Minutes of Mosaic Commons General Meeting
August 4, 2002, 3:30-6:30pm

Decisions:

All will review the contract and get back comments by end of day Tuesday. A small team will bring choices for lawyers back to the group for the group to choose, and we will then have our counsel review the contract.

Catya & Kim will share the Liaison role as we move into Project Management

Marty will take on the Action Item Manager role, Joan to take down items during the meetings.

Dwight & Steph to offer Parmenter up to $150 for continued use of their space

We will hire Mary & Laura for site planning

Action Items:

Discussion:

3.  Announcements and approval of agenda

Judy coming late

Janice C.  withdrawing from MC as she is moving to the West Coast

Marty signed on as an associate member

Joan signed the associate agreement as it was not available at the last meeting

Catya: Said it was a rough month for her healthwise & wants to apologize if she’s been grumpy. She hopes to feel better in the next few weeks.

Agenda approved; change made from Christie to Joan for notetaker

4.  Review and approve minutes from previous meeting(s)

Catya: Dave took rough minutes at last meeting & may have missed places. Also not sure if all the emotional discussion around land site is appropriate for prospective members.  Wants everyone to read it & make sure it’s okay.

Rick: Let’s back off and read them before approval.

Rosa: Please include link to minutes on emails regarding approving minutes

Cat: Will put it out. Is also on the Yahoo reminder

5.  Land/Site Update

Discussion as to whether to do synopsis first or go around. Decided to do synopsis first, then go around.

Kim [synopsis]: She has sent around two emails, the LST report and a later update.  Taylor Brook (Maynard)  is 6.13 acres. The offer has been accepted at 1.32mil without reevaluation. Quite a few zoning questions left for feasibility however. Taylor Brook Coalition still needs to be met with and they intend supporting us.  The information from Quirk has gone to Daylor Consulting for feasibility. We are planning a site tour on Tuesday & again on Saturday.  There is one usable structure on the Maynard property.

John: Are there any concerns about the Taylor Brook Coalition letter?

Kim: Taylor Brook is a bit sketchy on the exact number of units they will support in our development. They’ve said they are okay with 20 units. Will go as high as 26. 30 definitely too high.  But Kim thinks the letter will be worded so they’ll support us & then we can attach a site plan afterward.  Daylor is going to have a significant part in sculpting the letter.

Ken: What does Daylor do?

Kim: They do permit processing; engineering. For us,Civil engineering & possibly permit processing.

Cat: For our purposes they are helping cohousig resources conduct feasibility

Dwight: Our relationship with Daylor is indirect.  They are contracted to Cohousing Resources

Ken: What kind of feasibility of permits?

Cat: Subject feasibility

Dwight: Slightly curious, are they doing stuff Chris is responsible for?

Kim: They’re doing zoning questions, maybe traffic studies, whatever Chris asks of them.  They’ll create a matrix if there is more than one property to consider.  Stow: 50.67 acres. offer 1.1mil & on hold due to counsel advisement as they are in chapter 61a - agricultural zoning gives town the right of first refusal on an offer to sell. Attorney is drafting a letter of first refusal from us & will walk the property on Aug 13.  We will know more then.  The owner has had testing done on the property & it has an underground river that puts out significant water volume that Stow wants to keep for the town.  It’s #2 on their list.  Conservation land owned by town is on all sides & our piece of land connects the two pieces together.

Joan: Was the 1.1mil offer for all 50+acres?

Kim: Yes. Third property, Saxonville/Danforth Farms is on hold. The VP of national development got back to Cohousing Resources & said we can’t talk to them for another three to four months. Chris called Nexum to ask for a speed up on this & they said let us think about it.  Chris is also working with Karen P. tomorrow to put in a low offer on Page Rd - they’ve had no offers & it’s less complicated than we thought. Lincoln is a great loction but still requires a 40b-Chris is still working on these because he wants to provide us with as many options as possible.

