Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-12-11-CPC-min Community Preservation Committee Public Hearing Thursday, December 11, 2008 Cary Memorial Auditorium 6:30 pm Present: Betsey Weiss, Chair; Marilyn Fenollosa, Vice Chair; Joel Adler, Norman Cohen, Jeanne Krieger, Wendy Manz, Leo McSweeney, Nathalie Rice, Admin. Asst.; Sandy Shaw. Absent: Dick Wolf The Public Hearing was called to order at 6:31 pm. Approximately 20 residents were in attendance. The purpose of the Public Hearing was to receive comments on thirteen projects under consideration by the CPC for Spring Town Meeting. Discussion of the CPC’s administrative budget was also on the agenda. 1.Athletic Field Improvements – Dave Pinsonneault, Superintendent of Public Works, spoke to this request for $100,000 for FY 2010 to conduct field improvement work on the Town’s Athletic fields. The total cost of the improvements was expected to be $200,000 with half the cost to be appropriated from the tax levy. This request by the Recreation Department was the follow-up to recommendations made in a Field Renovations Report funded by the CPC in 2007. The FY 2010 request is for drainage improvements to the area between the varsity baseball field and the main varsity softball field. The CPC monies would not be used for turf, but would be used specifically for piping, catch basins, and other drainage related needs. Mr. Pinsonneault said funds would be used only for aspects related to the protection of the resource. Several questions arose at this point both in regard to the project, and to the larger issue of CPC project review. Mr. Ken Kreutziger posed the question that while the Athletic field project might fall within the letter of the CPA statute, there might be other projects with greater priority. He also questioned the eligibility of the athletic field project, given the recent Seidemen vs. Newton case. Ms. Fenollosa addressed this legal point and noted that restoration can only be on recreational facilities acquired with CPC funds, but that protection of an existing resource (the athletic fields in this case) is allowable under the statute. Mr. Cohen added that all the projects under consideration by the CPC for FY 2010 have been approved by Town Counsel for eligibility. Mr. Kreutziger raised the larger issue of CPC policy, and suggested that the Committee develop policies for project acceptance. He said the legality of the 1 project may not be the issue, rather that certain projects may be more appropriately funded through the tax levy. Mr. Al Levine, from the Capital Expenditures Committee, directed the discussion back to the specifics of the Athletic field project, and asked Mr. Pinsonneault when the Field Renovations Report would be made available to the public. He suggested that when it is available, that the Recreation department post the relevant sections and recommendations on the Recreation Department website. Mr. Pinsonneault responded that it would be made available soon, and that he would post the pertinent information. 2.Storm Water Mitigation at the Old Reservoir - Mr. Pinsonneault also spoke to this Recreation Department project, which requested $569,000 in CPC funds in FY 2010. (An additional request of $190, 047 in CPC funds is anticipated in FY 2011.) Mr. Pinsonneault commenced by updating the Committee on the reconstruction of the gatehouse at the Reservoir, which was approved by the CPC in 2008. He said he expected work to commence on the project shortly, and to be completed by late winter. The present request before the CPC was for the protection of the Old Reservoir from bacterial contamination. Mr. Pinsonneault said the Reservoir is an important Town recreational resource, and explained that the bacterial counts in the Reservoir had been increasing over the last few years. This summer, the Reservoir had to be closed for several days due to the contamination, which enters the Reservoir from the storm drainage system on Marrett Road. Upgrades to the drainage system will be two-phased. In Phase 1, the detention pond adjacent to the Reservoir will be dredged to increase its holding capacity and detention time. Two catch basins that drain into the detention pond will also be rebuilt. Phase 2 of the project, to be completed in FY 2011 would include the reconstruction of the two basins further east on Marrett Road. In addition to reconstruction, there will also be appropriate mitigation measures installed in these two basins to reduce bacterial contamination, since they drain directly into the Reservoir. There were no questions regarding this project. Pine Meadows Golf Course Drainage Improvements – 3.Mr. Pinsonneault also addressed this project, explaining that there were significant needs at the Golf course to protect a few key sections from washing out. The amount requested by the Recreation Department for this project is $200,000. The location, Mr. Pinsonneault explained is in the area of the ninth green and fourth green, where a large culvert had washed. The project would include the installation of a sizeable box culvert, the dredging of an existing pond to improve its detention capability, and the installation of a gate structure at the downstream end of the pond. He said the work was needed to protect the recreational resource. 