HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-09-23-SBFRC-min RECEIVED
Ad Hoc Stone Building Feasibility/Reuse Committee 2021 29 IIMov, 1'56 pii7'i
Town of Lexington, MA TOWN CLERK
LEXINGTON MA
September 23, 20218:00 AM
MINUTES/ DRAFT
Location: Parker Room, Town Office Building & online via Zoom
Attending: Cristina Burwell, Claire Feingold Thoryn (Cary Library Trustees Liaison, Left 8:30),Jeff
Howry (arrived 8:13), Mark Manasas, Meg Muckenhoupt (Appropriations Comm. Liaison), Melinda
Nasardinov, Paul Smyke (Left 9am), Carolyn Goldstein, Anne Grady, Doug Lucente (Select Board
Liaison)
Absent: Lester Savage
Guests: Elaine Ashton, Stephanie Hsu
Recording Secretary: Cristina Burwell
The meeting began at 8:06 with an online Roll Call & Reading of Statement on Use of Virtual
Meetings.
Minutes for 9/2 were approved unanimously, as motioned by Anne, and seconded by Mark.
The meeting began with a discussion about changing the committee meeting time to accommodate
the new return-to-work-and-return-to-school times and responsibilities of several committee
members. After a DoodlePoll and committee discussion,the best and new time was decided to be:
WEDNESDAY @ 7:30am (continuing on the 1st & 3rd weeks of each month).
There were no public comments.
COMMUNITY DISCUSSIONS
Community Preservation Act/Committee (8:20)
Carolyn and Jeff supplied the committee with a report on their conversations with Marylin Fenollosa
(Community Preservation Committee). Carolyn overviewed 3 key takeaways:
1. Yes,the CPA can fund restoration such as would be needed with the Stone Building. This
could also include an update to the prior report of needed work, though the committee would
not be able to meet the November 1st CPA deadline for requests.
2. The CPA only funds restoration, not new construction (which would allow for an elevator, but
perhaps not a new ell). It is unknown how this might affect things if a cafe was identified as a
feature in the reuse of the building (i.e., a cafe would be a use, governed by zoning; as it is not a
prior use of the building, its funding by CPA as new construction is questionable.)
1
3. The CPA would also be able to pay for exhibits, such as the design and construction of exhibits
interpreting the history of the structure.
Also of note was that whatever case was made for the request of CPA funds, what is important is the
case for the widest public benefit, versus a narrow use of how the building serves the community.
At this time it was also questioned if the ell was originally one or two stories (photographs appear to
show that the ell has 2 stories, consistent with the design of worker's cottages found elsewhere in
Lexington).
N
t
as
w
�
I v
r
R
r t
ii A
7
m �
--yy9w,i r r 7litf
Recreation Department/Community Center (8:30)
Melinda reported discussions with Rec. Department and Community Center. It is unclear how they
see their involvement, but continue to be interested in the building and its use. Cristina noted that the
building's proximity to the bike path and nearby playground, soccer field,tennis court, and basketball
court seemed to suggest a relationship to be explored.
Melinda further described a conversation that she had with Peter Micheaux from Creek Farm, NH. He
mentioned Federal and State (NH) tax benefits they employed there, as well as a slightly different
matrix design (that also included options for ownership). He also noted a "Circuit Rider" program
(NOTE: "The Circuit Riders are part-time employees of Preservation Massachusetts. They are
professionals with expertise in a variety of areas and are trained to bring relevant and necessary resources
to local groups and communities. Working in the field, they deliver mentoring support, education, resources
and technical assistance directly to those facing preservation challenges or projects." - Mass Preservation).
Jeff to investigate further and report back to the committee.
2
Library Board of Trustees (8:40)
Jeff reported that he presented 3 slides to the library's Trustees Executive Committee at their recent
meeting (Sept. 9), and noted our need to present at their October 20 full Trustees quarterly meeting.
Further discussion suggested that we put this topic on our next meeting agenda so that we could
deliberate on what it is that we either ask, or simply update. It was also suggested that instead we
might reach out for small, informal meetings for exploratory discussions about what we are hearing
from the community and what might be possible library connections. No decisions made.
