Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2013-08-30-TFMP-rpt (final committee report)
CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................... ............................... E -1 SUMMARY OF PROPERTIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................ ............................... E -4 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................... ..............................1 TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING .............................. ..............................1 2 ASSESSMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......... ............................... 5 ASSESSMENTS OF PROPERTIES AND BUILDINGS ..................... ..............................5 CENTRAL FIRE STATION .......................................................................... ............................... 6 POLICESTATION ...................................................................................... ............................... 8 CARY MEMORIAL BUILDING .................................................................... .............................12 TOWN OFFICE BUILDING .......................................................................... .............................14 HOSMERHOUSE ..................................................................................... .............................15 SENIORCENTER ...................................................................................... .............................16 COMMUNITY CENTER .............................................................................. .............................18 MUNROE CENTER FOR THE ARTS ......................................................... ............................... 20 CARY MEMORIAL LIBRARY ................................................................... ............................... 22 VISITORSCENTER ................................................................................. ............................... 23 STONEBUILDING ................................................................................... ............................... 25 WALDORF SCHOOL OF LEXINGTON ....................................................... ............................... 27 SAMUEL HADLEY PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING ..................................... ............................... 28 EAST LEXINGTON FIRE STATION ............................................................ ............................... 29 MARIA HASTINGS SCHOOL ................................................................... ............................... 30 LEXINGTON HIGH SCHOOL .................................................................... ............................... 32 SCHOOL CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION ................................................... ............................... 34 SUMMARY OF PROPERTIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............ .............................36 TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING i 3 FINANCIAL MODELS .......................................... ............................... 37 PROJECTED TOWN BUDGETING ............................................... .............................37 INPUT FOR THE FINANCIAL MODELS ..................................................... ............................... 37 ESTIMATES OF YEARLY PROJECT COSTS .............................................. ............................... 40 FINANCIAL MODELS OUTPUT: PROJECT PHASING AND COMPARISON TO FUNDING SOURCES ............ ............................... 40 FINANCIAL DEMANDS AND RISKS ............................................ .............................42 A CHARGE OF THE COMMITTEE .......................... ............................... 45 B RESULTS OF THE PUBLIC MEETING ................... ............................... 47 CRITERIA TO PRIORITIZE PROJECTS ..................................................... ............................... 47 C SCOTTISH RITE PROPERTY ............................... ............................... 49 PROPOSED PURCHASE OF LAND ............................................. .............................59 D ALTERNATIVES ................................................. ............................... 62 CENTRAL FIRE STATION ......................................................................... ............................... 63 POLICESTATION .................................................................................... ............................... 63 COMMUNITY CENTER ............................................................................ ............................... 63 HIGHSCHOOL ....................................................................................... ............................... 63 ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO 1: COMBINE AND REUSE FACILITIES . .............................63 CONCEPT.............................................................................................. ............................... 63 PROGRAMSUMMARY .......................................................................... ............................... 64 ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS ................................................................ ............................... 65 SERVICEIMPACTS ................................................................................. ............................... 66 FEASIBILITY AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS .......................................... ............................... 66 ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO 2: SEQUENTIAL PROJECTS ............... .............................67 CONCEPT.............................................................................................. ............................... 67 PROGRAM SUMMARY .......................................................................... ............................... 67 ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS ................................................................ ............................... 68 SERVICEIMPACTS ................................................................................. ............................... 69 FEASIBILITY AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS .......................................... ............................... 69 ii LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO 3: ON SITE ......................................... .............................70 CONCEPT.............................................................................................. ............................... 70 PROGRAM SUMMARY .......................................................................... ............................... 70 ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS ................................................................ ............................... 70 SERVICEIMPACTS ................................................................................. ............................... 71 FEASIBILITY AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS .......................................... ............................... 71 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................ .............................72 CENTRAL FIRE STATION AND POLICE STATION ...................................... ............................... 72 CARY MEMORIAL BUILDING .................................................................. ............................... 73 TOWN OFFICE BUILDING ........................................................................ ............................... 73 HOSMERHOUSE ................................................................................... ............................... 73 SENIORCENTER .................................................................................... ............................... 73 39 MARRETT ROAD / COMMUNITY CENTER .......................................... ............................... 73 MUNROE CENTER FOR THE ARTS ......................................................... ............................... 73 CARY MEMORIAL LIBRARY ................................................................... ............................... 73 VISITORSCENTER ................................................................................. ............................... 73 STONEBUILDING ................................................................................... ............................... 74 MARIA HASTINGS SCHOOL ................................................................... ............................... 74 SCHOOL CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION .................................................... ............................... 74 E PREVIOUS REPORTS ......................................... ............................... 75 LIST OF PREVIOUS REPORTS ................................................... .............................75 EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES OF PREVIOUS REPORTS .................... .............................76 CARY MEMORIAL BUILDING PROGRAM COMMITTEE REPORT. AD HOC CARY MEMORIAL BUILDING PROGRAM COMMITTEE, 2013 ............................................... ............................... 77 COMMUNITY CENTER TASK FORCE INTERIM REPORT TO LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN, 2012 ...................................................................................................... ............................... 78 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MASTERPLAN. DESIGN PARTNERSHIP OF CAMBRIDGE, 2007........ 82 FINAL REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY CENTER TASK FORCE, 2012 ......... ............................... 84 FIRE DEPARTMENT STAFFING STUDY. MUNICIPAL RESOURCES, INC., 2012 ......................... 86 HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT: THE HAMMOND A. HOSMER HOUSE. BARGMANN HENDRIE + ARCHETYPE, INC., 2010 .................................................................... ............................... 94 ISAAC HARRIS CARY MEMORIAL BUILDING EVALUATION, MILLS WHITAKER ARCHITECTS LLC, 2011 ................................................................ ............................... ............................100 LEXINGTON FIRE STATION SCHEMATIC DESIGN STUDY. DONHAM & SWEENEY ARCHITECTS, TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING iii 2011 ........................................................................ ............................... ............................104 LEXINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS PK -12 MASTER PLAN LEXINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS. AD HOC FACILITIES COMMITTEE, DESIGN PARTNERSHIP OF CAMBRIDGE, 2009 . ............................110 LEXINGTON POLICE STATION SCHEMATIC DESIGN STUDY. DONHAM & SWEENEY ARCHITECTS, 2011 ................................................. ............................... ............................114 LEXINGTON TOWN HALL STUDY/ BUILDING EVALUATION. BARGMANN HENDRIE + ARCHETYPE, INC., 2008 .......................................... ............................... ............................116 LEXINGTON VISITORS CENTER PROGRAMMATIC REPORT. DAWN MCKENNA, CHAIRMAN, TOURISM COMMITTEE; MARY JO BOHART & JEAN TERHUNE, LEXINGTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; AND COLIN P. SMITH AIA, COLIN SMITH ARCHITECTURE, INC., CHAIRMAN, CHAMBER BOARD OF DIRECTORS, 2012 ................ ............................... ............................118 LEXINGTON VISITORS CENTER REVISE PROGRAMMATIC REPORT. LEXINGTON TOURISM COMMITTEE, 2013 .................................................. ............................... ............................120 MUNROE CENTER FOR THE ARTS: CAPITAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT. ON -SITE INSIGHT, 2007 ........................................................................ ............................... ............................122 MUNROE CENTER FOR THE ARTS: USAGE STUDY AND INFORMATION. BOARD OF DIRECTORS, 2009 ........................................................................ ............................... ............................124 MUZZEY SENIOR CENTER AND WHITE HOUSE CONCEPTUAL AND FEASIBILITY STUDY. BARGMANN HENDRIE + ARCHETYPE, INC., 2008 ... ............................... ............................126 MUZZEY SENIOR CENTER ENVELOPE AND SYSTEMS ANALYSIS. TBA ARCHITECTS, 2008..127 POLICE STATION SPACE NEEDS. DONHAM & SWEENEY ARCHITECTS, 2010 ......................136 THE STONE BUILDING: HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REHABILITATION & REUSE. MENDERS, TORREY & SPENCER, INC., 2009 ...........................138 SPACE /BUILDING NEEDS ASSESSMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT, 2000 ................140 F FINANCIAL MODELS ............ ............................... ............................143 BOND AND PHASING CALCULATIONS ALL PROJECTS ............................ ............................143 BOND AND PHASING CALCULATIONS PRIORITY PROJECTS ................... ............................143 COMMUNITY PRESERVATION FUND CALCULATIONS .............................. ............................143 iv LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Ad Hoc Townwide Facilities Master Planning Committee (Committee) has completed the tasks requested by the Board of Selectmen and herewith submits this Final Report of its work. The broadest task for the Committee was to "evaluate the various facility needs for the Town and develop a plan of recommendations to be considered over a 10 -year period" To that end, the Committee has: I. Selected a consultant experienced in municipal facilities master planning, The Cecil Group, Inc., through the Designer Selection Process, M.G.L Ch.7. The Cecil Group provided technical expertise and information for the Committee's consideration. 2. Reviewed the previously completed studies and reports, including the Central Fire Station (2008, 2011 and 2012), Police Station (2010 and 2011), Visitors Center (2012 and 2013), Senior Center (2008), Community Center (2012), Cary Memorial Building (2011 and 2013), Hosmer House (previously called the White House) (2010), Stone Building (2009), Munroe Center for the Arts (2007 and 2009) and Town Schools as listed in the Final Report of the School Committee's Ad Hoc Facility Committee (2009 with 2012 and 2013 updates). In addition, the Committee specifically considered the Town's interests at the Waldorf School of Lexington, options for the East Lexington Fire Station at 39 Marrett Road, and needs and priorities related to the Maria Hastings School and the High School. 3. With the input from Department heads and Committee liaisons, assessed facility deficiencies identified in the previous studies as to the impact on delivery of services and examined whether the previously reported program of spaces met the current needs for service delivery. 4. Acquired ideas and suggestions for townwide facility planning from the input of Town residents who attended the February 2, 2013 public workshop at the Cary Memorial Building. 5. Discussed the priority for actions on the Town facilities. While the Committee did not set specific priorities for all the Town's facilities, the Committee recommends the following: a. The public safety buildings - the Central Fire Station and Police Station - and Maria Hastings School should be advanced as the most important municipal and school projects, respectively. • Consistent with the Selectmen's FY2014 goals, site selection shall proceed sized for a potential combined public safety facility. • Depending on the results of the site selection process, the Central Fire Station and Police Station should be considered as either combined or separate facilities, with the most appropriate site or sites to accommodate the desired building program. • Enrollment statistics for the Maria Hastings School have met the School Committee's criteria for considering the renewal or TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING E -1 replacement of the school, and the process for advancing the project to the Massachusetts School Building Authority for initial funding should begin in January 2014. b. The Town should plan to advance the High School project to the Massachusetts School Building Authority in January 2019 for initial funding. c. The ongoing Cary Memorial Building upgrade project should continue with the construction phase immediately following the completion of the already- funded design and engineering. d. The Community Center project should be advanced as soon as possible. e. The School Central Administration offices, while not a priority, should be considered in conjunction with decisions regarding the High School and Police Station projects. 6. Considered available and prospective sites for proposed facility projects. In particular, the Committee: a. Assessed whether the property on Marrett Road, then owned by the Scottish Rite and available for purchase, could meet any of the Town's facility needs. The Committee considered Police, Fire, Community Center, affordable housing and senior - living facilities at the site. The Community Center option was noted as the most feasible in the Committee's presentation to the Board of Selectmen on December 17, 2012. b. Assessed the expansion of the Police Station at the current location and determined that the Hosmer House should be moved to another location to create the best option for the Police Station project at its current location. c. Assessed the expansion of the Central Fire Station at its current location and noted that acquisition of the adjacent, commercial- zoned, privately - owned land would provide the best space for the building program. d. Considered other commercial- zoned, privately -owned land for the purpose of siting a combined Central Fire and Police public safety facility. e. Recommends further analysis on alternative sites for a combined public safety facility. 7. Considered the financial spreadsheet models in this report that show possible sequencing of facility projects to address facility deficiencies. In particular, note: a. The spreadsheet shows options for funding sources from the Massachusetts School Building Authority that could be used to supplement the studies, design and construction of the High School and Maria Hastings School projects, and funds received under the Community Preservation Act that could be used to supplement the design and rehabilitation and /or restoration of the property at 39 Marrett Road for use as the Community Center (with the exception of a new gymnasium) and buildings with historic elements: Cary Memorial Building, Police Station, Fire Station, Visitor's Center, Hosmer House, Stone Building, School Central E -2 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS Administration (if remaining in the Old Harrington School) and the old Munroe School. b. The facility improvements listed will require bonding with the expectation that the majority of the funds will require the Town's voters to approve the funding as debt excluded from the limitations of Proposition 21/2. Notwithstanding how essential those debt exclusions are to the success of the Town's long -range plan for its facilities, this Committee makes no recommendations as to if, when and how to package the requests, first to Town Meeting, for such exclusions as that decision lies with the Board of Selectmen. c. Finally, the Committee strongly recommends that the yearly Town budget include an amount that would be dedicated to expanding the Town's ability to aggressively address the capital projects, which would both extend the projected life of existing Town buildings and facilities, where practical, and ensure the Town achieves at least the projected life of the buildings and facilities. The following table summarizes the Committee's findings regarding the Town buildings and facilities addressed in this report. TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING E -3 SUMMARY OF PROPERTIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Table 1. Summary of Properties and Recommendations BUILDING /FACILITY ASSESSED VALUE LOT (ACRES) RECOMMENDATIONS AND ALTERNATIVES a. Rebuild on another site with Police Station Central Fire Station $3.Om 1.4 b. Rebuild on another site c. Renovate and expand in place a. Rebuild on another site with Central Fire Station Police Station $8.1 m' 3.4' b. Rebuild on another site c. Renovate and expand in place Cary Memorial Building $8.1 m' 3.4' Proceed with building renewal Town Office Building $8.1 m' 3.4' No change Hosmer House $1.Om 1.8 Define program Move building Senior Center Not separately Not separate Move to 39 Marrett Road and dispose of existing space assessed lot Community Center $5.6m 10.0 Proceed with Community Center including consideration for a gymnasium addition Munroe Center for the Arts $3.3m 1.6 a. Continue use as arts center b. Dispose of space Cary Memorial Library $6.8m 2.0 No change Visitors Center $1.7m 2.5 Define program and improve in place as needed a. Define program and expand restoration to add ADA Stone Building $1.Om 0.4 access as needed b. Consider use by others Waldorf School of Lexington $1.4m 10.0 Approach about expansion into Stone Building Public Services Building $6.3m 9.6 No change East Lexington Fire Station $1.3m 0.2 No change Maria Hastings School $4.9m 14.3 Rebuild High School $36.4m 56.5 Rebuild a. Renovate in place School Central Administration' $24.1 m 8.7 b. Rebuild with High School c. Move core functions to vacated Police Station 'This lot includes the Town Office Building, Cary Memorial Building and the Police Station. The buildings are not individually assessed. 