2 A discussion of use of the Enterprise Fund ensued, prompted by questions from Mr. Frank Sandy. Mr. Sandy suggested using the Enterprise Fund for this project to relieve the burden on the tax levy. Ms. Shaw responded that the Enterprise Fund was spoken for and used according to Recreation Board policies. This project, she noted was allowable under the CPA statue to preserve the recreational resource of the golf course from damage. Mr. David Williams commented that drainage issues are long-term concerns, and that hopefully the Recreation Department was not taking a “band-aid” approach by only targeting small areas for protection. He noted that there are larger concerns in the Town’s watersheds, which should be examined when conducting individual drainage projects. Mr. Pinsonneault agreed with Mr. Williams, and said that drainage work over the next few years at Pine Meadows was being planned with this in mind. Archives and Record Management/Records Conservation and Preservation 4. - Donna Hooper, Town Clerk, spoke to this project, which would require $150,000 in CPA funds. Ms. Hooper detailed the history of this project, which is intended to preserve the Town’s municipal archives and records. She said this request was the second in a series of five-year requests for funding to preserve and protect the historical records of the Town. Mr. Kreutziger asked what the total costs of the project would be to which Ms. Hooper answered that over the five years, the anticipated cost would be $750,000. She felt the project would continue to be a priority, especially when the DPW moved out of its office in Town Hall, and their documents were conserved. Cary Vault Climate Control 5. - Donna Hooper also spoke to this request, which was for $45,000 in supplemental funding. She related the history of the project, noting that $60,000 had been appropriated in 2006 and an additional $15,000 in 2007. The project had gone out to bid, and only one bid of $100,000 had been received, which was not accepted. Mr. Goddard explained that $45,000 in supplemental funding is needed to allow for the greater than anticipated expense of doing the HVAC and fire suppression work in the vault. He said bids were expected in the next 6-8 weeks, and added that he expected the work to come in under the $100,000 mark. There were no questions on this project. Town Office Building Renovation 5. – Mr. Goddard spoke to this request, stating that $80,000 was appropriated in 2007 for a Town Offices Building Use Study, and that the present project would follow through on the recommendations in the study. The intent of the work would be to relieve overcrowding in the Recreation, Community Development and Engineering Departments, as well as bring the building up to code with respect to fire protection and handicapped access. The present request was for $1,200,000 including a $200,000 contingency fee. He 3 noted that the consultant had presented the study committee with two alternatives, with cost estimates of 1.3 and 1.9 million. He said Mr. Valente, the Town Manager, would be reviewing the alternatives, and might delay the construction project for this year, in favor of additional study. In that case, the request before the CPC would be lowered to approximately $25,000 to cover additional study monies. There was considerable discussion on this project from a policy standpoint. Ms. Sally Zimmerman (of the Historical Commission) spoke as a private citizen, and expressed her concern that CPC funds were being used for what she would interpret as “routine maintenance and restructuring”. She delivered a letter to the Committee outlining her concerns. The letter was entered in the public record. She said it was her experience that in other communities CPA funds were used to further “preservation” goals. She also questioned whether the Committee had involved the HDC in their review process for the Town Offices Building and Police Station projects. She felt the CPC was in a position to leverage funds in difficult economic times, not only for preservation projects, but for housing and conservation purposes as well. Ms. Weiss addressed Ms. Zimmerman’s concern regarding open space acquisitions, noting that the Committee was only able to fund projects that came to the CPC. She reminded Ms. Zimmerman that the Town had recently voted at Fall Town Meeting to accept a CPC approved project for open space – the Goodwin land. She also noted that the inclusion of the Town Office and the Police Station buildings in the HDC was what brought the projects before the CPC. In response to Ms. Zimmerman’s concern that the CPC was not attentive enough to conservation acquisitions, Mr. Cohen informed Ms. Zimmerman that the CPC was currently considering a significant conservation acquisition for Spring Town Meeting. Mr. Mehr suggested that the CPC should be “building up stores” for future conservation and housing purchases and said he felt that a 50-100 year planning horizon would be appropriate. He added that he felt Town employees were important, but that the CPC needed to select