Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-12-06-CPC-min Public Hearing for FY2009 CPC Proposals Cary Memorial Library Meeting Room Thursday, December 6, 2007 6:30 p.m. CPC Members Present : Joel Adler, Norm Cohen, Marilyn Fenollosa, Wendy Manz, Leo McSweeney, Richard Pagett, Judy Pearson, Sandy Shaw, Betsey Weiss, Dick Wolk CPC Chair, Betsey Weiss with introductions of the Community Preservation Committee members, opened the meeting. Agenda items were presented as follows: 1. Homebuyer Assistance Program (Housing Partnership) $470,000 – presented by Tom Harden and Chris Kluchman Chris Kluchman presented the background and reasons why they are proposing this Homebuyer Assistance Program. Sharing that housing prices in Lexington continue to increase and that studies and statistics reveal that the percentage of affordable homes available to first-time home buyers in Lexington today have decreased significantly since 1998, Chris stated that Lexington is described as a “rapidly increasing home value community.” The median home sales price in Lexington is $660,000 and while this is very good news for some, Chris suggested that this implies that Lexington is a town where only the wealthy can afford homes. This reality, she said, limits the number of families renting, recent college graduates and two teacher household incomes from purchasing homes. In truth, Lexington homes are not affordable to first-time homebuyers. Consequently, they are proposing the Lexington Homebuyer Assistance Program for which they have developed guidelines, legal documents and an agreement with a local bank. Chris stated that the loan program would fund 2-3 first-time homeowners in its first year. She also made one correction to the document, which was that there are no age limitations to the Program. Questions: 1. Charles Hornig, Planning Board Chair, asked if their plan takes into account foreclosures. Tom Harden responded by saying that the program is designed to piggyback with the Massachusetts Housing Partnership “SoftSecond” program which began in 1991. From that, they have extensive data on loan performance and foreclosures suggesting that the foreclosure risk is rare. Charles further stated that in a declining market, there is always some percentage of people who may deal with foreclosure. Would the Program be in a position to protect them from this situation? Tom responded that while the data suggests that the risk would be rare, they would need to investigate this. 2. Frank Sandy, TMM, Precinct 6, asked what would happen should someone’s income increase substantially (in reference to repayment terms and one not being required to repay until selling the house). Sandy stated his opinion, which is that this situation would not be fair to tax payers. 3. Andy Friedlich, TMM, Precinct 5, stated that The Lexington Minuteman suggested that the Program was for town/school employees. Are there criteria? Chris Kluchman responded that all interested parties would first need to be income qualified and then first-time homebuyer and/or town employee status would be evaluated. Question was asked “Would a town employee need to count this as town compensation?” Public Meeting 12.6.07 Minutes – FINAL 1.16.08 1 4. Jim Goell, 6 Fox Run Lane, stated that he agreed with a program for first-time homebuyers but also questioned if this was too expensive of an option? Tom Harden replied that they had looked at different ways and they feel this is a more efficient means saying that it leverages the State’s “SoftSecond” program and lower interest rates. Chris Kluchman also replied that they had looked into programs such as deed restrictions and deed buydowns but they are very cumbersome to maintain. She also offered that last spring, they were told “No” at Town Meeting and therefore, this program is the result of further thinking and would not encumber the Town as a manager of properties. Jim Goell’s opinion was that it was an inefficient use of money and suggested it was similar to rent controlled apartments where people get in and are then apt to stay for years, if not life. 5. Gloria Bloom, TMM, Precinct 4, asked about furnace, heating and electric maintenance expenses. How do you make sure these houses do not deteriorate? Chris Kluchman responded that the bank would be risking the majority of money and they would have a process in place to ensure that the owners meet criteria, attend home ownership class, etc. She also offered that default rates are typically lower in the “SoftSecond” program. 