'This lot includes the new Harrington School. The buildings are not individually assessed. E -4 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS 1 INTRODUCTION Townwide Facilities Master Planning The Lexington Board of Selectmen wishes to have a Townwide Facilities Master Plan that looks out over a 10 year period. The Board charged the Ad Hoc Townwide Facilities Master Planning Committee (AHTFMPC) (Committee) to evaluate the various facilities needs for the Town and to develop recommendations for the Board to consider. The charge is included as Appendix A. This is the final report of the Committee, and it summarizes the key findings and recommendations. The Committee is composed of the following individuals who were appointed to the Committee as members: • Bill Kennedy, Chair; • George Burnell, Selectman (initially); Joe Pato, Selectman (successor); • John P. Carroll; • Peter Kelley, Selectman; • Jeanne Krieger; • Richard Pagett; • Jessie Steigerwald, School Committee. The Committee was supported by liaisons who made important contributions to assist the committee: • Mark Corr, Chief, Police Department; • Laura Hussong, Community Center Task Force (CCTF); • James Goell, CCTF; • David G. Kanter, Capital Expenditures Committee; • Paul Lapointe, Council on Aging; • Alan Levine, Appropriation Committee; • Louise Lipsitz, School Department; • Linda Vine, Deputy Town Manager; • John Wilson, Chief, Fire Department TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 1 The work of the Committee encompassed the following: Selection of The Cecil Group, Inc., supported by HMFH Architects Inc., as its consultant team. These firms assisted in the analyses and recommendations included in this report. Review of the completed studies for the Central Fire Station, Police Station, Cary Memorial Building, Hosmer House (previously the White House), Senior Center, Community Center, Visitors Center, Stone Building and schools, including the Final Report of the 2009 School Ad Hoc Facility Committee. The schools for consideration are the Maria Hastings Elementary School, the High School and the School Central Administration. These studies are summarized in Chapter 2 for each facility. • Assessment of the impact of the deficiencies identified in these studies on the delivery of services and prioritization of the recommendations for improvements. The departments were asked to provide updated information on needs and service delivery impacts to incorporate into the plan. These updates are included in the descriptions for the facilities in Chapter 2. • Consideration of available prospective sites for the proposed facilities projects. These sites are identified in the minutes of the Committee meetings. Other than the findings regarding the purchase of the Marrett Road property, no specific site is recommended for the Central Fire Station and Police Station alternatives. • Identification of alternatives for sequencing the facilities construction/ renovation to address facility deficiencies. The alternatives are presented in the recommendations of Chapter 2 and Appendix D. • Financial consideration of alternatives for addressing the facility needs of the Town. The financial models are included in Chapter 3. In addition, the Committee held an open public meeting to allow people to present the issues they thought were important to decisions on capital projects. A summary list of the collection of ideas is included as Appendix B. The Committee appreciates those who attended and participated in the meeting and recommends the Board consider these ideas when deliberating the recommendations of this Committee. This report includes the results of the Committee's work in terms of findings, relative importances, phasing and financing of the projects. LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS MUNICIPAL QCentral Fire Station O Police Station Q Cary Memorial Building O Town Office Building © Hosmer House (previously 'White House') Q SeniorCenter (in private building) QCommunity Center © Munroe School Building OCary Memorial Library QVisitors Center © Stone Building Q Waldorf School of Lexington Building (privately owned on Town land) © Public Services Buildings © East Lexington Fire Station SCHOOL 0 Maria Hastings School © High School © School Administration MAP OF LEXINGTON IDENTIFYING FACILITIES ADDRESSED IN THIS REPORT I t 4 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS F, 2 ASSESSMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Assessments of Properties and Buildings The Committee conducted tours and reviewed previous studies and reports to better understand the existing conditions of Town buildings in Lexington. Those documents largely focused on the physical condition of Lexington's Town buildings as well as the space needs of Town departments and the school district (Departments). The findings and recommendations of those previous reports and studies have been summarized below. (A list of those previous reports and studies can be found in Appendix E.) Many of the previous reports and studies described structural, mechanical and other deficiencies of the buildings. Subsequent changes to the buildings in that regard have been identified and are summarized in the sections below. Many of the previous reports and studies included analyses of programmatic or space needs. Several of the reports also recommended ways to address changing space needs through building renovations, additions or reconstruction. The Committee team reviewed these recommendations and asked department heads and /or liaisons to the Committee to comment on any recent changes to their space needs. Those comments were considered in the Committee's deliberations. For each property, a summary description is provided along with a summary of previous analyses (as available), recent actions on the site, and recommended actions. For those properties with more than one alternative action, the alternatives are explained and a recommended action is given. The buildings are listed in the order they appear on the map on the previous page, with the municipal buildings preceding the school buildings. Other facilities that were discussed by the Committee include the recently constructed Samuel Hadley Public Services Building, the East Lexington Fire Station, the Town Office Building and the Cary Memorial Library. At this time, the Committee considers the Maria Hastings School to be the most important school project and the Central Fire Station and Police Station to be the most important municipal building projects. TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 5 CENTRAL FIRE STATION Description Built in 1946, the Central Fire Station is located on Bedford Street at the intersection of Worthen Road and Camellia Place. The 3 -bay, brick fire station has two stories, which include the Fire Chief's office, firefighters rooms, a day room, kitchen and other spaces. There is a trailer and parking lot to the rear of the building. The property has the following characteristics: CENTRAL FIRE STATION 45 BEDFORD ST. Previous Analyses LOCATION: 45 Bedford Street YEAR OPENED: 1948 LOT SIZE: 1.39 acres BUILDING SIZE: 11,841 SF OWNER: Town of Lexington ZONING: CB (Central Business) CURRENT USE: Fire Department Headquarters BUILDING ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): $2.56 million LAND ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): $468,000 TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): $3.02 million The Central Fire Station was built when Lexington had a population of roughly 14,500 people. Since then, the Town's population has increased to 33,098 (2012 Annual Municipal Census), and the Fire Department's staffing levels and functions have grown. This has resulted in a need for more space. A 2011 report by Donham & Sweeney Architects assessed the space needs of the Fire Department, prepared an engineering analysis of the building, and described two options for improving the building, including demolition and reconstruction. That 2011 report found that the fabric of the building was generally in good condition for such an old facility, but it described several building issues and needs: • Old, inefficient HVAC and electrical systems need to be replaced • Apparatus floor, which is structurally failing, needs temporary shoring (if station is not replaced) • Building lacks a sprinkler system • Building has very limited universal access • Basement has leaks and floods. LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS For the space program, the 2011 report found that the Central Fire Department needed 25,134 SF for the main Fire Station, which currently provides 11,841 SE The report summarized some of the space deficiencies as follows: • Building is too small for staff, equipment and services (e.g., apparatus parked outdoors and use of trailer required) • Physical constraints challenge day to day operations • Building lacks indoor training space • Building lacks decontamination space for personnel and equipment To best meet the program needs of the Fire Department, the report recommended demolishing and reconstructing the Central Fire Station on Bedford Street. This option, according to the report, would cost roughly the same amount as it would to renovate the building —$13 to $14 million (assumed as a Spring 2013 bid). Recent Actions According to the Fire Chief John Wilson, the space requirements identified in the 2011 report remain accurate. While a second Assistant Chief has been added to the department, additional space is not needed beyond the 25,134 SF that the Donham & Sweeney Architects report recommended for the current programmatic needs; however, any new or renovated facility should allow for additional space to accommodate likely long -term growth in programmatic needs. Since the report was completed, the Town of Lexington has shored up the apparatus floor as recommended in the Donham & Sweeney Architects report. Recommended Actions The Committee proposes that the Central Fire Station be replaced with new facilities and that three alternatives be considered in conjunction with the Police Station. The Committee also proposes that specific actions be taken prior to a decision on the alternatives. These alternatives and actions will be found in the next section on the Police Station. TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING POLICE STATION Description The Police Station is located in downtown Lexington on Massachusetts Avenue next to the Cary Memorial Building and adjacent to the Town Office Building. The brick building has three stories and houses an interior firing range in the basement, a joint police /fire dispatch center, locker room, holding cells, offices and other spaces. It is served by a large parking lot to the rear that is shared with other Town employees. The building has been renovated several times in an effort to better use the existing space. The property has the following characteristics: POLICE STATION 1575 MASSACHUSETTS AVE. LOCATION: 1575 Massachusetts Avenue YEAR OPENED: 1955 LOT SIZE: Not separately sized* BUILDING SIZE: 12,500 SF OWNER: Town of Lexington ZONING: RS (One - Family Dwelling Residential District) CURRENT USE: Police station BUILDING ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): Not separately assessed* LAND ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): Not separately assessed* TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): Not separately assessed* *Note: This includes the Cary Memorial Building and Town Office Building, which are located on the same property, lot size 3.43 acres, land assessed value $639,000, building assessed value $7.43 million, total assessed value $8.06 million. Previous Analyses A 2011 report by Donham & Sweeney Architects included a space -needs analysis and conceptual design for renovating and expanding the Police Station. While the report focused on the Police Department's space needs, it also found that the fabric of the building was generally in good condition for such an old structure. It also, however, pointed out several key issues and needs, which include the following: • Old, inefficient HVAC and electrical systems need to be replaced • Building lacks a sprinkler system • Building has very limited universal access LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS • Building does not conform to Building Code requirements for seismic resistance As with the Central Fire Station, the Police Station was built more than half a century ago when the population of the Town of Lexington was significantly smaller than it is today. The needs and functions of the Police Department have also changed, resulting in different and additional space requirements. The 2011 report highlighted several key space issues as follows: • Building is too small for existing staff, equipment and services (e.g., equipment in shipping containers, a trailer and sport utility vehicle) • Building lacks training space • Locker room is half the size required • Building lacks a secure sallyport for transition between vehicles and the building, therefore prisoner entry to the building is unsecure and dangerous • Building lacks adequate storage spaces • Building lacks an elevator • Sub - basement firing range is inadequate for qualification • Lacks outdoor, qualifications firing range While the building has been renovated several times, it still lacks enough space for the Police Department. The 2011 report stated that the Police Station should be 28,308 SF, which is more than double the existing space of 12,500 SE Calling the existing location ideal, the report recommended renovating the existing building and constructing addition to the rear and right side. The estimated cost, assuming a Spring 2013 bid, was $12 to $13 million. Recent Actions Police Chief Mark Corr urged that any new or renovated Police Station should allow for additional space to accommodate likely long -term growth in programmatic needs. (Fire Chief John Wilson urged the same in regard to space requirements for the Central Fire Station.) Police Chief Corr responded to a questionnaire to update the 2011 study, and in his response, he listed the following as changes or additions, which could require more space than recommended in the 2011 study: • Traffic Bureau created in 2011 and Traffic Bureau supervisor added (with no additional space needs) • Need separate but attached dispatch center • Potentially need more space for records storage and dry evidence storage • Desire outdoor, qualifications firing range • Desire computer forensic person TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING • Request additional administrative sergeant and patrol officer Recommended Actions The Committee proposes that the Police Station be replaced with new facilities and that three alternatives be considered in conjunction with the Central Fire Station. The Committee also proposes that the following actions to be taken prior to a decision on the alternatives. 1. Review sites, including a Bedford Street site, as potential location(s) for siting either or both the Fire and Police facilities, while considering the following: * Initiate a process to identify potential sites • Maintain emergency response time and service presence • Ensure flexibility in facility design and potential for future expansion on the chosen site • Understand that there are design options (see 2. below) • If the facilities are to be combined, consider sale of Central Fire Station property as fiscal benefit 2. Analyze the design options for a combined facility, while considering the following: * Identify the shared facility elements to determine cost savings * Consider multi -story and below -grade facility design to fit the program with the chosen site 3. Make a decision on relocating the Hosmer House, which would provide greater flexibility in site design if building on site 10 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS The alternatives for the Central Fire Station and Police Station are summarized below: Decide on best alternative for Fire and Police, including space to accommodate future expansion ALTERNATIVE PROS CONS COMMENTS Combined Central Fire and Police facility (at new site) Sequentially Phased Facilities (at new site [s]) Build on Site (includes adjacent space) Possible reduction in multiple spaces used for same function Reduction in size of mechanical/ HVAC when buildings combined All emergency and other department services in one location Does not require any temporary (swing) space during construction Allows for coordination between departments Does not require temporary (swing) space during construction Allows full program to be constructed May be minimal reduction in total space with more complexity in design, utilization and operations interfering with at least some part of a response All emergency services would be in one location at risk for an event Requires purchase of private property suitable as no current Town land is suitable May require an eminent domain taking Must review and mitigate neighborhood impacts Requires purchase of private property as no current Town land is suitable May require an eminent - domain taking Must review and mitigate neighborhood impacts Only opportunity to explore a combined emergency services facility Current chiefs of Police and Fire are amenable to discussing options A Bedford Street site appears to be one option, but the site bounds might restrict project design Allows sale of Central Fire Station property as fiscal benefit Police building requires visibility on the street Traffic on Bedford St. is becoming more difficult and may require roadway improvements A Bedford Street site is one option May allow sale of Central Fire Station property as fiscal benefit Traffic on Bedford St. is becoming more difficult and may require roadway improvements including signalization Allows use of previous initial study Requires design considerations to fit Does not allow a combined facility results as basis for planning and current site and building, if building design is reused Maintains facades of existing Requires decision on Hosmer House older and historic buildings, which for Police Station expansion either may expand the allowable use of within the building or after building Community Preservation Funds is moved Eliminates need for additional land Requires decision on additional land purchase for space at Police Station acquisition for Central Fire Station May require an eminent domain taking Disruption of services during construction; will require swing spaces CARY MEMORIAL BUILDING Description The Isaac Harris Cary Memorial Building is flanked by the Town Office Building and the Police Station and is a prominent building that centers this complex of municipal buildings. Beyond its historic importance and physical presence, the multiple rooms in the interior of the building provide civic space for many Town events, including the public business of Town Meeting, general meetings and Town Elections. There is also performance space for lectures and the arts. CARY MEMORIAL BUILDING 1605 MASSACHUSETTS AVE. The property has the following characteristics: LOCATION: 1605 Massachusetts Avenue YEAR OPENED: 1928 LOT SIZE: Not separately sized* BUILDING SIZE: 31,000 SF OWNER: Town of Lexington ZONING: RS (One - Family Dwelling Residential District) CURRENT USE: Town Meetings, Town Elections, Lexington Symphony performances, community events, meetings, etc. BUILDING ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): Not separately assessed* LAND ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): Not separately assessed* TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): Not separately assessed* *Note: This includes the Police Station and Town Office Building, which are located on the same property, lot size 3.43 acres, land assessed value $639,000, building assessed value $7.43 million, total assessed value $8.06 million. Previous Analyses The Cary Memorial Building has different spaces that are being used as venues for events. However, the limitation on access to upper floors and the construction of certain stairs do not meet current code requirements for accessibility, thereby limiting use for public purposes. In addition, the original doorways do not provide the width required by the Building Code, the bathrooms require upgrades, and exterior access into the building do not meet current standards for accessibility (Mills Whittaker Architects, 2011). The Mills Whittaker study proposed the following improvements: 12 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS • Accessibility improvements: stage, Green Room, Bird Room, Civil Room, entrance, parking and other spaces • Auditorium and support spaces: Thrust Stage, lighting, sound improvements, seating, Green Room and toilets • Miscellaneous