Multicultural Center Focus Group
Jaclyn noted that the upcoming focus group meeting around a multicultural center use of the building
(to be held Sept 28, 7pm) slides were being updated and simplified. Mark added a slide to relate this
concept to the Lexington Comprehensive Plan, and Community Needs Assessment conducted by the
Rec. Dept. Jaclyn proposed redefining this from "multicultural"to "intercultural". She pointed to
sprintinstitute.org's description (below). The committee is in favor of using this new language.
Multicultural refers to a society that contains several cultural or ethnic groups. People live
alongside one another, but each cultural group does not necessarily have engaging interactions
with each other. For example, in a multicultural neighborhood people may frequent ethnic
grocery stores and restaurants without really interacting with their neighbors from other
countries.
Cross-cultural deals with the comparison of different cultures. In cross-cultural
communication, differences are understood and acknowledged, and can bring about individual
change, but not collective transformations. In cross-cultural societies, one culture is often
considered "the norm"and all other cultures are compared or contrasted to the dominant
culture.
Intercultural describes communities in which there is a deep understanding and respect for all
cultures. Intercultural communication focuses on the mutual exchange of ideas and cultural
norms and the development of deep relationships. In an intercultural society, no one is left
unchanged because everyone learns from one another and grows together.
Carolyn requested that this focus group be extended to all those on our email list, and the community
who may have suggested an interest in this topic, rather than just a select few organizations who have
a related affiliation (with the idea that meeting questions will drive the discussion and not be
dominated by unrelated banter). Stephanie offered to amplify this event on social media.
Museum Focus Group
Carolyn continued by reporting on her discussions with Lester regarding a similar focus group, but
with a museum focus. They are looking at a similar model as described above, with a possible
meeting in the first few weeks of October. She also mentioned concern about how we manage
attendees who already submitted a proposal such that we aren't asking them to restate what they
already have done. It was postulated that an "ideal outcome"for this gathering would be forming an
image of what a museum might look like: content, space usage, partners, possible funding streams.
3
The East Village Fair was briefly mentioned, in search of any volunteers to staff a table or any
requests/ideas for materials that will be on hand. Cristina and Meg will be staffing a table for the East
Village Community Association with space to share. Cristina is making "business cards" with the URL
for the committee's web page and resources links.
Cristina added the agenda item to discuss the final report per a webinar she recently attended in
Wellesley where a consultant presented to the Select Board regarding the proposal of a performing
arts center. This presentation had a succinct overview which might have some useful overlap to our
report. Due to lack of time, Cristina said that she would provide something to the committee for the
next meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:26, with unanimous approval (motioned by Cristina, and seconded
by Melinda).
ATTAC H M E NTS:
1. CPC meeting notes
4
ATTACHMENT. Lexington's Community Preservation Committee process for obtaining funding
for historic preservation
Notes from discussion with Marilyn Fenollosa (Chair & Historic Preservation representative, Lexington
Community Preservation Committee) -- meeting with Carolyn Goldstein &Jeff Howry 9/13/2021
Background
CPA (Community Preservation Act) criteria published in annual reports on website:
I1.....egusladon
INeeds assessment repor k. on website Applicadon on website
Published Criteria in Annual CPC Report
Preference will be given to proposals which meet as many of the following general criteria as
possible, specifically those which:
• Preference will be given to proposals which meet as many of the following general criteria as
possible, specifically those which:
• Are consistent with current planning documents adopted by the Town;
• Preserve the essential character of the Town as described in the Comprehensive Plan;
• Save resources that would otherwise be threatened;
• Benefit a currently under-served population;
• Serve more than one CPA purpose (for example, in linking open space, recreation and
community housing, or the reuse of historic resources for community housing) or
demonstrate why serving multiple needs is not feasible;
• Demonstrate practicality and feasibility, and demonstrate that they can be implemented
expeditiously and within budget;
• Produce an advantageous cost/benefit value;
• Leverage additional public and/or private funds;
• Preserve or use currently owned Town assets;
• Receive endorsement by other municipal boards, committees or departments; and
• Provide long-term contribution and/or enhancement to the Town.
(see pages 5 & 6 of FY2020 Needs Assessment Report)
CPA supports four general areas: Open Space, Recreation, Affordable Housing, Historic
Preservation
Statute requirements
At least 10% must be spent in each area (open space, recreation, affordable housing, and
preservation) each year. The largest proportion that can go to a given area in a given year is
70% of the total.
