2008-12-11-CPC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

of work to be completed on the Fire Headquarters in FY 2011. He said two alternatives had been seriously considered; (1) maintaining a portion of the building and constructing new bays at the rear of the structure, and (2) demolishing the entire fire station and rebuilding a new one. The costs for each of these projects he said were 8 million and 10 million respectively. He said he was seeking $168,154, which represented approximately 29% of the total design and engineering estimate. This percentage was derived from the fact that in the new Headquarters, 29% of the building would be the existing structure, while 71% would be new construction. A lengthy discussion ensued prompted by Chief Middlemiss’ presentation. Mr. Edward Olsen reiterated his point that the project may be legal under the terms of the CPA, but that it might fit outside the boundaries of the law’s intent. He requested that the Committee set “stringent boundaries” for approval. Ms. Shaw responded to this point, commenting that when the CPA was passed in Lexington, there were two schools of thought; one, which felt CPC funds should be used to relieve the burden on the tax levy, and a second, that felt there should be a strict interpretation of the statute. Mr. Adler added here, that there may be aspects of the construction request that the CPC may not be able to support. Mr. Lamb, Chairman of the Capital Expenditures Committee, said the CEC felt all the projects were fundable, with the exception of one or two. He said he recognized that the Board of Selectmen felt that as a rule, all projects should be allowed to come before Town Meeting so that members could decide which to fund. He suggested that the CPC could advance all eligible projects to Town Meeting, but give negative recommendations to those projects which did not meet their criteria. There was a lengthy discussion of how projects should be advanced to Town Meeting while satisfying the goals of the CPC. The Committee was asked about projects it had turned down in the past, and whether these should be somehow be presented to Town Meeting. Ms. Fenollosa addressed this point, commenting that the Committee was charged with vetting projects, and that it did not make sense to advance projects that did not comply with the statue. Greeley Village Roof Replacement 10. – Ann Whitney spoke to this request for $320,828 for the replacement of twenty-five roofs at Greeley Village. (This represents 100 units of housing.) Ms. Whitney described the project and explained that every effort is made to make the rents at Greeley Village affordable. Present rents are $281/month, with qualifying annual incomes of $12,263. In response to a question from Mr. Levine, Ms. Whitney and Mr. Keane updated those in attendance on the status of the window replacement project that was approved by the CPC in 2007. Mr. Keane stated that the project is due to be complete before the holidays, and added that window replacement work at 6