Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-01-20-SBFRC-min RECEIVED 2022 00 h4ay, 11 12 aui °m Ad Hoc Stone Building Feasibility/Reuse Committee TOWN CLERK Town of Lexington, MA LEXINGTON MA January 20, 2022 - 8:00 AM MINUTES Attending: Cristina Burwell (left 9:30), Jeff Howry, Mark Manasas, Meg Muckenhoupt (Appropriations Comm. Liaison), Melinda Nasardinov, Paul Smyke (left 9:15), Anne Grady, Lester Savage (left before meeting adjournment), Carolyn Goldstein, Suzie Barry (Cary Library Trustees Liaison - left 9:00) Absent: Doug Lucente (Select Board Liaison), Jacelyn Anderson Guests: Elaine Ashton, JaneL Showalter, Kathleen Dalton Recording Secretary: Cristina Burwell The meeting began at 8:05 with an online Roll Call & Reading of the Statement on Use of Virtual Meetings. Minutes for January 6 were approved unanimously (with Carolyn abstaining as she was not present at that meeting), as motioned by Mark and seconded by Anne. OLD BUSINESS To update the SBFRC charge and timeline (Letter to Select Board),the project timeline was discussed and decided as follows: Draft Report Timeline - by the end of Q4, after TM JAN - synthesize findings FEB - work on report sections MAR - committee research and discussions, and report writing (Town Meeting happening) APR - final forum and report writing MAY - presentation to Library Board of Trustees,followed by Select Board with final report Suzie suggested that we have Doug get a placeholder onto a Select Board agenda for the appropriate time period so that the Select Board knows the final report is coming. It was decided that as Forum 3 input will need to be part of the report, we will need to factor in time for this (accounting for Town Meeting in March), with something Looking more Like the beginning of May. Mark volunteered to sketch up a more detailed timeline, and to send out a DoodlePoLL to identify a good date for Forum 3 in early April (staying clear of school vacation week). 1 Jeff will reach out to Doug and Jill for a meeting with the Select Board, and will also contact the Library Board of Trustees via Koren and Suzie for a meeting date in advance of that. Suzie noted that the Trustees are due to meet on May 4th, and the full board will meet on May 18th. The tentative date for the Select Board after that is May 23rd. The target for completing the report is April 30th. Melinda took on the responsibility for finalizing the letter to the Select Board, using the general timeline above. NEW BUSINESS Case Studies Melinda met with Peter Gittleman (as Team Leader for Visitor Experience at Historic New England and co-president of the board at the Royall House and Slave Quarters). She described the Royall House as programmatically thriving, while at the same time being very demanding of staff and volunteer time (still having limited resources). This house is a main attraction in Medford, well-positioned near big roads and Tufts University with much of the programming aligned to 3rd and 5th grade local history in the MPS system. Peter noted that in Lexington a lot of time and money have gone into developing the curriculum aligned with the history of the revolutionary period and Lexington's role in that. It was noted that 19th century history is taught in 8th and 10th grades, and that someone from the history department has attended our forums. Carolyn volunteered to reach out to her,to get a better sense that teachers might be a driving force to align with curriculum associated with the Stone Building, and also to get the school administration's thoughts about what could be done there . Suzie noted that if we are reaching out to the LPS, we should also include Minuteman, and Lexington Christian Academy. In discussion with Peter, he noted that it would be useful for someone/org.to occupy the building full time - notjust for lectures or programs. This needs to be someone to look after the space (spot a leak, or a new family of mice for example), and also helps to give life to the building. Peter recommended finding an organization whose mission is adjacent to the role we see for the building. An example he gave was at the,I ,e„r ,g,nII,,,,,1ou,se in the Berkshires which also houses the Berkshires office of the Housatonic Valley Association, preservers of the Housatonic watershed, as its tenant. They have divided the house such that the tenant gets some exclusive space for their offices, and Historic New England has some exhibit space (period rooms, paintings on the walls). They then share some space used for programming and meetings. It was noted that rent is low - "the right price for the right partner". This ideally is a steady tenant, who is a long-term commitment, and whose mission is symbiotic with the building and its visitors. They would be an organization to be in the building 40+ hours a week, but with another entity to provide programming. In the case of the Stone Building, it might be that the tenant occupies half of the first floor for offices, but the rest of the building is open for public use. The motivation in all of this is to help cover some basic costs (as much programming would not be a money-earner). 