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