HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-04-14-SBFRC-min RECEIVED
Ad Hoc Stone Building Feasibility/Reuse Committee 2022 27 Apir, d Ipim
Town of Lexington, MA TOWN CLERK
April 14, 2022 8:00 AM LEXINGTON nn
MINUTES
Attending: Cristina Burwell,Jeff Howry, Mark Manasas (left 9:00), Meg Muckenhoupt (Appropriations Comm.
Liaison), Melinda Nasardinov, Paul Smyke(left at (9:00),Anne Grady,Carolyn Goldstein, Lester Savage,Jaclyn
Anderson, Doug Lucente (Select Board Liaison-left 8:25)
Absent:Suzie Barry(Cary Library Trustees Liaison)
Guests: Janel Showalter, Elaine Ashton,Sabine Clark, Kathleen Dalton (arrived 8:25)
Recording Secretary: Cristina Burwell
The meeting began at 8:07 with an online Roll Call & Reading of the Statement on Use of Virtual
Meetings. Minutes for March 24, and March 31 were approved unanimously with the exception of
Melinda who abstained (unable to read them) as motioned by Anne and seconded by Jeff.
Jeff had comments for April 7 that in the interest of time said he will email to the group before voting
No general announcements or public comments.
Final report editorial review update- Cristina
The committee has expressed interest that the document remain at a high level, and not get into
details. The report shared with the committee was structured to be about 10 pages in length, so most
submissions were streamlined and communicated through bullet points for quick review by readers. To
use committee time effectively,the goals for today's review were described as:
• Does the table of contents look right?
• Does anyone want to put on the table things that they do not agree with?
• What are we missing?
• Descriptions and write-ups can continue to be modified outside of this meeting.
The general consensus was that we do want to stay on a high level, but folks did not have enough time
to review the document before discussing it today. The Table of Contents was reviewed.
Some observations:
• All of our highlights should be on the Executive Summary page, including our vision
• The Conclusions and Next Steps seem to have some overlap, and SBFRC members would read
the report with that in mind to discuss next time (i.e., should we have one or two sections here,
and if two how to keep them unique)
• Next Steps should be a roadmap for bringing about recommendations in the report
• It is a good idea to have a timeline to relate tasks ahead to the 250th anniversary celebrations in
2025
• Disagreement was had in if the ell was a worker's cottage
• There was general consensus that an updated Historic Structures Report is critical to any path
forward, and that we would leave those details for whoever comes after this committee-
including further discussion about the ell (motioned by Carolyn, seconded by Anne).
1
• It was suggested that the SBFRC have a section in the report that lists questions to be explored
after the report, as well as an "observations" section or place to acknowledge differing points of
view (or"open questions", "unresolved issues").
• Jeff requested that 2 more items be added to the appendix because they are key to CPA
funding: Secretary of Interior's Standards (as it relates to buildings), and Qualifications of
Individuals, Secretary of Interiors (ie,those recognized as qualified experts. As appendices are
things referenced in the main body, Jeff agreed to identify where this reference would happen.
• HSR online link to be added to the report vs. in appendix
• Recommendation to give a very brief summary of the HSR and how it will guide the Town in next
steps
Review of slideshow for presentation
Mark briefly reviewed the slides, and put forward Melinda's name to speak for the group in these
presentations for her tried and true methodological and linear thinking. She agreed to do the forum
presentation. Melinda agreed to help edit the slides (not this week tho). Requests were made that:
• Vision be more sharply conveyed and earlier in the slideshow.
• Main programmatic bullet points be represented in a slide
• We somehow note that the priority is a hybrid vision (ie., not fully museum, gathering space,
lyceum programming,tenant).
• We work on our marketing technique to better engage with our vision, and to get the message
across clearly, succinctly, and enthusiastically
Mark indicated that folks could update the slideshow he attached to today's email and he would
incorporate edits that way.
Despite previous ideas, it was decided that the SBFRC wiill meet next week. (tho. Meg and Melinda are
not available).
Discussion on feasibility
Jeff presented his work with Les on Two Possible Renovation and Operation Models
• There was disagreement that the SBFRC concluded the same things put forth here
• We do need to make recommendations with a preferred way forward, but we have not discussed
this (and we need to settle before our presentation on 27th)
• It was observed that there are several issues that the SBFRC has not come to consensus on -
the "best" and the"most possible"
• The text in this work is not a finding but conclusions. This was something that committee
members will keep in mind as they review the report this week (where such recommendations
go)
• Observed that these models don't seem to work with the concept of a director (currently listed
as a recommendation). Separate entities may not work well. While they might work in the
future, it was suggested that it is better to work with a coalition in the short term until there is a
possible entity to work with.
• Suggested that we need to be mindful of not taking a journey that distracts the town from taking
responsibility and getting the building renovated
• Observed that our recommendations might include phasing, and making distinctions between
operations models and renovation
2
Jeff also put forth a proforma that he could flesh out if folks are interested. Les volunteered to help fill
in the numbers of what the Stone Building might cost to operate financially. This information was
requested in narrative/bullet form to go into the report body.
Discovery Day-while it was agreed that this was a great idea for information dissemination, no one had
the bandwidth to commit to staffing a table
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:32, as motioned by Cristina, seconded by Melinda, and unanimously
approved.
3