improvements: Estabrook Hall, meeting room amenities and facility storage • Exterior and internal structural repairs • Structural modifications • Mechanical improvements: Fire protection, plumbing and HVAC systems • Electrical and acoustical improvements • Repairs and improvements to stage rigging A phased project approach, with four phases of construction, was estimated in 2011 dollars as $9,418,682, and a project with a single phase was estimated as $7,741,698. The 2012 Annual Town Meeting approved $75,000 of cash from the Community Preservation Fund (CPF) for a 30% design - development process and value engineering of the recommended improvements identified in the 2011 study. In May 2012, the Board appointed an Ad hoc Cary Memorial Building Program Committee, and Mills Whitaker Architects was selected as the designer. Work began in July 2012. Recent Actions In January 2013, the Cary Memorial Building Program Committee report was released. It recommended improvements to the building with a preliminary project budget of $8,537,125 — estimating $548,836 (FY2014 dollars) to complete the design and engineering (including construction documents) and $7,988,290 (FY2015 dollars) for the construction period. The 2013 Annual Town Meeting approved $550,000 to complete the full design and engineering. Future action will be required to fund the construction of the improvements. Recommended Action The Committee recommends continuing the currently planned and already initially funded renovation project. TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 13 TOWN OFFICE BUILDING Description The Town Office Building is next to the Cary Memorial Building and adjacent to the Police Station. The property has the following characteristics: TOWN OFFICE BUILDING 1625 MASSACHUSETTS AVE. LOCATION: 1625 Massachusetts Avenue YEAR OPENED: 1927 LOT SIZE: Not separately sized* BUILDING SIZE: 22,9000 SF OWNER: Town of Lexington ZONING: RS (One - Family Dwelling Residential District) BUILDING ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): Not separately assessed* LAND ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): Not separately assessed* TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): Not separately assessed* *Note: This includes the Police Station and Cary Memorial Building, which are located on the same property, lot size 3.43 acres, land assessed value $639,000, building assessed value $7.43 million, total assessed value $8.06 million. Previous Analyses The 2008 Lexington Town Hall Study, which was prepared by Bargmann Hendrie + Archetype, Inc. and funded with a CPF allocation, indicated that the program space needs of some departments were greater than the building spaces provided and there were accessibility issues. In 2009, $30,000 of additional funds were appropriated to expand the study (Town Office Building Renovation presentation, 2010). Based on the results of the study, existing furniture and file systems have been surveyed and incorporated into space planning to account for the deficit of space. Recent Actions In 2010, Annual Town Meeting approved $1,825,000 to fund the needed renovation. Of that total amount, $325,000 was from the General Fund [debt], and $1,500,000 was cash from the CPF. Recommended Actions None. The Committee finds the Town Office Building is in sound condition and warrants no substantial changes. 14 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS HOSMER HOUSE Description The Hammond A. Hosmer House (previously the `White House') is located in the Battle Green Historic District on Massachusetts Avenue near the intersection of Woburn Street. It is adjacent to the Minuteman Commuter Bikeway and the Police Station. Constructed in the 1840s as a residence, the wood frame Greek Revival building is currently vacant. It has previously served as the School Central Administration and temporarily as the Department of Public Works Administration. The property has the following characteristics: LOCATION: 1557 Massachusetts Avenue YEAR OPENED: 1840s LOT SIZE: 1.79 acres BUILDING SIZE: 2,325 SF OWNER: Town of Lexington ZONING: RS (One - Family Dwelling Residential District) CURRENT USE: Vacant BUILDING ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): $497,000 (prior to partial demolition) LAND ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): $544,000 TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): $1.04 million (prior to partial demolition) Previous Analyses A 2010 Historic Structure Report of the Hammond A. Hosmer House by Bargmann Hendrie + Archetype, Inc. detailed the building's history and physical condition. It also provided options and recommendations for retaining and restoring the historically significant portion of the building, which included five interconnected pieces at the time. Recent Actions The 2012 Annual Town Meeting approved $381,000 from the General Fund (cash) to demolish the non - historic pieces and stabilize the historic, main -block house. The work was completed in April 2013. Recommended Action The Committee recommends that the Hosmer House be moved from its current location to improve options for reuse of the Town property on which it sits as well as the future utilization of the Hosmer House. HOSMER HOUSE 1557 MASSACHUSETTS AVE. TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 15 SENIOR CENTER Description The Senior Center is located on the ground level and in the basement of the Muzzey High Condominium building on Massachusetts Avenue. It is accessed from the entrance at the rear of the building. The property has the following characteristics: SENIOR CENTER 1475 MASSACHUSETTS AVE. Previous Analyses LOCATION: 1475 Massachusetts Avenue YEAR OPENED: 1985 LOT SIZE: Not on separate lot UNIT SIZE: 9,236 SF OWNER: Town of Lexington (Unit, not Building) ZONING: RS (One - Family Dwelling Residential District) CURRENT USE: Senior Center UNIT ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): Not separately assessed LAND ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): Not separately assessed TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): Not separately assessed A 2008 Mu22ey Senior Center and White House Conceptual and Feasibility Study examined the existing Muzzey Senior Center and its programs as part of an analysis of whether it could renovated and expanded with the Hosmer House (previously the `White House') to become a Senior /Community Center campus. Ultimately, the report by Bargmann Hendrie + Archetype, Inc. focused on scenarios for a senior center at the Hosmer House, having found the conditions of the Muzzey facility to be substandard. The facility was described as having ventilation and lighting deficiencies. There was also a concurrent Envelope and Systems Analysis by TBA Architects. Recent Actions The 2010 Annual Town Meeting approved $45,100 from the CPF for a Muzzey Senior Center Improvements Study. The study was awarded to Bargmann Hendrie + Archetype, Inc. for what would be the first phase of a three -phase project. That study recommended improvements estimated to cost $1,040,444. The 2012 Annual Town Meeting approved $561,518 from the CPF for the second phase of the project, and a request for $526,818 had been contemplated at the 2013 Annual Town Meeting to complete the funding of the then - estimated total cost of $1,068,336. Delays in getting approval from the Muzzey Condominium Association had held up using any of the second -phase funding, and the Town's purchase of the 39 Marrett Road property for a combined Senior /Community Center led to Indefinite Postponement of the third - phase funding. The second -phase funding remains on hold pending a final decision regarding any continued use of the Senior Center facility by the Town. 16 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS Recommended Actions CUP Dispose of space ALTERNATIVE PROS Disposition of One -time financial gain and reduces space the Town's operating and capital expenses, along with reducing its liabilities Maintain Maintains current portfolio of ownership municipal spaces CONS Lose Town asset Requires finding a function for the space 17 COMMUNITY CENTER Description This was an acquisition of land and buildings by the Town for use as a Community Center following approval by Special Town Meeting on March 18, 2013. Closing on the purchase is currently expected to occur in December 2013. It was originally part of the 33 Marrett Road property owned by the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry. (See Appendix C for a picture of the extent of the purchased property.) Although the primary building on that property is nearly in move -in condition, it will still require a multi -year commitment to expand its functionality as a Community Center. The property has the following characteristics: FUTURE COMMUNITY CENTER previous Analyses 39 MARRETT ROAD Y LOCATION: 39 Marrett Road YEAR OPENED: 1890s (built); 1960s (Scottish Rite); 2001 (annex opened) LOT SIZE: ± 10.0 acres BUILDING SIZE: 31,504 SF OWNER: Town of Lexington (subject to final closing) ZONING: RS (One - Family Dwelling Residential District) CURRENT USE: Future Community Center COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PURCHASE: (1) Buildings and Land: $10,950,000 -- $7,390,000 of debt to be funded by the CPF; $3,560,000 by General Fund cash; (2) Ancillary costs: $262,500 CPF cash; and (3) Initial Occupancy and Schematic Design: $100,000 of CPF cash The Committee team prepared a pre - purchase analysis of the proposed acquisition to determine the suitability of the property. The team presented its analysis and findings to the Board at its public meeting on December 17, 2012. The conclusion was that the best use of the property would be as a Community Center. Exclusive of a gymnasium, the main building could accommodate the scope of the needs identified in 2012 in the Community Center Task Force Interim Report. In addition, the existing parking could be expanded to satisfy the accompanying parking requirement. (See Appendix C for that presentation.) Recent Action On April 22, 2013, the Board established an Ad hoc Community Center Advisory Committee "To provide recommendations to the Board of Selectmen of how to best 18 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS serve the intellectual, physical, cultural and social needs of our diverse community by identifying services to be delivered in the Community Center, to be located at [39] Marrett Road..." Recommended Action The Committee recommends proceeding with the definition of the program for a Community Center at the 39 Marrett Road property and then proceed with the multi- phase project needed to establish that Community Center. TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 19 MUNROE CENTER FOR THE ARTS Description The Munroe Center for the Arts on Massachusetts Avenue is a former school building that is owned by the Town of Lexington and currently licensed by the Town to the Munroe Center for the Arts, a nonprofit organization. The center includes studio artists, an art gallery, the arts education program, ArtSpan and other programs. The property has the following characteristics: MUNROE CENTER FOR THE ARTS 1403 MASSACHUSETTS AVE. Previous Analyses LOCATION: 1403 Massachusetts Avenue YEAR OPENED: 1904 LOT SIZE: 1.58 acres BUILDING SIZE: 22,500 SF OWNER: Town of Lexington ZONING: RS (One - Family Dwelling Residential District) CURRENT USE: Studio artists, art gallery, ArtSpan and five other art schools BUILDING ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): $2.76 million (excluding outbuildings) LAND ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): $538,000 TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): $3.32 million In 2007, a Capital Needs Assessment conducted by On -Sight Insight revealed several deficiencies, including an inefficient boiler plant, insufficient fire detection and suppression systems, cracks in the exterior brick and masonry surfaces, and peeling exterior paint. It also pointed out that the building lacks an elevator and is not fully handicapped accessible. That report made several recommendations to address the building and property deficiencies. Key recommendations included the following: • Resurface the parking area • Replace /reconfigure the boiler plant • Upgrade /replace the fire detection and suppression systems • Repair exterior brick and masonry surfaces • Paint exterior wood trim • Make handicapped accessibility upgrades 20 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS As part of this master planning effort, the Munroe Center for the Arts provided the Committee team with an updated breakdown of space usage in the facility. As part of that update, the Center stated that it was envisioning two capital projects: conversion to gas heat and reconstruction of the driveway and parking lot. Recent Action The 2008 Annual Town Meeting approved $579,550 of CPF cash to ensure full funding was available to correct the fire detection and suppression system. The work was completed in 2009 for $344,803. Recommended Actions Decide on whether to complete building renewal ALTERNATIVE PROS Disposition of One -time financial gain and reduces the property capital maintenance Retain Maintains portfolio of municipal ownership spaces CONS Lose public building Expense without direct municipal use 21 CARY MEMORIAL LIBRARY Description The Cary Memorial Library is on Massachusetts Avenue at the intersection of Clarke Street. The property has the following characteristics: LOCATION: 1874 Massachusetts Avenue YEAR OPENED: Most recent renovation opened 2004 LOT SIZE: 2.0 acres BUILDING SIZE: 62,500 SF OWNER: Town of Lexington ZONING: RS (One - Family Dwelling Residential District) CURRENT USE: Library BUILDING ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): $5.8 million LAND ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): $1.0 million TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE (FY13)m $6.8 million CARY MEMORIAL LIBRARY 1875 MASSACHUSETTS AVE. Recent Actions The library has been fully renovated. Recommended Actions The facility meets the current and projected program needs, and no action is recommended. 22 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS VISITORS CENTER Description The Visitors Center is located on Massachusetts Avenue across from the Battle Green. Visitor services are located on the first floor, with the second floor housing the Chamber of Commerce. Running behind the Visitors Center is the popular Minuteman Commuter Bikeway. The Visitors Center property has the following characteristics: LOCATION: 1875 Massachusetts Avenue YEAR OPENED: 1965 (current location) LOT SIZE: 2.5 acres BUILDING SIZE: 4,500 SF OWNER: Town of Lexington ZONING: RS (One - Family Dwelling Residential District) CURRENT USE: Visitors Center BUILDING ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): $1.08 million LAND ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): $567,000 TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): $1.65 million Previous Analyses A 2013 Lexington Visitors Center Revised Programmatic Report, prepared by Dawn McKenna, Chairman, Tourism Committee; Mary Jo Bohart and Jean Terhune, Lexington Chamber of Commerce; and Colin P. Smith AIA, Colin Smith Architecture, Inc., Chairman, Chamber Board of Directors, and revised by the Lexington Tourism Committee, described the space and building needs of the Visitors Center. It outlined several key building issues, including: • Building is not fully accessible (no handicap access to the second floor) • Landscaping deficiencies • Exterior building deficiencies (e.g., design, lighting, bicycle racks, seating and signage) Recent Actions The Tourism Committee solicited public feedback on the Visitors Center's programmatic needs earlier this year and revised the 2012 study in March 2013. That updated study recommends a building addition and renovations, which would cost $1.8 million (FY2013 dollars). VISITORS CENTER 1875 MASSACHUSETTS AVE. TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 23 Recommended Actions The Committee recommends keeping the Visitors Center in its current location and improving the facility at least for basic services such as public toilets. However, while the facility is considered inadequate for proposed visitor programs, the Committee recommends further vetting be done to address potential overlapping of townwide programs for visitor needs before expanding beyond the recommended improvements for basic services. 24 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS STONE BUILDING Description The Stone Building is a historic structure located on Massachusetts Avenue. The building has been used for different purposes over the years, including a lecture hall, place for religious services, a residence, private schools, meetings and most recently, an extension of the Town's Cary Memorial Library. The building is now vacant. There is a deed restriction on the property that limits the use of the property to educational purposes. The property has the following characteristics: LOCATION: 735 Massachusetts Avenue YEAR OPENED: 1835 LOT SIZE: 0.38 acres BUILDING SIZE: 3,500 GSF OWNER: Town of Lexington ZONING: RT (Two - Family Dwelling Residential District) CURRENT USE: Vacant BUILDING ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): $564,000 LAND ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): $477,000 TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): $1.04 million Previous Analyses In 2009, Menders, Torrey & Spencer, Inc. completed a study of the Stone Building and published the Historic Structure Report and Recommendations for Rehabilitation and Reuse. It included an overview of the building's historic uses and architecture, a paint analysis, stabilization needs assessment, a restoration plan and a maintenance plan. It found that the building's exterior was in fair condition, though some elements were in poor condition. The interior was in worn to fair condition. According to the study, required building work included repointing of the foundation and three chimneys, repainting of siding and trim, replacing of damaged clapboards, rehabilitation of the interior and replacing of the heating and cooling systems. The windows also needed to be made operational. The report provided a breakdown of projected costs, as follows: • Immediate repairs: $15,000 • Long -term preservation that includes restoring the building envelope: $205,000 • Interior rehabilitation and construction of an addition: $1,625,000 STONE BUILDING 735 MASSACHUSETTS AVE. TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 25 Recent Actions The 2009 Annual Town Meeting approved $180,000 to stabilize the building. That work was completed in 2011. Recommended Actions The Committee recommends determining a viable use for the building, but the Committee appreciates that may entail further costs to the Town. Further, the Committee recognizes that to expand the programming options and enhance the building's use, the further restoration and build -out would likely entail an addition to the building to provide for a means for handicapped persons to access the second floor hall. (However, see the recommendation in the next section regarding the Waldorf School.) Once a program of use has been determined, the Committee recommends that the construction work be promptly scheduled to bring this historic Town asset back into use. 26 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS WALDORF SCHOOL OF LEXINGTON Description The building, originally the Town's Adams Elementary School, was sold to the Waldorf School of Lexington Inc., and the land was leased to that school. The property has the following characteristics: LOCATION: 739 Massachusetts Avenue YEAR OPENED: 1980 (as the Waldorf School of Lexington) LOT SIZE: 10.0 acres BUILDING SIZE: 22,124 SF OWNER: Waldorf School, Inc. ZONING: RT (Two - Family Dwelling Residential District) CURRENT USE: School BUILDING ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): $669,000 LAND ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): $705,000 TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): $1.37 million Previous Analyses None reviewed. Recent Action Under the existing long -term agreement, the building originally known as the Adams Elementary School was sold to the Waldorf School. The land on which it sits is being leased to them in 20 -year increments that are currently renewable through 2063. The Waldorf School's use will continue on the site beyond the period contemplated by the Committee's planning horizon. Recommended Actions In conjunction with its recommendation regarding the Stone Building, the Committee recommends that the Town consider approaching the Waldorf School, Inc. about allowing the expansion of its programming into the adjacent Stone Building. If that is a mutually acceptable use of the Stone Building and it is preferred by the Board, the further restoration and build -out of the building might become the responsibility of the school and potentially a source of revenue. Such a dialogue with the school should include a discussion of responsibilities for both the maintenance and any future capital requirements of the building. WALDORF SCHOOL OF LEXINGTON 739 MASSACHUSETTS AVE. TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 27 SAMUEL HADLEY PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING Description This new building houses the Department of Public Works and Department of Public Facilities. The property has the following characteristics: PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING previous Analyses 201 BEDFORD ST y None reviewed. Recent Actions No recent actions. Recommended Actions LOCATION: 201 Bedford Street YEAR OPENED: 2009 LOT SIZE: 9.6 acres BUILDING SIZE: 82,227 SF OWNER: Town of Lexington ZONING: CN (Neighborhood Business District) CURRENT USE: Public works BUILDING ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): $4.01 million LAND ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): $2.23 million TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): $6.25 million The facility meets the current and projected program needs, and no action is recommended. 