The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2002-12-12-CEC-min Town of Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee Meeting Notes December 12, 2002 Town Hall, Room 111 Committee members present: Bhatia, Burnell, Hornig, Rosenberg, Stolz Appropriation Committee jointly hearing presentation on schools Schools staff presenters: Tony Close and Tom Griffiths, School Committee; Joanne Benton, Superintendent; Paul McGonagle, Director of Office of Facilities, Grounds, and Support Services Also attending: John Ryan, Finance Director Citizen present: Ingrid Klimoff Minutes of the November 20 meeting were approved, as corrected, and will be forwarded to Appropriation Committee liaisons. Meetings Schedule (new items highlighted) (Monday, Dec. 16, 8:00 p.m., Special Town Meeting PAYT Refunds, Clarke Middle School) 7:45 p.m., Lincoln field surfaces, at Tuesday, Dec. 17, DPW, 201 Bedford Street Wednesday, Dec. 18, 7:30 p.m., Town Hall Room 111, DPW operations facilities and senior center planning Enablement Committee to follow at updates/progress reports, approx. 9:00 p.m. Tuesday, Jan. 7, tentatively 7:30 at Town Hall, Lincoln field presentations to the committee to prepare for forthcoming Special Town Meeting; or a CEC working group meeting on budget and cash capital policy Tentative: Wednesday, Jan. 8., Summit III Tentative: Wednesday, Jan. 15, Summit IV Tentative: Wednesday, Jan. 22, Special Town Meeting, Lincoln fields issues Schools Presentation Paul McGonagle presented the Lexington Public Schools “Five Year Capital Plan” (the document should be considered part of these minutes). •Status of current projects: Lexington High School (LHS) renovation contract concluded Nov. 1, but punch list shows approx. $2 mil. of work/items to be completed; estimate March completion. Unsure of budget/overrun status, but should know within a week as architect gathers data, and will report to committee. Documentation of prior work somewhat incomplete, hence need to update data; can check with Permanent Building Committee (PBC). Middle schools status approximately the same (contract completion date Nov. 1, estimated completion March, punch lists of work to be completed total approx. $650,000 and $720,000 at the two schools. •Status of FY ’03 items: Harrington construction drawings about 50% complete, and educational program for the building has been signed-off by teaching and other staff there; Fiske still in design development phase, with education program still being refined and aligned with design. Burnell queried about meeting the 35 dba noise standard, use of heat pumps at Harrington. Close assured that hallway-placed individual heat pumps were confirmed to meet the noise standard in each room; that $200,000 had been reserved within design to get to that level if needed; and that maintenance and parts issues would be budgeted to maintain that initial noise standard. Same system will be recommended for Fiske, and PBC unanimous for this approach, based in part on an engineering recommendation pertaining to noise levels. Bhatia queried about School Building Assistance (SBA) reimbursement. Ryan suggested 12-15 years at a minimum (LHS and middle schools now rank Nos. 30, 32, and 34 on list; state funding at $13-14 million per year, and list is about 280 projects long; elementary schools not even on the queue yet.) Diamond acoustical modification: completed successfully at $900,000 estimate, reimbursable; remaining funds ($150,00-plus) being used for LHS modification design. Clarke gym floor complete; unsure if qualifies for SBA reimbursement. School Technology budget being spent on replacement hardware (software is funded from operations); no new request for FY 0’04; Bhatia asked for depreciation and replacement schedule, which the Schools will supply. •FY ’04 requests. LHS acoustical modification, $1.5 million estimated: 20 rooms to receive sound panels, better ceiling title, some carpeting, and moving air-handling to roof. Covers general education, science, math and language labs, black-box theater, intended to cover all grades. 7 students in system now, 17 more on way up. Looking at whether could be cheaper to get rooms on one floor of a sing, rather than two floors, vent into existing air-handling equipment rather then cut new roof holes, etc. Asked for SBA reimbursement and expect ruling in early January, will report to committee. Issues in SBA determination: whether project considered closed and, more important, whether have already reached allowable reimbursement limit for the project. Benton estimates out- of-district placement of $110,000 per student per year [Rosenberg has queried off-line to Griffiths.] Envisioned project includes both physical modification and use of in- room technology for the affected students (i.e., is not an either-or situation); rooms currently average 51 dba. Not likely to have to retrofit whole school, since ADA standards being discussed are 35dba for new construction. Hornig questioned about likely funding: bond Feb.’04 for 20 years? Ryan prefers 10 years for item of this size, since overall cost cheaper. Not likely a debt-exclusion issue, too large for cash, not carry along short-term. Diamond gum floor, $125,000: Some water damage during renovation, issues regarding responsibility for that. Beyond that, needs to be replaced. 