Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-12-07-CPC-min1 Minutes of the Community Preservation Committee Thursday, December 7, 2023 Hybrid Zoom Meeting Meeting ID: 997 4649 6864 Community Center Room 230/232 39 Marrett Rd 4:30 PM Committee Members Present: Marilyn Fenollosa (Chair); Jeanne Krieger (Vice-Chair), Kevin Beuttell, Robert Creech, Lisa O’Brien, Robert Pressman (arrived at 4:39 PM), Kathryn Roy, Mark Sandeen, Melinda Walker. Administrative Assistant: Thomas Case Other Attendees: Sandhya Beebee, Liaison, Capital Expenditures Committee; David Kanter, Vice Chair & Clerk, Capital Expenditures Committee; Carolyn Kosnoff, Assistant Town Manager for Finance (arrived at 4:38 PM); James Malloy, Town Manager (arrived at 4:51 PM); Sarah Morrison, Executive Director, LexHAB. Ms. Fenollosa called the meeting to order at 4:35 PM. Revisit LexHAB FY25 CPA Funding Request (241 Grove St – Paint Exterior) – The Committee discussed the $10,000 exterior paint project at 241 Grove St, as part of LexHAB’s FY25 CPA funding request. The Committee reviewed the photos of 241 Grove St’s current exterior paint provided by LexHAB. Ms. Walker asked Ms. Morrison if the house had been repainted when it was originally renovated. Ms. Morrison explained that part of the house was painted and received some touch-up work. Ms. Walker asked if there had been insufficient funding to paint the property when it was originally renovated. Ms. Morrison replied that she was unsure and was not involved with that project. Ms. Fenollosa shared that the windows had been replaced and suggested that the framing had not been upgraded. Ms. Morrison added during its renovation, there was an attempt to keep as much of the original structure as possible. The property was part of the Mass Save’s initiative and has heat pumps and extra insulation, but there is still heat escaping. Mr. Creech shared that he had walked around the house and could not get close enough to the house, but did see that the window sill on the lower level was in bad shape. Mr. Creech commented that painting requires good preparation and expressed concern that if the building had been painted recently, then it did not receive adequate preparations. Mr. Creech removed his objection to the exterior paint project due to its current condition and advocated for good preparation before its painting. Mr. Pressman shared that he had also visited the property and noted that there were sides that had not been painted and multiple places needed repairs. 2 Ms. Fenollosa thanked Ms. Morrison for her time and for providing the CPC with additional information on the project. Ms. Morrison left the meeting at 4:40 PM. Minutes- The Committee agreed to postpone approving the minutes from the 11 -30-2023 meeting in order to have more time for review. Committee Business- Ms. Fenollosa reminded the Committee that next week, on December 14, the CPC will hold its Public Hearing on the 2023 Needs Assessment Report at 4:00 PM via Zoom and in the Parker Room. After receiving public comments, the Committee will vote on the approval of the Report and take final votes on FY25 project recommendations to Annual Town Meeting. Needs Assessment Report – Looking Forward Proposal – The Committee discussed a proposed Looking Forward section for the Needs Assessment Report (NAR), as drafted by Ms. Fenollosa. Ms. Fenollosa expressed support for adding the section to the NAR as a way to convey to the public the CPC’s outlook for the next five years. Mr. Sandeen expressed support for the intent of the Looking Forward section and offered edit suggestions to the text and table, including adding asterisks to the AHT section, indicating that the provided numbers were only preliminary projections and not actual requests. Mr. Sandeen also asked whether the NAR should advocate for linkage or transfer fee legislation designed to provide funding for affordable housing. Ms. Fenollosa suggested mentioning legislation that would increase funding options for housing and the AHT as a way to build aware ness. Ms. Krieger expressed support for mentioning the legislation as a means of educating people and added that there would need to be a vote by the CPC to support the bills in order to advocate for them in the NAR. Mr. Creech expressed support for the Looking Forward section, provided the information is accurate and has support from the Committee. Ms. O’Brien suggested that the AHT asterisks/footnote should be applied to the entire 5-year table of potential requests. The change was added to the Looking Forward draft. Upon the arrival of the Town Manager, the Committee decided to continue th is conversation until after the executive session. Executive