28 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS EAST LEXINGTON FIRE STATION Description The East Lexington Fire Station is located in east Lexington on the corner of Massachusetts Avenue and Locust Avenue. The property has the following characteristics: LOCATION: 1006 Massachusetts Avenue YEAR OPENED: 1951 LOT SIZE: 0.2 acres BUILDING SIZE: 5,250 SF OWNER: Town of Lexington ZONING: RT (Two - Family Dwelling Residential District) CURRENT USE: Fire Station BUILDING ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): $831,000 LAND ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): $439,000 TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): $1.27 million Previous Analyses None reviewed. Recent Actions The 2008 Annual Town Meeting approved $57,500 for air conditioning, storm windows and painting. The 2009 Annual Town Meeting approved $75,000 to upgrade the kitchen. The 2011 Annual Town Meeting approved $60,000 to enlarge the door openings. Recommended Actions The facility meets the current and projected program needs, and no action is recommended. EAST LEXINGTON FIRE STATION 1006 MASSACHUSETTS AVE. TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 29 MARIA HASTINGS SCHOOL Description The Maria Hastings School is a two -story building with the lower level below grade. The configuration of the building and its proximity to the street make it difficult to effectively build additions. The below -grade segments of the building has had water infiltration, which has the potential to cause air- quality problems. This school lags behind the other elementary schools because program expansion has grossly outrun building capacity, and there has been significant deferred maintenance. The modular classroom additions have outlived their useful life. The School Committee intends to submit a Statement of Interest to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) in January 2014. The School Committee's recommendation is to address the school as soon as it is practical to rebuild. In the feasibility phase, consider options for alternate footprints, spaces and programs. The property has the following characteristics: MARIA HASTINGS SCHOOL 7 CROSBY ROAD LOCATION: 7 Crosby Road YEAR OPENED: 1955 LOT SIZE: 14.3 acres BUILDING SIZE: 50,400 + 9,453 modular SF OWNER: Town of Lexington ZONING: RS (One - Family Dwelling Residential District) CURRENT USE: Elementary School BUILDING ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): $4.24 million LAND ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): $673,000 TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): $4.92 million Previous Analyses The 2009 Lexington Public School PK -12 Master Plan prepared by Design Partnership of Cambridge reviewed the space needs of the Town schools. At that time, no improvements were recommended for Hastings School. The 2009 report stated that the School Committee should continue to monitor enrollment to determine what actions should be taken. Recent Actions According to an interview with Superintendent Paul Ash (2012), the school was slated for closure due to an expectation that enrollment was likely to decrease. However, 30 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS the enrollment was 424 in 2009. This was higher than the 406 expected, according to Lexington Public Schools Projected versus Actual Enrollment for FY2010 as of September 3, 2009. Recent enrollment has been stable at 430. If it remains at this level, at least the current number of 22 classrooms will be needed in the future. In the programming questionnaire (2012), Principal Lipsitz indicated the following shortcomings of the building and site: • There is no main office or space for the Administrative Assistant • There are inadequate spaces for art, music and the library • In the modular classrooms, there are only two toilets for 80 students • The storage of educational materials is insufficient for the needs • There is a lack of parking space for the staff, who park across the street at the Methodist Church • There are inadequate spaces for the psychologist and the growth of learning in small groups, such as English Language Learners, Speech and Language, Special Education, Literacy and Guidance Recommended Actions The Committee recommends proceeding with facility improvements. This includes considering replacing the existing building with a new school rebuilt on the same lot. The School Committee should follow through with the intention to submit a Statement of Interest to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) in January 2014. TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 31 LEXINGTON HIGH SCHOOL Description Lexington High School (LHS) is located at 251 Waltham Street. The property has the following characteristics: LEXINGTON HIGH SCHOOL 251 WALTHAM ST. Previous Analyses LOCATION: 251 Waltham Street YEAR OPENED: 1953 LOT SIZE: 56.5 acres BUILDING SIZE: 328,500 GSF OWNER: Town of Lexington ZONING: RS (One - Family Dwelling Residential District) CURRENT USE: High School BUILDING ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): $34.41 million LAND ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): $1.98 million TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): $36.39 million According to the 2009 Lexington Public School PK -12 Master Plan by Design Partnership of Cambridge, the high school is in need of significant facility upgrades and repairs. The following key issues or needs were identified: • HVAC system needs significant work • Roof requires repair /replacement • Electrical and plumbing systems need to be upgraded • Fire protection systems need to be modified • Doors need to be removed and /or modified • Exterior wood trim needs to be repainted /repaired Recent Actions Over the last four years, the outer building HVAC system has been updated (2009 Annual Town Meeting, Article 19c, LHS Heating System Upgrade $350,000), and all roofs requiring replacement have been replaced under the Massachusetts School Building Authority Green Repair Program (2010 Annual Town Meeting, Article 16a Roofing Replacement LHS, $147,400, Article 13f LHS Green Roof Repair $998,000). The exterior wood frame repair and repointing will be done under the building 32 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS ti. . �,. LEXINGTON HIGH SCHOOL 251 WALTHAM ST. Previous Analyses LOCATION: 251 Waltham Street YEAR OPENED: 1953 LOT SIZE: 56.5 acres BUILDING SIZE: 328,500 GSF OWNER: Town of Lexington ZONING: RS (One - Family Dwelling Residential District) CURRENT USE: High School BUILDING ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): $34.41 million LAND ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): $1.98 million TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): $36.39 million According to the 2009 Lexington Public School PK -12 Master Plan by Design Partnership of Cambridge, the high school is in need of significant facility upgrades and repairs. The following key issues or needs were identified: • HVAC system needs significant work • Roof requires repair /replacement • Electrical and plumbing systems need to be upgraded • Fire protection systems need to be modified • Doors need to be removed and /or modified • Exterior wood trim needs to be repainted /repaired Recent Actions Over the last four years, the outer building HVAC system has been updated (2009 Annual Town Meeting, Article 19c, LHS Heating System Upgrade $350,000), and all roofs requiring replacement have been replaced under the Massachusetts School Building Authority Green Repair Program (2010 Annual Town Meeting, Article 16a Roofing Replacement LHS, $147,400, Article 13f LHS Green Roof Repair $998,000). The exterior wood frame repair and repointing will be done under the building 32 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS envelope program. LHS Overcrowding Program funding has included 2011 Annual Town Meeting, Article 13d, LHS Overcrowding Phase 1 $175,000; 2012 Annual Town Meeting, Article 16k, LHS Overcrowding Phase 2 $400,000; and 2013 Annual Town Meeting, Article 14f LHS Overcrowding Phase 3 $362,000. Annual Town Meeting in 2012 also authorized $361,000 in design and construction documentation funding to create general education and special education spaces to meet increasing enrolment needs. The current service improvement needs were surveyed in 2013 by The Cecil Group. Major findings include: • Existing overcrowding has forced the school to override course caps and place students in classrooms without enough desk space • Enrollment is expected to grow another 10% to 15% over the next decade • Classroom spaces are below MSBA standards for square footage • Additional classroom space has been allocated to Special Education requirements, further overcrowding general education • Further program space is required for the current English Language Learner students, and this demand is expected to increase • The cafeteria cannot accommodate all students for lunch, causing students to overflow to other areas (such as hallways and stairways) and off campus • The library is out of date and does not meet the current needs of students • The open campus design continues to be impractical, increases maintenance costs, and has negative impacts on security, daily operations and student safety Recommended Actions Maintain the High School in 10 -year capital planning ALTERNATIVE PROS Phased Allows on site construction during construction other uses of the site Full rebuild Reduces period of disruption CONS Increases time of disturbance and increases the total cost of the project Swing space may be required COMMENTS New footprint of the building has to be determined New footprint of the building has to be determined 33 SCHOOL CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION Description The School Central Administration has been located in the Old Harrington School since 2007. The property has the following characteristics: LOCATION: 328 Lowell Street YEAR OPENED: 1956 LOT SIZE: 8.69 acres* BUILDING SIZE: 46,637 GSF OWNER: Town of Lexington ZONING: RO (One - Family Dwelling Residential District) CURRENT USE: Central School Administration offices BUILDING ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): $18.90 million* LAND ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): $5.23 million* TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE (FY13): $24.13 million* SCHOOL ADMIN. BUILDING 328 LOWELL ST. *Note: This includes the New Harrington School building and property. The buildings and lot are not individually assessed. Previous Analyses The 2009 Lexington Public School PK -12 Master Plan by Design Partnership of Cambridge focused on space and program needs of Central Administration as opposed to physical building conditions. Recent Actions Recent capital expenditures to accommodate the School Central Administration in the Old Harrington School have included the following: • Convert Old Harrington for Central Administration $400,000 (2008) • Remove modular classrooms $30,000 (2010) • K -5 Curriculum $45,000 (2011) • Paving $100,000 (2012) • Wall Units $56,000, Print Shop $312,000 and Human Resources $29,500 (2013) 34 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS Recommended Actions TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING' 35 Maintain existing building until decision on future of program and space ALTERNATIVE PROS Renovate in Maintains existing programs and spaces, and building Existing space is larger than necessary for program place requires extraordinary maintenance of uses Rebuild with Links school construction with other needs Existing building requires investment for extraordinary High School maintenance before High School project is built Links administration with major school property Move core Centralizes the core school administrative functions Would require non -core functions to be housed functions to within the municipal building complex separately vacated Police Station TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING' 35 Summary of Properties and Recommendations Table 2. Summary of Properties and Recommendations BUILDING /FACILITY ASSESSED VALUE LOT (ACRES) RECOMMENDATIONS AND ALTERNATIVES a. Rebuild on another site with Police Station Central Fire Station $3.Om 1.4 b. Rebuild on another site c. Renovate and expand in place a. Rebuild on another site with Central Fire Station Police Station $8.1 m' 3.4' b. Rebuild on another site c. Renovate and expand in place Cary Memorial Building $8.1 m' 3.4' Proceed with building renewal Town Office Building $8.1 m' 3.4' No change Hosmer House $1.Om 1.8 Define program Move building Senior Center Not separately Not separate Move to 39 Marrett Road and dispose of existing space assessed lot Community Center $5.6m 10.0 Proceed with Community Center including consideration for a gymnasium addition Munroe Center for the Arts $3.3m 1.6 a. Continue use as arts center b. Dispose of space Cary Memorial Library $6.8m 2.0 No change Visitors Center $1.7m 2.5 Define program and improve in place as needed a. Define program and expand restoration to add ADA Stone Building $1.Om 0.4 access as needed b. Consider use by others Waldorf School of Lexington $1.4m 10.0 Approach about expansion into Stone Building Public Services Building $6.3m 9.6 No change East Lexington Fire Station $1.3m 0.2 No change Maria Hastings School $4.9m 14.3 Rebuild High School $36.4m 56.5 Rebuild a. Renovate in place School Central Administration' $24.1 m 8.7 b. Rebuild with High School c. Move core functions to vacated Police Station 'This lot includes the Town Office Building, Cary Memorial Building, and the Police Station. The buildings are not individually assessed This lot includes the new Harrington School. The buildings are not individually assessed. 36 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS FINANCIAL MODELS Projected Town Budgeting Part of the information used by the Committee to make the recommendations in this report was financial models created to determine what potential costs may apply and if phasing of the capital facilities projects could alleviate some of the financial burden on the Town taxpayers. Those models, as discussed in this chapter and with additional information in Appendix F, have been prepared using the following methodology and criteria. INPUT FOR THE FINANCIAL MODELS The inputs to the models included project costs budgeted by sources of funds. The project costs are adjusted to be future -year amounts based on the start dates for each project in the schedule proposed by the Committee based on its recommended order of executing the projects. These total costs are then projected as yearly costs of indebtedness. The project costs consist of the principal and interest payments due in accordance with the listed terms of the debt instrument. For the purpose of this report, it is assumed that all projects will be financed with debt so the costs of long -term bonds issued by the Town are considered. These costs are then added together and compared with the sources that are available to fund the municipal and school facility projects. Major renovations are identified as "building renewal" and are included with replacement projects. Not included in these models are the costs associated with any short -term debt that may be part of a project's overall financing such as the interest -only Bond Anticipation Notes (BANs). BANs are routinely used to bridge between the initial need for funds and the point when the Town issues the long -term bonds. BANs typically carry an interest that is currently much less than 1 %, and thus that cost is not a material issue. It has been assumed that the majority of any year's cash availability for capital after covering that year's primary obligation to service the debt would be used for routine, yearly capital needs as opposed to the projects addressed in this report. However, CPF cash may be used for smaller project elements such as design fees for historic preservation projects. Project Budgets Project budgets are derived by taking previous project estimates developed within the programming and conceptual planning for each of the buildings and projecting them to future costs using an inflationary factor of 3.5% (see Table 2). The project costs TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 37 38 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS are then allocated by funding sources: Debt serviced by the General Fund (GF), debt serviced by the Community Preservation Fund (CPF), and funding provided by the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA). Table 3. Project and Bond Amounts Projected by Inflation [projected at 3.5% per year] BASE FISCAL PROJECT YEAR OF TOTAL ESTIMATED TOTAL ESTIMATED TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST ESTIMATE COST— FY2015 COST— FY2017 COST— FY2021 Central Fire Station' $13,119,000 2013 $14,100,000 Police Station' $12,131,000 2013 $12,995,000 Cary Memorial $8,537,0002 2014 -16 $7,998,000 Building Hosmer House $512,000 2013 $548,000 Community Center/ $10,186,000 2008 $12,521,000 39 Marrett Road Munroe Center for $3,264,000 2015 $3,496,000 the Arts Visitors Center $1,658,000 2012 $2,109,000 Stone Building $1,930,000 2013 $2,140,000 Maria Hastings $48,700,000 2017 $33,116,0003 School High School $196,500,000 2021 $133,620,0003 School Central $9,353,000 2015 $11,459,000 Administration 'The Committee considers that, as a first order estimate, a combined facility would cost on the order of the sum of the costs shown for each Station. 'The design and engineering portion of the project has already been funded. 'As the Town expects a 32% reimbursement by the MSBA, the net project costs are shown in this table instead opf the projected total project costs of $48,700,000 for the Maria Hastings School and $196,500,000 for the High School. Each project is given separate design and construction costs. Design costs are calculated as 6.5% of the total project budget based on Town experience and policy. The exceptions for separating costs are those projects where the total project costs are less than $2 million, which are the Hosmer House, Visitors Center and Stone House building renewal projects. 