projects according to a set of definable guidelines with long-term goals. Police Station Space Needs Study 7. – Captain Mark Corr presented this request for $45,000 and commenced by updating the hearing on the history of the Police Station renovations in 1956, 1970, 1994 and most recently in 2006. He discussed the various floors in the Police Station and itemized the difficulties with each one. The most notable is the access issue on the basement floor, where prisoners must be walked into the building through the mechanical room, and where female officers must exit through the men’s locker room to get to their cruisers. Mr. Edward Olsen questioned whether the improvements to the station and the needs study qualified for CPA funding. Ms. Weiss explained that the building is in a 4 historic district, and therefore the needs study would be CPC eligible. Ms. Manz added that the CPC had not yet voted on the project, and that there would be more communication among Committee members before a final vote was taken on this project. Mr. Sandy suggested that the CPC look at projects with a “liberal scope” but that individual projects should get a “hard look”. He noted that there were really two issues, (1) to make sure projects were legal or eligible, and (2) to decide whether a project met Committee guidelines. Connie Rawson Stone Building Renovation 8.– Connie Rawson opened the discussion of renovations to the Stone Building, a request of $271,660. She informed the hearing of the lengthy history of the building and explained the issues that were highlighted in the preservation analysis report funded by the CPC in 2006. The report included a historic structures report, and outlined structural and building code issues. The report recommended restoring the “ell” that was destroyed in 1946, and within the new structure, installing an elevator, public bathrooms, and handicapped access. She said the Board of Trustees had recently voted to upgrade the Stone Building to a “Heritage Center”, and wanted to move ahead with these renovations. Mr. Frank Sandy expressed his reservations about this project. He said it clearly was an eligible project, but that there was no justification for the 2.7 million in funding that would eventually be needed to complete the project. He said he felt selling the building would be most appropriate, with the proceeds going to support the library budget. He also questioned whether the Trustees could convert the Stone building to a Heritage Center under the terms of the present deed. Ms. Rawson replied that the deed for the property did not have any restrictions regarding the building’s use for community purposes. Mr. Robert Washburn expressed his opinion that he fully supported the timely renovations to the Stone Building and the Trustees interest in expanding its use. Mr. Glen Parker also expressed his opinion that the Stone Building renovations were the most “sensible” of all the projects under review. Mr. Alan Levine of the Appropriations Committee agreed with Mr. Parker, but felt that the specific use of the building should be determined prior to applying for CPC funding. He also felt a building plan should be presented to the Committee as part of the funding request. Mr. Mehr suggested that in the present economy the Town might be able to take advantage of state or federal grants for such projects. Mr. Cohen responded that the Town is continually seeking grant monies, most of which are available for infrastructure projects. Fire Station Headquarters Renovation and Redesign – 9.Chief Middlemiss was present to discuss this request for $168,154 for the design and engineering stage 5 of work to be completed on the Fire Headquarters in FY 2011. He said two alternatives had been seriously considered; (1) maintaining a portion of the building and constructing new bays at the rear of the structure, and (2) demolishing the entire fire station and rebuilding a new one. The costs for each of these projects he said were 8 million and 10 million respectively. He said he was seeking $168,154, which represented approximately 29% of the total design and engineering estimate. This percentage was derived from the fact that in the new Headquarters, 29% of the building would be the existing structure, while 71% would be new construction. A lengthy discussion ensued prompted by Chief Middlemiss’ presentation. Mr. Edward Olsen reiterated his point that the project may be legal under the terms of the CPA, but that it might fit outside the boundaries of the law’s intent. He requested that the Committee set “stringent boundaries” for approval. Ms. Shaw responded to this point, commenting that when the CPA was passed in Lexington, there were two schools of thought; one, which felt CPC funds should be used to relieve the burden on the tax levy, and a second, that felt there should be a strict interpretation of the statute. Mr. Adler added here, that there may be aspects of the construction request that the CPC may not be able to support. Mr. Lamb, Chairman of the Capital Expenditures Committee, said the CEC felt all the projects were fundable, with the exception of one or two. He said he recognized that the Board of Selectmen