Ken: The legislature recently passed a 40b change that if a town improves by 1/2% they don’t have to do any more for next year.

Cat: Action item for someone to find out if Lincoln has done 1/2% this yr.

Kim: Reminder to read Chris’ chapters as sent around on email

Cat: If anyone doesn’t have Chris’ book, she forgot to bring copies today, but can bring them to the next event for anyone who needs it.

Kim: Reminder of Aug 9 & 10 Cohousing Resources meetings.  Suggeston: Saturday one be somewhre out near where we’ll be touring.

Dwight: Reminders about it during dates section.

Cat: Have we asked Cohousing Resources about the content of these meetings - ie what it will be?

Kim: Not yet. More stuff coming later.

Did a Go around/feelings about land site and ranking of 3 sites in discussion - Taylor Brook/Maynard (TB), Stow Horse Farm (HF) and Danforth Farms/Saxonville (Sax):

Dwight: Very interested in Saxonville.  40b has become very difficult, more than before & we should avoid 40a/b if we can. He’s discussed it with Stephanie, and they are happy with Stow or Taylor Brook, but would prefer Saxonville. Want to see it continue.

Kim: Can we do 1-2-3 to rank our order of property preference?

Dwight: Sax, HF, TR

Steph: I’d rather wait for Sax than do 40b. Rank: Sax, HF, TR

Greg: HF,TR, Sax. Getting HF at a really good price. I have a question about the timing of feasibility because Saxonville is out there right now. And I am nervous about counsel per my emails.

Dwight: We’ll discuss it when we talk about the contract.

John: He has a new job and has been out of it the last few weeks.  He has no strong preference among the three properties, although he likes the closeness of Saxonville.

Rosa: Is excited at these opportunites, but wishes the timing were better.  Sax is her preference due to its location, but not sure she would wait for it. Ranking: Sax first, then tie between HF & TB.

Gina: Agrees with all the comments made before him. Ranking: Sax first, other two tied.  What’s best for the group may be different.

Rick: HF, Sax, TB.

Kim: HF, TB Sax. Wants no 40b if possible.

Ben: Yes on not doing 40b. HF is gorgeous, near train & shopping. If HF is a go, we’ll know it, unlike a 40b project and that is appealing. He likes the area it’s in. He hasn’t seen TB, but it borders on conservation land & we can walk to downtown Maynard. Problem is that it might take a while to know if it’s a go. Sax has the advantage of knowing. Disadvantage is that it doesn’t have the charm of Maynard or Stow. It’s part of a huge subdivision except for the river. All the green space we’ll have is what we plant.  It’s far from the train. Ranking: HF/TB tied till sees TB. Sax 3rd.

Ken: (& for Christie also): feels like Ben. Likes both Stow & Maynard. It’s nice to walk to town center. Ranking: HF, TB, Sax.  Likes the communities of Stow & Maynard better & easier for him as a commute.  They looked at Sax & could live with that too.

Marty: Hasn’t seen any of the properties. She’s feeling negative about Sax - we just don’t know much about it.  It will be a few months before we do know & she would like to avoid being up in the air. HF sounds nice & TB also. Ranking: HF (due to larger acerage), TB, Sax.

Ben: Just to clarify, we plan to give most of the land to Stow

Marty: Might still be a little more land than TB.

Rick: Move it along please.

Marty: Asked about grid scale?

Greg: It’s later on the agenda.

Catya: I’m worried about ranking on feel & think we should be ranking based on feasibility.  And we don’t have enough information to do that. Saxonville could progress much faster once it’s a done deal and at a lower risk.  Question is which site can we do successfully in the least amount of time and at what cost.  She wants to know what is feasible & not get too attached to one site now.  The group might be in a place later where more than one is feasible & then she’ll go on a site visit, but she’ll wait till then.  Kim is doing a lot of work to get reports out by email, so let’s not take too much time up in meetings with this.  Please pay attention to the emails & ask questions in email so it doesn’t take up time in meetings.  We also don’t want to share lots of factual info with any newcomers (of which there are none today).