38 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS Project Funding Sources There are three sources of funding, summarized below, that were considered in the preparation this financial model. General Fund Each year, Town Meeting approves the budget for the next fiscal year, the Board of Selectmen approves tax rates, and the taxpayers provide the majority of the revenue that flows into the Town's General Fund (GF). The GF also receives revenues from State and Federal governments and other sources. Excluding debt service from the limitations of Proposition 21/2 requires approval by the votes of the Town (see also "Prior Excluded Debt Service" on the next page). Community Preservation Act Funds The Community Preservation Act (CPA) was adopted by the Town's voters on March 6, 2006. Under the CPA, a 3% surcharge on property taxes, with restrictions, is collected for the purposes of Community Housing, Historic Resources, Open Space and Outdoor Recreational Use. A matching percentage of state funds, from the Community Preservation Trust Fund, is provided to the towns that have adopted the CPA program. As the Town has adopted the highest level of surcharge authorized by the CPA, the Town is eligible for more than the basic distribution percentage of state matching funds. The aggregate of the State match for the 6 years of Town participation is 46 %. These funds may be used to directly pay for an eligible project or project element, or they may be used to fund the bond costs in the yearly budget. For the purpose of this financial model, CPA - funded project debt was calculated for a term of 10 years for all projects listing the source as `CPF,' meaning Community Preservation Fund with the exception of those projects jointly and partially funded by the GE CPF funds available for CPF - eligible projects were calculated by the Town's Finance Department as available for appropriation in each fiscal year as listed in the model. The calculation by the Finance Department of these values is presented in the third spreadsheet in Appendix F. Massachusetts School Building Authority The Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) provides funding for new school projects distributed according to a formula of need and building program. Based on the Town's recent experience with Estabrook School, these funds are calculated as 32% of the total project costs. While this may vary for the actual Maria Hastings School and High School projects, this is considered a conservative amount and appropriate for this model. The payments from the MSBA program are based on reimbursements for the completion of the project elements over the term of design and construction and TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 39 do not directly align with the longer term of the municipal bond. In this model, the bonded costs are the then -year project costs net of the projected MSBA reimbursement. ESTIMATES OF YEARLY PROJECT COSTS To pay for projects with significant costs, State law (MGL Chapter 44) allows bonding the debt with payments allocated in the manner prescribed and over a period of time in accordance with the law. The bond terms are for 10, 15, 20 or 30 years depending on the project type. Most municipal building projects may have a term on the bond up to 20 years, and school building projects may have a term up to 30 years. For the larger projects, the design and construction costs — net of any presumed MSBA reimbursement, if applicable — are distributed over the course of the bond terms in the following manner. The principal or project cost is divided by the number of years of the term and listed each year. The interest rate for a municipal bond varies with the market but is estimated as 4% per year and applied to the remaining principal. Principal and interest are added to calculate the yearly cost of the project. Yearly project costs therefore decrease over the term of the bond. FINANCIAL MODELS OUTPUT: PROJECT PHASING AND COMPARISON TO FUNDING SOURCES Two financial scenarios are included as the first two spreadsheets in Appendix F. The starts dates of the municipal projects are according to the sequence recommended by the Committee, and the start dates of the school projects are according to the School Committee's Master Plan. A one -year period is given to the feasibility, design and engineering process for each of the larger municipal projects, with the construction bonding beginning in the following year. The school project planning and design processes are anticipated to require two years for consensus building and design. Bond costs, once begun, continue for the indicated term of that bond and are allocated to the presumed source of funding: GF and /or CPF. As noted earlier, presumed MSBA funding for two of the three school projects has been netted out of the project costs and therefore the bonded amounts. The resulting projected debt - service costs are totaled for each fiscal year in row 45(c) for GF and row 52(h) for CPF and then compared with the presumed available balance for each of the sources, as described below. Prior Excluded Debt Service The Town's voters have previously voted in debt - exclusion referendums to exclude the costs of specific projects from the limitations of Proposition 21/2. (Legally, those referendums only exclude the projects, not any specific costs for each project, but if the actual cost should materially exceed the amount last cited leading up to 40 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS the referendum, then that excess increase is not excluded from the limitations of Proposition 21/2 unless another referendum is successful.) Through the life of the excluded debt service on each bond, each year the level principal payments decrease the remaining principal, which in turn, causes the yearly interest payments to decrease and therefore provides the funding source with additional relief each year. (After the last debt - service payment, the next - year's relief is more substantial as the level principal payment also stops along with there being no interest payment.) If the source of the excluded debt service had been the CPF, then each year -by -year reduction provides additional resources for other CPF- funded projects - whether using cash or new debt - but does not directly affect the tax payers as the CPF receives a fixed 3% surcharge on the property tax. However, if the source of that excluded debt service had been the GF, then those reductions provide an opportunity to have some excluded debt sourced by the GF for another project incurred without increasing the burden on the taxpayers. If another project does not take on excluded debt financed by the GF, then - all other things being equal - the taxpayers would see a reduction in one component of their tax burden. The 3% surcharge component for the CPF would also be reduced but only by 3% of the GF change, so it would likely be a very minor additional reduction. In the model, a comparison is first made with that availability of capacity within previously approved excluded debt service. This comparison is with the projects or portions of projects attributed to bonded debt not compensated by CPF or MSBA funds. A positive value in the row 46(d) entitled "Difference: Changes in Debt Service for Authorized Debt less Designated Debt Service Project Costs" means that approval of the project would not require an increase in property taxes above that previously approved or excluded, and a negative value means the financing needs increase above that previously approved level. Debt Service as Percent of Tax Levy The costs of the approved Debt Service when added to the new project debt service costs is compared as a percent of the Town Tax Levy in row 49(f). This indicates the relative burden on the Tax Levy for these capital projects. Community Preservation Fund The Town's Finance Department prepared an analysis of (1) prior ending -year CPF balances; (2) the 10% of each year's new revenue to the CPF being placed in the purpose- specific Reserves for Community Housing, Historic Resources and Open Space; (3) funds already committed; and (4) funds remaining available for appropriation to CPA - eligible projects. This is included in the third spreadsheet of Appendix E From this analysis, the lines for "Source: Community Preservation Act Funds," rows 51 -53 are calculated from the values for each fiscal years. A comparison is made with the project costs funded with available CPF in row 53. TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 41 Scenarios The first scenario, Scenario A. All Projects, shows the values for all of the projects to be funded as suggested by the phasing. This scenario balances with available CPF funds until FY22 when the School Central Administration project for renovation of Old Harrington School is proposed to be funded. This scenario also requires a commitment to debt that exceeds the level of the previously approved excluded debt service. The second option, Scenario B: Priority Projects, removes those projects that did not receive a priority designation by the Committee. While CPF provides a generous source of funding, the total commitment of funds still exceeds the level of debt previously approved by voters. Financial Demands and Risks The findings from this Committee's work are that the projects may be phased in certain ways to reduce the burden on Town finances. However, to accomplish the priority projects within a 10 -year time frame will require a commitment of Town finances that will exceed previous commitments to Town facility building renewal and replacement. The Town buildings considered in this study with more than 500,000 square feet of space are assessed by the Town at more than $100 million. This does not include the value of new construction. The total costs for all projects considered - which includes new construction, replacement buildings and extraordinary improvements - is more than $300 million. With a total of almost 1.3 million square feet of all existing municipal and school buildings, the replacement costs are estimated to be more than $500 million; this is based on projected construction costs averaging $400 per square foot. The calculation of value of the buildings should also consider the value for responsible delivery of public services and for promotion of effective civic discourse and education. Moreover, the value of the historic and iconic buildings as part of the identity of Lexington, beyond the government functions, must be included when calculating the values of the facilities, the ultimate disposition of the buildings and the financial commitments necessary to maintain them. The values of the facilities to the community have been stated, and the costs to create the facilities have been calculated. Because of the very large funding needed to handle even just the highest priority projects, it is clear to this Committee that the willingness of Town residents to support the necessary funding through likely more than one debt - exclusion referendum is essential. The Committee sees no responsible way to defer the needed projects so as to avoid one or more debt exclusions; however, the Committee recognizes it is the Board of Selectmen that will evaluate and decide if and when any such debt exclusions should be recommended to Town Meeting and what project(s) would be included. Therefore, no recommendations are made in that regard. 42 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS While the Committee appreciates the daunting challenge the Board of Selectmen faces with planning for the necessary debt exclusions, it still finds it warranted to strongly recommend that the Board of Selectmen establish a policy whereby the annual Town budget includes an amount that would be dedicated to expanding the Town's ability to aggressively address the capital projects, which would both extend the projected life of the existing Town's buildings and facilities, where practical, and ensure the Town achieves at least the projected life of the buildings and facilities being recommended for major building renewal and replacement. TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 43 APPENDICES 44 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS ACHARGE OF THE COMMITTEE Charge of the Ad Hoc Townwide Facilities Master Planning Committee, Amended September 24, 2012. TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 45 Ad Hoc Townwide Facilities Master Planning Committee Members: 7 Members Appointed by: Board of Selectmen Length of Term: Preliminary recommendations to Board of Selectmen December 15, 2012 Final Report by March 1, 2013 Meeting Times: One evening every other week (day to be determined) Description: To evaluate the various facility needs for the Town and develop a plan of recommendations to be considered over a 10 year period. The work of the Ad Hoc Facility Master Plan Committee will include, but not be limited to: Review the completed studies for Schools, Fire Station, Police Station, Visitors Center, Senior Center, Community Center, Cary Memorial Building, White House, Stone Building, Munroe School and the Final Report of the 2009 School Ad Hoc Facility Committee, Assess the impact of the deficiencies identified in these studies on the delivery of services and then prioritize the recommendations, Consider various financial options for meeting the facility needs of the Town, Propose sequencing of facility construction/renovation options for addressing the facility deficiencies, Make a Final Report that includes the priorities, timing of projects, and proposed financing of the projects. An initial task of the Committee will be to utilize the Designer Selection Process, M.G.L Ch.7, to select a consultant experienced in Municipal Master Planning. The consultant will provide technical expertise to the Committee and provide additional information as required by the Committee. Consider available or prospective sites when considering proposed facility projects. In particular, assess whether the 33 Marrett Road property, owned by the Scottish Rite and available for purchase, can meet any of the Town's facility needs. This aspect of the Committee's work should be given priority, as the Town should respond to the Scottish Rite by early December. Criteria for Membership: The Task Force members shall consist of members of other committees, town staff with and citizens with sufficient background to understand facility and operational management and impact on delivering services. Appointments will be made by the Board of Selectmen, who will also designate a Chairman. Representatives from the following boards will be considered for this committee: • Two members of the Board of Selectmen • One School Committee member or designee • Four members appointed by the Board of Selectmen Staff Support: The Director of Public Facilities will provide staff support to the committee. Ex Officio /Liaisons (non - voting): • Capital Expenditures Committee • Appropriation Committee • Permanent Building Committee member or designee • Police Chief or designee • Fire Chief or designee • Superintendent of Schools or designee • Town Manager or designee • Council on Aging or designee • Community Center Task Force Prior to serving as a member of this Committee, appointees are required to: 1. Acknowledge receipt of the Summary of the Conflict of Interest Statute. Further, to continue to serve on the Committee the member must acknowledge annually receipt of the Summary of the Conflict of Interest Statute. Said summary will be provided by and acknowledged to the Town Clerk. 2. Provide evidence to the Town Clerk that the appointee has completed the on -line training requirement required by the Conflict of Interest statute. Further, to continue to serve on the Committee, the member must acknowledge every two years completion of the on -line training requirement. Ref: Adopted by the Board of Selectmen on June 4, 2012. Board of Selectmen voted to designate as Special Municipal Employees on July 30, 2012. Charge amended by the Board of Selectmen on September 24, 2012. 46 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS BRESULTS OF THE PUBLIC MEETING CRITERIA TO PRIORITIZE PROJECTS Criteria Results from February 2 Workshop • Safe and accessible facilities (practical) • Successfully provide services as intended (is space correct, acoustics, etc ?) • Lifecycle (maintenance) • Benefits (what need is fulfilled, # people served, how well people served) • Fairness (length of waiting for a group) • Funding (total cost, timing, source of funds, phasing) • Band aids (little fixes to postpone major $) • Opportunity (ex. Scottish Rite) • Bandwidth (ability of Town staff to execute) • Equity • Timing • Quality of life (needs have changed, demographics) • Adequacy of existing facility • Funding (public /private partnership) • Secondary service improvements • Use of similar facilities • Changing demographics (ages, income) • Impact on operating budget • Impacts on other facilities • Swing space (feasibility) • Limitation of space at existing facility • Ability of state to contribute to project (funding) • Ability to control current facility • Ability to serve all people (people with disabilities included) • Programs /rooms for Townspeople • Shovel ready (short -term readiness) TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 47 • Beneficial side effects (design, efficiency, etc.) • Self- sustaining (fees, funding, etc.) • Make sure users will use facility • Ability of Town to finance project * Phasing • Long -term value • Anticipate changes in future (energy, tech, human needs, transportation, etc.) • Process (recommendations moving forward) • Ability to park at the location • Ability to get to the facility (all modes, access, public transportation, etc.) • Public transportation (improve) 48 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS 1h SCOTTISH RITE -Aw PROPERTY Scottish Rite Presentation Scottish Rite Assessment, presented December 17, 2012 to Board of Selectmen. TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 49 AhTFMP Committee Task "[A]ssess whether the 33 Marrett Road property, owned by the Scottish Rite and available for purchase, can meet any of the Town's facility needs" Property assessment included • Configuration of site and buildings Building conditions Site opportunities and restrictions Potential use options Zoning constraints Property Under Consideration 10.3 acres Largest of 3 lots Assessed value of $5,594,000 50 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS Strong Visual Cues Buildings Under Consideration r If i e � s • y TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 51 Uses Considered Community /Senior Center Optic — Multi-age Multi -age facility With and without potential rental income With and without a gymnasium Police Station: Replacement and expansion to 29,000 +SF Fire Station: Replacement for E. Lexington Station [5,280SF] and transfer of Main Street administrative space [4,256SF] to larger, 3 -bay station Event Center. Non - profit assembly and activity spaces, leases to for - profit Adult Living and Care acility. Minimum 48 unit; 45,000 SF facility; one -story Community /Senior Center -- t r r� L J � 1 Lexington Master Plan Study OPT.1 & 2 - BASEMENT PLAN 33 Mar tt Road, Lox in gton. MA ADMINISTRATION F. TRAINING CENTER 12107/12 52 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS Community /Senior Center LEGEND r� E VL ,,, Lexington Master Plan Study OPT. 1 & 2 - FIRST FLOOR 33 Marrett Road, Lexington, MA ADMINISTRATION & TRAINING CENTER 12f07112 Community /Senior Center TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 53 LLGLND R uraurumx � ■ w.w.nnwvvcic..mes rwr r warrx J woes Lexington Master Plan Study OPT, 1 & 2 - SECOND FLOOR 33 Marren Rued„ Lexington, MA HZ ADMINISTRATION & TRAINING CENTER _ 12/07112 ., . .. .. TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 53 Program Comparison Space 2008 Study 2012 Study Update 2012 Program and Fit p [BH +A] Studies Net Square Feet 17,135 23,010 21,106 Gross Square Feet 21,400 28,744 31,504* Parking 98 Spaces 99 Spaces 88 [Existing] Spaces * Gym not included in program Zoning Property in the RS One Family District Sec. 135 -16 Allowed Uses Municipal Buildings - Allowed Sec. 135 -64 Parking Assembly Use -1 space /6 seats in largest assembly area Gymnasium - 1 space /6 seats Other Site Plan Special Permit required for renovations >10,000SF Special Permit required for common driveway Parking improvements require meeting current standards 54 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS Parking Options Parking Requirements Parking required for 200 - person assembly area = 34 spaces Parking required for gymnasium based on assembly use @ 5,000 SF, Gross = 50 spaces *Existing Site Parking Spaces = 88 spaces *Total parking required by zoning = 84 spaces Upper Parking Expansion Option Existing - 28 Spaces Concept - 59 Spaces • 25 in new lot • One new bay TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 55 Gymnasium Options Half -Court Gym 88 Parking Spaces: • No changes in number of total parking Potential parking expansion Recommended Access Minimum as Emergency Access 500 linear feet $125,000 @$250 /lineal foot 1�_ t l _ — EX-1 56 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS Costs Hard Costs Renovation: $200 -220 /SF New Center: $350 -375 /SF Gymnasium: $250 -300 /SF Gymnasium: $250 -300 /SF Program without Gymnasium $8,632,096 - $9,495,306 $15,106,168 - $16,185,180 Program with $10,934,372 - $11,893,717 $17,771,972 - $19,041,399 Gymnasium Community Center Program: 31,504 SF Gross Gymnasium Program: 5,640 SF Gross (Half court and link) Costs Include: Soft Costs and Contingencies add 30% to Hard Costs Escalation adds 7% @3.5% /year for 2 years Other Costs Acquisition costs Property's assessed value = $5,594,000 Yearly O &M costs* New costs at 31,504 SF @ $15 /SF = $472,560 New costs with gymnasium at 37,144 SF @ $15 /SF = $557,160 *Not including department budgets TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 57 Findings Buildings have utility but require improvements that add to total cost and affect value. Property has value as open space but has higher value for an active facility. Secondary access can be secured to allow new municipal facilities. Multiple uses of the buildings and property are possible. Zoning does not appear to be a constraint to the options. 