Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-10-2020 Stevens Estate Long Term Advisory MINUTES: STEVENS ESTATE LONG TERM ADVISORY COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 10,2020 In Attendance: Members Kevin Driscoll, CJ Gangi,James La Fond„Joseph Pelich, Kathleen Stagno, and Jennifer Burns-Luz; Staff: Andrew Shapiro (Director of Community and Economic Development) Absent: Member Jack Mabon Also in Attendance: Guest presenters, David Santomenna & Kathleen McDonald, of the Trustees of Reservations Call to Order: Chair Jim Lafond Called the Meeting to Order at 7:03pm. Acceptance of Minutes from 1/27/20 meeting: JL:Asked there be a motion to accept the minutes from the January 27th meeting. KJD: moved to accept the minutes as submitted, Kathleen Stagno seconded. JL opened for discussion, looking at page 5,J Lafond asked that section 4th paragraph be amended to reflect what he said in the meeting: "J Lafond RAISED THE QUESTION, should the invitation...." JL then directed those in attendance to review the GRAPH at the bottom of page 5 in the minutes, and proceeded to provide corrected data. Joe Pelich asked it the minutes needed to be accepted at the meeting. Motion made to table the discussion for acceptance of the minutes by J Pelich, seconded by CJ Gangi. Vote: 6-0. Minutes from 1/27/2020 will be reviewed at the next meeting in February, and voted on for approval at that time. Discussion with Representative(s) of Trustees of Reservations: JL introduces David Santomenna,Trustees of Reservations,Associate Director of Land Conservation. JL briefly introduced David and gave a brief background on the reasons for the invitation to speak with and perhaps engage with the Trustees. DS: Gave a brief overview of the Trustees organization,who they are, what their purpose is and the history in the Commonwealth. David works specifically on new land acquisitions, and also review of current holdings, conservation issues. Trustees one of the oldest land conservation orgs in USA. Pioneered the idea of a trust in care of land and historic properties. The TR have properties throughout the Commonwealth, some areas have a denser amount of properties, including North Andover which is host to 3 properties; Ward, Weir Hill, Stevens Coolidge Place. Significant stewardship of properties on North Shore. Early 1900's much of the property was acquired. TR's main focus is protecting natural and historic resources. TR is NOT looking to simply add to its property base, specifically they are not looking to "wrack up" acres and acres of land. Rather,they are focused on specific acquisitions, and expansion of services at current properties, like we are seeing at Stevens Coolidge Place with increased events and activities geared to public use of the property. Joe Pelich asked directly if the Trustees would be interested in a property like Stevens Estate. The simple answer is yes, but more exploration needs to be conducted. David gave a general overview of the basic process of Trustees acquiring land, purchases, stewardship, etc. David then discussed in depth a recent acquisition of property in Burlington, MA. Currently owned by the City of Boston, (deeded in trust, so there is a trust to steward). Boston had decided to put this out to bid for an organization to take over the property, as it's been left to deteriorate over time. Trustees bid was accepted on the property, and Mary Cummings Park will be acquired by the Trustees. David then discussed that process of acquisition. They've raised lmillion for`start up fees", some of this in the form of a state grant. JP: Noted he has asked for a copy of the agreement between Boston and the Trustees. David then discussed "Leasing" programs between communities and the Trustees, highlighting the Westport Town Farm on Buzzards Bay. The town leases the house on the ground, and manages the house. They also work in conjunction with the Army Corp of Engineers in Central Mass managing a campground at Tully Lake in Central Mass. The ACE asked the Trustees to partner with them as they are not set up to manage campgrounds. The last property referenced was a property out on MV in Edgartown that the Trustees manage with the Town of Edgartown. JP: Recapped what he thinks is a positive relationship the Town can have with the Trustees. He then asked what the Trustees might be able to do in terms of Youth Programs at the Stevens Estate should the Trustees take on this project. David: Introduced Kathleen MacDonald who is probably better suited to respond that that question. That said - he went on to address that it is obviously very early in the process, and doesn't want to be presumptuous in discussing the Stevens Estate as a lot of work would have to happen ahead of the acquisition or partnership. David did discuss some events, youth camps, at a couple of Trustees Facilities, as well as activities geared to adults. JP: Do you have a mechanism when you enter into agreements with communities, that the Town would maintain some type of input/control of the operations. David: "Sure there could be,though he is unsure of the specifics. It's