6. Alan Levine, TMM, Precinct 8 and Chair of the Appropriations Committee, stated that he saw two goals being (1) to diversify the population (income range) and (2) as a subsidy to people who need housing. He asked for clarification of goals and priority. Tom Harden stated that the first goal is most aligned. Alan responded that it suggests to him that the main goal is “changing the town” versus assisting people who need it. Tom responded that the two go hand-in-hand. Alan further stated that if the goal is to help people, this plan, to him, doesn’t seem to accomplish it. He asked if the numbers actually work. Tom stated the numbers should work and Alan suggested they look closer at long-term payments over 30 years. Alan asked what the value of the subsidy is to people taking the loans versus a market-rate loan for 5 years and/or 30 years. Lastly, Alan questioned what would happen if the market declined in the long term along with a property mortgaged to 95%. What happens then? 7. Edith Sandy, TMM, Precinct 6 asked how many households in Lexington earn less than the median income. She questioned if there is an unethical piece to this arrangement and advised one to carefully consider all issues. 8. Mary Haskell questioned if this program, while in effect, would prevent “mansionization.” 2. Belfry Hill Tree Restoration (Tree Committee) $9,850 – presented by John Frey and Ann Senning John Frey, Chairman of the Tree Committee, briefly outlined this project, which is to remove the infestation of Norway maples located on the north and northwest side of Belfry Hill, and to replace them with more widely spaced native trees. This project will also open the view between the Belfry Tower, the Town Green and the Buckman Tavern. John held up a diagram for Belfry Hill pointing out that the area targeted for tree restoration is on the “other” side of the hill – the area that people do not typically see. Ann Senning described the area as the North Slope, stating that the Tree Committee completed a tree inventory in the summer of 2006. This was a stem-by-stem inventory of all trees on Belfry Hill. The backside is a “much infested, jammed-up, tight, wooded area.” The proposed goal is to remove the Norway Maples, a highly invasive species. John Frey further stated that another goal of the proposal is to open the vista from Buckman Tavern to the Belfry and to preserve the view (a clear picture can be seen on the town website). Ann shared that in January Public Meeting 12.6.07 Minutes – FINAL 1.16.08 2 2006, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts declared the Norway Maple an invasive species due to its vast amount of seed and high capacity to overrun a forest. Questions: 1. David Kanter, Capital Expenditures Committee, asked why they are eligible for CPA funding. Betsey Weiss offered that Town Counsel was currently in the process of determining eligibility and there was no determination yet. Marilyn Fenollosa commented on the importance of understanding the definition of preservation, which could include the notion of invasive species harming other species. 2. Gloria Bloom, TMM, Precinct 4, asked what it would look like when done. Per Ann Senning the area will be replaced with native trees as well as erosion control trees, shrubs and grass. 3. Gerry Paul, TMM, Precinct 4, asked if the $9,850 covers the total cost of work. “Yes” is the answer due to the fact that the Tree Committee already completed an extensive inventory study and has a current landscape plan. 3. Hancock-Clarke House Restoration (Historical Society) $600,000 – presented by Susan Bennett Susan Bennett described the project as a complete restoration, starting next year, to address a multitude of issues - structural problems, building envelope, historic fabric, systems, fire suppression, wiring and accessibility. With an estimated cost of $1.3M, they are currently in the th bidding process with bids due by January 15. They are seeking CPC funds and other funding sources. To date, they have received $50,000 from the State of Massachusetts and have submitted a number of grant requests. Susan shared her disappointment to having recently learned that their project would not qualify for grant funding from two previously hopeful sources. While they wait to hear about other potential grant sources, in the spirit of full disclosure, Susan shared that they will receive $850,000 in proceeds from the sale of an old Mobil Oil Corporation weathervane (through an auction house). While this amount clearly exceeds the Historical Society’s expectations for what they had hoped to receive for this item, Susan was very clear to state that the Society is responsible for six properties in town and that they have a full agenda of financial obligations. Susan outlined priorities for the $850,000 as established by the Historical Society Board: (1) to purchase outright, silver from the Follen Church – to remain in public trust; (2) to use $200,000 toward the Hancock- Clarke House Restoration project; and (3) to create a fund for other future projects as needed for the physical assets for which they have stewardship. Susan reminded everyone that the Hancock-Clarke House is a National Historic Landmark and emphasized to the CPC that their support cannot be overstated. She also stated that the Historical Society is likely to develop a capital campaign around Patriot’s Day, to raise funds beyond any they receive from the CPA. Questions: 1. Alan Levine, TMM, Precinct 8 and Chair of the Appropriations Committee, sought clarification of funds. If the project cost is $1.3M and the CPC funds $600,000 and the Historical Society funds $200,000, where is the remaining money coming from? Susan Public Meeting 12.6.07 Minutes – FINAL 1.16.08 3 confirmed that they are trying to raise this $500,000 gap one way or another – from additional grant sources and/or a community capital campaign, if needed. 