. The CPC will meet at 7:00 pm on December 19 for a half an hour before the Public Hearing at 7:30 pm. At the regular meeting the Committee will review proposed project costs and the CPC budget. The meeting was adjourned at 5:25 pm. 4 The following document was presented at the meeting: (1) “Archives and Records Management – CPA Project Update”, dated December 1, 2011. Respectfully submitted, Nathalie Rice Administrative Assistant Community Preservation Committee 5