58 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS Proposed Purchase of Land The following images and descriptions are from the Town of Lexington Community Preservation Committee Report to 2013 Special Town Meeting, released March 18, 2013, ARTICLE 2: LAND PURCHASE — OFF MARRETT ROAD. Approximate property line of land to be purchased shown in red. Also outlined in red are two areas to be excluded from the purchase; the Commander House lot, and the pine grove. (Note the tree -lined entrance to original Tower mansion.) TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 59 The historic Colonial Revival home and its associated addition. Both the former Tower home and the addition are now used as the National headquarters for the Scottish Rite. (Photo by Flansburgh Architects) 60 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS PROJECTS SITES T- Central Fire Station Central Fire Station CD cz , Police Station Police Station U cz LL ' , C ' O ' C Cary Memorial Building ; Cary Memorial Building CD J , , Community Center ; Muzzey Senior Center , , , , , , , Hosmer House ; Hosmer House , , , , , , , Munroe School ; Munroe School , , , , , yip i ■ High School ; - High School , , , , , , id Maria Hastings School ; Maria Hastings School , :id , , , , = isitors Center ; ar Visitors Center , , , , , Stone Building Stone Building , , , , , Scottish Rite Site Liberty Mutual Site Worthen Road Site Other ■ ALTERNATIVES WORKSHEET TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING DALTERNATIVES These options were reviewed and augmented by the Ad Hoc Townwide Facilities Master Planning Committee. Members of the committee also provided the consultant team with their own preferred alternative, recording their input on the graphic worksheet shown on the previous page. Using the committee's input and drawing from the existing conditions analysis, the consultant team developed three alternative scenarios for relocating, reusing, renovating and /or reconstructing municipal facilities in Lexington. These alternative scenarios, which will be described below, have three distinct themes: combine and reuse, sequential projects and on site. They all aim to best meet the space and program needs of municipal departments while improving service to the Lexington community. Each of the alternative scenarios focuses on the needs and potential futures of the Central Fire Station, Police Station, School Central Administration, Senior/ Community Center and High School. The Hosmer House has also been included in the scenarios, as it is vacant and centrally located near many other municipal facilities. In all three scenarios, there are several elements that remain consistent. Specifically, the Visitors Center and Cary Memorial Building would be renovated and improved in their existing locations. See Page 12 for the recent actions regarding the already on -going Cary Memorial Building project. All of the scenarios also include the reconstruction and expansion of the Maria Hastings School in its current location. The School Committee has recommended in its 10 -Year Facility Master Plan that the elementary school project occur in 2017. The Stone Building and Munroe Center for the Arts would remain in their existing locations under all of the scenarios, though specific programs for both buildings have not been developed. The three alternative scenarios are described below and include assumptions, estimated project costs, associated service impacts, and feasibility and other considerations. Several findings based on the existing conditions analysis as well as input from the Committee, liaisons and community were considered in the following alternative scenarios. (Further action on the Stone Building awaits a defined program; no change is recommended in the current use of the Munroe School.) These findings included the following: 62 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS CENTRAL FIRE STATION • The existing building is inadequate in size, with roughly 25,134 square feet required (compared to the existing 11,841 square feet). • The existing building has physical deficiencies (e.g., inefficient HVAC). The site is excellent in terms of location and response times but is small and physically constrained. POLICE STATION • The existing building is inadequate in size, with roughly 28,308 square feet required (compared to the existing 12,500 square feet). • The existing building has physical deficiencies (e.g., inefficient HVAC). The site is excellent in terms of location and visibility and could potentially accommodate a building expansion. COMMUNITY CENTER • The existing senior center in the Muzzey High Condominium building is inadequate in size, having less than half of the 21,000 gross square feet recommended. • The Town desires a new community center that includes the senior center. • Town Meeting approved purchasing part of the Scottish Rite facility at 33 Marrett Road for a new community center. HIGH SCHOOL The existing building is inadequate in size, with roughly 378,600 square feet required. The existing building has physical deficiencies (e.g., inefficient electrical and plumbing systems). • The School Committee has projected reconstructing the high school in 2021 in the 10 Year Facilities Master Plan. Alternative Scenario 1: Combine and Reuse Facilities CONCEPT This scenario seeks to combine and reuse municipal facilities in Lexington. Specifically, this is the only scenario that would combine the Police and Central Fire Stations into a new joint public safety building. The Committee team interviewed the Police and Fire chiefs about this option, and both would consider a combined police /fire facility, provided each department has the space it needs. (Operations TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 63 of the Police and Fire departments could not be combined.) The chiefs also stated that only a few spaces could actually be combined such as a training room, exercise room and dispatch center, which is already a joint facility. The consultant team gathered information about other combined public safety buildings in Massachusetts and the pros and cons of such facilities, and this information has been provided in Chapter 2. The Committee expressed an interest in learning more about these and other joint facilities as this option is explored in Lexington. This scenario also seeks to reuse Lexington facilities for Town purposes. For example, it would move the School Central Administration to the existing Police Station on Massachusetts Avenue or to the existing High School property if a new school was built there. PROGRAM SUMMARY • The Police Station and Fire Station would be combined into a newly - constructed joint facility and moved to a new site, such as the Liberty Mutual property on Bedford Street. Note: The Liberty Mutual building would be demolished if the property were purchased. • The Senior Center would move to 39 Marrett Road and be incorporated into a new Community Center. • A new High School would be reconstructed in phases with or without School Central Administration at the existing High School site. • School Central Administration would move into the current Police Station (reuse existing facility) or would be incorporated into a new High School at the existing High School site. • Note: The Hosmer House would not be incorporated. • Upgrades and maintenance would be made to other facilities. 64 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS Combined Police and Central Fire at New Site Property Purchase (3 acres) $3,397,680 Construction $18,374,175 Disposition (Sale) of Land ($3,023,000) Total assessed value of Fire Station School Central Administration to Police Station (other option: incorporate into new High School) Renovation $2,750,000 Community Center to 39 Marrett Road Renovation with gym $11,893,717 are ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO 1 TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 65 SERVICE IMPACTS • This would likely require smaller Police /Central Fire station programs due to site constraints at the Liberty Mutual site. Note: This would not be the case if a larger site could be located to accommodate the main stations of both departments. • Response times for the Fire Department would not likely be significantly altered, as the Liberty Mutual site is not far from the existing Central Fire Station on Bedford Street. • There would be no breaks in police and fire services because the two departments would move into a new combined Police /Fire Facility when it was complete. • The 39 Marrett Road property would provide adequate space for a new Community Center, which would include senior services that currently operate out of an inadequately -sized facility. • School Central Administration would be in a more central location if moved to the Police Station site, thereby creating a centralized area for Town and School offices. Synergies would be created if School Central Administration were moved to the High School campus. FEASIBILITY AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS • This would require acquiring private property for the combined Police /Fire Facility, which adds to project costs. The willingness of the property owner to sell the land and the timing of a potential sale are also unknown. • There might not be enough space for a combined Police /Fire Facility on the Liberty Mutual site if that were the new site, and configuration on that site could be challenging. • This scenario reuses the current Police and Central Fire stations for Town purposes. • No swing space would be required for the Police and Central Fire stations if a combined Police /Fire Facility were built on a new site. • This scenario does not affect the historic Hosmer House, so it could be used for other purposes. • The Police Station, which is in a historic district, would be preserved. 66 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS Alternative Scenario 2: Sequential Projects CONCEPT This scenario allows for projects to be carried out sequentially, meaning they would be completed in strategic phases. This timing of projects would eliminate the need for swing space because a Town department would be able to remain in place while its future home - a renovated or newly constructed building - was being completed. Specifically, this scenario would sequence projects so that the Central Fire Station would move first to a new location, freeing up its current site for the Police Station to occupy. PROGRAM SUMMARY A new Central Fire Station would be constructed on a new site, such as the Liberty Mutual property on Bedford Street. Note: The Liberty Mutual building would be demolished if the property were purchased. The Police Station would move to the current Central Fire Station site. Note: The current Central Fire Station building would be renovated and expanded to accommodate the Police Station. • The Senior Center would move to 39 Marrett Road and be incorporated into a new Community Center. • A new High School would be reconstructed in phases with or without School Central Administration at the existing High School site. • School Central Administration would move into the current Police Station (reuse existing facility) or would be incorporated into a new High School at the existing High School site. * Note: The Hosmer House would not be incorporated. • Upgrades and maintenance would be made to other facilities. TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 67 ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO 2 ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS Property Purchase (2 acres) $2,265,120 Construction $9,425,250 Police Station to Central Fire Station Demolition $179,850 Construction $10,990,500 School Central Administration to Police Station Renovation $2,750,000 Community Center to 39 Marrett Road Renovation with gym $11,893,717 * Costs are FY2014 unless otherwise noted 68 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS SERVICE IMPACTS • This could require a smaller Police Station program due to the size and site constraints of the existing Central Fire Station site. • The program required for the Central Fire Station would likely be accommodated at a new site such as the Liberty Mutual site. • Response times for the Fire Department would not likely be significantly altered if a new Central Fire Station was built at the Liberty Mutual site or another property not far from the existing station on Bedford Street. • There would be no breaks in police and fire services due to the sequencing of projects. • The 39 Marrett Road property would provide adequate space for a new Community Center, which would include senior services that currently operate out of an inadequately -sized facility. • School Central Administration would be in a more central location if moved to the Police Station site, thereby creating a centralized area for Town and School offices. Synergies would be created if School Central Administration were moved to the High School campus. FEASIBILITY AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS • This scenario would allow for sequencing of projects without the need for swing space. • This would require acquiring private property - the Liberty Mutual site or another site - for a new Central Fire Station. The willingness of the property owner to sell the land and the timing of a potential sale are also unknown. • If the Liberty Mutual site was purchased, site configuration of a new Central Fire Station could be challenging, as the property is long and narrow. • Site configuration of a Police Station at the current Central Fire Station - with an expansion - could be challenging given the size of the property. • This scenario does not affect the historic Hosmer House, so it could be used for other purposes. • The Police and Central Fire Station sites would be reused for Town purposes. • The Police and Central Fire Stations, which are in historic districts, would be preserved. TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 69 Alternative Scenario 3: On Site CONCEPT This scenario seeks to renovate and expand Town facilities on site to the extent possible. Specifically, the Police and Central Fire Stations would be renovated at their existing locations, and the High School would be reconstructed at its existing property, with the incorporation of School Central Administration. PROGRAM SUMMARY • The Police Station would remain at its current location; the building would be renovated and an addition would be built. * Note: The Hosmer House would likely be required to move to anew location. • The current Central Fire Station would be demolished, and a new Central Fire Station would be built on the existing site and the parcel behind it at 8 Camellia Place. * Note: The parcel at 8 Camellia Place is privately owned and would have to be purchased. • The Senior Center would move to 39 Marrett Road and be incorporated into a new Community Center. • A new High School would be reconstructed in phases with School Central Administration at the existing High School site. • Upgrades and maintenance would be made to other facilities. ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS Central Fire Station on Site Police Station on Sit, Property Purchase $702,187 (8 Camellia Place behind fire station) Swing Space $1,000,000 Construction $13,578,165 Swing Space $500,000 Construction $12,555,585 School Central Administration with High School uu Community Center to 39 Marrett Road Renovation with gym $11,893,717 EMBINIMmaii, $40,229,654 * Costs are FY2014 unless otherwise noted 70 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS SERVICE IMPACTS • The Police and Central Fire stations would continue to be centrally - located, so the visibility of the Police Station and response times of the Fire Department would not be impacted. • The full Police and Central Fire Stations programs would likely be accommodated, as the new or renovated /expanded facilities would be larger than the existing buildings. • The 39 Marrett Road property would provide adequate space for a new Community Center, which would include senior services that currently operate out of an inadequately -sized facility. • Synergies would be created if School Central Administration were moved to the High School campus. FEASIBILITY AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS • Swing space for the Central Fire and Police stations would be required. • This would require acquiring private property - 8 Camellia Place - for a renovated /expanded Central Fire Station. The willingness of the property owner to sell the site and the timing of a potential sale are also unknown. • A new location for the Hosmer House would likely be required. (The building could be required by the Historic Commission to remain within the historic district.) • The timing /phasing of the projects would not be dictated by this scenario, allowing for individual projects to occur whenever the Town so desired. • The Police and Central Fire stations would be reused - continuation of current Town uses. ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO 3 TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 71 • The Police and Central Fire stations, which are in historic districts, would be preserved. Recommendations The consultant team and Ad Hoc Townwide Facilities Master Planning Committee reviewed the three alternative scenarios and determined that they should all be considered moving forward. As evidenced in the descriptions above, there are several outstanding issues - particularly with regard to the Police and Central Fire Stations -that need to be resolved prior to pursuing a preferred alternative scenario or individual projects. (The issue of confirming the program and space requirements of the Police and Central Fire Stations has been raised throughout this planning process and should be resolved.) In other cases, the Town can begin taking steps to address both facility and programmatic needs. The following are recommendations to help the Town advance its near- and long -term goals. CENTRAL FIRE STATION AND POLICE STATION The Town should decide on the best alternative for Fire and Police, including space to accommodate future expansion. The three following actions should be taken prior to the decision on alternatives: 1. Review sites, including the Liberty Mutual site, as potential location(s) for siting either or both the Central Fire and Police facilities, while considering the following: • Initiate a process to identify potential sites • Maintain emergency response time and service presence • Ensure flexibility in facility design and potential for future expansion on the chosen site • Understand that there are design options (see 2. below) • If the facilities are to be combined, consider sale of Central Fire Station property as fiscal benefit 2. Analyze the design options for a combined facility, while considering the following: * Identify the shared facility elements to determine cost savings * Consider multi -story and below -grade facility design to fit the program with the chosen site 3. Make a decision on relocating the Hosmer House 72 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS CARY MEMORIAL BUILDING The Town should proceed with the Cary Memorial project, the initial stages of which have Town Meeting approval to be funded by CPA money. Reviews of the overall plan should be conducted after each important milestone is reached. TOWN OFFICE BUILDING No actions are required at this time. HOSMER HOUSE The Town should determine an option for relocating the building. Regardless of other facilities actions, the Hosmer House should be relocated, preferably within a Historic District. The Hosmer House should not restrict options for the improvement of the Police Station. SENIOR CENTER With the Senior Center program needs moving to the Community Center, it is recommended that the Town dispose of this space. 39 MARRETT ROAD / COMMUNITY CENTER The Town should proceed with the Community Center project at 39 Marrett Road as planned. MUNROE CENTER FOR THE ARTS The Town should retain ownership of the property and decide whether to complete building renewal. The activities provided under the Munroe Center for the Arts license address some, but not all, creative arts and education needs in the Town. Currently, the building requires extraordinary maintenance. The Town needs to seek a viable program that considers this building in conjunction with other spaces. CARY MEMORIAL LIBRARY No actions are required at this time. VISITORS CENTER While the facility is considered inadequate for proposed visitor programs, there must be further vetting to address overlapping of Townwide visitor needs before expanding beyond the recommended improvements for basic information and public toilets. After an open review of proposed program, the Town should TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 73 consider enlarging the Visitors Center so that it can better serve the community as well as the numerous visitors from throughout New England and beyond. STONE BUILDING A viable program of use should be determined for the building, including communication with the Waldorf School. The Town needs to seek a viable program that considers this building in conjunction with other spaces. Once a viable use is determined, the suggested historic restoration with a rear `el' building addition should be completed. This will allow ADA accessibility to the second -floor lyceum for public activities. MARIA HASTINGS SCHOOL It is recommended that Lexington proceed with facility improvements. This includes considering replacing the existing building with a new school rebuilt on the same lot. HIGH SCHOOL It is recommended to maintain the High School in 10 -year capital planning. The School Committee, School Central Administration, Public Facilities Department, Permanent Building Committee and others should analyze in greater detail the need to do major work on the High School. The goal should be to get a better handle on the project requirements, scope, possible approaches, rough cost estimates and timing; this information should be used in future planning. SCHOOL CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION The Administration offices should be prioritized for later phases as a lower priority. The following alternatives should be prepared for consideration: adjunct to the High School project, inclusion in a vacated Police Station, and renovation in place. In the meantime, the existing building should be maintained until a decision on the future of program and space has been made. 74 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS I= PREVIOUS REPORTS List of Previous Reports Cary Memorial Building Program Committee report. Ad hoc Cary Memorial Building Program Committee, 2013. Community Center Task Force Interim Report to Lexington Board of Selectmen, 2012. Elementary School Masterplan. Design Partnership of Cambridge, 2007. Final Report of the Community Center Task Force, 2012. Fire Department Staffing Study. Municipal Resources, Inc., 2012. Historic Structure Report: The Hammond A. Hosmer House. Bargmann Hendrie + Archetype, Inc., 2010. Isaac Harris Cary Memorial Building Evaluation, Mills Whitaker Architects LLC, 2011. Lexington Fire Station Schematic Design Study. Donham & Sweeney Architects, 2011. Lexington Public Schools PK -12 Master Plan Lexington Public Schools. Ad Hoc Facilities Committee, Design Partnership of Cambridge, 2009. Lexington Police Station Schematic Design Study. Donham & Sweeney Architects, 2011. Lexington Town Hall Study/ Building Evaluation. Bargmann Hendrie + Archetype, Inc., 2008. Lexington Visitors Center Programmatic Report. Dawn McKenna, Chairman, Tourism Committee; Mary Jo Bohart & Jean Terhune, Lexington Chamber of Commerce; and Colin P. Smith AIA, Colin Smith Architecture, Inc., Chairman, Chamber Board of Directors, 2012. Lexington Visitors Center Revised Programmatic Report. Lexington Tourism Committee, 2013. Munroe Center for the Arts: Capital Needs Assessment. On -Site Insight, 2007. Munroe Center for the Arts: Usage Study and Information. Board of Directors, 2009. TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 75 Mu22ey Senior Center and White House Conceptual and Feasibility Study. Bargmann Hendrie + Archetype, Inc., 2008. Mu22ey Senior Center Envelope and Systems Analysis. TBA Architects, 2008. Police Station Space Needs. Donham & Sweeney Architects, 2010. The Stone Building: Historic Structure Report & Recommendations for Rehabilitation er Reuse. Menders, Torrey & Spencer, Inc., 2009. Space /Building Needs Assessment Advisory Committee Report, 2000. Executive Summaries of Previous Reports On following pages. 