2. David Kanter, Capital Expenditures Committee asked if the $200,000 has caused the Historical Society to review the $600,000 amount requested of the CPC. Susan responded that she is hoping for full funding given their plate of financial obligations. 4. Old Reservoir Management (Recreation Department) $55,000 – presented by Dave Pinsonneault David Pinsonneault from the DPW presented this project with assistance from Karen Simmons. Dave described the Old Reservoir off of Marrett Road saying that it is a popular swimming hole, used for fishing and walking. Showing a diagram, Dave spoke of the current gatehouse structure, which is located in the pond. He shared that this structure is no longer efficient or effective citing that at times, the structure has had four feet of water over its top creating lots of flooding and the need for extensive sand bagging. Also, given the structure is 8-10 feet down, they are not able to access the valves. They seek funds to replicate this structure but on the outside of the dam which will allow them to access it and to properly control the flow of water. At the same time, another problem they would like to rectify is the fact that the outflow pipe is broken somewhere within its 200-foot length. They will put in a new pipe that will be used to control the reservoir’s water level. Lastly, they will dredge the retention pond (on the left-hand side). Questions: 1. Bill Herring, TMM, Precinct 8, inquired about ice-skating in the winter. With the ability to regulate water flow – more, less – how will this impact skating? Dave said the project would have little impact, as there is little water to regulate in the winter. The spring is when they will control the water flow. 2. Roger Borghesani, TMM, Precinct 8, asked if they would remove the present structure. Dave responded “No” the present structure will remain. They will access the pipe at the gate structure. 5. Vynebrook Village Windows (Housing Authority) $158,686 – presented by Ann Whitney Ann Whitney described the window replacement at Vynebrook stating that the complex is a low income, public housing development. The windows they seek to replace are the original windows (1973) which are very difficult to open, the cause of significant heat loss, and problematic for the seniors. Questions: 1. Unknown Person asked if this is the same or similar project to Greeley Village [FY2008 CPA project] and if so, the status (of Greeley). Ann confirmed that it is a similar project and that at Greeley they hired a designer and new windows will be installed in the spring. 2. Gloria Bloom, TMM, Precinct 4, asked what they have done to apply for other funds. Ann shared that federal funds are for federal developments (which Vynebrook is not). This is a Public Meeting 12.6.07 Minutes – FINAL 1.16.08 4 state development and funding is available only for situations of dire need. Given there is no dire need, they would not qualify. Even if they did, Ann shared that emergency funds cover only up to $25,000. They are trying to preserve what they have before they have an emergency situation. 6. Archive Record Management & Conservation (Town Clerk) $35,000 – presented by Donna Hooper Donna Hooper, Town Clerk, passed out a handout for her funding request that outlines the Municipal Archives responsibility for the preservation and protection of records and town information. She also displayed samples of old documents, which clearly show the need for document preservation. Donna commented on the significant changes they have been able to make over the last two fiscal years through the use of CPC funding. Consequently, they have had funding for the installation of shelving and installation of climate control and fire protection. At this time, she is proposing a 5-year annual approach at $35,000 per year, which she described as modest, but prioritized. They will contract all work. A formal assessment will come forward next month. Donna reiterated the need to protect and preserve town documents. The timing is particularly th important she said as the Town approaches its 300 Anniversary. Questions: 1. David Kanter, Capital Expenditures Committee, strongly urged Donna and the CPC to revisit and re-evaluate to see if Donna’s plan is aggressive and robust enough citing the Town’s interest to preserve historic documents. 2. Gloria Bloom, TMM, Precinct 4 asked what would happen with this particular $35,000. Donna commented that experts would actually do the work on documents. They work with Northeast Document Conservation Center and would have several documents preserved. 