Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-11-30-CPC-min Minutes of the Community Preservation Committee Thursday, November 30, 2023 Hybrid Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 972 2796 4723 Parker Meeting Room – Town Office Building 1625 Massachusetts Ave 5:00 PM Committee Members Present: Marilyn Fenollosa (Chair); Jeanne Krieger (Vice-Chair), Kevin Beuttell, Robert Creech, Lisa O’Brien, Robert Pressman, Kathryn Roy, Mark Sandeen, Melinda Walker. Administrative Assistant: Thomas Case Other Attendees: Suzanne Barry, Vice Chair, Select Board and Chair, Cary Memorial Library Board of Trustees Executive Committee; Melissa Battite, Director of Recreation and Community Programs; Sandhya Beebee, Liaison, Capital Expenditures Committee; Margaret Heitz, Housing Partnership Board; David Kanter, Vice Chair & Clerk, Capital Expenditures Committee; Carolyn Kosnoff, Assistant Town Manager for Finance; James Malloy, Town Manager; Bridger McGaw, Economic Development Advisory Committee (arrived at 6:16 PM); David Pinsonneault, Director of Public Works; Linda Prosnitz, Affordable Housing Trust (arrived at 5:50 PM); Lisa Rhodes, Capital Expenditures Committee (arrived at 5:03 PM); Koren Stembridge, Library Director, Cary Memorial Library; Elaine Tung, Chair, Affordable Housing Trust. Ms. Fenollosa called the meeting to order at 5:02 PM. FY25 CPA Funding Request – Land Acquisition – Mr. Malloy requested CPA funding on behalf of the Town for the purpose of land acquisition. Mr. Malloy shared with the Committee that the Town’s appraisal had valued the property at $500,000 but that the current property owner was also conducting their own appraisal and that Mr. Malloy would be meeting with the property owner next week to discuss the Town’s appraisal. Mr. Malloy said that the appraiser determined that the property was not developable at this time. Ms. Fenollosa commented that the CPC has to assign one or more CPA uses to their projects and asked Mr. Malloy what use the Town would seek to use the property for. Mr. Malloy said that one potential use could be open space but added that affordable housing could be a future use. Ms. Fenollosa commented that once assigned as open space, the property would have to remain open space. Mr. Malloy suggested that the land acquisition be dedicated as both open space and community housing. Ms. Fenollosa shared that there were many issues following the Busa Farm purchase, which was also a CPA funded land acquisition designated as open space, affordable housing, and recreation, and Ms. Fenollosa advised the Town to avoid a similar 1 scenario with this potential land purchase. Mr. Malloy shared that only a portion of the property would be available for affordable housing, and so that is why he would recommend considering the acquisition dedicated to open space and community housing, and recreation. Mr. Malloy added that the land is about 2.5 acres and due to its shape, would not be suitable for building fields. Ms. Fenollosa asked if the property is partially a wetland. Mr. Malloy stated that he did not believe the property was wet, and noted that the wet portion of the area is just off to the side of the property. Mr. Malloy also added that the property has solar panels and that it is unlikely that the Town would remove the panels in the near future. Ms. Fenollosa asked if the solar panels would generate energy for the Town. Mr. Malloy confirmed that they would. Mr. Pressman asked if building affordable housing on the land acquisition would include combining or swapping with adjacent property already owned by the Town. Mr. Malloy responded that determining where affordable housing could be built would take a lot of time and effort in part because the adjacent property, currently designated as open space, is protected under Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution, and therefore any land swap or designation change would require approval by the Massachusetts state legislature. Mr. Malloy added that affordable housing on the property would also require multiple studies, engineering work, and likely a Town Meeting vote to approve seeking an Article 97 designation change. Mr. Pressman commented that the CPC likely has the funding to designate the land acquisition for open space, but may not have funding to designate community housing or recreation. Ms. O’Brien noted that there is a working group being formed between housing, recreation, and conservation to help assess the best use for land acquired by the Town when land becomes available. Mr. Malloy commented that the working group creation was on the Select Board’s agenda for next Monday, December 4. Mr. Creech asked what would happen if the property owner’s own appraisal values the property above the Town’s appraisal. Mr. Malloy replied that it may depend on the difference between the two numbers as to whether or not the Town would be willing to negotiate, and noted that the Town’s normal process is to use their own appraisal. Mr. Malloy also noted that he was unaware if the Town had ever negotiated between two appraisers. Ms. Fenollosa commented that the Town had negotiated before, but that she could not recall which appraisal the Town went