2016-03-21-CEC-ATM-rpt - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2016 ATM with quality soil and a level tee surface. The existing forward and back tee will be used while the new middle tee is under construction." [Brown Book, Page XI -24] Article 10: Appropriate for Municipal Capital Funds Requested Funding Source Committee Recommends Projects and Equipment $2,700,000 GF (Debt) Disapproval (5 -0) $6,068,500 GF (Debt) + $2,526,835 GF (Cash) + $907,000 GF (Free Cash) + $973,165 Chapter 90 $17,652,125 + $220,500 Water EF (Not all appropriated) (RE) + $145,500 Wastewater EF (RE) See Below + $6,550,000 State TIP + $230,625 Parking Meter Fund + $30,000 Traffic Mitigation SF Project Description Amount Requested Funding Source Committee Recommends (a) Center Streetscape Improvements and Easements —Phase 1 of 3 $2,700,000 GF (Debt) Disapproval (5 -0) "This project requests funds to improve and restore the sidewalk surface, streetscape and pedestrian safety in Lexington Center. Project improvements will also include lighting, intersection upgrades and lane configuration adjustments. Previous appropriations for the project have funded traffic modeling and design and development plans. Additional requests for construction are expected in future funding cycles. The estimated total cost of all three phases in $8 million." [Brown Book, Page XI -5] This Committee supports efforts to attend to the needed reconstruction of a vital roadway infrastructure, incorporating safety enhancements for all travelers and, ultimately, to refresh the appearance of the Town Center to improve its vitality. We do not find, however, that this Phase 1, as proposed, is ready for implementation. The Board of Selectmen has just authorized an advisory committee to look at the aesthetic design elements of the project and its work has not yet begun. There are also serious questions about the timing and phasing of the work, along with even the extent of Phase 1, in order to achieve the purposes desired. Several alternatives have been offered regarding ways to move the project forward. Among them are performing only the full street reconstruction and inherent safety improvements over the current extent proposed for Phase 1, but without traffic signalization and geometry changes; or performing that reconstruction only of the area from the Woburn /Winthrop intersection westward that currently has only concrete sidewalks, but still with the integrated safety work, including the signalization. These alternatives need to be developed sufficiently to permit the Board to reach a consensus on what to present to Town Meeting. While this Committee would welcome a revised proposal, at this or a subsequent Town Meeting, to address the first elements of the project, including the intersection, in this Committee's view there remains too much uncertainty with this project as currently proposed. Therefore, this Committee is unanimously opposed to the current request. 41