CPC funds these expenses related to historic preservation:
1of3
5
One of the goals is to enable towns to undertake historic preservation projects in the "`right manner,"
or to do projects that they normally couldn't do without the extra funding of CPA, including
• Major capital expenses to restore and rehabilitate historic preservation projects • Any type of
improvement you could amortize on your taxes (i.e. windows, new
roof, etc.)
• Accessibility to historic structures
o Lex CPA funded handicap access to Town Hall which was technically old enough to be categorized
as "historic"
• Interpretation of historic structures and their context (insofar as such interpretation promotes
preservation)
o Lex CPA funded Parker's Revenge interpretive signs at Minute Man National Historic Park
o Lex CPA has also funded signage for various sites in town (not yet implemented)
o For the Stone Building,the design and construction costs for exhibits about the building and its
social context (i.e. East Lexington, social reform, including abolition movement, etc.) might be funded
CPC does NOT fund these expenses related to historic preservation:
• Ongoing repair and maintenance (i.e. lawn mowing, routine painting, etc.)
• New construction
o CPA did not fund Lex Visitor Center because it was brand new.
o For the Stone Building,the reconstruction of the ell could NOT be funded
by CPA funds in its entirety. However, CPA can fund accessibility so it could pay for the elevator
because providing accessibility to historic structures /S allowed. (see above) It is possible that a
second stairway provided by Ell could also be eligible, since it is required by Building Code and
provides accessibility to everyone.
History of spending on historic preservation projects in Lexington
All proposed projects have been accommodated by the CPC in previous years (except for one year
where projects were divided into phases).
Largest Historic Projects (funded by CPA)
• Community Center ($10 million for purchase, $10 million for restoration)
• Cary Hall restoration ($10 million+)
• Hancock Clarke house ($500,000+)
6
• Buckman tavern ($500,000) -Total expended exceeded $1M, but included many
individual gifts and grants
• Munroe tavern ($500,000)
Time frame
2of3
November 1 is the annual deadline for all projects for the following fiscal year.. Allows CPC to vet
proposals before the end of December, in time to be included in the warrant for Town Meeting in
Feb/March to approve projects to begin in the next fiscal year.
For the Stone Building,funding would likely involve 3 phases:
1. Update the Historic Study Report with revised Construction Costs and construction drawings
2. Undertake rehabilitation (construction costs)
3. Interpretation/exhibit (history component)
Marilyn has indicated that it is possible for two phases to be combined into one funding request.
Suggestions for successful proposals
Taxpayers pay directly for CPA projects, so there is an expectation that there is a real public benefit to
all or most people in town. All proposals need to identify and demonstrate a direct public benefit and
be specific about what "user groups" would benefit from the building restoration.
Current situation
$7,381,362 million available (per U=='Y2.2 projectkxi) to spend in the coming year.
Town seems more interested in Recreation and Conservation. Common major expenses are to
purchase conservation land which is very expensive ($2-3 million paid recently for a parcel).There are
two modest projects in FY2021/22 pipeline that need commitments to assure acquisitions of
properties in near future.
General suggestions from Marilyn
The Town has "Stone Building fatigue." Need to bring forth a project that is exciting and that has a
concrete beginning, middle, and end. Emphasize what the building means to Lexington and its history
and its identity today, and how restoring it will contribute to what the community values and identifies
with today.
MF expressed concern about requesting funding for yet another report. Committee does not like
"open-ended proposals" and Town Meeting will remember that they have already funded a report. If
that is the next step,then the proposal requesting funding for a report needs to make it very clear of
what the whole approximate cost for the entire project will be and that there is an intention to move
forward to construction and implementation. Really need to show that there is an intention to "make it
happen."
7
For funding the report, it is possible to ask for Placeholder on the Warrant. The CPC must refine and
propose funding by December 31st for the coming fiscal year starting in July, and there is sometimes
some leeway to incorporate details after the 11/1 deadline. However, MF recommended not skipping
over any important steps in this process.
Another possibility would be to find a cost estimator to update the construction costs in the older
report for a few thousand dollars and seek funding from the town's general fund for this.
3 of 3
8