Joan: Saxonville works out a lot better for lots of folks and better commute for us.  A bit concerned about how long it will take for the whole site to build out and whether we’d have bulldozers rolling by for a long time.  Maynard and Stow locations okay also.  Ranking: No preference.

Gina: She talked to a real estate agent in Saxonville recently and there are lots of changes happening in that area.

Dwight: Proxy from Sarah: Ranking: Sax first & no 2nd or 3rd.

Gina: Nice potential feel.

John: Wants to underscore what cat said about not getting too attached to one site yet.  One factor would be struggling with doing 40b.

Greg: Does Marty have the URL for the Saxonville development?

Kim:  She goes to all the sites so she won’t fall too in love with one.  The reason she wanted preferences is because Chris frequently asks her how the group “feels” about it and she doesn’t know if no one else has toured.

Rick: He doesn’t think we should shy away from 40b. It may not be that bad. Don’t be afraid.  It could be a step on the road.  Let’s move questions to the list?

Cat: One more comment: Both Stow & Maynard will require a rezone at a minimum & Maynard may require a 40b.  Let’s keep that in mind.

6.  Project Management Contract

Cat:  We have a draft of the contract & Cat’s initial questions which she sent around on email this morning. You can add your questions by line number off of Cat’s list to get them to Cohousing Resources. We do have a few decisions to make.  First, how to handle who will be the point person for Cohousing Resources as we move into facilitation.  Cat?  Maybe multiple people? Cat proposes Cat & Kim do it together if that works for Cohousing Resources. Any questions about contact peope or about the contract?

Rick: Looked at post this morning and felt overwhelmed.  Needs more time.

Cat: Just wants people to look at it at some point.

Greg: It was also too much for him this morning.  But he wants to know what do we need to do to protect ourselves before entering into this contract?

Cat: The process of bringing our potential lawyer up to speed is tricky.  We need the lawyer to understand that we know we’re taking risks with our money.  We should have Cohousing Resources get on phone with whoever we select as our lawyer and explain how cohousing has been handled with legal folks in the past.  Otherwise we’re sure to get this response: “You folks are crazy!”

Greg: He has spoke to an attorney named Rebecca Lee.  She knew about Cohousing Resources as a company & is familiar with the ins and outs of what’s done contractually. So it’s a slight learning curve if we select her.  She is $400/hr which is steep, but we do need someone who is up to speed.

Cat: This contract is in english, not in legaleze.  She wants to be clear that we can read it for our intent as a group and legal review Is a separate project.  Even with legal review, we all still need to read it  and not just hand it off.

Kim: Her experience with a lawyer was that she got the “What on earth?” response & they would have to research it. They had no idea what cohousing is.  Matt Keifer was recommended to her as someone knowledgeable about cohousing, but he told her was too busy to work with us. He recommended Kathleen Mccabe & if we work with her, he would consult on the project.

Rosa: We’re having two discussions here, one about the contract & one about lawyers. Let’s focus on the contract for now.

Dwight: Has a proposal: That we take a week as a group to gather our questions, review the contract, see if it meets our intent, and think about the language.  Once that’s done & compiled, we assign someone to take the questions & bring them to Cohousing Resources as a basis for negotiation.  When we get a draft back from Cohousing Resources, then we get professional review of the contract done.  He thinks professional review should be chosen by possibly Kim, Cat & Dwight, but we don’t have to decide now.

Steph: Why do a two part thing?  Why not go to our lawyer and Cohousing Resources with our observations & do it all at once so lawyer can give input at the same time?

Dwight: There’s no reason to do legal review prior to our changes.  We can do the changes ourselves & then get attorney to point out dangerous areas for Mosaic Commons.

Cat: She’s fine with being included in lawyer selection but thinks Kai, Dwight & Greg should be the ones to do it.