Session Under Exemption 6 – After a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted by a roll call vote (9-0) to enter into Executive Session at 4:55 PM under Exemption 6 to consider the purchase, exchange, lease or value of real property and to reconvene in open session; the Chair declaring that an open meeting might have a detrimental effect on the negotiating position of the Town. 3 At 5:25. after a motion duly made and seconded, the Committee voted by a roll call vote (9-0) to exit Executive Session and return to Open Session to attend to the remaining agenda items. Mr. Malloy left the meeting at 5:25 PM. Needs Assessment Report – Looking Forward Proposal (cont.) – The Committee continued discussing the proposed Looking Forward section for th e NAR. Mr. Sandeen asked if the paragraph on the linkage or transfer fee bills should be removed, left in for educational purposes, or endorsed by the CPC. Ms. Krieger expressed favor for the CPC to support the bills. Ms. Roy expressed support for the CPC sending a letter of endorsement to the Select Board. Mr. Pressman commented that the Governor’s transfer fee legislation and the previously filed transfer fee legislation differ in the amount to which the sale price would be subject to the transfer fee and asked if the previously filed bill would be part of the CPC’s considerat ion. Mr. Sandeen recommended removing descriptions of the bills to avoid overstepping or accidentally misleading readers about the details of the bills, which are also subject to change. Ms. O’Brien asked if the Select Board had taken a position on any of these housing bills. Mr. Sandeen shared that he expects the Select Board will take a position on them. Ms. O’Brien expressed support for sharing the CPC’s outlook and supported leaving the bills in the NAR for educational purposes. Ms. Krieger advocated for recommending to the Select Board that they support any transfer fee. Ms. O’Brien asked Mr. Kanter if the CEC would consider advocating for the housing bills. Mr. Kanter was unable to answer, but Ms. Kosnoff noted that th e Appropriations Committee might be more relevant for this discussion and said she would share the question with the Committee. The Committee continued to discuss the language in the NAR pertaining to the various transfer or linkage fee bills and Mr. Sandeen agreed to draft language reflecting the CPC’s support for the passage of legislation that allows for additional funding for affordable housing. Ms. Walker expressed her opposition to the Looking Forward section. Ms. Walker expressed concern that the section blames housing for the CPC’s inability to fund all projects, while other Town entities also have high projected requests. Ms. Walker also expressed concern that by supporting the real estate transfer fee, the NAR would highlight housing as being the reason for the CPC’s deficit. Ms. Fenollosa commented that the other high demand projects not related to housing are also in the Looking Forward section, along with all other potential requests. Ms. Walker commented that the AHT’s items are not CPA requests, but rather projections for what requests the AHT could receive, and thus not the same as a Town CIP. Ms. Walker added that the LHA has no plans for what potential funding they will seek in future years and that the AHT’s number for the LHA were not provided by the LHA. Ms. Walker expressed that the LHA and other housing estimates are unknowns. Ms. Krieger commented that the table’s asterisks cover that all the numbers are estimates or assumptions. 4 Ms. O’Brien commented that the AHT’s projections are useful because they are being used to inform the Trust’s request from CPC. Ms. Walker commented that the AHT’s projections are only possibilities and are more subject to change than Town CIPs. Ms. Fenoll osa commented that the AHT’s projections are the only available estimates for housing for the CPC and noted that the AHT’s justification for their FY25 CPA request was based on these AHT projections. Ms. Fenollosa added that the AHT should not be left out of the table. Ms. Walker said she did not think the table should be included in the “Looking Forward” section. Ms. Roy commented that the point of the section is to show that there is a greater need for CPA funding than is available for the foreseeable future and so the CPC is going to have hard decisions regarding future funding. Mr. Pressman commented that there were 17 changes between the Town’s CPA capital plan s for FY24 and FY25 and commented that the Town’s anticipated request for over $12 million is fictional. Mr. Pressman added that the AHT’s numbers are also fictional and that the purpose of a Trust is to