Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-03-19-CPC-min Community Preservation Committee Thursday, March 19, 2009 G-15 4:00 pm Present: Betsey Weiss, Chair; Marilyn Fenollosa, Vice Chair; Joel Adler, Norman Cohen, Jeanne Krieger, Wendy Manz, Leo McSweeney, Nathalie Rice, Admin. Asst., and Dick Wolk. Also in attendance were Charles Lamb, David Kanter, and Shirley Stoltz of the Capital Expenditures Committee, Glen Parkerson of the Appropriations Committee, Carl Valente, Town Manager, Rob Addelson, Finance Director, and Maryann McCall-Taylor, Town Planner. Absent: Sandy Shaw The meeting was called to order at 4:05 pm. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the options for paying for the upcoming acquisition of the Leary land, and to discuss the appropriations into the various CPA “buckets”. 1.Bonding vs. Paying cash for the Leary Land – Ms. Weiss opened the meeting and turned it over the to members assembled for a discussion of whether to bond or pay cash for the upcoming acquisition of the Leary land. Mr. Lamb of the CEC stated his strong opinion that with 7-9 million in the CPA accounts, bonding the purchase could not be justified. Mr. Cohen refuted this opinion and pointed out that with other large purchases such as the Busa property, it made sense to bond while the rates were low, (at approximately 2%). He felt the Town could be in a position to actually make money in the years to come. He also said he had heard the argument that if the Leary land were bonded, the CPA could not be revoked if voters wished to do so. Mr. Cohen stressed the point that irrespective of a CPA revocation, the payments for bonding would still be taken out of the General Fund. He also pointed out that the CPC would not be able to bond appropriations for any future private projects, such as the Hancock-Clark House or Douglas House. Mr. Kanter, who agreed with Mr. Lamb, made the point that the CPA was not approved by the Town on the basis of using CPA funds to “make money”. He said with a proven cash flow, and money in the CPC accounts, the prudent thing to do would be to pay cash. Ms. Fenollosa asked about the transaction costs of a bonding, to which Mr. Lamb replied that it would depend upon the amount bonded. The general figure of $35,000 came up as a possible figure. Ms. Weiss said that she had talked to Stuart Saginor of the Community Preservation Coalition, and he had noted that if a community has a large reserve in its accounts, there is often pressure to reduce the percentage of the surcharge. In Lexington’s case, this could be a reduction to 2% or even 1%. Ms. Krieger noted that there has been no discussion in Town about reducing the CPA surcharge percentage. 1 Regarding the issue of percentage rates for bonding, Mr. Valente suggested that the CPC could alternatively take out a short term bond, for which the rates are 1- 1.67%, and then make a decision later in the year about whether to follow through and bond the purchase, pay cash, or do some combination thereof. He said the Town was in a unique position, but stressed the need for some financial planning on the part of the CPC. There was further discussion about various options for bonding, for a three year period, for instance, which Mr. Valente felt might be more “palatable”, but the CEC was firm in their opinion that cash payment was most prudent under the circumstances. Mr. Wolk asked whether bonding would “wipe out” the conservation buckets in each future year, since payments must come out of the designated buckets. He also questioned the CEC about their support of the article if the CPC voted to bond the acquisition. Mr. Lamb responded that there was a probability that the CEC would not support the Article. Mr. Cohen registered his strong objection to this statement, and Ms. Weiss noted that there would be no vote taken on the matter at the meeting. Mr. Lamb asked if the Committee would come back before the CEC if the CPC decided to bond the acquisition. Ms. Krieger and Mr. Cohen responded that they would. The discussion was brought to a close, and no decision was made about whether to bond or pay cash for the Leary land. Mr. Valente and Mr. Addelson left the meeting at this point. 2.Discussion of Dividing the Leary Acquisition into the Various Buckets - Ms. Weiss opened this topic, andturned it over to Maryann McCall-Taylor. Ms. McCall-Taylor said that she had heard for the first time (at the meeting) that the size of the lot to be used for affordable housing had been reduced to 22,000 sq. ft from 24,000 sq. ft. She stated that if the Leary house was restored, 22,000 sq. ft would be too small and would create a non-conforming lot. She said it would have to be 30,000 sq. ft. for it to be conforming. Ms. Krieger brought up the point that the 22,000 sq. ft. lot would still be large enough since the Local Initiative Project ( LIP) process would be followed, which allowed some departure from normal zoning requirements.. Ms. McCall-Taylor agreed that the smaller lot would be enough to support a LIP development. Mr. Kanter offered that the larger lot (30,000 sq. ft.) would allow greater flexibility, and that the land which was not used for affordable housing could always be returned to conservation after the development process. Mr. Wolk expressed his frustration with the discussion, stating that the Conservation Commission had relied on the Planning Department to come up with an acceptable lot size, which he thought they had done. He said the lot size was immaterial, but that he had to be sensitive to the Estate. He said that affordable housing was acceptable to the Estate and that they had no objection to a historical renovation of the house for affordable housing. 2 There was a discussion of whether the 22,000 sq. ft. allowed enough flexibility for both the restoration of the Leary house and the addition of affordable housing units. Mr. McSweeney said he felt that the option for 4 units, as was shown on a previous plan reviewed by the Committee, was very important. Ms. McCall- Taylor added here that the 30,000 sq. ft. requirement was only important if the house were a standard conforming lot, and not an affordable lot. In this event, Ms. Krieger offered the thought, that perhaps the Committee was better off keeping the lot size low, so the house could not be sold as a standard home. Ms. Weiss said it was important to maintain as much flexibility as possible. Ms. Krieger stressed however, that the CPC was not creating a conforming lot with the intention that it would be used as a standard house lot. Mr. Wolk suggested that the Committee hold its public hearing, (scheduled for the following week) and assess the neighborhood’s reaction. Ms. Weiss felt this was off point, and expressed her frustration that the housing interests had not played a part in the planning process. Ms. Manz echoed this sentiment, stating that the definition of the housing lot seemed only to be presented as a fait accompli. Both Ms. Weiss and Ms. Manz argued for a more broad-based land acquisition committee which would include representatives of housing, recreation and other interests as well as those of conservation. There was a lengthy discussion of the planning process relative to the designation of the housing lot, during which Mr. Wolk left the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 5:35 pm. Respectfully submitted, Nathalie Rice Administrative Assistant Community Preservation Committee 3