2016-02-23-CEC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting February 23, 2016 ➢ JJ jodrvef t ! t pn f ! cbtjd! t bji z! boe! jogbt Ls✓duisc ! of f et ! u bt.1 t i pure! cf ! bees` t t f e/! ➢ Ef tjho!gioejoh!x bt !qs` v■pvt rn!bggq:mf e/! ➢ Ui f ! gspl# dt.ljt ! bt.! 36& ! of tjhoa u f s` !jt ! sppn ! g)s! dpotjef thcrfi! di bohf !jo! u f ! of tjho /! ➢ This Committee needs to evaluate the expenditure, not the design. Ms. Barnett expressed her opposition to the project, noting: ➢ Considering the other major capital Town building projects, such as the schools, that need to be undertaken and the impacts of increased tax rates to homeowners, that this is not the time to be spending this amount of money on the Center; particularly on elective amenities. ➢ One of the reasons given for the project is that the "sidewalks on the north side of Massachusetts Avenue look tired." She had learned that one of the reasons the sidewalks look "tired" in this area is that despite regular Town cleaning; there has been an ongoing problem with sidewalk cleanliness where businesses are serving food. ➢ She reported that according to the Department of Public Works, the south -side sidewalk is Americans with Disability (ADA) compliant. It is not clear that this needs to be re -done. ➢ She also expressed concerns that the 20% contingency for the streetscape project was not adequate. As this is a rehabilitation project and as is the case with this type of project, the complete work scope would not be clear until construction commenced. Mr. Himmel commented that road costs are erratic because they reflect the fluctuations in oil prices. He distributed a pie chart that parses the project's expenses based on data provided by the Department of Public Works. He added that the Center roadway is in poor condition; there are traffic and signalization issues; the crosswalks are not providing adequate protection; and cement sidewalks are ADA compliant and durable —the most durable as compared to other materials generally used for sidewalks. It was generally agreed that more clarity is needed to understand what elements /precedents in Phase 1 of the project will impact future phases. This is necessary to understand what is being endorsed if Phase 1 is approved. • Grain Mill Alley Improvements: Ms. Tintocalis explained the reason for recently made changes to the proposed project. The alley, itself, is owned by the abutters, not the Town. One of the abutters is considering re- developing his building and is not prepared to support a project that could impact those plans. If the private -owner redevelopment goes forward, it may be possible to incorporate an agreement for improving the alley. At this time, the project, approved unanimously by the Community Preservation Committee and to be presented to the ATM, only includes components at the ends of the alley —on Massachusetts Avenue and adjacent to the Page 3 of 4