 I'd like to call to order the meeting of the Arlington Redevelopment Board for Monday, October 20th. We have a fairly short agenda, mostly updates on a variety of different items. The first one is a little bit more substantial. Susan Stamps is here and she's going to explain a little bit more about the CPA and see if the board wants to endorse. The CPA and some of the other boards in town have. So Susan, if you want to come on up. Sure. Everyone? Hi. Hi Susan. So I talked to you before the meeting and we talked about CPA and I gave you a brochure and I think I sent it around. Basically the same. It's just that it's specific to Arlington now. Like for example, the law allows the 1% to 3% surcharge on the property tax. Town meeting decided on 1.5% and town meeting also decided on all of the exemptions. So the first $100,000 property value and all the exemptions available under the law for low income folks and low and moderate income seniors. I'm happy to run through the elements of the law again. I don't want to take your time to do that. But if you want me to repress your memory, I can just quickly go through it. Do we need that? Do you want it? I brought some brochures with me. I think the board is pretty familiar with it. We pretty much endorsed unanimously before town meeting that we were in support of the CPA. So what Susan's here for is for the board to endorse this again before the vote takes place in town, which is November 4th. A number of boards in town have endorsed it. The board of Sleipn has not. Well, three have not as a board. We do not take a vote as a board, but three out of the five members, Dan Dunn and Joe Cureau and Diane Mohan have endorsed it. And six out of the seven members of the school committee. And we have a lot more town boards endorsing the ballot question that we even did for town meeting. We have the Conservation Commission, Historical Commission, the Robbins Library Board of Trustees, the Historic Districts Commission, the Cyrus Dallen Board of Trustees, the Open Space Committee, Sustainable Arlington, several task groups of Vision 2020, the Reservoir Committee, the Fiscal Resources Task Group, and the Scython Committee. We also have the endorsement of the Commission on Arts and Culture. They see that CPA is only going to be good for making the town more of a destination, particularly in the area of historic preservation. And also the Bicycle Advisory Committee, who is going to be working on major upgrades to the Metamann Bygway with Arlington and with Lexington and Bedford. And these are the sorts of things that Community Preservation Act can pay for, which Bedford and Lexington have that Arlington doesn't yet, so they're hoping that the town folks work. And we also have the support of many town groups. The League of Women Voters has endorsed it, the Arlington Historical Society, the Land Trust, Olshawa Mill Preservation Trust, Housing Corporation of Arlington, Friends of Spipond Park, Friends of Arlington Great Meadows, Friends of Waldo Park, East Arlington Livable Streets, and Mr. Cooper Watershed Association. And about 200 individual supporters. Impressive list. Maybe we can just go around if anybody has a comment or a question for Susan while she's there. Hi Susan, I have a question for you just for my own education. Can CPA funds be used to maintain existing resources? Okay, so CPA cannot be used for maintenance. So for example, if you're talking about a park, it can't be used for mowing, for weeding, for pruning the bushes. It can be used for installing new park benches, for upgrades to, you know, for new drainage systems, for new turf. It could be used at the high school field for infrastructure, for safety, for disabled access, it would be too big a deal in our parks. I know that in some of the waterways we have recurring problems with, I'm sorry, water chest nuts and things like that. So that would not be able to be addressed or CPA might. I can't think of a way that it could be addressed unless perhaps, I'm not familiar enough with water chest nut, how you deal with it, I know it's a really tough problem. I suppose if it involves some dredging, which is more of an infrastructure type of change, it's possible, but I really don't know. Usually it just involves a harvesting machine, and then individuals in kayaks. Plenty of baskets. Yeah, it's painstaking work. Okay, any questions? So I don't have any questions, but I mean, as far as the endorsement is concerned, I guess from my perspective I do think it's different now that it's going to the general election than it was to town meeting. I kind of view our role as two town meeting is taking up zoning regs and things that have to do with zoning and urban development and everything else. And obviously I think this touches upon those different things and so I think it needs sense for us to endorse it in respect of, as town meeting was concerned. And to say, hey, it makes sense to put this on the ballot and let folks decide. I guess, and I'm not sure I can put my finger on it, but I'm a little less comfortable on the endorsement for the general election and the actual telling voters what they should do and how they should spend their money and everything else. So I'm not going to be able to phrase it too well, but I do think there's a difference between the two and the role that this board plays, I guess. I do see us as an advisor to the town meeting on things and that's kind of our role. And I don't necessarily see our role as being an advisor to the electorate as a whole. And although, you know, from my perspective, you know, I'm still kind of up in the air where I am, but I think actually I think the CPA will be a very good thing. I just don't think it's this board's role to kind of state that to the electorate as a whole outside of what we've already done for town meeting, which was advised town meeting with respect to that. You know, and I think just to even put a finer point on it, you know, part of the brochure I think talks about, or maybe the website talks about the central school and that type of thing, which is under our purview. I mean, it's a little bit, I don't know, it's a little bit different. It is on part of urban renewal. You know, it is under our auspices and that type of thing. And I'm not sure, you know, if this passes and, you know, CPA funds that make sense for the historical preservation of the central school, then that might make some sense. I guess I feel like a little bit of a conflict there as far as the general