Greg: Why don’t we meet with some lawyers & then bring attorney choice options to the group for concensus.

Ben: Does the $100,000 lawyer item in our budget analysis include money for our group’s attorney?

Greg: It’s his understanding from talking to Rebecca (he talked to her about the specifics of our sites) is that overall there is more attorney’s work needed here than just reviewing contracts.

Rosa: We’re getting off topic.  Propose we show cards on Dwight’s proposal.  [Rosa repeated Dwight’s proposal]  Any questions?

John: Are we voting on the process of sharing information? How we’re getting information to Cohousing Resources?

Rosa:  No...[Rosa repeated dwight’s proposal.]

Cat:  There are a whole lot of blank places in this contract draft.  More comprehensive draft is coming up. If important to group, we can get additional pieces during the week.

Dwight: We need to compile our responses all at once . Ticks him off that there are blanks.

Steph: Wondering what Cat’s orange card is about. wants to know imput prior to going to Cohousing Resources.

Cat: Thinks based on her read that it will be just questions mostly for now.  She can certainly send them all to the group before Cohousing Resources.

Joan: Confused by blanks.  Are we voting on just reviewing what we have now?

Cat: Yes.  Thinks a week is too long a period of review for the group on a half draft.

Ben: Is uncomfortable with being rushed & having an incompete contract.  He would like to discuss the contract as group before sending questions and comments to Cohousing Resources.

Dwight: The proposal doesn’t call for us signing the contact.  Just a review by our group & then a legal review.  We wouldn’t sign it outside of the concensus process.

Cat: All of her reading brought up questions. She didn’t come up with any changes to be made so far.   Mostly just how do these things work at this point. She thinks will just be questions  & until she gets answers, won’t know what to change.  Perhaps should start with just questions.

Rosa: We’re well over time on this discussion. We have a few more comments. Can we do this in next few days? or do need more time?  Proposal to take two days to get questions and comments to Cat on what’s there in the draft contract, then take the next step.

Voted as follows: Green cards shown. Voted & passed.

Cat: Let’s show cards on Kim & Cat as point people for Cohousing Resources

Voted as follows: Green cards shown.  Voted & passed

John: What’s the specific date to get Cat our review by?

Cat: End of day Tuesday/Before 8am on Wed is deadline.

Dwight: He doesn’t like divided responsibilities of Kim & Cat in contact role in general because he doesn’t think that things get done when responsibility is divided up usually.  But knowing Cat and Kim he doesn’t think that will happen and is willing to try this.

Cat: There will be no individual members requesting contract changes - It will be a concensus decision.

Ben: Do we have an indication of when the holes will be filled in?

Cat: She is to get a date on it. 

Dwight:  Very unhappy with blanks on contract.  Thinks it is unprofessional.

Cat:  She wants to clarify that even though Couhousing Resources told her the contract was unfinished, she asked for what they have which is why we have a contract with blanks

7.  Action Item Manager

Rosa: Need Action Item Manager volunteer. Cat needs to hand off this task.

Rick: Gave reminder of grueling task of doing this in meeting.

Marty: What’s involved?

Cat: Keep track of action items on excel, email or call people to update. Sarah has macro to send reminders easily by email.  Put updates on excel sheet & you or someone you designate takes action items at meeting. New items & updates need to be sent to Cat to put on the web site. Will take 1 or 2 hours between meetings.

Dwight:  I’ll do it if no one else will take it.

Joan:  I think I can do it.

Marty: Wants to do it but concerned about taking down the action items during the meeting as needs to tend to Sophia.

Rosa: Could Joan take the items during the meeting for Marty?

Decided: Joan to take action items during meetings & Marty to do the rest.

8.  Meeting Location - Discussion

Rosa: Parmenter is no longer avail as of September. They’re growing & no longer renting space to anyone. Time pressure to find a new place. Have a few possibilities. She’s not sure if anything is concrete enough for a decision

Cat: She has been throwing possibilites to the list. Gina to coordinate?