76 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS CARY MEMORIAL BUILDING PROGRAM COMMITTEE REPORT. AD HOC CARY MEMORIAL BUILDING PROGRAM COMMITTEE, 2013. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Ad hoc Cary Memorial Building Program Committee (AhCMBPC), established by the Board of Selectmen in May 2012, was charged with reviewing the June 2011 CMB Evaluation Report to determine appropriate improvements for public benefit and to make recommendations to the Board of Selectmen. The Committee selected a Designer and commenced work in July 2012, meeting on a monthly basis through January 2013. The Committee recommends an integrated approach to improvements that will address upgrades to life safety (including accessibility), building systems and facility usability. The project cost of this integrated approach, assuming timely continuation of the outlined process, is approximately $8.5 million. INTRODUCTION Cary Memorial Building The Isaac Harris Cary Memorial Building was constructed in 1927 -1928 as a memorial gift from his daughters, Eliza Cary Farnham and Susanna E. Cary. The intended use of the facility, as outlined in the daughters' wills, was to promote the Town's educational and community life. The building has served the citizens of Lexington continuously since its dedication, hosting events such as public meetings, exhibits, performances and numerous other activities that meet the original intentions of the memorial gift. The history of the building has been documented in various sources and was summarized in the prior study's report. Committee Charge An evaluation of the Cary Memorial Building was performed in 2010 -2011 to assess its current conditions and recommend appropriate improvements for its continued service to the Town. A report by Mills Whitaker Architects, the selected Designer that worked on the building evaluation, was published in June 2011. The report described the building's interior and exterior conditions and recommended work that included upgrading aging systems, making code improvements and enhancing the functionality of the facility. The study was well received and this subsequent study was commissioned by the Board of Selectmen in order to review the public merits of the proposed work scope. Adopted on May 21, 2012, the Ad hoc Cary Memorial Building Program Committee's charge was as follows: "To evaluate the recommendations of the Cary Memorial Building Evaluation, completed June 1, 2011, and make recommendation to the Board of Selectmen on the appropriate scope of work." The scope of the Committee's work included reviewing the prior study report, seeking public input into the recommended prioritized scope, enhancing the schematic design and updating the costs. COMMUNITY CENTER TASK FORCE INTERIM REPORT TO LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN, 2012. Executive Summary Charge to the Task Force The Community Center Task Force was charged with developing a report about the concept of a community center, including recommendations, to serve the intellectual, physical, and social needs of Seniors, other adults, teens and youth in our community. Specifically the Task Force will: • Explore other towns' approaches to providing these services in an effort to determine best practices • Confirm the stakeholders • Identify the services they need • Determine how the servicesget delivered 1 The charge emphasized that we were to investigate needs without considering available or potentially available facilities. Therefore, we focused on community needs and how they could be met. We then created a concept that could meet the needs that we found. Process To carry out our work we were to: • Explore other towns' approaches to providing these services in an effort to determine best practices • Visited eleven sites Arlington, Burlington, Cambridge, Chatham, Harwich, Hingham, Hudson, Newton, North Andover, Wellesley, Weston • Conducted online and phone research on nearby towns Acton, Bedford, Belmont, Brookline, Concord, Natick, Needham, Sudbury, Watertown, Westford, Westwood, Winchester • Confirm the stakeholders and • Identify the services they need Conducted a town -wide survey 1,236 responses: approximately 4% of population and 11% of households 1 Complete charge can be found in the Appendix. 78 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS • Reviewed Lexington's demographic data • Interviewed key department heads, heads of community organizations, and individuals with expertise in specific areas ■ Charlotte Rodgers, Director of Human Resources Karen Simmons, Director of Recreation Koren Stembridge, Director of Cary Memorial Library Victoria Buckley, Chair, Lexington Commission on Disability Ellen McDonald, Teen Advocate Don Mahoney, Executive Director, Hayden Recreation Centre James Kelly, LABBB High School Program Director Paula Rizzo, LABBB Recreational and Integration Coordinator Mark Corr, Lexington Chief of Police • Attended the League of Women Voters Community Conversation on September 27, 2011, 160 attendees • Examined data from the 2003 survey of Clarke and Diamond Middle School students and Lexington High School students • Examined reports of Lexington committees Vision 2020, Council on Aging, Belfry Center • Met more than 24 times from May, 2011 through November, 2012 • Issued a preliminary report to the Board of Selectmen on January 9, 2012 Findings From interviews, reviews of prior studies, site visits, and survey we found needs for: • Updated facilities for seniors • Programs for teens • Space of all kinds for every segment of our community: meetings, recreation, exercise, performance, etc. • Broadly felt need to encourage and develop stronger community engagement and identity • Better dissemination of information to the whole community • Social and wellness initiatives in many groups Some of these needs have a long history in Lexington. TO\t1 /NWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 79 Recommendations • Determine how services get delivered We believe that a community center would augment the excellent resources that Lexington already offers, and would enrich the lives of all its citizens. We therefore recommend that Lexington create or repurpose a building to house a community center. A facility that houses generations, activities, and community departments is critical to resolving our needs. This facility should be the home of the Human Services and Recreation departments, organizations with the expertise needed to provide programs and activities to meet our needs. By locating Human Services and Recreation in a building where the activities and programs will be held, the departments will be able to collaborate, providing a comprehensive menu of services and activities without the duplication that is inevitable when serving the same populations in different places. This facility should also be the centralized location for community information and volunteer opportunities, and the gathering place for the Lexington community. A community center is more than the sum of its parts. Not only will it be a place where people receive town services and participate in programs; a community center is a way for Lexington to capture the vitality of its people and cultures, and to give back the energy and support that each one of us provides. It will serve both as a focal point for our community and as a source of civic pride. Specifically, the task force recommends the following: • Construct a new building or repurpose an existing facility • Dedicated space for seniors and teens • Offices for Human Resources and Recreation departments • Centralized information and volunteer services • Flexible rooms for meetings, casual gathering space with food service for drop -in activities, exercise space for all • Centrally located or on public transportation routes • Ample parking • Provide for intergenerational, interest - based, and therapeutic programming • Encourage community- sponsored activities • Bring the center to fruition • Appoint a follow -on task force to develop the next steps of the process 80 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS • Appoint an advisory board for the community center consisting of Municipal employees such as Human Services, Recreation and Police ■ Representatives from such community institutions as Cary Library, Hayden Recreation Centre, Munroe Center for the Arts, and the Lexington Interfaith Council Hire an architect to evaluate building requirements and prepare a design plan For more than twenty years, Lexington has sought to identify an appropriate site for an improved senior center that can deliver diverse programming to an increasing and changing senior population. Lexington has also searched for ways to engage and nurture our youth, and to help them successfully navigate their teenage years. With this history in mind, we determined the additional space and facilities needed to provide for not only for the senior and teen populations, but also for all of Lexington's citizens. A community center for Lexington is a concept whose time has come. Respectfully submitted by the Community Center Task Force, November 26, 2012 The Community Center Task Force is comprised of seven voting members and ten liaisons. These members represent a broad spectrum of the Lexington community in age, experience, and interests. Members: Liaisons: Laura Hussong, Chair Jim Goell, Vice -chair Betty Borghesani Tim Dugan Sophia Ho Florence Koplow Lisah Rhodes Nancy Adler Sandro Alessandrini Chris Ammer Michelle Ciccolo Gail Fields Stephanie Lawrence Hank Manz Jane Trudeau Sandy Schwartz Greg Zurlo Website: http: / /www.lexingtonma.gov /committee /communitycenter.cfm 81 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MASTERPLAN. DESIGN PARTNERSHIP OF CAMBRIDGE, 2007. TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1: ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS Confirm the 10 year projected K -5 enrollment; adopt a district -wide K -5 design enrollment for master plan purposes. SECTION 2: CAPACITY ANALYSIS Determine capacities of the existing schools, including modular CR's. Present this information to the Superintendent in a form that can be used to determine redistricting requirements. SECTION 3: SYSTEM -WIDE OPTIONS Identify system -wide options in terms of number and size of schools, based on calculated capacities for the new Harrington school and new Fiske schools. We will consider the remaining schools as either new schools, renovated as -new schools, or removed from service. and we will look at both a 5- school model and a 6- school model. SECTION 4: EVALUATION OF MASTER -PLAN OPTIONS Based on school committee decision on number and size of schools, Identify and evaluate school- specific district —wide elementary school master plan options as follows: a. Develop prototype ed specs for new and renovated -as -new schools based on school size decision, using the new Harrington and Fiske ed specs as a starting point for a prototype ed spec. b. Develop building plans and site plans for new school and renovated -as -new school options for each of the Bowman, Bridge, Estabrook and Hastings sites. c. Develop preliminary cost estimates for new and renovated -as -new plans at 4 school sites. d. Establish a possible time -line for master plan implementation. Describe alternative approaches to temporary housing for schools during construction. Show when old Harrington would be no longer needed for swing space. SECTION 5: CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION Develop space program for central administration. Explore options for relocation, including fit of space needs into old Harrington. Designpartnership OF CAMP P,I D G E 82 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS Lexington Elem. Schools Master Plan Study A. PROJECT BACKGROUND The public school system of the Town of Lexington includes the Lexington High School, two middle schools, six elementary schools, and a central administration building (the "White House "). Of the 6 elementary schools, one is in a new building (Harrington), 4 are in buildings dating from the 1950's (Bowman, Bridge, Estabrook and Harrington), and one (Fiske) is housed temporarily in an old school building (old Harrington) while its new building is being completed. DPC was engaged by the Town of Lexington in July 2006 to undertake a Master Plan study of its elementary school system. This engagement follows in the steps of several previous school master planning and study efforts. Among other considerations, this current master planning effort needs to address several major system -wide elementary school issues: With the exception of the two new schools, all of the elementary schools are 50 years old, with building systems and enclosure elements having met or exceeded their useful service life. Additionally, these buildings do not meet current standards for educational space size or handicapped accessibility. Serious inequities exist, both educationally and from a facilities standpoint, between the two new schools and the 4 old schools. Recent enrollment projections by the Lexington Public Schools show a likely significant decline in elementary school enrollments over the next few years, which potentially changes the long -term elementary school needs of the town. Against this background, DPC's primary charge is to develop a long -term master plan for Lexington's elementary schools. The working assumption is that no new sites would be available for school construction. Consequently, master plan options are presumed to involve either renovation and expansion of existing schools, replacement of existing schools on their existing sites, or some combination of those approaches. A related short-term objective of the study effort is to assist in the current re- districting effort by calculating appropriate student capacities for the existing elementary schools, taking into account non - classroom space needs for specialized instructional programs such as art & music and the space needs of special education programs, both school- specific and district -wide. An additional part of the charge is to investigate alternatives and recommend a solution for housing the school department's central administration functions. This is considered a high priority concern, as the existing central administration building is severely undersized for its function and in poor condition. A recent design study indicates a very high cost to renovate and expand the existing building for this purpose. TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 83 FINAL REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY CENTER TASK FORCE, 2012. Community Center Task Force Interim Report to Lexington Board of Selectmen January 9th, 2012 "The Task Force is charged with developing a report about the concept of a community center, including recommendations, to serve the intellectual, physical, and social needs of Seniors, other adults, teens and youth in our community." CCTF Leader /Department Head Inputs Human Services Recreation Senior Space Office Space Dependable Space Of venings /Weekends Therapeutic Light and Air Programs Computer Lab Space Activities Library Room for 200 Longer hours Reduce Conflicts Program Specific 84 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS Informal/Drop -In Office Teen Storage Space of Their Own Performance Space Non -Team Recreation Unstructured Activities CCTF Stakeholder Priorities Drop -in programs Age groups Ethnic groups One -stop shopping Transitioning groups Informal socialization Disabled community Reduce Better Isolation Integration Better Better Information Space Private meeting space Information hub Teaching Volunteer coordination Recreation Mid -size meeting space Services hub Impromptu performan, Fragmented Programs, Services and Facilities "We must want for others, not ourselves alone." Eleanor Roosevelt ccl l TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING': 85 FIRE DEPARTMENT STAFFING STUDY. MUNICIPAL RESOURCES, INC., 2012. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OVERVIEW The purpose of the executive summary is to offer a brief synopsis of the key issues and recommendations found in the study as an overview of the complete report. It is not intended to provide the reader with a detailed analysis of the results in a few pages; nor is it intended to direct attention to certain issues or suggest that others, developed in more detail in the main body of the report, are less important. The complete report should be read, in all of its detail, to gain a full understanding of the issues facing the Lexington Fire Department as evaluated by Municipal Resources, Inc. (MRI). It is our sincere hope that this report will be used by the town, the fire department's leadership, and its membership as a road map for improving the delivery of fire and emergency medical services in the community. The department clearly has the potential to resolve the internal conflicts and cultural attitudes, many of which are self- imposed, that have seriously affected its standing in the community. The MR[ study team believes that the Lexington Fire Department has the skills, capabilities, and motivation to become an effective, highly trained, and motivated organization that meets or exceeds nationally recognized standards for operational readiness. The challenges are many, but as will be seen, many of the recommendations can be accomplished within existing budgetary restrictions. The town and the fire department leadership should determine a reasonable time line and plan for adopting the recommendations that have been proposed by the MRI fire study team. MRI was retained by the Town of Lexington, Massachusetts, to conduct a staffing and operational study of the Lexington Fire Department. The primary purpose of this study is to review the staffing, deployment, and operation of the Lexington Fire Department to determine whether there are efficiencies that may be achieved or operational improvements to be made. For this initiative, MRI assembled a team of four current and former fire and EMS chiefs to take an in depth look at the Lexington Fire Department and how it is organized to provide services. The MRI study team spent considerable time with key personnel of the fire department to gain an understanding of the organizational, operational, and management systems currently in place. The team then compared and contrasted the current capabilities against contemporary practice and convention. The MRI fire study team conducted extensive interviews both inside and outside the department; offered a confidential survey to all department employees to identify attitudes and perceptions within the department; inspected fire stations; evaluated equipment; reviewe Town of Lexington, MA Fire Department Staffing Study Page 2 I Prepared by Municipal Resources, Inc. June 2012 Municipal Resources 86 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS and analyzed numerous documents and records; and collected and evaluated data from comparable communities. MRI has identified a number of areas that require improvement within the Lexington Fire Department. Although many practices do meet contemporary standards for municipal fire and EMS agencies, there are areas that need improvement. Many of the issues in the fire department are the result of long- standing conflict between labor and management, as evidenced by the frequency of grievance and arbitration activity and