with. Mr. Malloy added that if the owner’s appraisal was significantly higher, the Town may end up withdrawing the request. Ms. Roy asked how many solar panels were on the property. Mr. Malloy commented that he could not remember the exact number, but noted that there were not very many. Ms. Walker raised concern over discussing this CPA request having not yet received the property appraisal and for discussing property acquisition in open meeting instead of in an executive session. Ms. Walker also suggested that a decision about the purchase of these parcels is not under the same time constraints as when heirs may be anxious to sell property as a part of an estate and 2 advocated that more time should be given for the Town to finalize the dollar amount requested and determine its desired use. Ms. Fenollosa asked Mr. Malloy if he would be able to release the appraisal to the Committee. Mr. Malloy said that he would but added that a discussion on the appraisal would be better done in an executive session. Ms. Fenollosa asked if Mr. Malloy would be able to meet with the Committee again the following week. Mr. Malloy said he would be available on Thursday, December 7, at 5:00 PM. Mr. Sandeen commented that it would be best to finish this conversation under executive session. Mr. Pressman asked if there was a paper road on the property and if it was included in the appraisal. Mr. Malloy shared that there was a paper road on part of the property and that it is discussed in the appraisal. Mr. Pressman asked if the CPA statute allowed for the consideration of an appraisal organized by the property owner. Ms. Fenollosa stated that she thinks they can consider the alternative appraisal, provided that the appraiser meets the Town’s and industry’s standards. Mr. Sandeen suggested that this question should be discussed in an executive session. Ms. Fenollosa thanked Mr. Malloy for meeting with the CPC and that they would continue this discussion next week. Mr. Malloy left the meeting at 5:25 PM CPA Fund Balance – Ms. Kosnoff presented the CPA Summary FY25 Budget dated 11-30-2023 which included two funding options for the FY25 CPA applications. Ms. Kosnoff explained that the 21.8% state match had a negative impact on the FY24 budget but was partially offset by an increase in projected interest earned. As such, the total revenue for FY24 is about $150,000 less than original projections. Ms. Kosnoff explained that there was still a TBD amount listed under Open Space for the Property Acquisition, but added that per the earlier conversation, there may need to be a TBD noted in another bucket in the spreadsheet. Mr. Beuttell asked what the funding split would have to be between the CPA buckets if the land acquisition’s designated use were to remain flexible. Ms. Kosnoff explained that she had not experienced this occurrence before and would want to verify with Town Counsel on the best practice, but added that she assumes there would need to be some amount of proportionality based on the estimated use. Ms. Kosnoff discussed funding for the Cary Memorial Library Project. The total cost of the project is $5.5 million. The Library Trust is planning on funding $1.5 million, leaving the need to fund the remaining $4 million. Ms. Kosnoff presented a funding option for the library that would not impact funding for the other applications that would include $200,000 from the Historic Resource bucket, $1,440,000 from Unbudgeted Reserves, and $660,000 from the Undesignated Fund Balance, for a total of $2.3 million in CPA funding. Under this scenario, the Town would be responsible for the remaining $1.7 million for the project. This funding plan also leaves approximately $1.4 million in reserves in case of revenue shortfalls, supplemental funding requests, or other unanticipated funding opportunities. Ms. Kosnoff explained that the Committee tends to keep about $2 million for reserves, but that the Committee had approved 3 about the same Lower Level of reserves in the previous year. Ms. Kosnoff added that the CPC could consider lowering the reserves beyond $1.4 million, but strongly discouraged the CPC from dropping below $1 million. Ms. Kosnoff also shared that there was not enough funding in the Community Housing bucket to fund this year’s applications, and so she split the AHT’s request between the Community Housing and Unbudgeted Reserves buckets. Mr. Pinsonneault left the meeting at 5:34 PM. Ms. Fenollosa asked if there was room in the Unbudgeted and Undesignated buckets to fund the land acquisition with more than just the Open Space bucket. Ms. Kosnoff replied that there was a little room in those buckets. Mr. Pressman asked if the first funding option would have the CPA fund $2.3 million for the library and if the second option would have the CPA fund the entire $4 million. Ms. Kosnoff confirmed that this was the difference between the two options, but noted that if the Committee preferred the second option, the Committee would have to cut one or more projects from the Unbudgeted Reserves. Mr. Pressman asked if the first option would allow the CPC to fund all the applications without making any cuts. Ms. Kosnoff confirmed that is correct and shared that the $1.7 million from the Town