The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2021-11-18-SBFRC-min RECEIVED 202°1 2°1 Dec,I4A7 pin Ad Hoc Stone Building Feasibility/Reuse Committee TWAIN CLERK Town of Lexington, MA LIEXING"rON MA November 18, 20218:00 AM MINUTES Attending: Cristina Burwell, Jeff Howry, Mark Manasas, Meg Muckenhoupt (Appropriations Comm. Liaison), Melinda Nasardinov, Paul Smyke, Carolyn Goldstein, Jacelyn Anderson , Anne Grady, Suzie Barry (Cary Library Trustees Liaison - left 9:10), Doug Lucente (Select Board Liaison - left 8:44), Lester Savage Absent: no one! Guests: Elaine Ashton Recording Secretary: Cristina Burwell The meeting began at 8:04 with an online Roll Call & Reading of the Statement on Use of Virtual Meetings. Minutes for October 20 & November 3, 2021 were approved unanimously, as motioned by Mark and seconded by Melinda (with the exception of Les, who abstained as he was not present). OLD BUSINESS SBRFC Charge Update (to reflect timeline) - Jeff sent something to the Select Board explaining what we have done to date, that we will be meeting through December, and that we anticipate having a report sometime in January. Jeff will send the letter to Cristina to accompany Committee records. Doug noted that it would be good to have a vote by the committee on the timeline. If the committee is interested in amending the charge, it was suggested that we have a redline version to propose any recommended changes. This could come on the heels of a brief presentation to update the Select Board. There was some discussion on the value of a letter vs. a presentation, but with the implied interest that the committee doesn't want to waste Select Board member's time, while at the same time keeping them updated. Several members spoke of the interest in getting a more refined project timeline of what we want to accomplish first, with a review of line items in the charter so that we 1 can lay out a timeline with deliverables. It was suggested that we don't set a presentation date until we have a conversation about what the work is yet, and how Long we think that will take. This was identified as a piece of a deeper discussion of the "integrated use concepts", and what comes out of that. Focus Groups Update - It was decided that the next SBFRC meeting would extend to a two-hour meeting to focus on reviewing the integrated concepts and our charter per deliverables. Mark, Paul, and Jaclyn volunteered to help structure the meeting per the integrated concepts (with Paul unable to attend on 12/2) where we talk about some combined concepts of uses to be housed at the Stone Building. Melinda volunteered to draft a letter that requests the change in our charge (timeline) that might be reviewed at the end of the next SBFRC meeting. Carolyn and Melinda have written up notes from the history focus group meeting, and added them to the running log of comments. It was hoped that, as this is a living document, that it might be shared online as a "view only" document and still be in compliance with OML. Open Meeting Law - Suzie reported on Town Council's advice per OML and GoogleDocs: "Once a quorum of a board or committee member has [had] seen input from one board or committee member, a deliberation has happened - which should only be done in open meeting. Accordingly, if the shared document is shared with a board or committee, that could cause problems." It was noted however, that documents that are shared simultaneously (e.g., minutes) do not create the same problem. Suzie is pushing for the Town Council to provide more clarification to all committees, during this time of enhanced remote work and meetings. The SBFRC reviewed our spreadsheet of Case Studies, adding new places to the list. Cristina will send the document to members as a pdf once all the items have been Listed. It was pointed out that we need to better define the criteria we are using to review the structures on the spreadsheet, or how to identify what lessons we want to pull out from their model. It would also be helpful to pull out aspects that might be relevant to the Stone Building - i.e., what components of other working models are relevant, such as rental space. It was indicated that it would be helpful to start locally understanding what typical rental rates would be of analogous structures (assuming that, for instance, a likely 2 scenario is that the Lyceum space could be rented out). Les volunteered to research what the rental rates at the Depot are by the Lexington Historic Society (it was observed to look at pre-pandemic numbers), and also volunteered to look into budget numbers for costs such as maintenance. He noted that when people are looking at rentals, they are often looking geographically and so we should also be evaluating things like the Community Center. Jeff will be forwarding information on rental rates of historic places put out by Preservation Massachusetts. All that to say, it was observed that if the LHS brought in, say, $7k in rental revenue that this would not feature highly in revenues for the Stone Building. It was requested that we create a form that list all the factors under consideration (Melinda noting that when she rented space at the Lyman estate that she also took into consideration parking, a catering kitchen, number of people that could be accommodated, etc.). Cristina suggested that this could be done via a GoogieForm that would then save all responses into a spreadsheet, and Mark suggested that we could possibly crowd-source this information NEW BUSINESS Building rehabilitation Jeff is looking to request assistance from town offices, and noted that from last meeting that we need to get permission so he has drafted a letter that he will share with everyone specifically asking the Select board to provide the assistance in form of tapping into Facilities for information about the operation of the Stone Building as a Library (not the costs, but the kilowatt hours of activity to keep on the lights), which would be one of the elements of SBFRC's report regarding feasibility. It was discussed whether this level of detail is needed now before we even understand the potential uses. It was observed that it is not the expectation of this committee to get anything more than a ballpark figure for what it would cost to open up the building, and that our charge is to identify potential reuses and how to pay for that. Melinda noted that there are parts of feasibility that are financial, but also pieces that deal with practicality such as square footage, parking, or what could be accomplished in the building. It was also commented that this level of detail could come later and that it wasn't this committee's responsibility. Jeff's interest is in getting numbers to inform the Select Board on what it would take to get to Step 1. Les noted that ultimately it is the numbers that would provide data on the cost-benefit. Meg also brought up that operational costs now (with LED light bulbs and perhaps insulation) would likely be different now. It was requested that, given our limited hours, that we don't focus on this level of detail at meetings when we have not come up with reuse concepts yet. This might be added in later as the committee has time. Jeff pointed to the SBFRC's charge #3 to determine 3 feasibility and marketed demand, more specifically, "Recognizing that operating the Stone Building for public use will have associated costs, and the type and degree of users'rental or Lease interest must be gauged to also project whether a portion of the operating costs could be covered by Lease revenue from the future users and uses. This feasibility study will therefore inform what use(s)justify budgeting further preservation and ADA and accessibility improvements in the building."which says to him, How are you going to make the building pay for itself? Adjournment was made at 9:27, as motioned by Melinda, seconded by Jaclyn and unanimously approved. ACTION ITEMS 1. Jeff to provide letter sent to the Select Board on timeline (sent to Cristina for records). 2. Mark/Paul/Jaclyn to put together a structure for next meeting per discussion of integrated concepts. 3. Melinda to draft a letter of proposed redlines to charge (timeline) 4. Carolyn/Melinda to share updated concepts list with Committee (pdf) 5. Cristina to share updated Case Studies list with Committee (pdf) 6. Les to provide information on rental rates used by LHS buildings, as well as operating costs. 7. Jeff will be forwarding to Committee members information on rental rates of historic places put out by Preservation Massachusetts. 8. TBD - creating a form for members to populate Case Studies list, per factors we want to highlight 9. 4