Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-12-01-CPC-min 1 Minutes for the Community Preservation Committee 12/1/2022 Remote Zoom Meeting Meeting id #:975 8275 6313 Committee members present: Marilyn Fenollosa (Chair), Jeanne Krieger (Vice Chair), Kevin Beuttell, Bob Creech, David Horton, Lisa O’Brien, Bob Pressman, Mark Sandeen, Melinda Walker. Other Attendees: Sandhya Beebee (Capital Expenditure Committee Liaison), Sarah Morrison (LexHAB Executive Director), John Biggins (LexHAB Maintenance), Bob Phelan (LexHAB Director), Christina Burwell (Munroe Center for the Arts Executive Director), Brian Healey (architect for Munroe Center for the Arts), Amber Carr (Conservation Coordinator), Phil Hamilton (Conservation Commission Chair), Steve Poltorzycki (Munroe Center for the Arts Board Member), Jeff Howry (Archaeologist). Administrative Assistant: Christopher Tierney Ms. Fenollosa called the meeting to order at 4:02. Mark Sandeen Joined the meeting at 4:04. LexHAB Restoration: Sarah Morrison, Executive Director of LexHAB, returned to make a request for funding in the total amount of total of $345,000: $152,000 to preserve and rehabilitate seven housing units that were acquired with CPA funding, including $73,000 for the installation of solar panels at two of these units; $124,100 for the preservation of seven housing units that were not acquired with CPA funding; and contingency funding of $69,025. The funds for CPA-acquired units will be utilized for improvements in kitchens, plumbing, floors, electrical, bathroom renovations, fence installation and heater/furnace replacement. The funds for non- CPA -acquired units will be used to make exterior repairs to prevent injury, harm or destruction of the units, including porch and deck replacements, roof replacements, whole house painting and shingle repair, chimney repair, electrical work, and the replacement of a retaining wall . Ms. Walker asked if one of the properties, at 8 Emerald Street, was an “SHI” (Subsidized Housing Inventory) unit. Ms. Morrison said that this property was not on the SHI list and also was not procured using CPA funds. Ms. Fenollosa brought up exterior painting as a use for CPA funds, reminding the Committee that CPA funds can only be used for capital improvements, not regular maintenance. Mr. Biggins and Mr. Phelan commented that new exterior paint is a protective layer and keeps out moisture and the resulting rot. Ms. Morrison concluded by saying that all of these projects are preservation and rehabilitation and not maintenance, 2 especially, since these projects address structural integrity and safety concerns of the properties. Mr. Creech asked about LexHAB’s maintenance budget. Ms. Morrison answered that LexHAB only charges 30% of an occupant’s income for rent , and that the rents collected are insufficient to cover all of the preservation and maintenance costs, which is why they are asking for these additional funds. Ms. Walker asked if all of the units are on the non-SHI housing list. Ms. Morrison couldn’t say definitively but reiterated that all of these projects were for preservation and that preservation projects can be undertaken on non-SHI units. Ms. Fenollosa commented that the CPA statute does not make a distinction between SHI and non-SHI units but rather by units that were purchased using CPA funds and those that were not so funded. Ms. Krieger asked about boiler replacement and if there has been any consideration to utilizing heat pumps. Ms. Morrison responded that LexHAB is doing a unit-by-unit inspection and that they are considering using heat pumps. Mr. Sandeen commented that he feels that they should be building with heat pumps, especially since the Commonwealth offers a great number of incentives to convert from oil and gas-based heating systems, especially for low-income households. After a motion was duly made and seconded, the Committee conducted a roll call vote in a straw poll (9-0) to support the project. Munroe Center for the Arts: Christina Burwell, the Executive Director for the Munroe Center for the Arts, presented a project to build an exterior elevator and bathroom renovations on the upper floors of the MCA building. Ms. Burwell noted the history of the building, from its construction as a school in 1904 to its acquisition by the Town and then to opening itself to artists as a non-profit in the 1990s. Ms. Burwell then stated that multi-generational art has been created at the Center ever since, and that the Center currently employs 70 people and now annually hosts over 1,400 students of all ages. Ms. Burwell stated that the Center also needs to invest in ADA compliance. Brian Healy, the architect of the project, explained the vision of the project and that its focus is based in accessibility and preservation. Mr. Healy stated that constructing an elevator inside the existing building would potentially destroy the historic interior woodwork and become prohibitively expensive. Mr. Healy also stated that the bathrooms that were originally designed for small children are no longer f it for purpose, the boiler is at the end of its lifespan, and the HVAC system needs work. Mr. Healy also stated that the Center has had meetings with neighbors and relevant Town committees over the past few months and that residents have been largely supportive of the project’s vision. Finally, Mr. Healy addressed the new cost estimate that was shared with the Committee and commented that the initial estimate was based on square footage of the building ($600/square foot). The updated estimate came in at 2.5 times the original estimate ($8,493,497 from $3,267,000) though Mr. Healy and Ms. Burwell stated that the scope of the work has not changed at all. Mr. Healy blamed inflation and rising construction costs that have caused much of the increase. Steve Poltorzycki, an MCA board member, added that the Town owns the small park in the rear 3 of the Center and that the project would seek to enlarge this space and that the initial design was well received. Mr. Beuttell mentioned that the project can take funds from two different buckets, one from Historic Preservation and one from Recreation; he also stated that programmatically, the expansion of the amphitheater in the rear of the Center may not be currently worth the $1,100,000 price tag. He concluded by saying that he was concerned about the considerable jump in costs from one estimate to the other. Mr. Poltorzycki noted that storm water management proposed to take place under the parking area would add to the usefulness of the project. Mr. Pressman stated that the Recreation Director had said that there were issues with expanding the space at the rear of the building, one