would likely be debt financed from the General Fund. Mr. Sandeen asked Ms. Kosnoff how confident she was that the library project could be financed under the shared funding plan. Ms. Kosnoff said that both the CPA portion and General Fund portion would require approval by Town Meeting, and so she could not make a prediction, but added that she was confident in presenting Town Meeting with this funding plan as a legitimate option. Ms. Krieger commented that the library project is her highest priority and expressed a desire to have a greater assurance from the Town that the project will be funded before deciding to only partially fund the projected from CPA. Ms. Krieger lauded the project’s importance and the fact that the project is ready to go, incorporates funding from the Trust, and includes improved safety to the children’s space. Mr. Creech asked Ms. Krieger about the safety issue in the children’s center. Ms. Krieger explained that the current children’s center design prevents the staff from being able to see and cover the entire space from the front desks. Ms. Krieger added that the Children’s Room project was identified 4 years prior, but was delayed due to the pandemic, and then the HVAC needs caught up in that time. Mr. Creech expressed concern for the necessity of renovating the bathrooms, kitchen, and large meeting room as part of the library project, and questioned whether the entire project needs to be done at the same time. Ms. Stembridge explained that in FY25 the library will have been open for 20 years with no renovations to the Lower Level spaces, and added that it makes sense to perform all the renovations at the same time while the space will be offline. Ms. Stembridge shared that some of the stalls are not of adequate size or properly attached to the walls, and noted that the renovation would relocate the bathrooms to improve the sightline for safety and redesigned to accommodate improved accessibility. Ms. Stembridge added that the 4 Lower Level bathrooms receive high usage and so it makes more sense to renovate the bathrooms now, instead of waiting two more years. Ms. O’Brien asked about proposing the library project at Town Meeting. Ms. Kosnoff conveyed that she would want to check with Town Counsel on the appropriate way to present the split funded plan to Town Meeting, and noted the importance of conveying that the project’s debt financed portion would be part of the General Fund and not CPA. Ms. Fenollosa noted that past projects have receive split funding without issue, but noted that was due to ineligibility of a portion of a project and not based on availability of funds. Ms. Kosnoff added that the project would still be under one article, but noted she was unsure if it would be under the CPA article or elsewhere. Mr. Beuttell commented that while it is not under consideration at the moment, he is against the CPC debt financing the library or other projects for FY25. Ms. Walker asked if the safety concerns from the children center’s design was a common issue in public libraries or unique to Lexington. Ms. Stembridge shared that the current design was built before today’s considerations for safety in public buildings, one of the blind-spots leads to a fire exit, and added that the space would not be designed the same way if it were built now. Ms. Beebee asked if there was an amount the Town could pay from the General Fund without debt financing, if the CPC were to take on slightly more of the financial cost for the library project. Ms. Kosnoff explained that the Town’s financing plan is not complete but noted that ongoing and repeated programs are preferably funded with free cash and one-time projects are preferred to consider for debt financing when necessary. Ms. Kosnoff explained that she is pretty certain that the library and other projects will have to be funded with debt financing and does not believe there is another way to split the library project to avoid debt financing and avoid making cuts to the other CPA applications. Mr. Kanter asked Ms. Kosnoff about plans for the large amount of funding in the Open Space bucket. Ms. Kosnoff explained that the CPA is required to set aside 10% of funding for Open Space each year, which can only be spent on Open Space projects that are presented to and approved by the CPC and Town Meeting. Ms. Fenollosa added that the CPC had originally decided on a practice, in collaboration with the Appropriations Committee and the Capital Expenditures Committee, of keeping $2 million for reserves, but noted that this was just a policy and not a requirement. Mr. Creech asked if the safety concerns at the library had been mentioned when the project was first presented to the CPC. Ms. Fenollosa commented that it had been addressed in the original CPC application and Mr. Pressman added that the safety element was addressed in other library presentations as well. Mr. Pressman shared his belief that the large meeting room and smaller meeting room were adequate and excellent spaces, and noted that the current book stacks were not all full. Mr. Pressman asked if the lower stacks for this project would be able to hold all the current books. Ms. Stembridge shared that the project would seek to find a balance between maximizing the book collection with improving accessibility and people space. 