Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-11-12-CPC-min (4PM) Community Preservation Committee Thursday, November 12, 2009 Room G-15, Town Offices 4:00 pm Present: Betsey Weiss, Chair; Joel Adler, Norman Cohen, Marilyn Fenollosa, Jeanne Krieger, Wendy Manz, Leo McSweeney, Nathalie Rice, Admin. Asst; and Sandy Shaw. Mr. David Kanter of the Capital Expenditures Committee was also in attendance. Absent: DickWolk Ms. Weiss called the meeting to order at 4:05 pm. The purpose of the meeting was to hear presentations from three applicants for CPA funding. 1.Lexington Housing Authority Request for Bathroom Upgrades – Mr. Steve Keane. Mr. Steve Keane of the Lexington Housing Authority introduced this project, explaining that the Housing Authority was (1) proposing renovating the bathrooms in the Community Rooms of Greeley Village and Vynebrook so they would conform to ADA standards, and (2) renovating eight additional bathrooms in Greeley Village. The amount of the Housing Authority’s request is $358,176.60. Mr. Keane explained that the Community Rooms in Greeley Village and Vynebrook are used frequently, but do not have bathrooms equipped to accommodate handicapped residents and or visitors. He said funding from the State for repairs and upkeep has been cut by 4.7% this year, and added that Greeley Village and Vynebrook receive no Federal funding. In response to a question from Ms. Shaw, Mr. Keane explained that the cost of each bathroom upgrade would be approximately $26,000 for the Greeley Village bathrooms, and slightly less for the Community rooms. This prompted a discussion of whether the Housing Authority would be submitting proposals for the remainder of the bathrooms in the future – some 140 additional upgrades.) Ms. Fenollosa posed a philosophical question for the CPC – questioning whether the Committee wished to dedicate funds for restoration work for affordable housing units, or commit itself to purchasing new units as it has done in the past two years with LexHAB. She pointed out that these are very different approaches to supporting community housing. Mr. McSweeney pointed out that the improvements to Greeley Village and Vynebrook benefit 148 people, generally of low income, while the purchase of units by LexHAB are generally moderate units for families. Mr. Keane noted here that the average annual income for Greeley Village is $13,000. 1 Mr. Kanter of the CEC, pointed out that the projects proposed by the Housing Authority were really two different projects. The ADA upgrades in the community rooms were a one-time project, while the renovations to the eight bathrooms could be seen as a long term project. Mr. Kanter encouraged Mr. Keane to give the CPC a five year cost projection of the latter project. Mr. Keane pointed out that he hoped that the bathrooms could be upgraded on a yearly basis, but that other safety and health issues might become priorities, such as replacing the GFIs (Ground Fault Interupters) in the bathrooms. Mr. Kanter asked for a breakdown of the costs of the two different jobs, noting that this was difficult to assess from the spreadsheet in the application. 2.Recreation Update – Town Turned Down for State Grant - Ms. Shaw informed the Committee that the Recreation Department had heard from the State, and that the Town had not received the 40/60 grant for the Old Reservoir/Marrett Road Project which would have supplemented a prior CPA allocation. She said they are planning to meet with the State to see why the grant was turned down. The work on the drainage improvement work will continue despite the absence of grant monies, since the CPC funded the entire amount for the project for FY 2010. 3.Hancock School Roof and Windows – Mr. Scott Robins and Ms. Susan McLeish introduced this project, which requested $470,000 in funds for the replacement of slate shingles on the former Hancock School building and the replacement of its windows. (Mr. Norman Cohen, a resident of the Hancock School Condominiums, recused himself from the discussion and left the room at this point.) Ms. McLeish, representing the Hancock School Homeowners Association, gave a brief introduction to the project, and a overview of the history of the building, which lies in the Historic District. She explained that the proposal for $250,000 in roof replacement costs was due to the difference between asphalt shingles and slate shingles which might be required by the Historic District Commission (HDC) to meet historic restoration standards. She added that the Homeowners Association had recently met with the HDC, and said the HDC had approved the use of a rubber shingle, which resembled slate. She explained that this would reduce the request to the CPC by some $40-50,000. There was a lengthy discussion of the insurance coverage on the building, and why the repair of the building was not fully covered. Ms. McLeish stated that some owners were not adequately insured, and that the building exterior and windows are not covered by individual policies. She noted that the building envelope itself