3. Alan Levine, TMM, Precinct 8 and Chair of the Appropriations Committee, strongly encouraged Donna to put together a comprehensive plan for doing the larger $500,000- $600,000 worth of needed work. Noting that Donna’s outline does not include microfilming or digitization, Alan stated that $35,000 a year for 20 years or whatever it may be, does not sound “right.” 4. Roger Borghesani, TMM, Precinct 8 commented that it seemed to him that there are lots of documents to present to the public. Are there any plans to display documents either in the Library or through the Historical Society? Donna mentioned that they are still discussing th this matter and doing so especially in light of the Town’s 300 Anniversary. 7. Parker Manor Condo Purchases (LexHAB) $652,800 – presented by Bill Hays Bill Hays introduced himself as the Acting Chair of LexHAB and explained that LexHAB purchased three units of housing in Parker Manor Condos at 314 Bedford Street (prior to Route 128) towards the end of October 2007. LexHAB purchased these condos, numbers 4, 7 and 107 on behalf of the Town. They are all 2-bedroom units and two are ground level. The acquisition of these condos brings the LexHAB tally to a total of 56 units. LexHAB rents to applicants who meet affordability criteria approved by the Board of Selectmen. These three particular units were acquired for location and benefit (condominium units are good for tenants in that they relieve Public Meeting 12.6.07 Minutes – FINAL 1.16.08 5 tenants from winter difficulties and summer burdens and they are good for LexHAB). The cost was $832,000 for all three units plus $60,000 paid in financing to date. A major portion - $652,800 - has been financed through Patriot Bank. LexHAB provided $179,260 and this amount is not part of the funds LexHAB is requesting from the CPC. They are requesting funds with which to pay Patriot Bank. LexHAB is working with the Planning Department to apply for HOME funding, so that these units will qualify for the Lexington Subsidized Housing Inventory with reference to 40B. Questions: 1. Alan Levine, TMM, Precinct 8 and Chair of the Appropriations Committee, noted that LexHAB holds the mortgage on these properties. He asked what the consequences would be of having this money paid to Patriot Bank. Bill spoke of Katahdin Woods and stated that with LexHAB holding the mortgage, they have fewer resources to purchase units in Katahdin Woods, when the deed restrictions that keep them affordable start to expire. 2. David Kanter, Capital Expenditures Committee, made a comment about principal only. 3. Unknown Person asked why not keep the mortgage and asked about the current interest rate. At this point, Gloria Bloom, TMM, Precinct 4 asked about the number of properties that qualify under CPC. The Stone Building, Monroe, White House and Harrington were mentioned. She asked why isn’t the Town proactively looking at it all, in total, and coming forward with a comprehensive plan? If the CPC is subsidized by 50%, Gloria’s opinion is that the Town should be more pro- active. Richard Pagett commented that he shared the concern as a former Selectman but at this point, the CPC was a responding body to proposals submitted to it. Richard also stated that the CPC has approximately $10M to bring forward to Town Meeting this spring and they will not run out of money quite yet. Marilyn Fenollosa also noted that the Town Manager polled all town departments to solicit needs and that they work in partnership. David Kanter suggested a routine fall Town Meeting. 8. Housing Specialist Position (Planning Department) $19,500 – presented by Maryann McCall-Taylor Maryann McCall-Taylor, Planning Director, explained her proposal, which is to request funding for a Housing Specialist position for the Town. She is seeking a part-time position at 15 hours/week. It would be a new position that complements the work done by the Planning Department. Funding this position would forward the Affordable Housing agenda, the 2020 process and last year’s Town Meeting priorities with programs acceptable to the Town. It was noted by Maryann that use of CPC money to fund a Housing Specialist position is under review by Legal Counsel to determine whether or not the position is an eligible expense. Having said this, Maryann also noted that she has applied for a part-time Housing Specialist position through the Town’s budget planning process. Questions: 1. Gloria Bloom, TMM, Precinct 4, asked if the person in this position would be seeking grants. 2. Dawn McKenna, TMM, Precinct 6, questioned if this position is legally an appropriate expenditure. She stated that she is of the mindset that position funding belongs in the Town’s operating budget. Public Meeting 12.6.07 Minutes – FINAL 1.16.08 6 3. David Kanter, Capital Expenditures Committee, asked if the proposal has endorsement and coordination with LexHAB and the Housing Partnership Board. Maryann said yes and has it in a letter. Maryann further stated that other towns, notably Nantucket, have funded a housing specialist position with CPC funds. She also noted Sudbury saying they had a position funded by the CPC but have moved it into the budget. 