5 Mr. Pressman asked if the project could just deal with the stacks. Ms. Stembridge explained that aside from the stacks, the area’s safety is also impacted by its u-shape and limited sight line due to the bathroom’s location. Mr. Pressman stated that in his opinion the two meeting rooms do not need work and that the rugs in the corridor and children’s room are not worn out, but added that he is willing to support the split-funding option because it does not impact the other applications presented to the Committee. Ms. Stembridge commented that the current meeting spaces have deficiencies for the needs of the programs that are held there and added that the type and size of the library’s program have expanded past what the rooms were originally intended to be used for. Mr. Pressman asked “so, we should cut from housing and we should cut from recreation?” Ms. Fenollosa replied that if there are cuts, it would have to be a decision of the Committee. Ms. O’Brien added that there are not many places for youths and teens to hang out aside from the Community Center and expressed support for the importance of the project. The Committee discussed the alternative funding plan that fully funds the library with CPA funding. Ms. Kosnoff explained that fully funding the library would require cutting about $1.7 million total from other projects in the Unbudgeted Reserve bucket. Ms. Fenollosa asked the Committee if they were prepared to work with the funding plan that split the library funding or if they wanted to explore cuts to projects in order to fully fund the library. Mr. Creech questioned if the AHT needs $3.2 million in one year, expressed that the LexHAB’s exterior paint project at Wright Farm does not need to be painted, and added that he does not believe that the LHA’s residing for 561/563 Massachusetts Ave is necessary. Mr. Creech asked about the process LexHAB used to determine what projects they need to complete. Mr. Pressman and Ms. Fenollosa responded that they have a professional who assesses their ongoing capital needs. The Committee discussed LexHAB’s requests and agreed to seek more information regarding the Wright Farm Exterior Painting project, but do not find it necessary to require additional information from LexHAB on the other elements of their application. Ms. Walker commented that the Committee was shifting too much between topics, and noted that the original discussion was whether to work within the parameters of the first funding option. The Committee agreed to work within the parameters of the first funding option, split-funding the library between CPA and the General Fund. Mr. Pressman asked Ms. Kosnoff if there is typically debt funding for capital within the tax levy. Ms. Kosnoff explained that there is always some debt financing for capital projects, but noted that the Town has made improvements in terms of reducing overall debt financing. Ms. Kosnoff added that because the library project is a one-time construction project, it makes more sense to debt finance a portion of it than certain other projects in the Town’s capital plan. Mr. Kanter noted that there is a difference between capital projects and capital programs and that the standard methodology is to debt-finance projects, not programs. Ms. Fenollosa asked Mr. Kanter about his experience and thoughts on the CPC’s $2 million reserve policy. Mr. Kanter stated that the $2 million reserve was conceptualized as a good practice for the CPC, but 6 expressed that he did not think that the presented $1.4 million reserves for FY25 was egregious and believed that the CEC would be willing to support that amount. Mr. Creech asked Ms. Kosnoff what the CPC can expect to have for funding for FY26. Ms. Kosnoff replied that it would likely be around $8 million. Straw Poll Votes for FY25 Projects – The Committee voted by a roll call vote in a straw poll to support the Cary Memorial Library Renovation project in the amount of $2,300,000 (9-0). The Committee voted by a roll call vote in a straw poll to support the Archives and Records Management project in the amount of $20,000 (9-0). The Committee agreed to wait on a straw poll vote for the Land Acquisition until further discussed in an executive session. The Committee voted by a roll call vote in a straw poll to support the Park Improvements for the Athletic Fields at Bowman project in the amount of $545,000 (9-0). The Committee discussed the Lincoln Park Fitness Stations Equipment project. Mr. Sandeen asked Ms. Battite about alternative funding for the project. Ms. Battite shared that the Trustees of the Public Trusts oversee two trusts that could potentially fund some or all of the project. Ms. Battite commented that the Recreation Committee had not yet determined if or how much they would request from the trusts, but added that this information would be decided before Town Meeting. Mr. Pressman shared that the Lincoln Park Subcommittee often uses trust funding for landscaping projects at Lincoln Park, and shared that the subcommittee suggested to the Recreation Committee that they request 25% of the project’s cost from the available trusts. The Committee voted by a roll call vote in a straw poll to support the Lincoln Park Fitness Stations Equipment project in the amount of up to $160,000 (8-0-1). Mr. Creech voted to wait. The Committee voted by a roll call vote in a straw poll to support the Park Improvements for the Hard-Court Surfaces at Valley Rd in the amount of $492,000 (8-0-1). Mr. Creech voted to wait. The Committee voted by a roll call vote in a straw poll to support the Lincoln Park Field Improvements in the amount of $1,145,000 (7-1-1). Ms. Krieger voted to abstain and Mr. Sandeen voted no. Mr. Sandeen commented that he does not believe the CPA should fund synthetic fields. Ms. Fenollosa shared that the CPA funding would not be applied to any artificial turf installed. 