Senior Center Committee
Meeting Minutes – October 3, 2007
Councillor Veno calls the meeting to order, indicating that all members of the Committee are present with the exception of Mayor Driscoll, who said that she’d be coming late from another meeting.
Councillor Veno calls for working group reports.
Paul Lanzikos reports for Public Input Workgroup on focus groups.
One focus group expressed a preference for Mack Park. The other 2 groups were less positive about this site, mentioning that it’s too congested and hilly.
The next site reviewed was the Memorial Drive Playground site, on the water side of Ft. Lee.
There were two distinct opinions: The older group didn’t immediately take to being near the water, suggesting that it is cold in winter, uninviting, perhaps too small, have a preference for it being all on one level. But when explained how it might work with two levels, they seemed to warm to it more. This group was not as familiar with the Ft Lee location as the other sites. Several suggested that it was more remote.
The two other groups indicated that being near the water had advantages, that it was an attractive location which would bring people in, that it could be used for other purposes (revenue source).
Ft. Lee, with water views, would be attractive. There was much discussion about parking at Memorial Drive site, with the consensus being that parking across street would be fine. The proximity to the Willows resources is a big plus. One person suggested that there may be neighborhood opposition. Accessibility is fine; the van service makes it work.
On the Church Street Lot, there was divided opinion. The older group saw it advantageous, close to other resources. But they were concerned about parking, even though most take the van, and about access, traffic congestion, one way streets. The positive is that it’s close to downtown resources, but it lacks outdoor ambiance that other sites offer. There is no consensus in any of the groups that this would be a good location.
On the current Broad Street location, the older group felt that renovating it was okay, but it got a less positive response from the other groups. There were concerns with parking, and a general sense that the renovation cost is disproportionate to value you get out of it.
In summary, three of the sites had no strong interest: Gallows Hill, Church Site, and Broad St. Ft Lee, Mark Park and Memorial Drive had more interest.
Joan Lovely indicates that this is great summary, exactly as it happened, and that this was a great exercise.
Tony Salvo says that in past years everyone always wanted it to be downtown, but it doesn’t seem to be the consensus now.
Paul Lanzikos says that of 484 surveys, 357 drive their car to center. In terms of use of the van, less than 50 say they use it weekly, 350 say they never use it. This would indicate that this is a fairly independent group that mostly relies on their cars.
In response to a question, on what the consensus site of the groups was, Paul Lanzikos says the facilitators didn’t force people to make a decision on which ones, that the purpose wasn’t to try to form a consensus. By an unofficial nose count, they probably prefer one of two sites at the willows
John Walsh asks if they preferred one of the Willows sites over another, and Paul Lanzikos indicates that they didn’t probe so finely to force them to chose, that a case could be made for either. Joan Lovely said that she agreed.
There was also expressed a desire/recognition about the need for a diverse group of services.
Barbara Cleary: When you asked about parking at Broad St, was parking seen as a problem?
Paul Lanzikos: The answers varied. Some were adamant that it was a problem, while someone else said there’s lots of parking in the neighborhood.
John Walsh indicates that parking in the neighborhood would be a big problem in the wintertime.
Tony Salvo: On the Broad Street facility, they feel it’s too costly and want to go elsewhere.
Paul Lanzikos says that there was no “save our building” mentality in the groups.
Barbara Cleary: So, no one offered “this is an ideal spot”?
Paul Lanzikos: No
The discussions then moved over to the Ft. Lee site.
Barbara Cleary says that we can’t do it on the top of the Hill, with its historic nature.
Paul Lanzikos suggests that this could make this area safer, improve walking trails and join the historic site to rest of area.
Barbara Cleary: Was there concern at playground site, close enough to parking?
Paul Lanzikos: There was concern that it might impinge on the use of Camp Naumkeag. It was not a strongly voiced concern, but one person did mention that folks could park there when it’s not being used.
Pamela Greaves says that having veterans services in the building would be nice, given the location near cannon hill.
Paul Lanzikos says that in terms of the FT Lee site, the older group did say that it feels the most isolated, but that’s the only real concern expressed.
Barbara Cleary says that it’s good to hear that for the most part people don’t think that’s very remote
Pamela Greaves says that when we talked about the vans, most thought the site was fine.
Paul Lanzikos: One nice, unsolicited piece of feedback we got from the groups was that participants were very glad that we were asking for their input, that their opinions were being valued, and that they were confident that the outcome would be supported/more valid as a result.
Paul Lanzikos: I also want to mention that the evening session had 4 City Councillors as observers, took it all in, in terms of process and content. Councillors Sosnosnowski, Pelletier, Lovely, Furey (who was in a focus group).
(Mayor Driscoll arrives).
Paul Lanzikos: The next step is to take the notes, condense them into a summary one-pager on each group, same on close to 500 surveys.
Tony Salvo: I want to commend Paul and the committee on the survey and focus group.
