 |
Minutes
Lincoln Community Preservation Committee
Nov. 20, 2006
Present: Rayna Caplan, Susie Collins, Craig Donaldson, John Koenig, John Valpey, Peter von Mertens, and Bryce Wolf
Absent: Colin Smith
Anita Scheipers, Assistant Town Administrator discussed the Pierce House request for funding (2008-5) with the Committee. It is the opinion of the Town Administrator’s office that the request for funding, except for number PPC-1, the Feasibility Study, are necessary and appropriate for funding for FY 2008. The repairs requested are primarily of a structural nature. Many of them are listed as high priority in the Town Facility Study conducted by MKA. Three items are listed as normal priority in the MKA study. Additionally, all items are of a nature that they would need to be done regardless of any changes in the business strategy of the Pierce House. In particular, the Pierce House is in the midst of a business plan study being undertaken by students at Bentley College. It is thought that any
recommendations made in that study will not involve work contrary to the items currently requested for funding. When asked about the amount of each funding request, Ms. Scheipers noted that MKA used experts in different building trades to reach their estimates, and that their estimates were based on prevailing wage. The additional amount requested for the bathroom work, as proposed by Dana Mahnken, over the amount set forth in the MKA report, is due to the fact that MKA did not have full access to the bathroom at the time of its study.
It was the sense of the Committee to propose funding for all requests at this time other than the basement wall repointing. That is an item listed as normal priority for 2008-09 in the MKA report. Unlike the exterior wood repair, and the painting that would be required after that work, all of which will make the Pierce house much more presentable, the basement wall was considered a lower priority. The Committee also discussed how best to grant the funds, where multiple projects are proposed, to avoid over funding in one area being allocated to other projects unnecessarily (i.e., just because the money is available).
The Committee thanked Ms. Scheipers for taking the time to meet with them about these funding requests.
The Committee next discussed the proposal for funding from the Cemetery Commission (2008-6). The Committee reviewed the c.v of Mr. Ivan Myjer, and his proposal for the work to be undertaken (kindly provided by the Cemetery Commission as requested at the last meeting), on which the funding request is based. It was agreed that Mr. Myjer appeared to have extensive experience in the area of monument restoration. The Committee expressed its surprise at the price quote when compared to his quotes for other restoration projects, but was reminded of the complexity of this particular project as described by the Cemetery Commission at the Committee’s prior meeting. Their was discussion about the status of funding from other sources, and whether First Parish should take a more prominent role in the funding, given the connection
with the monument at issue. It was agreed to ask the Cemetery Commission for an update on its other funding solicitations. The sense of the committee is to approve the funding request as presented, but contingent upon assurances that the balance of the fund required would be forthcoming.
The Committee next discussed the proposal for funding from the Town Clerk (2008-7). The Committee discussed the Strategic Plan and Action Plan submitted by Mr. William F. Carroll, C.A. (kindly provided by the Town Clerk as requested at the last meeting), on which the funding request is based. The extent of the actual cleaning of the records was noted. Given the importance of the Town Clerk’s records to the history of the town, the sense of the Committee is that this funding request is a “no-brainer.”
The Committee next discussed the Library’s proposal for the elevator smoke vent upgrade (2008-1). In light of the parameters of the Community Preservation Act, particularly preservation of property, and the other projects requested and anticipated to be requested based on the MKA report, the sense of the Committee was to not forward this request for funding to the Town.
The Committee next discussed the Library’s proposal to expand its fire suppression system (2008-2), It reviewed the components of the request, as well as the submitted requests for further funding of this system in later years. A number of questions were raised. In light of the MKA study, what might be the need or desire for fire suppression in other town buildings eligible for CPA funding. What would happen if funding for later elements of this project were not available. Would the work requested for FY08 b e beneficial standing on its own, even if later stages were not completed. And if it could be predicted now that later stages could not be funded, is this the work that would be best for the Library. Peter von Mertens volunteered to meet with Barbara Myles and Fire Chief Cotoni to discuss these
questions.
The Committee then discussed the two proposals from the Conservation Commission (2008-3 and 2008-4). The only question raised is whether the $25,000 maintenance amount in 2008-4 would be more properly requested as part of 2008-3. Peter von Mertens explained that the $25,000 maintenance funding was actually related to the Hugh Value land purchase, and was not for general maintenance. It is the Conservation Commission’s plan now to seek funding for ongoing maintenance in connection with any new land acquisition, given that maintenance funds will be needed, but are harder to raise in the abstract at a later time.
Other Business:
The Committee discussed the status of pending projects:
The Affordable Housing Trust has asked the Committee whether the CPA funds granted to the trust could be used to purchase an apartment that while not rented as an affordable unit, would qualify as an affordable unit for purposes of meeting the quota under 40B. The particular issue involves apartments at Ridge Road, which exist in clusters of 4 apartments. Under 40B, if at least 25% of rental units in a building are rented as affordable apartments, the remaining apartments will count as affordable for purposes of 40B. This is the same rule being used by the Deaconess project with respect to its rental building. If the Town were to purchase all 4 apartments in one cluster at Ridge Road, and rent all of them, but only one as affordable, all 4 apartments would count towards 40B. The question then, is whether the CPA
funds in the trust could be used for the purchase of the three apartments that were not rented as affordable. The Committee discussed the question, and concluded that the purchase would promote the creation of affordable housing as contemplated in the CPA, and voted unanimously that the CPA funds in the trust could be used for that purpose.
The Tot Lot is anticipated to begin construction the Wednesday prior to Thanksgiving.
Sunnyside is proceeding on the pace discussed at the prior meeting.
The committee approved the minutes from its October 30, 2006 meeting.
Submitted By: John L. Koenig
Approved: 12/11/2006
| |