felt that as a rule, all projects should be allowed to come before Town Meeting so that members could decide which to fund. He suggested that the CPC could advance all eligible projects to Town Meeting, but give negative recommendations to those projects which did not meet their criteria. There was a lengthy discussion of how projects should be advanced to Town Meeting while satisfying the goals of the CPC. The Committee was asked about projects it had turned down in the past, and whether these should be somehow be presented to Town Meeting. Ms. Fenollosa addressed this point, commenting that the Committee was charged with vetting projects, and that it did not make sense to advance projects that did not comply with the statue. Greeley Village Roof Replacement 10. – Ann Whitney spoke to this request for $320,828 for the replacement of twenty-five roofs at Greeley Village. (This represents 100 units of housing.) Ms. Whitney described the project and explained that every effort is made to make the rents at Greeley Village affordable. Present rents are $281/month, with qualifying annual incomes of $12,263. In response to a question from Mr. Levine, Ms. Whitney and Mr. Keane updated those in attendance on the status of the window replacement project that was approved by the CPC in 2007. Mr. Keane stated that the project is due to be complete before the holidays, and added that window replacement work at 6 Vynebrook Village is due to go out to bid in the spring. There were no further questions on this project. Monroe Tavern Historic Structures Report/Capital Needs Assessment 11.– Susan Bennett, Executive Director of the Lexington Historical Society presented this project for $50,000 for a study of the Monroe Tavern. She explained that the Tavern has recently received greater visitorship due to the inauguration of the Tavern as the “Museum of the British in Lexington”. She said the report would address the following needs for the Tavern; (1) a new HVAC system, which is outdated and in some sections of the Tavern, non-existent, (2) an updated fire sprinkler system, which dates back to the 1920’s, (3) the installation of ADA upgrades, (4) the reconfiguration of space in the Tavern to accommodate school groups, and (5) the installation of public bathrooms. She said the report would include an Historic Structures Report, plans and specs. There were no questions regarding this project. LexHAB Purchase of Three Properties 12. – Chairman of LexHAB, Bill Hayes, spoke to this request for $797,500 for the purchase of three properties for affordable housing. The three properties included (1) a single-bedroom condominium at Emerson Gardens selling for $250,000, (2) a house at 300 Woburn Street, for $352,000, that would be demolished and replaced with a standard LexHAB home, and (3) a house on Ross Road selling for $395,000, that would be upgraded. Mr. Hayes said LexHAB realized that the rents for these units should be set to permanently meet Town’s affordable housing quota, and that the housing group would impose deed restrictions to this effect. In response to a question from Mr. Levine, Mr. Hays stated that the house on Woburn Street would be built with contracting help from the Rotary, and manpower from Minuteman Vocational Technical School. He said such projects have been very successful and cost effective in the past. Ms. Dawn McKenna asked if LexHAB would go ahead with the purchase of the units with or without CPC funds. Mr. Hays responded that LexHAB would still purchase the units, and that in fact, two had already been purchased. Ms. McKenna replied that she did not feel the CPC should be “back funding” such purchases. She said she would rather see the CPC give LexHAB $700,000 to fund its purchases, or dedicate a portion of its reserves to fund LexHAB. Mr. Levine suggested that the Appropriations Committee should know if LexHAB plans to request additional funding for the construction of the Woburn Street house after its demolition. Mr. Hays said LexHAB would bring a funding request to Town Meeting, though he did not specify when. He added that the repairs to the Ross Road home would be done within the LexHAB budget. Land Acquisition by the Conservation Commission 13.– Karen Mullins, Conservation Administrator, spoke briefly to this request. She stated that the 7 Conservation Commission is in negotiations for a parcel of land, but that few details could be released at this time. She was unable to disclose any costs associated with the acquisition. There were no questions regarding this request. Administrative Budget 14.– Chairwoman, Betsey Weiss, spoke to this item. She explained that the administrative budget would be increased this year due to increased legal fees, administrative costs, and Conservation planning fees (which are budgeted at $50,000). She said the CPC administrative budget would be in the range of $150,000, but less than the 5% of CPA annual revenue allowed by law. There were no questions regarding the administrative budget. After a motion was made to adjourn the Public Hearing, it was closed at 8:31 pm. Respectfully submitted, Nathalie Rice Administrative Assistant Community Preservation Committee 8