example being interference with t-ball. However, it was also mentioned that t-ball had not been scheduled or played on the property for a good number of years. Ms. Walker praised the Munroe Center for its mission but mentioned that the Town owns the building and wondered if the funding should come from CPA or other Town funds. She also asked if the Committee was stretching the definition of historic preservation too far. Ms. Walker concluded her remarks by asking whether the Center was looking at alternative funding sources. Ms. Burwell stated that the Center is going to utilize the State’s Cultural Facilities Fund. Mr. Horton asked if the cost of the elevator was included in the new estimate, and Mr. Poltorzycki said that was the case. Mr. Creech commented on the increased site work and asked if the amphitheater affected this. Mr. Healy said that while storm water management was a factor in the increased price, the amphitheater was not a factor. Ms. Fenollosa then asked Ms. Kosnoff if the Committee could afford the project after such a dramatic cost increase. Ms. Kosnoff stated that the Committee would not have the funds to pay for this with cash alone and that debt or split financing would need to be considered. Ms. Fenollosa asked if this project qualifies for debt financing. Ms. Kosnoff said that this project does qualify for debt financing and that the decision will be all about the Committee’s appetite to take on debt. Ms. Kosnoff also stated that it is not advisable to completely drain the accounts but that at least $4-$5 million would need to be covered by debt financing. Mr. Pressman asked if the Stone Building would also qualify for debt financing, Ms. Kosnoff said that it would. Ms. Krieger commented that she was concerned by the price tag but the project has sponsors and meets a community need. Mr. Sandeen stated that the project needs to be addressed in terms of ADA compliance and that a decision based on the numbers need to be made by Town Meeting though that would be difficult with the amount of debt financing. Ms. Fenollosa asked if the project could be phased ; Mr. Healy stated that project phasing is not cost effective. Ms. Fenollosa asked the Committee if the Committee should table the motion in light of the new estimate. Mr. Horton stated that Munroe Park in the rear of the building may want to be left for another day if possible. After a motion was duly made and seconded the Committee decided to table the motion to a future meeting. 4 Willard’s Woods: Amber Carr, Conservation Coordinator returned and stated that a consultant had walked the Willard’s Woods site and made some decisions that were not reflected in their previous presentation. Ms. Carr stated that the proposed “wet meadow addition” is not realistic for consideration and the boardwalk extension component of the project would add some costs, but that the Conservation Division is actively looking for an alternative means of funding the additional costs with supplemental grants. Ms. Carr also stated that the proposed trail widths will be anywhere from 5-10 feet wide, depending on the section, and mentioned that Brent Road serves as access for fire and other emergency services. Ms. Fenollosa asked if the prior uncertainties (materials, access, parking) had been completely resolved. Ms. Carr stated that the Conservation Commission meeting on December 14th would finalize those decisions but reiterated that she was showing the Committee what was going to be shown to the public and subject to their approval. Mr. Beuttell asked if stabilized stone dust would meet access requirements or asphalt for the entrance or parking area. Mr. Sandeen asked about whether or not to designate the trail area as fully accessible and whether or not that would affect the construction costs. Ms. Carr stated that the policy decision would be finalized at a later date but that the construction specifications would not change. Ms. Carr also stated that the Conservation Commission would not build to Universal Access standards and not tell the public about it. Mr. Creech mentioned that there are different widths of trails mentioned in the slide presentation and suggested that bike racks be installed at the entrances so that people who arrive on bikes can walk the trails instead of riding the trails. This would not require such wide trails and therefore cost less money. Ms. Walker asked if the cost would remain the same as the prior meeting; Ms. Carr responded that the boardwalk extension by the wet meadow would increase the cost by approximately $200,000. Mr. Horton concurred with Mr. Creech’s earlier suggestion about walking bicycles on the trail and Ms. Carr stated that as with Universal Accessibility designation, the public meeting would determine the rules of the trail. After a motion was duly made and seconded the Committee conducted a roll call vote in a straw poll (8-0-1) to support the project. Archaeology Bylaw: Dr. Jeff Howry, an archaeologist, joined the Committee to advocate for the passage of an archaeology bylaw and request $65,000 in funding to identify sensitive sites that would be protected by such a bylaw. Dr Howry explained how this would be used to save historic and cultural resources and to avoid the disturbance of historic sites by construction. Dr. Howry mentioned how a prior bylaw enacted by the Town of Acton provides a good legal basis for the Town to adopt such a bylaw and that with the increase of commercial building, quick action is needed. Ms. Fenollosa brought up concerns with the application raised by Town Counsel about the sequencing of events surrounding the application (requesting funding to identify archaeology sites before enacting a bylaw to protect them). Dr. Howry noted the variety of other communities that have passed similar bylaws, and offered to meet with Town Counsel to assuage any specific concerns that he raised. With this, the project was tabled until Dr. Howry communicates with Town Counsel to answer any of his specific question s. 5 Minutes: After a motion was duly made and seconded, the Committee voted by roll call vote (9-0) to accept the minutes from 11/17/2022. Committee Business: The next meeting of the Committee will take place on December 8 th at 4:00 over Zoom. After a motion was duly made and seconded, the Committee voted by roll call vote (9-0) to adjourn the meeting at 6:45. Respectfully Submitted Christopher Tierney Meeting Materials LexHAB CPA applications Munroe Center for the Arts CPA Application Munroe Center presentation Munroe Center new cost estimate Willard’s Woods CPA presentation Archaeology Study CPA presentation Archaeology Study CPA application Minutes dated 11/17/2022 Approved 18/08/22