important to the Trustees to have the property present as a "Trustees Property," even if it is"town owned," but the Trustees would look for a long term commitment by the Town, "long-term 99 year lease" would be the best option in a joint agreement if the idea of"in perpetuity"was not on the table. Jennifer Luz: Knowing you have not had a lot of time to consider. What attracts the Trustees to the S.E? What draws you to it, what would you do with the property, vision? David: The Trustees are very much about land preservation, and looking at the Lake, and the surrounding property, it is obvious that there is a block of land, municipal land, not conservation land,thus it is unprotected land, so the Trustees would be very interested in acquiring this to protect it from development. It also has a great trail system already developed. They do not view S.E. as a potential Castle Hill property, but they do see it as an events location to some extent, again, not having had much time to review the property. Kathleen Stagno: Do you see programs that would utilize all of the property, four seasons use? Inclusive to all socio-economic demographic groups. Could you care for and "update"the house? David: See the house as a valuable asset to the property, so they would obviously want to continue use of the house. (He has not been in the house.) Snow-shoeing, use of the waterfront, obviously respectful of the Town Water Supply restrictions. There are multiple uses that could be implemented. They do some rentals of snow-shoes,they have a "Nordic Center", Notchview, in Western MA- Berkshires. Very high use. One of the best spots for nordic skiing in the state. Jennifer: What's your track record of partnering with other community groups? Specifically the NAYRS,Youth Center. Would you partner? KMcD: We have already partnered with the Youth Center for pumpkin carving project for Osgood Stevens Estate, as well as an outdoor yoga. David: Referring back to Mary Cummings Park in partnership with the science department for some educational opportunities on that property. The Trustees also reached out to a "large national outdoor adventure company"with a large presences in Burlington to help fund and develop the trails system/boardwalk and science center on that property. Jim Lafond invited Public Comment: Ellen Brooks Mosier, 137 Kara Drive: Chair of the Trustees of Osgood Hill, overseers of the property, (inaudible due to paper shuffling). Jim Lafond: Bringing the Trustees up to speed on the establishment of the Long Term Advisory group,the Trustees of the Osgood Hill, and outlined the scope and charge of the committee,tas appointed by the Selectmen, he outlined the different options they are looking at, sale, lease, keep managing by the Town. Jim: How did the Cummings Property become of interest to the Trustees. Did they approach Boston, or did Boston approach them? David: That property was well-known to us, but the City of Boston did a formal RFP process, and that's how the Trustees approached that property. The Trustees were the ONLY group to respond to that RFP. KMcD: Just came from the Board of Selectmen's meeting in Burlington, and stated that the Burlington BOS are thrilled with the plans set forth by the Trustees to improve that property. Jim Lafond: What does the City of Boston get out of the partnership? David: It takes the stewardship obligation off of them. The City had not been upholding the obligations,so they are better delivering on the original commitment from 1925. Jim Lafond: Will Boston continue to use the property, have access to the property as owners? David: Yes, but no discussions have taken place. Jim: Following up on Joe's comments,the citizens of Town would obviously want to have access to the property, with restrictions obviously when events are occurring. David:The Boston RFP was both for"management of the property AND to uphold the conservation of the property. These two things have to go hand in hand for the Trustees to be involved. Jim: It's pretty clear from Town Meeting feedback that many in town would like the property preserved and protected. David: There are already historic preservation docs on the property, so the Trustees would work to maintain those parameters and guidelines. Kathleen Stagno: Asked about money making opportunities if the Town leased it to a third party for events. Revenue for the Town. David: Would see any revenue streams would be directed back into the property itself. Jennifer: When we think about the purpose of the committee....at the end of the day,these are the options we think are worth pursuing. If at the end of this review, we feel strongly that the Trustees are the best option, what does our recommendation mean in terms of the Trustees process? David: The town would likely, should go through the RFP Process, and the Trustees would then move on that. If there is interest on behalf of the Trustees, we would likely welcome an opportunity to do a site visit, to perhaps gain some insights on the property ahead of the RFP process, so they would be informed going into the process. Kevin D: Asked if there was a reason