HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-23-2019 APPROVED MINUTES: STEVENS ESTATE LONG TERM ADVISORY COMMITTEE DECEMBER 23,2019
In Attendance: Chair James Lafond; Members Kevin Driscoll, CJ Gangi,Joseph Pelich, and Kathleen
Stagno; Staff: Andrew Shapiro (Director of Community and Economic Development) and Stephen Foster
(Facilities Director)
Absent: Members Jennifer Luz and John Mabon
The meeting was called to order at 7:05PM by James Lafond.
Appointment of Recording Secretary:
Chair Lafond requested that one of the Members of the Committee volunteer to act as Recording
Secretary and produce minutes for each public meeting. Seeing as there were no volunteers, Mr. Lafond
requested that Andrew Shapiro continue to record the minutes until such time that a Committee
Member was identified to become the Recording Secretary. Mr.Shapiro agreed.
Acceptance of Minutes from 12/9/19 Meeting:
Minutes of the 12/9/19 Stevens Estate Long Term Advisory Committee meeting were reviewed by the
Members present.
MOTION: CJ Gangi made a motion to approve the 12/9/19 minutes, Kevin Driscoll seconded the
motion. Vote: 5-0.
Discussion Regarding Stevens Estate Capital Projects with Facilities Director Stephen Foster:
Chair Lafond introduced the Town's Facilities Director,Stephen Foster. Mr. Foster began by describing
the overhead site plan of the Stevens Estate, as shown via an aerial photograph displayed on the
monitor. On it was the Main House, Gardner's House,Gate House, and Stable/Carriage House with an
accompanying garage. Mr. Foster also pointed out the communications tower, located to west of the
garage on the property.
Joseph Pelich inquired as to whether the communication tower was on a ground lease with a third party
or if payments were being made directly to the Town. Mr. Foster said that he was unaware of the exact
status of the tower. Mr. Shapiro said that he would look into the matter.
Mr. Foster showed pointed out the trails and the property line on the 153 acre site. He noted the
watershed district and wildlife habitat delineations noted on a separate map.
Mr. Pelich inquired as to whether the 153 acres was inclusive of the Ousler property,which was
acquired by the Town a few years back. Mr. Foster said that it was not.
Mr. Foster than went through the contents of Facilities Review and Assessment document pertaining to
the Main House. He noted that the property contains a useable basement,three floors, and a walk-up
attic. A ballroom addition resides in the back of the facility. About 50%of the building is used. The first
floor is the most used area. The second floor contains bride and groom suites that have recently been
renovated, as well as the Director's office. The third floor is not currently used. There are about 80
parking spaces onsite. There is no elevator in the building,therefore ADA access is limited to the first
floor.
Mr. Foster continued by noting that the systems in the building are dated. The ballroom is the only
portion of the building that has air conditioning. Window units are used throughout the rest of the
building. Mr. Foster expressed his concern about the distribution coming from the branch wiring of the
electrical system,which he noted is dated. It's difficult to determine how much of the system is
grounded.
Mr. Pelich inquired as to whether the approximately$1.5 million cited in the document as needed for
capital improvements also includes the cost for rewiring. Mr. Foster said that it does not. Pelich said
that the$1.5 million estimate is most likely low,and it would most likely not be economically feasible
for a private entity to invest the capital necessary to bring the property up to code.
Mr. Foster then went through a series of items noted in the document that should be addressed at the
Estate. He mentioned fixing the retaining wall,which he noted would be undergoing emergency repairs
in the coming weeks. He also noted the need to take down some larger older trees, driveway
maintenance, and the need for a forestry management program.
Mr. Foster then explained that Columbia gas would be providing funding to relocate high pressure gas
service on the property,to better align with the boiler. The boiler will be replaced in the spring. The
structure of the building is in relatively good shape. The question becomes,what is the future use of the
property, and what can be done to accommodate that use—i.e. if the facility continues to host events
that require food service,the kitchen will certainly need to be updated. There are really only two
functional bathrooms at the moment, however there are plans to build out a bathroom on the first
floor.
As far as building envelope is concerned, Mr. Foster explained that the vinyl siding around the ballroom
portion of the building needs to be replaced. Although the roof on the main building was replaced a few
years back,the slate tiles will often come off here and there due to harsh weather. The ballroom's
EPDM rubber roof needs to be replaced,which is slated to happen in fall of 2020. The windows in the
main building were replaced a few years back;they are Marvin retrofits. The windows on the ballroom
are single-paned and "leaky." They should be looked at for replacement. The walls lack insulation,
which is a difficult issue to address because it is challenging to gain access to add insulation. There are
ongoing needs related to repointing the building.
In terms of the building's systems, Mr. Foster noted there are portions of the building that contain
original plumbing,which is of course dated. The second floor bathrooms in the bride and groom suites
were recently renovated, and the additional bathroom on the second floor is slated for renovation in
early 2020. The boiler is dated and currently runs on oil. It will be replaced in spring and will be
converted to natural gas service. The ballroom is the only area with air conditioning, and its unit was
replaced in 2018.