public and the general electorate are concerned. So again, I mean, I'm not terribly thrilled with endorsing it as a board. It is kind of where my head's at on this one right now. So your conflict is kind of where the ARB is in charge of some historic structures? Exactly, exactly. And so are we just doing it to our board and everything else? I get a little bit, you know, I'm not exactly sure. It could be a perfectly good use for CPA funds. And if it passes, I think that's great for us to explore. But I'm not sure that I feel comfortable in endorsing it to then kind of turn around and say, oh yeah, let's see what we can do there. So, you know. Well, that's one of the big reasons that a lot of seniors are endorsing it because there's a lot of infrastructure changes they'd like to see at the senior center, which is your building. Yeah. And I also, I think I recall that in your statement to town meeting that you talked about how you felt that the Community Preservation Act fit in with your vision for the town and the redevelopment board's role in helping the town. And it certainly came up a lot in the master planning process. I don't know if you want to speak to that, Carol. I'm sorry, I was right at the beginning, Susan. No, I was just saying that I thought that in the planning board's endorsement at the time of town meeting, and perhaps in their written statement to town meeting, I remember reading it quickly and that there was something in there about how you felt that it fit in with your role in the town to help you help the town fulfill planning goals, which include making it more of a destination place, improving aspects of the town, such as historic resources, which will draw economic development and spur more of the kind of development that you'd like to see the town. So I wasn't, I wish I had brushed up on that now. So I don't really exactly remember, but I remember thinking, oh yeah, they totally see it as their role to do that. I'm not sure in many other towns the planning boards have supported the valid question. Yeah, I guess I'm just, I don't know, it's just, I look at it as two different things that might not be the right way to look at it, but it's kind of where my head's at right now. That's an interesting point. I don't have any questions. I personally think CPA would be a great resource for our own team. Susan, just remind me of the mechanics of how the funds get approved and distributed, potentially not the specifics, just how it works. How the funds are accumulated or how they're paid out? How they're paid out, both. Just quickly, what's the mechanism that's really, just to remind me. The mechanism for, so under the law, a local, locally controlled community preservation act fund is created. Right. It's under the control of our town treasurer and town meeting. Right. And that gets funded from two sources, a local source and a state source. Right, I remember you. Okay, the local source is a one and a half percent surcharge on the property tax after deducting $100,000 property value. Right. You figure the property tax on the property value minus $100,000, multiply it by one and a half percent, and that's what the surcharge is. It's a separate line item on the property tax. It never gets rolled into the whole property tax for two and a half purposes or anything like that. And for the average, our only 10 houses, it's about $86 a year. So that's the, and there are many, many exemptions. So low income folks and low and moderate income seniors will be completely exempt from the tax. It's not a sliding scale. And the income guidelines for those exemptions are very, very high. Right. So for a senior to find a 60 plus, which, you know, I could argue with that. But that's what the HUD guidelines are, 60 plus. And that's what's used to determine eligibility for a household of four where there is one owner occupant who is age 60 and over. If their household income for this household of four is under $94,000, they're completely exempt. If it's a household of two where one of them is 60 plus, they're exempted. The income is under $75,000. So then the state. So then there's the state. That allows the state then to contribute. That's right. So the law provides the matching funds from the state and the amount of the match just depends on how much money there is in the state pot. And the state pot is funded by surcharges of the registry of deeds. It's a $20 surcharge on most documents, $10 on some, but $20 on most documents. So those go into the state fund. And at the end of the fiscal year or the beginning of the next one, they look at the fund and see how much money there is and how many towns have CPA and they divide it up. It was 100% match in the first several years. It was started in, I think the first towns passed it in 2001. So the early adopters and a lot of them passed it at 3%. If it's 3%, there's even more money. But it was 100% match for the first six or seven years. And then starting around 2007, eight, nine, it started to go down as more towns came in. And the lowest it was was two years ago. It was 26%, which is still a pretty good return on the Arlington dollar to get a 26% return. Residence investment. Last year, the state legislature actually, for the first time, appropriated an extra $25 million for the state fund. And so when those monies were paid out to the 155 other cities and towns that have CPA, it was a 52% match. So for the state, it's always generating from this. Do you pass the issue? Yes. Yeah. Once it's in place, who decides who? So you get the town money and you get the state money. There it is in the CPA fund. And there's a committee appointed under the statute who's in charge of taking project proposals, discussing them having public hearings, and then ultimately making recommendations to town meeting. So the town meeting would approve anything? The town meeting has to appropriate all the money, just like any other appropriation. That's just to remind me. And that committee by statute has to have a member appointed by the housing authority, one appointed by the historical commission, one appointed by the redevelopment board, one by parks and recreation, and one by, I knew I was going to forget the fifth one, all the conservation commission. And there's four other members that the select men can appoint if they'd like to. And we would, we've been recommending ever since town meeting that there'd be at least one member from the finance committee and or the capital requirements committee. So