9. Senior Center Design, Renovation, and Expansion (Social Services) $127,719 – presented by Lauren McSweeney and Paul Lapointe Paul Lapointe explained that they are seeking funding for design services to two historic buildings – the White House and Muzzey Condos, where the Senior Center is now. He said the funding is contingent on the outcome of a feasibility study that Town Meeting approved last spring. They are currently in the RFP process with proposals due after the first of the year. The study is to determine the feasibility of rearranging services for seniors in a two-campus model – looking at how Muzzey and the White House could be revised or revisited. Is a two-campus model a viable proposal? Can services to seniors be accomplished in two locations? If so, then they are seeking funding from CPC and Town funds. Again, however, Paul stated this is all contingent upon result of the feasibility study. Questions: 1. Ellen McDonald questioned the availability of 18,000 square feet at the White House site. Paul acknowledged that he does not know if 18,000 sq. ft. is appropriate there. He noted his footnote and the need to test assumptions. 2. Ellen asked how Paul came up with $127,000. His response was “creative accounting.” He further noted that he wanted to work with the Town Manager to refine numbers. He clarified that $127,000 is not credible now since part of the construction is new and therefore not entitled to CPA funding. He will do more homework on this before Town Meeting. 3. Alan Levine, TMM, Precinct 8 and Chair of the Appropriations Committee, asked when the feasibility study would be complete. Paul said there was a walk-through on 11/26/07. He mentioned having the study done by the end of March but noted that participants expressed concern with the timeline and short turn-around. Alan ventured to respond informally saying that the timing puts the Finance Committee in a difficult place. Paul understood and requested that the proposal serve as a placeholder acknowledging little detail on the proposal until next April. 4. David Kanter, Capital Expenditures Committee, expressed concern with the timeline and time needed to complete a meaningful evaluation. The timing to him suggests that it is premature to ask for design money. David repeated his plea for a fall Town Meeting and stated that a fall Town Meeting sounds like a far more reasonable time. 5. Unknown Person spoke to the long time to have action sit still. He recognized that this proposal may be a stretch for many but the risk of no action is that another year could pass without a plan for the senior center. 6. Dawn McKenna, TMM, Precinct 6, expressed her frustration and stated that she hoped that the CPC would not endorse this proposal. She mentioned that the plan in front of people was a 10,000 sq. ft. plan. She further stated that, in her opinion, there are two sites for a senior center – (1) the Waldorf School, which is not an option for 10-15 years, and (2) the Public Meeting 12.6.07 Minutes – FINAL 1.16.08 7 Harrington School. She shared that the School Committee “abruptly” relocated to Harrington last year and that it is way too much space for School Administration. Bottom line, she feels the Committee has not come to grips with where proper Senior Center space is, mentioning that no site meets the concerns around parking for seniors. Again, Dawn stated that she “would hate” to see CPC funds used and wasted as the seniors need an easy place to park and to drive in and out. Funding would be “ill-advised” per Dawn. At this point, it was stated that the CPC would not vote on the proposal until the feasibility study is complete. With that said, Paul said he is asking for the opportunity to present to Town Meeting because if they cannot present at that time, another year will pass. Lastly he stated that the Council on Aging has a responsibility and he will keep at it. 7. George Burnell, Selectman, stated that the White House is a historic building and that it is important to have a process which allows the Town to identify the appropriate use of the building and to preserve it. Dawn McKenna asked why spend $127,000 to find out it is too expensive. Unknown Person said if you look at the school study, the cost is not that high. Ellen McDonald asked if there is a way to have a feasibility study done to identify the best use of building. She asked who launches such non-specific requests. CPC Chair, Betsey Weiss adjourned the Public Hearing at 8:51 p.m. to be continued on December 13, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in Cary Auditorium, Cary Memorial Building. Respectfully Submitted, Judy Pearson Administrative Assistant to the CPC Public Meeting 12.6.07 Minutes – FINAL 1.16.08 8