Gina: Will coordinate & make calls.

Rosa: Sal’s Cambridge location could be good backup.

Cat:  We can use homeport as a backup although a bit cramped including introductory meeting folks

Rosa: She’d prefer not to hold them at homeport because new people have a confusion about distincton between the two (homeport & Mosaic Commons)

Gina: Is it worth asking Parmenter for an exception for the next few months for more money, as we are paying so little now?

Rosa: She did not ask as they didn’t seem open to that. She’s not a good haggler.

Dwight & Steph:  We’ll do it.

Rosa:  I propose that Dwight & or Steph offer up to $150 for Parmenter for continuing use of their space. If doesn’t work out, we consider Cambridge as our backup location.

Ben: Suggest that if we don’t get Parmenter, maybe we split the two monthly meetings between Cambridge & Homeport (1st & 3rd Sundays) in the month.

Greg: Do we know about intuit as possible meeting space?

Cat:  Don’t know - it’s Dave’s (& not here)

Gina: We could also propose to Parmenter that we meet here only once a month instead of twice and alternate the other meeting.

Rick: Do other people feel comfortable with having a business meeting at Homeport?

[No responses. folks comfortable]

Kim:  Is concerned about us jumping around if we alternate meeting sites during the month. She likes routine & regularity.  Thinks it won’t feel grounded.

Marty: Did somebody say something about not wanting to use religious spaces?

Dwight & Cat: Yes

Rosa: Some of us are religious, some of us are not & we don’t want to associate our group with any particular religion.  Rosa again sumarized the proposal for Steph & Dwight to offer up to $150/month for Parmenter once or twice a month.  If not, Gina will call to see what we can get & the back up space will be Cambridge.

Call for cards: green - approved and passed.

Cat:  We could also go back to introductory meetings in Concord.

9. Review/establish times for meetings.

Cat:  Has someone to help her for the next intro meeting

Cat - In regard to socials, if it’s not on the list, 9/7 is Dave & Cat's renewal of vows.

13. Committee/Team Reports/Updates

1-  Coordinating team (no update)

2-  Marketing team -meeting next month. Gina: We’re trying to target people formerly interested in our group.  We want everyone here to update people on any email lists they may be on that we have secured a site in Middlesex County and are entering feasibility.  Gina will send around the announcement to use by email.  The group came up with a list of questions for Cohousing Resources

Cat:  Reminder that when talking to people make sure owners don’t know we’re offering on multiple properties so be non-specific saying “Middlesex County”.

3- Diversity team (no update)

4- Secretary Report. Cat: That the minutes have been getting up on the website late is her fault, not the secretary’s.

5  - Membership team (no update)

6 - Treasurer report. Dwight: There are a couple of equity members for whom we don’t know how to convert you to the new budget.  Those of you who haven’t responded to your choices from the last meeting, please do so soon so we can figure out this month’s cash call.  If you contribute the balance to make up bucket 1, this will affect the balance of money for this month.

Rosa: We still don’t know if Cohousing Resources or Mosaic Commons is paying for the site planning workshop and that will also be a factor for the cash call

7 - Facilitation.  Met briefly on Thursday. Rosa: A reminder that comments & suggestons on how the facilitation is going are welcome.  It was pointed out that we tend to be scattered at the end of meeting & the issue of dates was not getting the attention it deserved, so it’s been moved to the middle of meeting.

8 - Affordability update (nothing)

9 - Conflict Resolution team. John: Has this been merged with facilitation? Cat: It’s a sub-team.  When you guys meet, think about an email set up for questions requiring conflict resolution.

10. Professionals update. Rick: We’ve talked enough about this.

11. Legal update -

Cat: Repeated Greg’s proposal regarding a small team investigating attorney options and bringing them to the group for concensus on attorney selection.  So voted:  Green cards shown & accepted.