this board, this committee would recommend to town meeting? Yes. So they have hearings and there's a lot of publicity about it and different projects. And then they bring those and then the form of warrant articles to town meeting and then town meeting votes on them. And they propose them not to select them? Correct. And one of the great things about the CPA projects is that the idea would be that a lot of the projects that are going to be proposed are ones that are already in the capital plan. And I mean, we can't write that into the law because that's not what the law is, but that was talked about at town meeting. That's why we want financial people on the committee because there are many items, there are many projects in the five-year capital plan, some involving your building, some involving the library, which is a historic structure, which can be paid for with CPA money. So those, those items can be taken out of the capital plan and free of monies for other town purposes. I remember that, that was a good sell. Even questions of the high school? Yes. The historically preserved. If it's going to be rebuilt. If it's worth it. Yeah. Yeah. Potential. But the, the senior center or the, the library. The Jefferson Cutter House. The Jefferson Cutter House is really badly in need of some very expensive repairs. You can't see it from the outside, but it's there, there. Yeah. Carol's kind of with some of those. In detail with us. Do you want to add anything, Carol? I would only add that the housing preservation, open-face recreation are squarely in a planning board's wheelhouse because their land and the town's preservation patrimony, and that is, those are elements of a planning board's responsibility and certainly elements of a master plan. So it, I understand it. I think it makes sense that they would turn to the redevelopment board. I understand what you're saying too. I think that's an interesting perspective. Yeah. Yeah. I think I'm articulating it well. Well, I think you did. I took the minutes and I think you did. Yeah. I, I understand. So, I actually was wrestling with the same question like, and I think I came, I came down on the other side of the issue because to my view, I think it's important that the electorate know how CPA can help implement some of the planning board's goals. And I think it is a tax, and no one was popularly contested by record tax. Oh yeah. But it is, you know, the fact that the state is going to be matching to some degree that tax money, we are getting more bang for the buck out of each tax dollar. And in a perfect world that could be used to mitigate some of the other items that, you know, the budget. Whether or not that happens, who knows. I mean, that's a process that goes through finance committee and town meeting. And I also trust the voters on this because I think that, you know, ultimately they're going to decide regardless of whether there's an endorsement or not if the CPA makes sense or not. Personally, I think that it does. And I think it's okay to let the voters know that it directly ties into a lot of the goals that the redevelopment board has in respect to the master plan and so on. But having Rustin look at it. Yeah, I know the unease that you sort of feel like saying, gee, are we sort of, you know, trying to sway the electorate? I guess I just have a lot of faith in the independence of the electorate. Yeah, and I guess it goes to that. I guess it's also just, you know, the role of the body too, I guess. And let's be clear, I support the CPA. I do think it's going to do great things. It's more, and taking a political view that might not be as well-liked as not something I have a problem with either. It's more just like, I could wrap my head around it pretty easily on the town meeting because of the fact that as far as stuff goes in the warrant that, you know, we're supposed to do that. That's our job is to give our opinion on things in the warrant that affect redevelopment, et cetera. And I just feel like this just is just a little bit outside, outside back. I don't see a whole lot of difference. I mean, town meeting is our citizens. They are the representatives of our citizens. So a recommendation we make to town meeting is no different than a... Right, and I have no problem with the CPA folks saying that the redevelopment board endorsed it to town meeting. It's just that coming back for the next thing that says, okay, now endorse it to everybody else. For me, that's not necessarily... And the charter is that you will report to town meeting on things in the warrant that affect redevelopment. And so that's part of the charter. So I don't know. I just don't see... Look, I'm not going to vote against this because I don't want it to look like a non-endorsement. I'm going to take a little bit of a wimpy way out here and I think I'm going to abstain. Because I don't think that from my perspective, you know, I don't think... I don't think a navel shows the right, my right frame of mind either. So from my perspective, I think I will abstain from this particular vote. Yeah, I tend to fall on the side of Bruce's argument and I've heard all the arguments. Back and forth during town meeting, I really feel as a planning body that this falls within our full capacity. It's almost our mandate to take a stand on it. One way or another to show the citizens of the town that we do or do not support the CPA. I think it's very important. I also think that the fact that the legislature and its wisdom included the redevelopment board among the mandated members of the community preservation committee, they also saw the redevelopment board as having a key role in these sorts of things. And I think all the other bodies that also will have a key role. Yes. Maybe not all. All the ones that are mandated have endorsed most and don't have the same conflict that you're thinking of. And I understand your conflict. And I think from my perspective, we already endorsed it. We endorsed it to town meeting and I think the community preservation in Arlington can factually say that the redevelopment board endorsed it to town meeting. And I think that to me is enough and this one just goes a little bit further and sleeps off the vest if you will or whatever. Anybody else have any other comments before we open the floor to a motion? Do I hear any motions to vote? Do you want to vote in endorsement or support for the community preservation act? Can I say something? So we would be looking for, you can use the word support, you can use the word endorse, but we would be hoping that as part of that it would be that your endorsement would appear on the website for the ballot committee that is supporting question five. So the motion would be to vote to endorse the adoption of the CPA in question five, but it appears in question five in the November 4th election. I'll make that motion. Second. All in favor? Aye. I abstain. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good luck Susan. Can I ask you a question? In relation to the CPA? Sure. Hi, I'm Joe Majer, town meeting member precinct 17. First of all, Mike, I appreciate your point of view. I appreciate your stance. I don't think this board should endorse this to the citizens. I don't think they should ask for votes. Endorse it to the town meeting, but not to the citizens. Also, as I campaign around town, I notice that most people either don't know about the CPA or confused about it. And one of the statements that was made in paper and by you, Mr. Stamps, is that is estimated to be an $86 a year charge for the average household. That should read the initial year is $86. Every other year is going to go up based on the tax base. As the tax base goes up every year, two and a half percent or more, this dollar value will also increase. I think that's important to be made clear to the people. You mentioned that you had a question. And I do have a question. I have a question. I've followed this for a long time. I know a lot about it. I've heard a lot of questions. There's one question I have never heard. Ms. Stamps, will you... Excuse me. I addressed the board. Okay. I understand that there's going to be a hefty budget associated with the CPA. Do we know who will benefit from that budget? Do we know who will be employed by that budget? I think there's been a lot of publications out there, and there's a whole website dedicated to the CPA that explains all kinds of information about how the increases may or may not happen, how much is dedicated to each of the four different mandates, the historic preservation. There's a minimum of 10 percent for each of the four different groups, open space, recreation, historic preservation, and affordable housing. After that 10 percent, there's a committee that's going to be decided upon, and there's some mandate as to who the members of that are, and the Board of Selectments have a right to assign others. Ms. Stamps went over all of this just now. So that committee will be formed, and that committee will then take recommendations for projects, but in the end, it's the town meeting who will decide which projects get funded, which ones do not. So it comes back to the town. Projects is one thing. What about the budget? The budget is going to be used for office space, for salaries. I'm guessing someone is going to get a job out of this. Can I check? Do you mind? Sure. Go ahead. So just to be clear, I wasn't for endorsing it yet again. If it came before this Board, and it was in our purview to approve the CPA, I would have voted for it. So just to be clear, however, that's not at all in our purview, and the budget is not in our purview. And none of this is in our purview. I understand. So although we're endorsing it, we can't answer these questions for you. I was hoping that. It's not the right body. Ms. Stamps. But this isn't the body for me. I understand. So I think that you could talk to her privately. The CPA is actually having a meeting on... Tonight. Tonight. There's an in-depth meeting being held by the CPA committee. Yes, at the Hardy School. At the Hardy School. That would have been the place to go and ask your questions, but unfortunately. Thank you, sir. And maybe that meeting is still going on. You could head right over there and ask us some questions. I'll go to the other meeting. Yeah, we have representatives over there. Great. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. I was just curious as I'm telling you, remember. Can you say your name? Sean Harrington, precinct 15. Chairman, precinct 15. Thank you. So you already... I was just confused by some... I've had a long day. Midterms and all that. Midterms. Election season plus schools. So you get midterms versus... Anyways. So you already endorsed it before town meeting, correct? Or before town meeting you endorsed the CPA? We did. You now. So my question is for the board. Are you going to try to find a way to present it to voters that you are going to be... What your endorsement... The second endorsement means versus the first endorsement? The second endorsement will be on the website, along with all the other bodies that have endorsed it. Other than that, we're not making any other statements. Well, that's what it was meaning because what I was understanding from Mr. K, which is my concern, was not a question of being for against it. Once again. I just want to make... No, no, no. There. No, no, no. The thing that we approved, because I was chairman at the time, for the town meeting vote, was we endorsed the selectman's proposal. That's what we endorsed. This is something different now. It's moved on to the voters, and this endorsement is to the voters. Yes. My question is, will there be an attempt by this book to differentiate the two? Because a lot of people... I mean, myself, I was kind of confused with women. You endorsed it once, and I think the initial response by quite a few people, including those constituents I have in precinct 15, was, well, why are they re-endorsing? It seems like political grandstanding rather than actual, what is this endorsement? I mean, I think there's a lot of confusion by that. No, I think it's very simple. There's a request as to whether or not the board would endorse it, and that endorsement will be on a website that the voters can look at to see who in town has endorsed it and who has not. There's individuals on that, and there are different boards and organizations on that website. That's what this endorsement... But I guess my big concern is that talking to the hearing... Yeah, this isn't a public hearing. No, no, I was just confused by that, mainly because I have people in my precinct... My exact question is, hopefully, is this board going to try to find a way to differentiate and make it easier for people to find out something, anything, just saying we had one endorsement during town meeting, four town meeting, and one endorsement to the voters, because when I was telling people about this, they were getting confused by it, simply saying, well, it seems