why the Trustees did not respond to the original RFP laid out by the Town last in (2019)? David: Unsure, but I think the RFP was narrow, and may not have included the conservation of the property. Jim: Land was not involved. There were two articles, one for the land conservation, and the second was to sell-or lease the building space. JP: The CEO of the Trustees did come to meet with town officials. Jim: called for final comments on the discussion. Look forward to future discussions and the process as it unfolds with the Trustees in relationship to a potential partnership. David: One question -significant interest within the Trustees Organization...so is there an understanding of the timing of this committee's work? Jim: We are proceeding as quickly as we can, but we obviously will not meet the original guidelines for a recommendation for the May 2020 Town Meeting. JP: Wouldn't rule out a Special Town Meeting. Jim asked for any final comments/questions? Having none,the Trustee Representatives were thanked, and departed the meeting. [At this point, Andrew Shapiro joined the Meeting.] Jim: Asked if there were any additional comments. Kathleen: Asked how soon could the town initiate an RFP process? Jennifer: Asked Andew-"how long does it take to actually draft and get an RFP out on a project?" Andrew:There is a process and it depends on a lot of factors, but general 4-5 months is the general timeline. Joe P: If we could get more data and the committee makes it recommendation to the BOS,we could get this information to Laurie Burzlaff, and that information could move pretty fast. Andrew: Yes, it could be done in as little time as a couple of months. Jim: Cautioned not to get ahead of ourselves, reminded the committee there are surveys that are prepped to go out to the community, we need to process the data, and do more public outreach. We just need to continue going forward in all areas. Jennifer: It's a good question -and prompts us to discuss internally, "What is our deliverable, and when?" Are we trying to get something for 2020 Town Meeting? FinComm hasn't begun to draft their information for Town Meeting, so there is time to get some things put together. Jim: Begs the question - "What would we be proposing at this time?" Jennifer: If we think we are getting someplace close to coming to agreement on a position, should we begin to discuss this as a committee. Jim: Andrew and I have discussed this a little this AM, and I want to make sure we are ahead of the BOS and we keep them appraised of what the committee is doing. The first report will likely be informational,what we've done, info we are gathering. Probably looking at two ideas,the current model, or leasing to a third party. Maybe some other ideas will come up between now and the final reporting to the BOS. We should look forward to moving on these ideas and formulate a strategy. Joe P: If the committee's inclination is to move this along quicker, why can't we fast track the plans to invite more third party organizations. Let's get the invites out to these other organizations in front of us. Not sure it's possible to get in front of the Town Meeting. Perhaps the recommendation to the BOS for Town Meeting is to request authorization for initiating an RFP, or something like that. I am a little surprised more people aren't aware that the CEO of the Trustees approached the Town to negotiate on the S.E. Certainly show a real interest on the part of the Trustees. Hate to prolong this process and potentially lose that as an option if it takes too long. Jim Lafond: Expressed skepticism about having recommendations ready by Town Meeting. "The Trustees haven't even looked at the property." They have a complicated process and it takes a long time to move things through that process. Joe P: Speaking directly with the Trustees, timelines for action would be contingent on the property. As this is a very attractive property to the Trustees, perhaps they would move it along faster. Not sure this would be a protracted process. Andrew: No opinion on the pace. Coming from the budget meeting just now, there is a budget in place for the Steven's Estate for FY21. There are efforts underway to see what the Steven's can do for the next fiscal year. No real need to "speed up"the process. Joe P: Is there some threshold we need to meet to bring before the Town? Then the onboarding process take a year...just hate to miss presenting to the 2020 Town Meeting if we agree on the option in front of us. Jennifer:The BOS is waiting for our recommendation. We are one of many dominoes that need to fall to get to the outcome the BOS are expecting. Just don't want to see that we are delayed. What do we need to do to get to the recommendation? Have we checked in on that process? Kevin D: I worry about pushing too quickly- I worry that TOWN would see us as moving too fast, and that's exactly why we are here, because the Town saw the lack of process and there wasn't a lot of discussion, so the BOS appointed a committee to thoroughly vette this out. One thing am missing on this discussion around financials. What do the Trustees