capitalize on unforeseeable projects when they arise. Mr. Pressman suggested writing a few sentences to acknowledge that the CPC received anticipated funding for future fiscal years, the CPC receives proposals and attempts to address them in an equitable manner, and if there are more requests than funding available, the CPC will try to address the applications in an equitable and fair manner. Ms. Roy suggested leaving the table out of the section and just leaving the language that acknowledges the anticipation for more funding requests than what is available. Ms. Fenollosa shared her opinion that the CPC could not say they anticipate more than $61 million in requests over five years without showing their reasoning. Ms. Fenollosa shared that the CPC has received multiple requests for multiple years to provide 5-year projections for CPA funding. Ms. Fenollosa shared that she used available projections from the CPC’s regular requestors, to formulate the table. Ms. Walker commented that the housing numbers are not projections. Ms. Krieger commented that the purpose of the Looking Forward section is to recognize that based on available projections, the CPC is faced with more requests for funding than it has, and so the CPC should be mindful of this situation and should not overlook alternative funding that could be used to fund these project requests. Ms. O’Brien commented that the section also highlights what is needed to address affordable housing solutions. Ms. Krieger added that the section will establish a foundation to justify heavily funding community housing over other projects in the future, should the need arise. Ms. Beebee acknowledged that the CEC has repeatedly requested a 5-year projection from the CPC and that the table is helpful, but added that there is no expectation for the CPC’s projections to be binding. Ms. Beebee also suggested that the financial pressures might be short-term and due in large part to factors related to the upcoming high school project. 5 Ms. Kosnoff shared that the Town’s 5-year capital plan are based off of estimates but frequently changes based on changes in scope and price changes. Ms. Kosnoff shared that it would be helpful to see placeholders for non-Town requests and noted that when the Town has an anticipated project without a price yet, they use “TBD”. Ms. Kosnoff added that even an estimated number conveys the expectancy for a request at some point down the line. Ms. Walker commented that the numbers used for housing are not good estimates. Ms. Walker commented that her primary concern is for affordable housing and how the public views the need for affordable housing, and feels that the table’s numbers for housing create a false idea of what is needed or will happen in Lexington over the next 4-5 years, as opposed to the other categories. Ms. O’Brien commented that the table also shows that the AHT’s request considers what the CPC has available to allocate. Mr. Sandeen commented that if there were a Town staff member dedicated to housing, there may be more accurate numbers for housing’s projections , and commented his support for attempting to show the higher need for funding than what the CPC has available. Mr. Creech commented that the housing partners are better off having some level of projections for Annual Town Meeting, and supports the Looking Forward section’s intention. Mr. Pressman commented that the table does not include debt funding for the Munroe Center, or potential debt funding for fields or the Stone Building. Ms. Kosnoff noted that FY25 is the last year for authorized debt payments, but noted that there will be debt service for the Munroe Center in future years, whenever the project begins. Mr. Kanter added that the encouragement for the CPC to create a 5-year projection is to reflect the pressure faced by the CPC’s funding constrains. The Committee discussed minor changes to the language and formatting of the proposed Looking Forward section. After a motion duly made and seconded, the Committee voted by a roll call vote (7 -1-1) to accept the Looking Forward section, as amended, into the 2023 Needs Assessment Report. Mr. Pressman voted no and Ms. Walker abstained. After a motion duly made and seconded, the Committee voted by a roll call vote (9-0) to adjourn at 6:23 PM. The following documents were used at the meeting: 1) LexHAB 241 Grove St Exterior Paint Photos 6 2) 2023 Needs Assessment Report Draft 2 3) Proposed Looking Forward section for NAR 4) Minutes 11-30-2023 Draft 5) Minutes 11-30-2023 Draft 2 6) CPA FY25 Fund Balance Sheet dated 12-07-2023 Respectfully submitted, Thomas Case Administrative Assistant Community Preservation Committee APPROVED: 2/15/2024