like they're just re-endorsing it, and it just seems like it's trying to make political hay almost. I think people are confused by the whole issue. I think people are confused by the whole issue. They should be attending the meeting right now. They'll only be at some of that confusion. There have been articles in the newspaper, there's an entire website. There was a very good informational meeting held, so thank you for your questions and your concerns, but I don't feel we need to... I can add one thing that may help answer your question. I think it would be more confusing for the voters if they saw that the redevelopment board had endorsed this before town meeting, but was taking no action when all these other groups were being asked to endorse it. I mean, doesn't that raise the question, like, oh, you supported it at one juncture, how come you're taking no action now? And I appreciate my colleagues very well at the point of view, but so I don't think it's... I don't think it's like saying... All I was simply saying was just if there could be a way for the board to maybe put out a press release or something like that on the Arlington website, Arlington Town website, something specific. That way there's something that, at least I can tell people in my precinct who are confused by this, and they say you can go to their website and you can differentiate the two. We will take that under the guidance. Thank you very much. Thank you so much for your comment. Thank you. Thank you. The next item on the agenda, building, leasing, and RFP updates for the Central School and 20-year neighborhood on that time to carry on for this. Okay. We have... We're prepared to... I am prepared to discuss three requests for proposal tonight. You recall, we talked about the three spaces for the board would put out to bid. One is 23 Maple Street, which has... the lease has expired to their tenants at will. And it's... They've exhausted the extension that were available in that lease. The other one is an office space currently occupied by the Mr. River Watershed Association in the Central School. And the other is a roughly 300-square-foot space in the Central School that would be put out to bid with one of the qualitative criteria asking what benefits the proposed use would provide to seniors. This is a space that we hope that the Arlington Seniors Association would be interested in bidding on. So I communicated with Andrew over the last few weeks about some thoughts on how to set the not less than rent for purposes of issuing the RFP and the legal... The legal ads actually were... it will post in the Central Register on Wednesday and it will be in the Arlington Advocate this Thursday and next Thursday and it will be posted in the building on the website. So what I'm recommending for the minimum rent is for 23 Maple Street a minimum rent of $9.30 which plus each of the... for each of these requests for proposals we're trying to get a 50 cent per square foot contribution a separate contribution for capital capital improvements. So for 23 Maple Street they have not had a rent because during the period they didn't have a tenant at will. So $9.30 is what they're... roughly what they're paying now. So $9.30 in 30 cents per foot. And 30 cents, okay. And there is budgeted work exterior and interior that's been delayed because the bids came back twice what we had budgeted for the exterior work. So there's been some delayed improvements so for that reason I think that it makes sense to position the minimum rent at roughly what they're paying now and then to try to negotiate with the successful proposer for accelerating in later years but also trying to get that 50 cent per square foot capital contribution. So with room 306 which is the office currently occupied by Mr. and Mr. Watership Association proposing a somewhat similar rent but a little higher, $10.00 per square foot plus the 50 cent per square foot capital contribution because it's a quieter floor it's a little bit more removed from the fray even though it's not class A by any means it's under the ease of the roof and it's open to a stairwell down to the building craftsman's office so it's not market rate really but it's also by the standards of some of the other spaces it is a little quieter so for that reason I'm suggesting $10.00 per square foot with 50 cents per capital contribution and lastly for the office 128 that's what on the blueprint that's what it was called that's about 300 square feet and I'm recommending that that space be priced a little less than 23 Maple Street I would like very much for that to be an affordable rent and I should add that with both the room 306 and office 128 I'm trying to position these rents to at least cover operating costs we, I don't know if the board recalls overwatership association the board had asked me at one point to check in with the district overwatership association about thinking about beginning to pay some operating costs so I had given them some warning of that over a year ago these rents are intended to at least cover operating so space 128 I'm suggesting $9.10 per square foot plus 50 cents for the capital contribution for a term I'm suggesting for all three leases a five-year term with two-year extension at the option of the board can mix and match if there's a better idea I'm open to it five years seems good to have a potential of almost a ten-year tenure for the successful proposer I think is pretty good but also calling the first term five years also gives both parties an opportunity to evaluate without making a really long-term commitment but I think it also shows these proposers that they can make some plans that they could have some stability for some time in the model lease model lease is included with each RFP because one of the criteria is one criterion is you score better if you're making fewer changes to the model lease so you have to include the model lease so they can see it I'm not asking for a security deposit I'm not asking for operating costs on some recent leases that the town prepared for other tenants we did not ask for a security deposit or operating costs we could but in case it's a security deposit there's a couple reasons why I'm not they're hard to keep track of and it's just an administrative expense I think that for the most part it's a little bit of a risk not including security deposit but I think it's a very low risk for the type of potential user who would be interested in occupying a building with other public service