want/need for financing, what is the obligation on the Town. These are details the BOS will need to figure out and wade through, but if we are making recommendations, I want to have a little more background before we present options to the Town. Joe P: The financial piece with regard to the Trustees. Generally speaking, (David would be happy to come back), but the Trustees will look at the property in totality,they would speak to the Town re:the RFP,they review codes for compliance, etc. Kathleen Stagno: I think we need to move on this.All I think about is Mr. Breen saying at last year's Town meeting"you've only looked at this one thing?" Ms. Stagno suggested that another RFP be issued. Kevin D: But now we'd only be presenting this one thing. Jim: The RFP goes into public record, it's not sent to anyone, and is open to any organization. Andrew S: Yes but an RFP can be crafted to essentially invite and attract the organizations you want by describing a highly favorable scenario similar to what you've already heard from an organization to move this in that direction. Joe P:Trying to get an idea on where we stand on this process, and I think I am coming to a better understanding of where this committee stands. Do we want a Public/Private partnership? Do we want to sell the property? Do we want to continue to operate it ourselves as a Town? Joe posed the question of operating this as a Town,to each member: KS: From what I've learned so far, no. KJD: Too much money involved in Town operations, no. Chris Gangi: I think it is challenging. Jennifer: I don't think it is financially possible. JimL: I do. And I made a promise to look at all the information impartially, and thus far no one has showed me any reason to rule it out. We just started talking to other communities.The new information received from Kathleen today needs to be reviewed. There is one community that acquired a property and put$20million into it for renovations, from their CPA Fund. Jennifer: What town was that? Kathleen: Randolph. Jim: I'm not saying that would fly in NA, and I'm not saying would be wise in NA,the point is, there are a lot of facilities,that municipalities have done creative things to maintain their properties,though some are not working out well. That same facility that Kathleen referenced is now looking for a third party to take it over. Kathleen: Stetson Hall, Randolph. Joe P: The question I asked, narrow it. If we adopt the model, how do we do it? How can we as a town run the S.E. successfully. If someone can tell me specifically how we do that, that's great. I personally don't think we can. Kevin D: We'd have to pour money into it. Too much money. JimL:Yes, it takes money, and we've looked at the hard numbers, and there are years the Town has had to put money into the operation, and there are expenses. We understand all of this, but overall and looking back a significant period of time, and there are years we were in the black, and had retained earning. Certainly not enough for some people in town,which is why we got to where we were last year. It is not a completely unworkable model. Lots of"ifs" and understand that. We don't know that the Trustees model will work financially. Joe P: Don't we have to pass it to see what's in it? Andrew: Not all of this should be looked at from a quantifiable position, maybe we look at a qualitative standpoint as well. Jim you could be right,though your are in the minority opinion is what it seems, but the town could continue to run the facility, but the question is should it. Should the town being doing this, and even if we decide yes it should, if we are presented with an opportunity like the one tonight, if vetted further, all things being equal,who would run it better. If the entity runs it and you get XYZ, and the Town running it gives us ABC,there is more to it than just the raw numbers. So this committee needs to vette that out as well. Jennifer: From where I sit on the Finance Committee just have to say it is a struggle for me to sit here and think it is viable. While there have been some years its managed to put money into the reserve fund,there are many it doesn't, and we are just talking about bare functioning. We aren't even talking about the millions it will take to get it into shape for years to come! That's just the main estate, not the outbuilding like the Carriage House. The amount of work the company requires is a capital investment that I just don't see the Town having. The School Superintendent came to the Finance Committee, to let us know that we are literally the third worst in the state in per pupil spending! We are talking about different competing financial priorities among the Town, I don't know we get to a point where the Town has the money that's needed and to make the investment to make improvements over the long term. If there is a way to preserve this resource for our community and do it in a way that doesn't drain other Town resources, I think that's important enough to consider. JimL: I do too. The Town has spoken loudly enough that the Estate needs to sustain itself. But am not convinced under the