Foster noted that lighting fixtures are in need of upgrades. There is$40,000 in the capital budget to
address this issue. There is a fire alarm system in the building with a "pre-action" system in the attic.
That said, he also noted that there is probably too much detection capacity in the building, which leads
to a high cost for testing the system once a year. He noted that there is vinyl asbestos tile in the
building, which requires abatement.
The finishes in the building are of a high quality with artisan-grade millwork and so forth, but there is
some painting and floor refinishing that needs to be done. Mr. Foster then referred to a study that was
produced by Kang Associates,which contains a lot of detail about the property and its needs.
Foster then began to detail facility issues with respect to the Carriage House/Stable. Water and sewer
comes to the site, but the water is shut off. There is no fire protection for the building, but there is a
working fire alarm,which was installed a few years ago. There is electrical service to the building.
Everything pertaining to the exterior envelope of the building should be redone. The shingles are brittle.
Mr. Pelich inquired as to the size of the Carriage House. Mr. Foster responded, noting it is about 10,500
square feet, but that the ground floor area comprised only about 5,000 square feet. Mr. Pelich asked
what kind of uses would make sense for this particular building. Mr. Foster said that it would have to be
a use that would not require second floor access. Mr. Pelich said that he's heard that it could be a good
location for emergency management/services office space. Mr. Foster acknowledged that Emergency
Management currently stores supplies in the adjacent garage.
Mr. Foster continued on with the general description of the Carriage House building, noting that there is
currently no occupancy in the building and that a trailhead runs to the building,just off the right side.
The heating in the building is not functional. Kang Associates also performed an in-depth study of this
building.
Chair Lafond noted that the Kang Associates study assumes about$1.3 million for the cost of the
property's renovation. He inquired as to how that number might be inflated to account for current
market conditions. Mr. Foster said that he would need to look into a reliable estimate of an indexed
increase of the construction cost estimate.
Foster continued on to note that ADA upgrades would need to be made to the building if it were to be
used in the future. The structure of the building on the whole is not bad. The foundation needs some
repointing. The whole building needs to be re-clad. Windows and doors need to be replaced. No
systems are functional and would all need to be replaced, but there is a fiber optic line running to the
building. Some large trees were taken down around the building in recent years to better protect it.
Foster then began to discuss the Gate House. The building is only about 2,000 square feet and it lies
vacant. It has a wood frame with stone masonry exterior. The systems are dated, and there are no fire
suppression systems present, nor is there a fire alarm. There were improvements made to the
building's exterior a few years ago,which included work on the chimney,gutters, downspouts, masonry
repointing, and repairing windows. The plumbing is outdated and needs to be redone entirely. The hot
water heater is relatively new(2012),which is also the case with the boiler. Wiring in the building is
dated. Asbestos was abated in the building's basement.
Foster concluded his description of the property by discussing the garage. Emergency Management
currently stores supplies there. Small renovations were made to accommodate this. There is no heat in
the building, nor is there a fire alarm or protection. The envelope is need of total repair/replacement. A
boiler in the building would need to be abated and upgraded (if it was determined it is needed).
Chair Lafond asked if there were any questions from those in the public. Ellen Mosier, 137 Kara Drive
requested a copy of the facilities reports. Ms. Mosier was provided hard copies of the reports. She also
noted that in the past,the third floor of the main house was used as dorm space, and that there had
been plans to convert it, at some point, into hikers suites.
Kathleen Stagno expressed her concern regarding the potential of fire to destroy one or more buildings
on the property. Mr. Foster said that that was a valid concern given the lack of grounded wires on the
property.
Mr. Pelich noted that the expense to renovate the property to bring it up to code(roughly adequate), in
his opinion,would conservatively be, around $13.5 million. An entity taking on those costs in order to
get the property to a place to be able to run a private business there—such as a hotel or banquet facility
—is highly unlikely. The Town will most likely need to provide resources, such as a commitment to
Community Preservation Act funding. A public/private/partnership would need to be forged in order to
find success. Pelich questioned the notion that the Town would support the property with resources
from its general fund.
Mr. Lafond expressed his view that the Committee would have to keep an open mind about the
property's future use and likewise,that potentially a phased approached to renovations may need to be
explored. Mr. Pelich explained his view that he feels a third party private for-profit entity would need to
do all renovations up front, in order for the property to meet code for an intended use;therefore, he
feels it is highly unlikely for such a party to come forward as a potential future operator of the property.
Mr. Gangi expressed his view that the Elegant Banquets proposal did not contemplate making a major
investment in the existing main building, but instead intended to build out an addition that would
accommodate their needs as a function facility.
Mr. Lafond thanked Mr. Foster for his time and noted that he would like Committee Members to
arrange times to take a tour of the property to see some of the issues discussed at the meeting in
person.
Review and Discussion of Stevens Estate Indirect Costs:
Andrew Shapiro began to cover the information contained in the spreadsheets provided to the
Committee prior to the meeting,which outlined indirect costs charged to the Stevens Estate by the
Town. Indirect costs take into account the staff time provided to the Estate by the Town Manager and
other Town Departments to handle general matters, insurance(s) provided to the employees of the
Estate, as well as retirement provided to those same employees.