tenants and in the case of the summer school building we also have a town department in that building so I think the risk is low we also have a clause that in the model lease that would protect the town's financial interest if someone decided to break the lease so you continue to get under the model lease I think four months of rent if someone decided to break the lease so I think it's more trouble than it's worth to propose a security deposit I'm open to other arguments though and I'm very interested in the board's wisdom so I think that's the size of it I think I've included the details that I wanted you to consider but I'm sure that there are some things questions about the model lease of the RFPs or any reaction to the recommended rents so you work closely with Andrew mostly I did communicate with Andrew we talked last week and I went over what I was suggesting for what I was thinking of and why for these minimum rents I think we want to fine-tune them a little bit I will start with Andrew do you have anything to add just described anything she missed no I think Carol covered it actually she covered something we didn't talk about too so it's always a plethora one of the things that we could discuss though is this 50 cent surcharge on each of the properties to build up a fund for expenses that can be put toward maintenance that's a yearly surcharge too right out of one time it's a consistent surcharge for example what's the senior center now $9.10 plus $0.50 per square foot so that's kind of it $0.50 will be allocated to that maintenance to the maintenance for that particular separate fund so it wouldn't go into the general fund it would go directly directly back to that space for maintenance you're saying maintenance though future capital improvements maintenance isn't really the right word it would be for janitorial I just didn't hear so those are the rates do they have any increases oh thank you we're 2% 2% increases great Carol we got a 20% no 2% is what is in the model yearly but the 50 stays consistent correct that isn't a point I wanted to make operating do you think the base is without the 50 cents is it right pretty square with operating costs I know that's why the operating costs utilities gas and electric is roughly $9 $9 per square foot it's little difficult it's a little challenging because not everyone in the building pays operating but we really try to crunch it pretty well and it seems like $9 a little more than $9 covers operating costs any other questions the options you mentioned that the options would be at the board's option not at the tenant's option yes and that's in the model lease and both parties have to agree obviously what you've done in the past is you've offered I think you've written letters to some corporation of Arlington for their last extension if it's a question of how to word that if that's not the best way to phrase that I think that we can just change that in the model lease for all three yeah I guess if that's confusing I think more often in the private sphere the option is at the tenant's option as opposed to the landlord's option I'm not sure I was hearing that correctly I guess the other thing I was going to ask is in the event of an option does the base rent get reset or is it still working off our old base rent with the 2% the latter for the extension that's how these are structured but they don't have to be that one I think it was structured and kept it simple but it may be that keeping it simple is at the expense of it's always hard to protect what the future market, rental market is going to apply so in five years it's not that far out I mean if you had a 10 year term you might want to just reset the base rent all over again and say now based on what we think the rental values are X dollars with the 2% increase starting as of now at five years I think we found it in the in-between area there probably double check that for us and then when you have the two-year extension you have the option of that one of changing or you have to write in a lease well I think if understanding it's we elect to give the tenant the option to stay on I think what Carol is saying is you would still be operating from these base rents by just with the accrued 2% then we'd be out nine years though so five years so that maybe is a concern but we could not extend the option we could say okay do we could change that rather we want a request for proposal that's a choice for five years it's like we're just giving them first refusal in a way we can say we're ready to or no we don't even need to we can say we're ready to determine we're not going to exercise the option I usually hear it the other way but this gives us a lot of more leeway I think yeah I think it's right and I think these kinds of tenants will probably be okay with that I don't want to do that that are in a profit business type of thing that puts them at risk but in this case I think they work the right way as far as like that's mostly non-profit right it is all non-profits it is all non-profits that's why it makes sense I'm going to, I can slide down that's a model lease attached to an RF of the draft RFP as far as I can tell it's intended to continue that 2% increase through the increased terms but this is your profession Bruce so I'm going to defend it oh Bruce is looking at that so on 23 people so I think you've said that the different rates cover operating expenses and then you've got the 50 cent surcharge on capital do we think on 23 maple with the amount of work that needs to be done there that what is operating so we're thinking that the branch is only going to take care of operating there too or we were just more talking about the central school when you were talking about that I was talking about the central school the we don't bear any operating costs those are the tenants operating costs perfect that I was getting and I appreciate that and I will also double check I'm making some slight changes to each model just make sure that that is you don't want to miss that that becomes what triple then that makes sense to me what did you say the current rate was the 23 maple it's is it also 930 I just want to see if I have something more precise my recollection is that it's around 930 so it's basically staying the same plus the 50 cent 930 square foot plus the they were the successful proposal they would be paying whoever will be paying an additional 50 cents a square foot so 2% according to the model lease one option I considered was bumping