current model that we couldn't find a partner to bridge the gap. Maybe we can't. I've done a little research and to try and find models. The National Parks, Bureau of Land Management, National Forestry Service all operate under multiple use, sustained yield. There is mining and timber harvesting by private companies, but they are maintained like the White Mountains for hiking and recreation. Doesn't indicate anywhere why we can't have that, at the local level. Is it alcohol sales, it's served at town beaches and state beaches? We go to any state beach and we can buy beer at the beach, a stand probably run by a private concession. I've backed off on giving my opinion a lot because I am giving full attention to all models presented, as is everyone else. The question now is, should we speed things up? We were put in a tough situation as we were impaneled as a committee a little too late to make a thoroughly vetted recommendation to this Town Meeting, and as Jennifer said, it's a little too long to wait for the next 2021 Town Meeting. That's a tough situation. Had we been impaneled in June we'd have had a lot more time. So I struggle with that too, and I respect everyone's opinion, and will move in whatever direction we decide. Kevin D: I do not believe the BOS is expecting our committee to make a decision by Town Meeting. Jim L: I don't think so either, but I think the Town is antsy, and I even set the meeting limit for two hours, and we are meeting more often than most committees in town. I still don't have an answer to whether we should speed things up to get something in or not. I don't think we'd make Town Meeting, and it would appear rushed if we did. Andrew: Coming back to what Kevin said about the BOS expectations. I think there had been an expectation originally but because it took so much time to get this together, I know that expectation is no longer there. Joe P: I'm just trying to find clarity, specifically, what is it we want to do to move this committee forward? Specifically in what direction? I see it as one of the things we recommend is a public- private partnership, and that's one recommendation... Andrew: OK- let me ask this question. You've heard from a non-profit potential third party partner, do you want to go through the process of hearing form other third party partners? Joe P: Yes. Andrew: OK,well then that's an option... Kathleen Stagno: We've learned Essex Greenbelt is not viable option, Audubon is not a viable option, and Historic NE is more about preservation. So it sounds like we keep it the way it is, put out and RFP,go the events route, or go the family/The Trustees route. Prior to this I grew up going to this place, I'm very nostalgic about it. Up until now I go to Stevens Coolidge Place, and see the betterment of so many people in this town, why waste it on just events? Why don't we use all of that land? At this point, after the facilities report I am afraid it may burn down, it still has original knob and tube in some places! I keep going back to the disrepair. Joe P: So I take back what I just said, and revisit my statement: As long as the RFP gives those folks an opportunity as long as- if part of the process is that we do outreach - perhaps Jim emails them? Kathleen: We do need to do the Flashvote first. Andrew:You can direct, as part of the communication to the BOS these are the specific parties we want notified about the RFP. Jennifer: I do not know what our deliverable is, so in my mind,what we turnover to the BOS is a written recommendation. He is the current model, here's what works, what doesn't, and lay it out with partners,this is what it looks like with a private partner, with the Trustees. For me I am still struggling, with, because we don't have the resources to make the current model work, I still think there is more work to be done with finding outside sources. Joe P: Why can't we do both. Jim L: Let's get to the deliverable part of it. Specific to the long term advisory committee, (see the charge from the Board of Selectmen). [Jim reads from the Charge from the BOS] Kevin: So the BOS wants us to come up with some financial outlooks. Andrew: I think it would be very difficult for this committee to come up with any type of financial analysis on the Estate. What we can do, is come to the conclusion that the town is not the viable option moving forward based on what we have been discussing, and therefore the BOS/Town needs to look at outside operating models. You can then point to the Trustees as an example of how they are running outside properties in other communities. Joe P: I'd personally say, "knowing the limited budget we have in the town of North Andover, and that our resources are used better elsewhere, but that said, would love to see some CPA funding, especially toward rehab of the Carriage House for use for the Towns Youth. Andrew: Thats the high level conversation. We know there is CPC, cell tower revenues, that is information that is available. Jennifer: What is the extent of CPC funding? CJ Gangi: There is a pot of money, where you earmark different percentages of duns to, Open