Teasie Riley-Goggin: A video of the focus groups would have ruined it, I agree, but it would be great to see it. It was wonderful
Paul Lanzikos: I was impressed too that each of the groups had great, broad participation, and that everyone respected each others opinions.
John Walsh moves that the report be accepted, which is seconded by Frank Clocher and unanimously agreed to.
Barbara Cleary reports for the Site Analysis workgroup, with an interim report. At the last meeting we reported that Winter Street Architects has agreed to help out. I’d like to introduce Mark Meche who is here and watching tonight. We circulated a scope of work at that time, got started a little late, and had a little difficulty getting GIS maps. Mark is not ready to present tonight, but he wanted to come and listen. The next step is that when Winter Street finishes with the preliminary analysis, they’ll meet with the working group again, and report at next meeting to whole committee. The preliminary date to meet is October 15th.
John Walsh: Do we work with all six still, or should we focus on Ft. Lee, Memorial Drive and Mark Park? We could include Broad Street, which already has some design work done on it as part of the St. Joe’s discussion.
Barbara Cleary: We could focus on the three (Ft. Lee, Memorial Drive and Mark Park) for the design review.
John Walsh: Should we move the others on to another list?
Paul Lanzikos: There was no core in focus group that makes them stay on the list. Any of the 4 on the list now (Ft. Lee, Memorial Drive, Mark Park and Broad Street) has a core constituency.
John Walsh moves, seconded by Teasie Riley-Goggin that we put them Church Street and Gallows Hill on a reserve list. We could, however, include when we analyze them any info that Mark Meche has already done, to capture it on the report. The remaining 4 sites (Ft. Lee, Memorial Drive, Mark Park and Broad Street) will be the focus on the architect analysis. (Discussion continues on this, but no vote is taken on the motion)
John Walsh says that he has seen some of the preliminary work of the architect which is very good, mock ups of layout, etc.
Barbara Cleary: Is the committee meeting the following Wednesday, after the 10/15 meeting?
Teasie Riley-Goggin: In terms of parking, Denis, are the parking spaces at the Peabody COA regulation width, or did you add a little extra?
Mark Meche: The committee could make this a priority, but you’re trading numbers of parking spaces for size.
Barbara Cleary: Parking will be a challenge at any of the sites, and it will require us to look at tradeoffs. It’s important that we are prepared that this will be part of the discussion.
Paul Lanzikos: In terms of the Memorial Drive site parking, if it’s available across the street, everyone in the focus group said that would be fine
Joan Lovely: Another issue that came up a few times in the focus groups was the question of whether Park and Rec and the Council on aging will stay together.
Paul Lanzikos: The design point in terms of interior space will come further down the line. Some will be administrative, and we should try to have senior space separated from this, away from the administrative hubbub. Also flu shots/health clinic is a popular service, and parking is always a problem at that time. Recognizing that you don’t design for peek volume, you do have to plan for it somehow.
Denis Coleman: For flu shots, we open up the track area for extra parking.
(Pat Curtin leaves)
There is no report of Programming/use group, which is waiting on information/direction from other groups.
Paul Lanzikos asks how we can attract men to the senior center. The Torigian Center in Peabody has activities for men. This needs to be addressed.
Matt Veno, the Programming/use group should meet to digest information from the focus groups and survey.
Paul Lanzikos indicates that we can still include information/data from more surveys if we get more.
Old/New Business
A discussion on finances ensues.
Teasie Riley-Goggin: Can we tap the $865K from Szetela Lane as a down payment?
John Walsh: I think we have to wait until we see the site analysis workgroup results, which will include discussion of proposed costs.
Paul Lanzikos: We could do a little research at the executive office of elder affairs, and gather info on last 10-15 senior centers – rough cost, and how they paid for it – which could give us a guideline, a place to start in this regard.
Barbara Cleary: On the site analysis side, we could get some real ballpark figures on base building costs, assuming no weird conditions, a relative analysis of each site as to cost. We hope to get good per foot cost estimates.
Mayor Driscoll: We can do a fair amount of analysis at the staff level as too.
Mayor Driscoll: Seniors meet the objectives to use CDBG, but it’s a little more challenging if you do it outside the district, it’s not black and white.
Mayor Driscoll: I want to say a few words on the finances, which is a large concern of mine. I want to first thank Mark and Winter Street Architects for jumping in. Any of the sites we’re taking about at this point will cost much more than what we were estimating for St. Joes ($4.75m). So, any plan put forward will cost significantly more, depending on the site. That’s a real issue that we have to address. If we had to go out and build a new senior center, I don’t think we can do it. St. Joes worked, because it had ways to pay it – CDBG is already spent there in the district, there was revenue from taxes, shared cost as part of a development. All that made the plan work. It was a creative way to get it done. Now we’re facing the
conundrum. We may find a location that we all love, but doesn’t fit within the financing box that St Joes fit in. The previous plan wasn’t hitting the operating budget. I don’t know if any new site will ring all the right bells as this one did. We need to find a site/plan that’s affordable. We need to have this important dialogue. A report that recommends a site that we can’t afford isn’t helpful.