Ben:  He is impressed by the hands on quality of Greg’s lawyer (Rebecca Lee) in terms of speific issue knowledge in Massachusetts & he thinks that perhaps under agreement with Cohousing Resources we want to supply more of legal work ourselves & have them supply less.

Greg: His understanding is that there are things our lawyer has to do that Cohousing Resources lawyer can’t do, so we need to be sure each does it’s thing.  Want to make sure we are not double paying.

Ben: He thought Cohousing Resources was giving legal services to us.

Cat: Cohousing Resources has legal council for documentation that goes out on their paper such as P&S on land sites.  It is in our interest to have our own council review these documents from our point of view to protect our interests as an LLC.  We can ask Cohousing Resources how this is typically done & where the expertise is.  Our development partner will also have legal council.  It will be a triangle & who does what is not at all clear yet.

John: Has no objections but didn’t realize this was part of the proposal.

Rick:  Does Cohousing Resources have any information on previous groups they work with & what it costs?  Will they share info on this?

Kim:  It is in our budget.

Cat:  Yes, it’s somthing like $50,000 on the line item. Cat has a question in to them on whether that amount includes our counsell costs.  She presumes it covers whole project but not sure.

Rick:  He’s suspicious of Greg’s person who sounds slick & pricey & scares him

Greg: Rebecca Lee is at one of the top law firms in Boston but also very experienced and heavy hitting.  She is expensive but we will get a lot for our money. Certainly no more high end research is needed.

Kim:  Matt Keifer also high end. $500/hr.  Having attended a 40b presentation at a law firm, it became apparent to her that you don’t ask them what you want them to do.  If you do it will be as much as they can put on there.   It’s better to tell them what we need of them.  It’s a concern of Kim’s.  We don’t want to skimp on legal advice, but we need to know what we want.

Cat:  Process observation from facilitation standpoint.  We should be getting a read back from the secretary before we card on proposals.

14.  Bios.

15.  Matrix discussion: (copy of matrix handed out)

Greg: Looking for thoughts on clarity & ratings compilation.  He wants to work on this together as a group on an ongoing basis.   In terms of overall doability, he is using Chris’ assessment.

John: Wants to find out how Chris is defining doability.  What are the factors going into it?

Rick: What do the rating numbers mean?

Greg: We’ll get to that...

Ken:  He has the same question

Greg: First, do we want to delete any of these sites?  He took acton out.

Cat: My suggestion is to put spaces there so that the top three sites we are considering are separated.  Then grey out the rest to keep the info on them on there just in case. It’s not going to hurt.

Kim: That’s a good idea but we can definitely bring Rockland Ave off. Nexum land is not happening either & the acerage listed there isn’t right.  So those two can come off.  We can put the rest in grey area with the top three above.

Rosa:  There’s an error on the Saxonville listing on acerage.

Greg: He will fix it.  Also, in terms of distance to the train he will add a column that’s train time to boston (time to the end of the line).   Most important question - low is 1, high is 10 (low is bad, high is good) - change to a a 5 point letter scale (A-F).  Public schools - need this information.  How should we scale these school systems? 

Ben:  Evaluating is hard - just put the test scores in there.

Marty: She will pick up ranking of school systems - look for someone who has done this already.

Rick - Is this a moot point?  No, it’s a marketing issue if nothing else.

Marty - She’ll go with what the real estate agents use for a ranking.

Upland acres vs buildable acres - what means what?  Having upland acres in there might be confusing because it doesn’t tell us how much we can build on.

Rosa - go ahead and put it in, doesn’t hurt us any.

Marty - If we put it in, put it in as a math field.

Rosa - Greg gets to make the call, he maintains it.

Process observation.

Dwight - Process observation.  Concerned about the proposals not being read back prior to voting and ensuing confusions.  (Cat, too).  Make sure we do this next meeting.

End of meeting.

Contact us! * Email info or webmaster

Last modified: August 13, 2002