Space, Preservation, Recreation, and Affordable Housing. Out of the funds collected each year through the taxes,that money has to be distributed and earmarked to those purposes. Jim L: It's a minimum of 10%to each one. Joe P: How much is left in the pot right now? Like 10million? CJ: Maybe 10, more like 7 or 8 million. Jennifer: But CPC must have a lot of priorities, lots of people asking for that money? CJ: Some years you get a huge land purchase so you spend one or two million,versus this year when there's not a lot coming down the pike and you maybe spend half a million. Jim L: And if I am not mistaken, let's suppose this year you have 5 million to work with from the tax levy, if there is no use of the funds for Affordable Housing, than $500K of that money(10%) will go into some account for Affordable Housing. You cannot spend that money on anything else. Andrew: Does the revenue increase annually? Jim L:Yes, if you don't give it away. CJ:The money comes from a surcharge on real estate tax, and there is a state match... Jim L: When this was introduced the towns could elect a 1,2, or 3% match form the state, and NA elected to go in at the top or 3%, and we were a match in the first few years. CJ:That's dropped off to about 1% now. When we got into the CPA program we were the second town to sign on, and now that it's grown,the pot of money for matches has shrunk. Jim L: OK, we've ventured off item #4, but a good discussion. New/Old Business: Old: Continued Discussion Regarding Community Outreach Process and early results from the Public Input Form: Chair Lafond expressed that he did not want to spend a lot of time on this; you have the results through February 4, a few additional results in since then, nothing substantially different. Second thing is,Andrew, Kathleen,Town Manager and a couple others did a tele-conference on Flashvote,the survey company, so I will turn the discussion over to you folks: Andrew: Flashvote, based out of California, have done work in Mass, using statistically relevant surveys.They have a campaign system where towns will sign up for a subscription, say 10 surveys. They are short, 1-2 minute surveys. The blast to the Town email lists,you have 48 hours to fill out the survey, and they analyze the returns as they entered, so they can see the results to that moment. Then the Town gets the full results at the end. So the Pilot for this new service will be the Stevens survey. Limited to 4 multiple choice, and one open ended question. Two factor authentication, so people cannot provide multiple responses. Differs from the current survey,which anyone can respond to, and more than one time. The Flashvote will be more directed and specific. Next week we hope to have the draft, and should be ready for the next meeting. Kevin D: How do we push this out to the Town/residents? Andrew:There a couple things, there is a link that you can sign up,through social media,town news, agenda releases, PR campaign on NA Cam,you don't need an email,you can register through smart phone. Jim L: Have we received any"hard copy" surveys? Andrew: 1,today. They were placed at Senior Ctr, Library,Town Hall, we can get it out to more if needed. Old: Continued discussion regarding the current operating model of the Stevens Estate • Pricing Strategy—developed by the Estate Director • Strategic Plan—developed by the Estate Director • Case Study—developed by the Estate Director Jim L: Next Item 56, discussion on current operating model at Stevens Estate. Documents provided, [see attached]. Review and make questions and invite Joanna back for another meeting. Andrew: Did mention to Joanna, she is available for the next meeting. Continued Discussion Regarding Outreach to Non-Profit Organizations: Jim L: Meeting with Nick Rossi, Mass Audubon, at Stevens Estate, doesn't look like a real viable option, but these organizations may all have suggestions on direction we take. If you feel I am over reaching, let me know. Continued Discussion Regarding Review of Comparable Facilities: CJ and Kathleen have reached out to a few comparables. CJ: Old Town Hall in Bedford, Commanders Mansion in Watertown, and Whittemore House in Arlington. - Town Hall is not comparable, small venue, baby&wedding showers, no buy in from town, second and third floors leased. - Commanders Mansion,Town of Watertown paid $1 for this, had been remodeled by the Junior League, no outlay of funds needed. Seats about 100-200 people for events. 50/50 corporate events/weddings, no full-timers. 