We need to work through it, but can’t put heads in sand.
Joan Lovely: None of this is new information. I hope it’s not all a waste because we can’t finance it. We still have ability to sell this building (5 Broad Street). The tax revenue from the redevelopment of St. Joes may still be there. I’m hopeful that we can find a way to reroute the CDBG funding. Memorial Drive is in it. Ft. Lee is not. Mack Park is right on the line of it. Going forward, I’m still enthused. But you’re saying we might not be working towards something we can do. In my view, the parameters aren’t changing. All three revenue pieces may be in play. Yes, it will cost more, will know more soon.
Mayor Driscoll: The sites we’re talking about are likely to be more expensive. Reports like this usually end up on steps of city hall. This will be a challenge. I’m committed to trying to get this done, and I remain optimistic. But the operating budget is still a challenge, and any opportunities to do things outside of the operating budget are good.
Pamela Greaves: This is a good reality check. I’ve said “were are we going to get the money” but it’s needed.
Teasie Riley-Goggin: How about North Shore Elders, any monies there?
Paul Lanzikos: There is no existing pocket at fed/state level to build senior centers. The state has lots of capital needs and resources are stretched thin, and that isn’t changing.
Mayor Driscoll: I wan to make sure that finances are part of work in talking about site analysis
No one likes to deliver bad news, but I don’t want to end with report a that‘s unattainable.
This does need to be part of the decision making process.
Paul Lanzikos: We have talked about financing, and recognize that financing realities might lead us to fall back on less desirable sites of necessity.
Barbara Cleary: Cost considerations have been part of our work throughout, and have led us to, among other things, focus on city-owned parcels, and not to have Taj Mahal type requirements. What I would rather see is if we’ve done a reasonable job and come up with a site, we come together to say “how do we get this built?” Maybe we can ask the planning department to work through all programs possibly, maybe EPA cleanup money, look at creative ways like the St. Joes proposal did.
Teasie Riley-Goggin: I see Habitat happening downtown, Mark working pro bono, many talented people will help if we ask.
Mayor Driscoll: I’m not trying to rain on the parade
Matt Veno: I’m actually encouraged, and have been from the beginning that this group accepts this responsibility of addressing the financial realities of building a new facility.
Paul Lanzikos: In the focus groups, 2 sites lend themselves to revenue generating potential – Memorial and Ft. Lee. Participants talked about facilities with priceless views, prime locations for functions, meetings, etc. They identified that as a legitimate consideration for use of buildings. In Beverly, we’re looking at a similar project at Lynch Park and the demand is there. But that type of analysis can’t happen until we say, yes this is a reasonable site.
Tony Salvo: I can see where the mayor’s coming from. We did this on the new Police Station. But I see where we’re coming from too. We should continue on, focus on lowest price that will be acceptable by all. We should continue on.
Mayor Driscoll: I agree that the sooner we fine tune the site the better.
Paul Lanzikos: I can look into recent senior center projects and what sources of funding they used. It strikes me that another area to explore is the veteran’s side. Perhaps there’s a way to marry those two to get veterans dollars.
Frank Clocher: Perhaps too there are grants from the Park and Rec side.
Mayor Driscoll: There just aren’t many capital facility grants, but we’re looking.
There then ensures a discussion about the report to the City Council.
Barbara Cleary: We need a summary/cover letter, which perhaps Matt can draft, and reports of what each committee has done.
Matt Veno: In terms of procedure, Joan and I can submit a letter to the City Council requesting the opportunity to address the Council to discuss the report.
The Public Comment period is opened.
Joan Zabcar: Mayor, are you expecting to reconsider St. Joes and put that back on the table.
Mayor: No, that’s a settled issue.
Joan Zabcar: I’m trying to connect some dots here. Barbara said you’re trying to get a site that attracts seniors. You also said that parking will be a challenge. Have we put ourselves in box by including the seniors and others? My final point is that the Mayor said that CDBG funds could be used for senior center – now that we’re dragging Park and Rec into it, doesn’t that make it more difficult to use CDBG funds? I have request – if Denis Coleman is an expert, we should give extra weight to what he says.
Denis Coleman: Every view point is valid. This process has been excellent. We have all been cognizant of the cost issue. Sometimes you don’t get all that you want. Most the sites here provide adequate space for what the facility needs.
Barbara Cleary: Very early on dismissed sites that absolutely didn’t work.
Paul Lanzikos: I want to address one implication of your question. There is not unlimited funding for seniors either. We will have to leverage other programs.
Yelena Cibric: I would like to ask Paul, are there funds for Recreation that might help?
Paul Lanzikos: That’s beyond my scope of knowledge
Teasie Riley-Goggin moves for adjournment, seconded by BC, which carries unanimously
| 