was underinsured. Mr. Adler brought up the point that it may be beyond the scope of CPC to fill the gap when individual owners failed to carry adequate insurance. Ms. Fenollosa pointed out that it is very hard if not impossible to get full coverage on a historic building, 2 explaining that insurance companies simply do not want to cover the cost of historic renovations. Ms. McLeish added that the insurance issues would take a long time to resolve, including the insurance claims against the contractor responsible for starting the fire which destroyed the building. She said they did not have the time to wait out this process and had to move ahead with the renovations. Mr. Adler brought up the issue of funding a private historic structure, as opposed to a public one. He noted that it would be hard to explain to taxpayers that the CPC had funded the restoration of a private condominium complex, albeit an historic structure. This prompted the question as to whether such an appropriation would encourage similar requests from private homeowners of historic buildings. Mr. Robins, the consultant hired by the Homeowners Association, reminded the CPC that the request was for the difference between the “repair” costs and what a Town body, the HDC, may require to restore the building to its historic exterior. He noted that this restoration would benefit the Town by preserving an historic structure. Ms. Manz framed the request, saying that the CPC would have to decide if the building was significant enough to the Town’s history to make preserving it a public benefit. Discussion then turned to the second phase of the Homeowners Association request - restoration of the windows. This request was for $220,000 which represented the difference between the replacement/repair of the destroyed windows compared to the replacement of all of the windows with energy efficient durable windows that still met the HDC requirements with respect to appearance. There was a general discussion of this project, which the Committee saw as distinctly different from the roof project. They pointed out that the Homeowners Association could choose to just replace the damaged windows, and not seek additional funding for the cost of installing all new windows. Ms. McLeish addressed this point, stating that it made sense from a cost standpoint to do the work all at one time, and explained that the present windows are extremely energy inefficient, even with the addition of storm windows. Mr. McSweeney asked if work had been commenced on the site to which Ms. McLeish replied that the demolition work was complete, and that masonry work was next on the list. After the completion of the masonry job, the reconstruction of the roof will begin. Ms. Shaw summarized the options before the CPC, stating that there were three options to consider for the roofing project, and two alternatives to assess for the window work. She said she appreciated the separation of the two jobs, since she saw them as two dissimilar projects. She added that the roof work seemed more integral to the building. 3 In response to a question from Ms. Weiss, Mr. Robins agreed to submit further information in the next few days regarding (1) the costs associated with the rubber roof alternative and (2) the insurance monies that have been received by Homeowner’s Association. The Homeowner’s Association had also requested the submittal of additional information by December 1, since they had not met with the HDC prior to the November 1deadline. They therefore may submit financial or timeline data in addition to that requested by Ms. Weiss. . 4.Police Station Renovation - Phase II Design and Engineering – Mr. Pat Goddard and Chief Mark Corr presented this project to the CPC. Mr. Goddard explained that the RFP for the Space Needs Study funded in FY 2010, was sent out several weeks ago, and that 16-20 companies had come to look at the Station. He said they have received responses from 20 architects, among them the Maguire Group, which did the needs assessment for the Fire Station. He said an architect would be selected in the next several weeks, and that the needs assessment would be commenced in December. Because of this timeline, Mr. Goddard said he and Chief Corr would not be seeking funds for FY 2011. Mr. Kanter asked Mr. Goddard to anticipate the cost for the project in future years, and to input this data in the table on the Capital Improvement Project sheet. He said he understood why there were no cost estimates, but even a general number would give the CPC and the CEC a estimated figure around which to plan. th 5.Public Hearing rescheduled for January 14, 2010 – The public hearing thth previously scheduled for December 17 was rescheduled to January 14, st 2010, with a snow date of January 21. A half hour before the meeting has been reserved for a meeting of the CPC if needed. The hearings are scheduled for the Cary Auditorium. 6. The Meeting was adjourned at 5:30 pm. Respectfully submitted, Nathalie Rice Administrative Assistant Community Preservation Committee 4