the rent up to what it would be today had we continued how rent accelerated each of the last few years during which they've been tenants at now but that also could potentially be negotiated well what we're asking for a minimum rent that's true and it's clear in the RFP is that although it's not the only criterion that a high rent the higher you're proposing after all these are proposals that we're putting this out to bid so if somebody else is hired I'm also trying to ensure that we have an opportunity to I think the current occupants are happy we've been happy if it happens that they are all successful great if there's interest and there's a really compelling proposal that meets all the criteria and we need to ask a current occupant to vacate they're going to need some time so I'm trying to make sure that there's language in the RFP and the model lease to make sure that we afford ourselves an opportunity to give them some time so for example the room 306 we are giving 120 days to close the lease we can allow the current occupants to find I think it's a remote possibility but the whole process contemplates that there is impossibility certainly one last question on that so on the RFP for I forget what the first room is called 128 128 on that one I think we've talked about putting something in the RFP about serving seniors is that making it into the RFP? yes I'd like to tell you how that's phrased there's no criteria for the more than the non-profits necessarily it's not explicit but it's almost explicit it doesn't say anywhere that you have to be a non-profit but there's the use referred to as a public service or normal educational or public service use and a lot of the criteria are set up that way Indra I think you have the one for the senior if I could borrow that for a moment space that we're hoping the ASA will bid on so one of the proposed community benefits is service to our American seniors a highly advantageous proposal would include a proposed use to provide services and benefits for all our American seniors an advantageous proposal would propose the proposed use would provide services for some seniors or residents a not advantageous proposal would propose uses that would not focus on serving our American seniors it might be a very legitimate it would not hit a lot of our bumpers if it's not going to serve our American seniors as this is drafted other community benefits are how it might benefit or affect the neighborhood and residents and the immediate vicinity how the proposed use would benefit or affect the existing occupants of the central school those three and of course financial resources to maintain the rent it's good it sounds like it's all set again I hope so, I'm going to review them very carefully they've been advertised for Wednesday so I wonder did you want to finish looking at that I just got away from you I was mostly done I think maybe the board should discuss when we got off track with the actual terms of the leases I think it might be a better idea to do a three year lease with two one year options to take it to a total term of five years and at that point it opens up the opportunity to negotiate to reset the rent to send out our fees again the way it's written now it's nine years is a long time but it's five years it is and it isn't the only thing I'm worried about that is that we want to do this every three years I mean five years but I think we wouldn't do it every three years we do it every five years because we do three plus two as opposed to five plus four so three years with two one year options so a total of a potential total of five years I like something a little bit longer because having been on the board for four or five years I think one of the things that ends up happening is because our meeting schedule is what it is sometimes all of a sudden we're put in a place where oh we got to deal with the leases and it becomes kind of this rush rush and not that you can't plan or anything else but when I think about them three years is not that long I also get a little bit concerned for folks who are making plans and doing different things with their space then three years just isn't very long for them you know so for me I think it's a little bit hard to ask a tenant to just sign up three years and know that they only have three years of certainty maybe especially with the capital improvement that's fair presenting it that way we are presenting it that way to the people present and also but that is a capital improvement and I don't that's the only way I've referred to a few times in the RFP and the modelies I guess you know Andrea I've seen some merits to both sides of this and I think that if we found that either well if we found that we were underpricing the rent we simply wouldn't give the option we'd just say okay we're going to go through another round of proposals the five years are up and the market is radically different from where it was because it's the board's option just to answer the question that I had raised earlier on the options if we do give them the option to extend my reading of the language in the model lease is because it's an extension of the existing term it's explicit in the lease to say otherwise that it would be subject to just the two percent increase that you have for each of the first five years of the lease two percent of the base so there wouldn't be the opportunity to reset the base rent if we exercised the option we would not have the option we would we have the option if you will of not running the option we can say nope five years is up in the next two years but if we said we are going to give you the option of extending your lease term for another two years the rent for that extended period of time but you could say we're going to re-bid it yep you came out of whack we go back through this process again right so we could make an adjustment if things just needed to be adjusted after five years by saying we're terminating your option we're re-bidding that would be the only way to make an adjustment I think so Bruce did you review the offer to extend language so it doesn't say anything about option of the board or the tenant really oh it does say that it's not the option of the board that the landlords will have the option to extend correct and we think we can get a look at that because of the nature of the tenant oh yeah I thought it was a legal question you're asking more about an economic question can we get away with it will the market respond well I think