30 hour week manager, 25 hours week assistant, and 10 hour admin asst. - Have not heard back from Whittemore House in Arlington. Kathleen: - Stetson Hall in Randolph, 215 capacity. Operated by Trustee Volunteers, cannot afford staff. They do everything from bookings,to cleaning,trash removal, set up. They have been negotiating with a third party outside vendor to "take it over." Kevin D: Is this the facility that put$20 million into renovation? Kathleen: The caretaker said the municipality is not good at managing the facility. It is operating in the red, but said there is a lot of money to be made at the venue. She alluded to the fact that it is not profitable being managed by the town. 10 years ago the building was saved through a $20million dollar grant through the CPA! They also did fundraising in town. Negotiating with a third party vendor for$125K cash payout, and 10% bar revenue and 10%of event proceeds. Revenue will go toward town general fund. Joe P: After$20millions worth of improvements,they are still in the red and they "think it will make money?" Seems to me that we've heard this same thing over and over here. Kathleen: No,the third party vendor will invest and run it successfully. Kevin: But they admit the Town couldn't do it. Kathleen: correct,the town can't do it with the existing budget. They don't have the money, and you need to front money,to make money. Andrew: They invested $20 million! Kathleen: That's a ton of money-8 years ago. They now have an events management company coming in to manage the facility. There is also know kitchen in this building. CJ:The Town will retain ownership, and lease to a third party events management vendor? Kathleen: Thayer Homestead large property, home and function facility. Located in, Medway, smaller venue, 120 capacity, 8 catering staff. Kevin:They have 8 staff? Kathleen: that's capacity for staffing. Kevin: Does the town have any employees at the facility. Kathleen: Yes,they have a carpenter. Part-time, helps with bookings, manages the facility, runs the estate. They created a brand new function space. They are making a profit, no longer in the red. Able to make capital improvements. Recently hired a management company. Jim L: Have to update the spreadsheet to plug in the new information. Andrew: We do need to have the details in a spreadsheet for the BOS. New Business: Jim L: We have a request to not hold meetings on the same night as the BOS meetings. Jim L: Laurie Burzlaff, re: Open Meeting Law Jim read aloud the email/memo from Town Hall regarding EMAILS for business. Joe P: Wanted to revisit Joann's return to present again before the committee. "Joanna stated several times,that the town should not be managing the facility."Joe, paraphrasing, "we'd be better off in hiring an outside vendor to manage." Andrew:You have the documents,which paint a picture of viability. Joe P: Do we need to have Joanna return, or should we just read the docs and discuss ourselves. Jennifer: Why don't we table this discussion and read the docs and discuss at the next meeting. Joe P: One or two Selectmen told me that they did not need Town Meeting to make any decisions on the property. My recollection is that they made the same comments on stage at the Town Meeting. Maybe we want to think about an RFP recommendation to the BOS before the Town Meeting. Andrew: Anything that needs to be brought back to BOS we can do that, make a list of questions and we can bring that to the BOS to be answered. Joe P: I think we have done a lot of what Jim read earlier,the charge from the BOS. Andrew: I don't think the committee has done anything yet. You are in the process of doing several things, but nothing is complete and ready to be reviewed by the BOS. We need to finish the first survey, and send out the Flashvote. Joe P: I am suggesting that we are perhaps closer to starting the recommendation document. Andrew: I have already begun a shell document, which we will fill in with the information from this committee. If you want to be specific,we could recommend that outside the current document. Kevin: So-can we take a crack at putting this together at the next committee meeting and start to answer some of the questions outlined by Jim. I think what I am hearing is that we are all getting anxious, because we are hearing things we like, and I think when that happens we start focusing in on specifics and zone out the other items. Joe P: Out of respect for Jim, as chairman, I am looking to build consensus and move forward. Kevin: Yes, and I think if we start to take this document on, and we will see where we are. Andrew: So to ask a clarifying question of Kevin. Are you wanting the next meeting to be a "working session." Kevin: I would like the next meeting to be a working session. Jennifer: I like that option a lot, because we will walk out of that session with a much better sense of what we have done to date. Jim L: How much time do you want for the working session, an hour? We do have other agenda items. Kevin: An hour is good. Jim L: Please review documents provided by Joanna, so we can review, and keep that discussion moving forward. Without divulging names, I have heard from a member who would still like to consider possibly a private partnership, like Elegant Banquets. Joe P: Could we incorporate that discussion into the working session. Andrew: Elegant Banquet has reached out to the town, they are still interested. They are willing to come in if invited to discuss their offer. Joe P: I am not interested in hearing from them. Jim L: Happy to continue to move this forward if there are strong feelings. Adjournment: Jim L:Asked for new business. Hearing none, move to adjournment. CJ Moved,Jennifer Seconded, Vote: 6-0. Meeting adjourned at 9:14pm.