In the fiscal year 2020 budget, $81,286 was assigned to the Stevens Estate as indirect costs. The true
indirect cost would be$130,308 (broken down as$45,519.39 for insurances; $17,078.14 for retirement;
and $69,710.60 for charges from other departments), but the Town only charged the aforementioned
$81,000 figure (i.e.the Town is charging less than it should). Mr.Shapiro also noted that he had been
informed by the Town Accountant that the year-over-year cost increase for Indirect Expenses goes up
between 1.5-2.5%each year, in accordance with the Town's overall budget.
Chair Lafond inquired as to the formula being used to determine these amounts. Mr.Shapiro explained
that the Town Accountant receives guidance on formulas to use from its Auditors.
Shapiro also noted that the Town in years past had provided capital infusions to the Stevens Estate
Enterprise Fund totaling over$330,000. This bolstered the Enterprise Fund at times when the fund was
at risk of running a negative balance. Kevin Driscoll inquired as to whether the current financial status of
the Estate was in a place similar to that of the times when those capital infusions were made. Shapiro
confirmed that the Town Accountant's projections show that the Estate is likely to post a net operating
loss for the year.
Discussion and Vote Regarding Whether Future Advisory Committee Meetings Should be Recorded by
North Andover CAM (taken out of order on agenda):
Shapiro noted that he had inquired with other Town employees and representatives as to whether these
meetings should be recorded. The feedback he had received was that it was not necessary, but it was
certainly up to the Committee to decide if it would want meetings recorded on film. Either way,
meetings will remain open to the public and minutes will be recorded and posted.
MOTION: Joseph Pelich made a motion to not have the meetings recorded by North Andover CAM,
Kathleen Stagno seconded the motion. Discussion: Chair Lafond reiterated that even if meetings are not
recorded via video,they will still be open to the public and there will be an active public outreach
process. Mr. Driscoll noted that a similar discussion occurred on the Youth and Recreation Council;that
Committee also deemed it unnecessary to record meetings for television access. Vote: 5-0.
Discussion Regarding Community Outreach Process:
Kathleen Stagno provided the Committee with a draft survey that she had produced. She drafted 10
questions, ranging from demographic information of the respondents,to their views and opinions
regarding the Stevens Estate. Mr. Pelich suggested that for a question (#6) regarding opinions of outside
organizations that could run the Estate,that Essex County Greenbelt Association be replaced with
Historic New England, because the Greenbelt Association is more of a land bank organization as
opposed to facility operator. Mr. Pelich also suggested asking a question to get an understanding of the
public's view of how the Trustees of the Reservation runs it other properties (i.e.does the public feel
that the Trustees run its other properties well?).
Shapiro suggested revisions to question#4,which asked the perception of the Stevens Estate. He
suggested eliminating question#10, asking about offering discounts to residents—he noted that he
thought all residents would be in favor of being able to attend events at the venue at a discounted rate.
Mr. Lafond said that he would like to see some open ended short answer questions added to the survey.
He also stressed his preference to see the survey disseminated both electronically and in hard copy and
distributed around town. The idea of"vision sessions" or focus groups also appeals to him.
Shapiro offered to provide suggested revisions to the survey,which the Committee could discuss at its
next meeting,with a goal of starting to disseminate it publically in January.
Discussion and vote on future meeting date(s):
Chair Lafond proposed Monday,January 6t"as the next meeting date. After some brief discussion,the
Committee Members agreed to that date.
New/Old Business:
At this point in the meeting, Ms. Stagno left.
The Committee discussed a correspondence that Joseph Pelich received from David T. Santomenna,
Associate Director of Land Conservation for the Trustees of the Reservations,which outlined the
organization's potential interest in a partnership with the Town to operate the Stevens Estate. He noted
that the Trustees shows a willingness and ability to operate the property, and remain flexible.
Pelich further noted that he was told that the Trustees would want a conservation restriction on the
property. Mr. Gangi confirmed that there was not currently a conservation restriction in place.
Pelich inquired as to how an executive session would work if the Committee wants to discuss sensitive
matters. Shapiro noted that any executive session has to be explicitly called out on an agenda and there
are procedures for how it would be conducted in a meeting.
Mr. Driscoll asked if the correspondence Mr. Pelich received is from before the first meeting of the
Committee, or since that point. Mr. Pelich responded that he had been in contact with the organization
after the first meeting, and that this correspondence is a result of that interaction.
Pelich emphasized that it would be important for the Town to consider dedicating Community
Preservation Act funding to support a partnership with the Trustees. He said that the Trustees could
also move "relatively quick" if need be and if the Town were interested in pursuing a partnership. He
then encouraged some sort of dialogue to occur with the Community Preservation Committee to gauge
its interest and ability to fund future investments in the Stevens Estate.
As a separate "new business" item, Chair Lafond encouraged the Board to let him know if they would
like to elect a Vice-Chair. He might need some help in covering future meetings.
Adjournment:
MOTION: Joseph Pelich made a motion to adjourn, CJ Gangi seconded the motion. Vote:4-0.
The meeting adjourned at 9:15PM