if they came back and it didn't work then I think that's a right to leave it to the folks who are doing it but then maybe the reset language does need to be in there for those options so if for whatever reason well I guess it's the model lease it is what it is so if a tenant's on that particular lease because of that provision I guess you could just flip it and say okay it's at yours but it has to reset I think I think that's what you would do in that situation they're not prevented from modifying this lease I didn't know if I was clear about that I didn't know if I was clear about that okay any other what you need on moving forward that sounds good so we're going to leave the terms as they are five years five years two everybody is okay with that and those minimum rents sound okay they do thank you that was record time from when you said you were going to start those you had already started those there was a model lease that helped a lot okay back to you again master plan update okay the board received an invitation that I sent last week to the November 6th presentation by the master plan consultant Judy Barrett from RKG it's an invitation to the redevelopment board and the board of selection to both boards to come to the presentation to give both boards an opportunity to kind of kick the tires on the draft plan and the draft recommendations and for her to hear any additional input feedback on the draft I shouldn't say any additional because this will be the first we expect to receive the draft plan the last week of the month so we will just have it in hand when the November 6th meeting of the master plan advisory committee will will be an opportunity the first opportunity to learn what she's putting in the recommendations based on the work over the last two years and the input from the committee so that is in the central school the main room of the central school 7 o'clock on Thursday November 6th I hope you can make it I will post that in case members you better attend and I apologize if that's the same week as a meeting of the board that means I'm asking to come out two week nights in a row well two week nights the same week and that meeting we had two here so I don't know if anybody noticed the master plan advisory committee's been putting articles in the newspaper every week in the advocate I think they put their third one in this week Barbara Thornton is a member of the capital planning committee who has participated ardently she's been to every form every presentation and she really speaks and writes very well about each element of the master plan she's highlighted in a different article the first of her was excellent she really explained what the master planning process is going all the way back to how the planning began and ancient Greece what the purpose of planning is and why we are still guided by principles of planning and what it's going to accomplish for the town it was great there's a website as well I've actually been cutting them out are they on the website? so we can get them right off the town website take a look at the master plan page on the town website I read the last three papers until yesterday I don't know I haven't seen those actually do read the advocate it doesn't speak well this is a work in progress but she has outlined some of the themes that have emerged the master plan process and the especially very cold and pussies I did that old licking the old fashioned thing so I'm not giving you the products so these color codes have to do with land use codes and we're trying to show that each of these themes cuts across several of the master plan elements by using these color codes but I don't need to belabor this too much but I did want to hand this out to you so you have this and you can review it because these are the things that came up over and over again from the start and I expect that there will be discussion in the master plan and the recommendations on these themes so after November 6 we'll solicit input and feedback on the plan until December 4 this is the draft timeline we're working under the warrant opens December 2 so we'll prepare a warrant article to seek town meetings endorsement of the plan then January 12 is this board's hearing on the master plan so that this planning board can consider formal adoption of the master plan as you all know in the master general law a planning board adopts the plan and then the warrant closes and at the February 2nd ARB meeting I would imagine we would have a possible vote to adopt the plan after the January 12 hearing and town meeting last week of April town meeting is April 27 so it makes it all sound so simple and elegant but we do have a lot of work at the master plan advisory committee and this board for the January 12 hearing so the November 6th meeting is going to be very important I think because that's the first time that it would really be unveiled and the chance to hear Judy Barrett and to discuss with Judy Barrett the recommendations and get more advice from her on plan and recommendations so I do hope you can attend and if we as a board feel we need to discuss it further after that I think as a board we can discuss it at that meeting since we haven't really taken a meeting here to discuss it but if we feel there's more discussion necessary maybe we can incorporate that into a December meeting certainly yes I would recommend that it's a great idea we had discussed doing that we just haven't yet it's nice to have a little time to absorb what and then come back with some thoughts and since we're being asked to recommend this thing and have a hearing you want to have a discussion definitely informal I mean are just among us and with whatever support we need to really go through it in detail and give our reactions well the recommendations that are coming out in the draft plan shouldn't be radically different than what we were seeing in some of the working papers so far right the recommendations the master plan will have an implementation section that has a lot of nitty-gritty on who responsible party is for implementing each step of recommendations that I don't expect that's going to be too fully developed by the end of October but the recommendations the general recommendations will be they're not going to be much different than what's already come out there were probably changes made by each of the subcommittees right along the way that we haven't seen yes I also think that we'll probably see some new recommendations from the ArcG's work