Laserfiche WebLink
Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting <br />May 6, 2016 <br />• Alternative locations for the Schools' Central Offices; <br />• Changing the configuration of grades that are accommodated at each level; <br />• Short -term uses for the Site that would address current space limitations, although <br />most of these would be for programs that are not mandated. <br />Costs for various components were identified. It was noted that taxpayers recently <br />approved to exclude from the limits of Proposition 2'/2 most of the debt for much the <br />$71.0 million estimated to be needed to upgrade the middle schools and to add portable <br />classrooms at some of the elementary schools; it is anticipated that taxpayers will be asked <br />in the near future to approve another debt exclusion for rebuilding the Maria Hastings <br />Elementary School —a project estimated at approximately $40 million. <br />Because of continued school - enrollment increases and school - enrollment projections, <br />Ms. Colburn expressed support for purchasing the land. Mr. Pato added that he supports <br />the purchase because it provides flexibility, not because of an identified immediate use. He <br />added that the current owners of the Site have received alternative offers, and the Town <br />must make a decision in the near future; the Town could eventually sell the property if it <br />does not meet any needs. <br />This Committee agreed that its report to STM 2016 -2 would identify the top three -to -five <br />possible uses for the Site and list the pros and cons of each. It was noted that the building <br />requires remediation for asbestos and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB); additional road <br />accessibility would need to be addressed —some relatively minor; some major —for most of <br />the contemplated uses; and there are wetlands on the site. <br />A Motion was made and seconded to support STM 2016 -2, Article 2, and to write a report <br />as discussed. Ms. Barnett reported that she would oppose the Motion based on the liability <br />and risks associated with environmental issues and the fact that alternatives exist. She <br />added that the soil has not been tested, and soil removal may be necessary. Vote: 4 -1 <br />Approval of Minutes: A Motion was made and seconded to approve the Pending Final <br />Minutes of the April 26, 2016 meeting. Vote: 5-0 <br />Adjourn: A Motion was made and seconded at 8:43 A.M. to adjourn. Vote: 5-0 <br />These Minutes were approved by the CEC at its meeting on May 25, 2016. <br />Page 2 of 2 <br />