10,000 sf. Would be wood (Clarke rubber surface only because of moisture problem in underlying slab). Harrington gym floor, $65,000: Existing parquet lifting, tripping risks, and is attached with mastic containing asbestos. Cost includes removal/abatement, and replacement, 3,400 sf, estimated use of building as swing space 10-14 years. Hastings stress crack, $65,000: Visual inspection reveals settling where foundation poured over soil (vs. segment on ledge). Attempt fix by pinning to stable walls and installing brackets, monitoring subsequent shifting for two years. If that is inadequate, would have to excavate and pour subfoundation, a multi-hundred-thousand dollar item. Discussion: What are School Committee priorities? Close said the Committee had not yet discussed, would next Tuesday, would report back end of next week. If LHS acoustics were reimbursable, most seemed to agree, that would be a priority; if not, would be deferrable for a year. The gym floors are safety-related. The Hastings stress crack was regarded as deferrable. Capital Expenditures wanted to hear from the Schools what their priorities were, not what the budget constraints were, and would then recommend its priorities. Rosenberg, for example, was concerned about deferring roof maintenance in cases where those roofs were over gym floors that are being, or have been replaced. McGonagle said the existing roof leaks were pinholes or manageable for a year, pending a more systematic evaluation of roofs overall, a system-wide strategy for EPDM replacement roofs, and the anticipated out-year major projects at Clarke, LHS, etc. FY’05-’08 pr0posals: Regarded as placeholders so far. LHS auditorium is for replacing lighting, for which there is o replacement part supply (auditorium was deleted from renovation project), and replacement rigging is being funded now out of operating funds. Bhatia asked again for the computer replacement/depreciation schedule for the’05 $250,000 request. Rosenberg asked that the committee compare the school vehicles vs. DPW’s equipment replacement request, to focus on the most critical and most obsolete/expensive to maintain vehicles townwide (schools request deferred while McGonagle evaluates use, scheduling, possible cooperation with DPW). Instead of reroofing Estabrook modular roofs, would it be cheaper to move the ones owned at Fiske, which will be available in 0’04? To be determined. Hornig noted that while McGonagle is new and therefore projecting future years carefully, and is prudently budgeting, FY ’04 would in fact have more room for capital improvements, if there is an operating override, than the subsequent two fiscal years (assuming three-year override cycles), and that needed to be factored into school planning. Horning noted the absence of a request for design funds for Bowman or Bowman and Estabrook renovation/replacement, and subsequently for construction funds, and then for design funds for Estabrook and Bridge. The Schools plan will be modified to restore these items, assuming the existing replacement/renovation and debt-exclusion override calendars (affects FY’05 and’08 requests). Burnell pointed out that within the year, the School Committee will have to decide on whether it is pursuing a fallback strategy for the remaining four elementary schools, in light of state and SBA funding shortfalls; a 20-year cycle of window, roof, and mechanical system replacement; accommodating growth would then become an issue of additions to school sites, or extending use of “old” Harrington, Hornig noted. Central Administration offices: horning question spending any more money on renovation. Rosenberg suggested trading off this need vs. new DPW office and garage/barn facilities needs in the committee’s evaluation of town priorities. At this point, approximately 9:00, Appropriation Committee members and Ryan withdrew for a separate meeting elsewhere. Capital Expenditures continued its discussions; Griffiths remained to provide School perspective on playing fields. Lincoln Field Discussion Hornig pointed out the committee will need to make a recommendation to the Special Town Meeting. Several issues are being raised: design, aesthetics, parking, paths, safety and economics of turf vs. the infilled synthetic turf material chosen last spring. The decision last spring was based on infilled synthetic surface’s appearance, playability, extended-season availability for use, and minimization of runoff (herbicides, pesticides) vs.natural turf. In addition, the committee felt then that the town was much better able to maintain the synthetic infilled turf material, the use of which it endorsed, rather than planting grass atop the reconstructed landfill subsurface after repair, filling, levelling, etc. Who makes proposal to Town Meeting? Who rebuts (Recreation Committee plub consultant)? Who else? Petition for the Special Town Meeting focuses on turf vs. synthetics, so all other issues are beyond the debate and this committee’s deliberations. We need presentations from the two sides and their experts on the economics of turf vs. synthetic surfacing (try for Jan. 7), and then to decide on whether we recommend that if there is a change, the town voters have to weigh in again (or is it just a Town Meeting issue)? Issues of length of season, use are key to Schools, given loss of Harrington fields soon. At Jan. 7, will need to consult Town Meeting debate language, coverage, ballot item language, flier to voters on the issue. Other Need to know when Selectment will debate cash capital policy; Stolz to check. And then committee needs to meet for its deliberations. Meeting adjourned 9:58 p.m. John S. Rosenberg