7 The Committee voted by a roll call vote in a straw poll to support LexHAB’s Affordable Housing Support, Restoration, Preservation and Decarbonization project in the amount of $478,865 (9- 0). Note: this amount was incorrectly stated and voted: the correct amount requested is $482,365. The Committee voted by a roll call vote in a straw poll to support the LHA’s 561/563 Massachusetts Avenue Exterior Improvements project in the amount of $100,000 (8-0-1). Mr. Creech voted to wait. The Committee voted by a roll call vote in a straw poll to support the AHT’s Pre-Funding in the amount of $3,200,000 (9-0). Mr. Creech, Ms. Krieger, Ms. O’Brien, and Ms. Fenollosa expressed concern for the sustainability of funding recurring big-dollar requests from the AHT. Ms. Fenollosa shared with the Committee that she had been advised by Ms. Tung that aside from land transfers from the Town, the CPA is the only funding source of funding for the AHT. Mr. Creech suggested that the AHT may still be able to make a substantial impact with a slightly lower amount of funding from the CPA. Ms. Fenollosa conveyed that Ms. Tung had stated that the AHT was not open to lowering their FY25 request. Ms. Tung explained that the AHT’s request is based on projected requests for funding from the AHT, and added that AHT funds are used to leverage the cost to acquire or create affordable housing, rather than paying the cost in full, which has been the practice in Lexington. Ms. Walker expressed support for Ms. Tung’s comments and challenged the attendees of the meeting to consider the hardships mothers are facing when they are living in shelters with their children after having put most of their belongings in a self-storage unit. Ms. Walker commented that she supports the AHT requesting as much money as they can possibly get and added that affordable housing should be paid for by CPA funding. Mr. Pressman commented that the Town’s anticipated request for FY26 is about $12.3 million and noted that the AHT should not be the only applicant scrutinized for sustainability. Mr. Pressman also commented that the Select Board five years ago opted to address all categories except for housing, and added that the same is true this year. Ms. Fenollosa replied that the CPC cannot control what the Select Board chooses to pursue or endorse for CPA funding. The Committee voted by a roll call vote in a straw poll to support the Administrative Budget and Debt Service for FY25 in the amounts of $150,000 and $681,200, respectively (9-0). Ms. Beebee, Ms. Kosnoff, Ms. Heitz, and Ms. Prosnitz left the meeting at 6:58 PM. Mr. Sandeen asked if the debt service for FY25 included approved debt financing for the Munroe Center. Ms. Fenollosa explained that the FY25 debt service was for the Cary Memorial Building project and shared that the Munroe Center debt had not yet been issued. Ms. Fenollosa added that until the Munroe Center debt is issued, there will be no other CPA debt service after FY25. 8 Ms. Barry, Ms. Battite, Ms. Rhodes, and Ms. Stembridge left the meeting at 7:03 PM. The Committee discussed meeting at a later date to decide if they would want to support endorsing the Real Estate Transfer Fee legislation. Needs Assessment Report – The Committee discussed Draft 1 of the 2023 Needs Assessment report. The Committee agreed to accept the draft as prepared for public comments at the CPC’s public hearing on December 14. Mr. McGaw and Ms. Tung left the meeting at 7:07 PM. Minutes- After a motion duly made and seconded, the Committee voted by a roll call vote to approve the minutes as amended from the Public Meeting on 11/9/2023 and the minutes as presented from the Public Meeting on 11/16/2023 (8-0-1). Ms. Roy voted to abstain. Committee Business- The Committee agreed to meet on Thursday, December 7, 2023 to discuss the remainder of the Land Acquisition in an executive session and to discuss LexHAB’s justification for funding exterior painting at the Wright Farm. After a motion duly made and seconded, the Committee voted by a roll call vote (9-0) to adjourn at 7:11 PM. The following documents were used at the meeting: 1) FY25 CPA Funding Application – Land Acquisition 2) CPA Summary FY25 Budget dated 11-30-2023 3) FY25 CPA Project List 4) 2023 Needs Assessment Report – Draft 1 5) Draft Minutes 11-09-2023 6) Revised Draft Minutes 11-09-2023 7) Draft Minutes 11-16-2023 Respectfully submitted, Thomas Case Administrative Assistant Community Preservation Committee APPROVED: 12/14/2023 9