2 Cristina observed that the other dimension the committee was presented with is community space - Meg noting that the deed specifies that it has to benefit Lexington residents. So if there was not dedicated space for residents to use,the programming would need to really have something in the building for residents at large (vs. visitors and tourists). Les commented that this space is less important than finding a tenant that might provide the programming that we are looking for. He noted that the Buckman Tavern is rented to the Historical Society for$1/year in exchange for maintenance and programming of an anchor for tourists who visit the town. Paul observed that in past conversations the committee had trended toward finding a 501(c)(3) to manage the building, and Les said that this was not mutually exclusive to his comments, and it might work out that a tenant might be a coffee shop (for which there would ultimately need to have an RFP put out). A community comment from Janet extended the desire to see the public spaces not sit empty, but able to be used by community groups - sitting in an exhibit area, or larger spaces rented out. Cristina met with Glen Parker about DeCordova and the Trustees of Reservations. The town of Lincoln owns the property, it is overseen by the Trustees of Reservations, and managed by the DeCordova nonprofit. It was an appealing acquisition for the Trustees because they didn't have much in the MetroWest area. Both the operating and capital budgets at deCordova are managed entirely by The Trustees of Reservations. It's their responsibility to maintain and enhance the property to fulfill the mission of the museum. Glen noted that the Stone Building would probably need some cultural momentum behind it to be of interest to the Trustees. Meg has taken a look at our collection of similar properties, and has begun collecting information from 990's about the organizations (how much they are paying in rent, if they are nonprofit, or publicly administered, etc.). Of the 30 she has looked at, a takeaway so far is that nonprofits only own a building if it is old. The publicly owned buildings all seem to be charging nonprofits reduced rent. The upshot being that nonprofits are not typically able to support themselves and building maintenance if they don't have a big fat endowment. Mark asked if it was that these nonprofits needed to be an agent to write grants for the building. Meg noted that it was the towns that were paying to keep up the building, questioning if grants were a reliable method to depend on for upkeep. Carolyn put forth that the Stone Building realistically has to cobble together a creative and strategic set of resources, both big and small and notjust one entity (with a comment that the building will either need to form a managing partnership or ultimately one entity in charge). No one was able to speak to the proposals that came in - as to whether they provided a business model beyond a programming model. KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM COMMUNITY AND COMMITTEE INPUT Cristina, Meg, and Mark distilled what we have collected (see attached) which was reviewed by Mark in a slide presentation. Discussion was limited due to time. Mark requested that committee members feedback comments before the next meeting where we can discuss 3 these items in more depth (Melinda noted a few discrepancies between list and slideshow and will send it to Mark before he sends out the slideshow to the committee). Jeff said he had something he wanted to share with the committee on feasibility, but due to time would hold that for the next meeting. Adjournment was made at approximately 9:35, as motioned by Carolyn, seconded by Melinda and unanimously approved. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Mark - Send out DoodlePoll to Committee for setting up Forum 3 2. Melinda - finalizing letter 3. Jeff - Get onto agenda for Trustees & Select Board meetings in May 4. Carolyn - Reach out to the schools to get their take on the building and any alignment with curriculum and programming 5. Melinda - send Mark out any discrepancies between slideshow and document (key takeaways) ATTACHMENTS: 1. 1/6 Minutes 2. Collected list of key takeaways from community and committee input 3. Case Studies overview document 4. Final report's working table of contents 4