the inability to agree on several critical issues that would clearly benefit the citizens of Lexington. The line between management rights and union authority has become blurred over the years. As a result, the fire chief must consult or negotiate with the collective bargaining unit before making operational changes that benefit the department and the community. On a positive note, the level of communications and cooperation between fire department employees and the department's leadership team has improved dramatically in recent months and morale appears to be on the upswing. The department prides itself on the delivery of high quality emergency medical services and is well recognized in the community for its accomplishments in this area. The role of MR1 is to identify immediate and /or potential problem areas and make recommendations for improvement. The complete report contains a great deal of information and numerous recommendations for the future. Our purpose is not to embarrass the department or any individuals, but rather to point the way for progress to be made. The hope and expectations that come with the delivery of a report of this nature is that with time and direction, many of the recommendations will be adopted and result in a much better functioning organization. The mission performed by the fire department is one of the fundamental functions of government: to ensure the safety and protection of its residents and visitors. The expectations for the quality and quantity of fire and EMS services must come from its residents and other taxpayers. There is no "right" amount of fire protection and EMS delivery. It is a constantly changing level based on the expressed needs of the community. It is the responsibility of elected officials to translate community needs into reality through direction, oversight, and the budgetary process. It is their unenviable task to maximize fire, EMS, and other services within the reality of the community's ability and willingness to pay, particularly in today's economic environment. KEY AREAS OF CONCERN MRI has identified six (6) areas of major concern: Inadequate management oversight structure Incomplete or inadequate department policies, procedures, and rules Town of Lexington, MA: Fire Department Staffing study Page 3 Prepared by Municipal Resources, Inc. June 2012 I Municipal Resources TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 87 3. Obsolete, inadequate, and unsafe fire station headquarters building 4. Ineffective capital equipment planning and acquisition 5. Lack of a formal training program and performance improvement system 6. Inefficient and obsolete EMS patient care reporting system Inadequate Management Oversight Structure Effective management and oversight of the fire department is essential to ensure that the department maintains a strong and progressive vision, attains its goals, and delivers high quality services to the citizens of Lexington. The current management team of the fire department includes the fire chief and one assistant fire chief. The stated role of the assistant fire chief is to oversee fire prevention, inspections, and plan review. Day -to -day operational oversight of the department is deft to the individual platoon supervisors (captains). There is a lack of consistency and accountability in the management of the department in areas such as training, performance improvement, and employee accountability. The MRI study team supports the plan to establish an additional position of assistant fire chief (non - union). The fire chief should delegate significant management responsibility and authority to the two assistant fire chiefs commensurate with their demonstrated skills and abilities. MRI has identified the following assignments as one possible approach, but it is not our intent to limit the flexibility of the fire chief to develop a management structure that is most appropriate for the needs of the department. From MRI's perspective, the responsibilities of the two assistant fire chiefs could be divided as follows: Assistant Chief for Operations: Second -in- command of the department ( "executive officer") responsible for the direct supervision of the fire captains, daily operational activities, personnel management, facilities, apparatus, and equipment Assistant Chief for Support Services: Third -in- command, responsible for fire prevention, training (fire & EMS), and safety Incomplete or Inadequate Department Policies, Procedures and Rules The use of rules and regulations, operational procedures and guidelines, and various other forms of written communications are vital parts of a fire department's overall operations. Rules and regulations establish expected levels of conduct and general obligations of department members, identify prohibited activities, and provide for the good order and discipline necessa 011% Town of Lexington, Mk Fire Department Staffing Study Page 4 I Prepared by Municipal Resources, Inc. Tune 2012 Municipal Resources 88 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS for the credible operation of a modern emergency services organization. Operational procedures and guidelines ensure the consistent, effective, efficient, and safe operation of various aspects of the department's operations, both emergency and routine. The Lexington Fire Department has adopted a series of standard operating guidelines (SOGs) that cover a number of important areas concerning field operations and safety. According to department members, some of these policies are based on SOGs from the Phoenix, AZ, Fire Department and may not reflect the operational realities of Lexington. Based on the feedback that we received, it appears that the current SOGs have not received buy -in or acceptance from the line personnel in the department. If policies and procedures are not realistic or otherwise flawed and are not being followed, field performance will not be consistent and may be adversely impacted. In addition, the department will have no effective benchmarks for evaluating and improving performance. The existing fire department policies and SOGs should be subjected to a complete review and overhaul. An internal process should be developed that includes input and participation from all levels of the department, the documented receipt by each employee, a process for regular review and updating, and training for all personnel on policies and procedures. It is important to note that it is fully appropriate to use policies and procedures from other fire departments or fire organizations as a template for Lexington's efforts. Obsolete, Inadequate and Unsafe Central Fire Station The adequacy, quality, and appearance of fire station facilities have a great impact an the performance of the department as a whole. Attractive, functional, clean, and well- designed quarters contribute substantially to the morale, productivity, and operational effectiveness of the agency, as well as to its public image, dignity and prestige. Well- designed fire and EMS facilities enable staff to perform their duties efficiently and effectively. As a facility ages, it may no longer meet the needs of an evolving department, thus negatively affecting morale, efficiency, safety, security, technology, and overall efforts to provide quality fire, rescue, and emergency medical services. Old and obsolete facilities are also expensive to maintain due to inefficient energy systems. The fire department headquarters facility is obsolete and dysfunctional. Apparatus floor space and door dimensions are barely adequate for modern -day fire apparatus, and there are Inadequate capabilities for equipment decontamination and cleaning. Crew quarters are deficient and do not meet current fire safety codes. Administrative space is woefully inefficient and inadequate, and the fire prevention office is located in a commercial construction trailer at the rear of the fire station. There is no training classroom or capabilities for interior training props, and the site does not provide for any outside training facilities. The problems from the petroleum spill from a neighboring property that infiltrated the basement continue to linger. Temporary structural supports have been installed in the basement, and cracks have appeared Town of Lexington, MA: Fire Department Staffing Study Page 5 �' Prepared by Municipal Resources, Inc. June 2012 Municipal Resources TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 89 in a load- bearing wall. Lastly, the building is woefully deficient from an energy efficiency perspective. According to the town's FireTracker fire incident reporting system, the fire department's average response time to incidents is 8 minutes. NFPA 1710 Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments, 2014 edition recommends that "the fire department's fire suppression resources shall be deployed to provide for the arrival of an engine company within a 240- second travel time to 90 percent of the incidents..." [Section 5.2.4.1.1]. The standard also recommends that "the fire department's EMS for providing a first responder with AED (automatic external defibrillator) shall be deployed to provide for the arrival of a first responder with AED company within a 240- second travel time to 90 percent of the incidents..." (Section 5.3.3.2]. Upon further review by the fire department, it became apparent that data that had been captured and provided to MRI to determine response times was seriously flawed. The department is updating its fire incident reporting software and will provide more accurate data to MRI as soon as possible. Upon receipt and analysis of the revised data, MRI will provide a supplemental addendum to this report that specifically focuses on response times. The MR1 study team will further evaluate the potential need for a third fire station to be located in South Lexington. Ineffective Capital Equipment Planning and Acquisition Fire department capital equipment planning and acquisition involves the careful consideration of community needs, department capabilities and fiscal responsibility. A fire pumper can easily cost over $500,000 and is expected to serve the community for twenty years or more. Communications systems and information technology systems are technically complex, require extensive testing and evaluation, must meet specific interoperability criteria, and can be obsolete in a few short years if not updated regularly. The Lexington Fire Department recently acquired a new two -way radio communications system that has been fraught with problems. While the town has invested in corrective measures, it is apparent that the system was poorly engineered and was not designed to meet Lexington's needs. The design specifications were not coordinated with the police department to ensure town -wide interoperability. Further upgrades are planned for the coming year to provide redundancy for the entire public safety and public works radio communications system. The most recently purchased fire pumper (Engine 2) has been plagued with maintenance problems and has been out -of- service for an excessive amount of time. Town of Lexington, MA Fire Department Staffing Study Prepared by Municipal Resources, Inc. June 2012 90 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS Page 6 I � I Municipal Resources MR[ recommends that the fire department develop a comprehensive capital equipment planning program that identifies the needs of the department for the next ten to fifteen years. This effort should be consistent with the town's capital budget plan and the master plan. The town should participate in the fire apparatus group purchasing system that has been implemented by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council in cooperation with the Fire Chiefs Association of Massachusetts. Before making major equipment purchases, the fire chief should receive input from operational personnel, perhaps through the implementation of a design committee to develop specifications and review purchase options. In addition, the area fire chiefs should coordinate their capital planning efforts and consider a regional needs assessment that might limit the amount of specialized equipment that is required of individual communities. Lack of a Formal Trainine Program and Performance Improvement Program Training is, without question, one of the most important functions that a fire department should be performing on a regular basis. A department that is not well trained, prepared, and operationally ready will be unable to effectively, efficiently, and safely fulfill its emergency response obligations and mission. A comprehensive, diverse, and on -going training program is absolutely critical to the fire department's level of success. Equally important is the ability of the department to evaluate the performance of paramedics as they administer advanced life support (ALS) care to their patients. A formal performance improvement program is an essential and mandatory requirement of a state licensed ALS program. At the present time, training is coordinated on a part -time basis by a fire captain. There is little overall coordination between platoons, and training is often interrupted by emergency calls. There appears to be little consistency between platoons concerning the frequency and types of training that is offered. In addition, training only occurs during weekday hours. There is clearly a need for daily, documented training that is based on formal lesson plans. EMS continuing education and refresher training is performed in accordance with state regulations through in- house training and with the use of an outside contractor. MRI has made a series of recommendations concerning the establishment of a formal training program and a formal performance improvement program for both fire and EMS operations. The proposed assistant fire chief for support services would be responsible for overseeing these activities, and we recommend that a lieutenant on each platoon be tasked with duties as the platoon training officer. We also recommend the establishment in the future of a full -time EMS coordinator. Town of Lexington, MAr. Fire Department Staffing Study Page 7 Prepared by Municipal Resources, Inc. June 71)17 I Municipal RL se a rces TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 91 Inefficient Patient Care Reporting System The fire department's EMS patient care reporting (PCR) is an electronic, stand -alone (not web - based) system that is connected to a PC hard drive at each station. The department has a policy for patient encounter documentation which members utilize; newly hired personnel receive training on this policy. The electronic documentation software is Ambu Pro EMS and has been in use by the department for approximately six years. This software is compliant with the National EMS Information System (NEMSIS) 3.2.1, but the current system not web - based, is not backed up, and is not connected to the municipal computer network. PCBs are printed in the ambulance and a hard copy is left with the hospital emergency department. The existing EMS PCR system should be completely overhauled and replaced with a capability that includes the following components: • Web -based capability that is supported on the municipal IT network, with continuous off -site back -up redundancy • Analysis and evaluation capabilities for patient care performance improvement, staffing configurations, EMS response data, equipment purchasing, and supply re- stocking • Ability to electronically transmit billing data • Future ability to transmit PCRs to the emergency department electronically (rather than paper) • Future ability to transition from laptops to hand -held data entry devices IN CONCLUSION The full body of this report contains a large number of recommendations. The report should be studied in its entirety to gain a complete picture of MRI's recommendations. Town and department leaders should develop their own priorities; modify our recommendations based on the ever - changing needs of the town and the fire department; and coordinate solutions based on time, personnel, and fiscal realities. In spite of the issues identified in this report, the citizens of Lexington should feel confident that the Lexington Fire Department is a professional public safety organization that is providing a high quality level of service to the community. We continue to be impressed with the dedication and commitment of its members. We also commend the town manager, his staff, and the board of selectmen for their willingness to address these very complex issues in an open and positive manner, In order to address the recommendations that have been identified in this report, the town and the department should: Town of Lexington, MA: Fire Department Staffing Study Page 8 (11 Prepared by Municipal Resources, Inc. June 2012 Municipal Resources 92 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS 7. Approach them strategically and systematically. 2. Use them to develop a long -term strategic plan for change and improvement. 3. Break them down to reasonably sized components. 4. Categorize them as short -term and long -term goals, i.e., items that can be accomplished within existing resources and items that will require additional funding and /or time to accomplish in the coming years. 5. Refer to them when making recommendations, check them off as they are accomplished, and most importantly, recognize the positive achievements publically. Town of Lexington, MA: Fire Department Staffing Study Page 9 Prepared by Municipal Resources, Inc. June 2012 I Municipal Rrsaurces TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 93 HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT: THE HAMMOND A. HOSMER HOUSE. BARGMANN HENDRIE + ARCHETYPE, INC., 2010. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Hammond A. Hosmer House, 1557 Massachusetts Avenue in Lexington, MA is located at the easternmost end of the Battle Green Historic District and has a prominent position near the intersection of Massachusetts Avenue and Woburn Street, the symbolic entrance to downtown Lexington. The building is adjacent to the Minuteman Bikeway, and an approximately 15 minute walk from the Lexington Depot. t � r Photo 0 -1 Aerial view of Hosmer Residence. (www.bing.com /maps) Variously called the White House, the School Administration Building, the Town Hall Annex, the Barnes Place and the Hammond A. Hosmer House, the wood frame Greek Revival building was constructed in the 1840's as the residence of Hammond Hosmer, a gentleman farmer. The changes in the physical form of the Hammond A. Hosmer House over time reflect the changes taking place in the surrounding neighborhood. As Lexington became less rural in the 1910s and 1920s the building was expanded by its owner to house offices in addition to a suburban residence. With the construction of the Cary Building, and the increasing number of public buildings in the near vicinity in the 1920s and 1930s the building's location made it a good candidate to hold overflow Town offices when additional space was needed at the end of the 1930s. The building held Town offices until 2009. Currently unoccupied, the building has been the subject of several planning studies, but a new use has yet to be determined. The building suffers significantly from deferred maintenance, and will continue to deteriorate if some stabilization is not done (Photos 0 -2 and 0 -3). Photo 0 -2: Front view of Hosmer Residence in 2010. 94 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS Photo 0 -3: Original main entry to house. The Town of Lexington retained Bargmann Hendrie + Archetype, Inc. to investigate the building's history and physical condition and produce a limited Historic Structure Report. The goal of the report is to identify the relative significance of the building and its components, provide options for ways to retain portions of the building and not retain others, and recommend both stabilization scope and long -term restoration work and related costs. Per the Town's request, the report includes the following: • Building architectural history and evolution, including a chronology of alterations • Comprehensive existing conditions assessment • Prioritized recommendations for building envelope stabilization • Identification of remaining significant and character - defining features throughout the building including exterior paint color analysis • A prioritized overall treatment plan addressing the specific building needs including envelope stabilization • Conceptual construction cost estimates associated with all recommended treatments Bargmann Hendrie + Archetype performed both archival research at various locations and on -site review in order to document the history of the building and its condition and provide the basis for establishing priorities and recommendations: • Research included review of documents available at Town of Lexington facilities and well as regional facilities such as the Boston Public Library. • Field survey work included an inspection of all interior spaces and creation of a summary sheet for each space. • The exterior survey included the limited use of a lift to access upper areas of the building for close inspection. • Invasive investigations were limited to removals of finishes where materials were already damaged or where non - historic finishes could be peeled back easily. • Retrieval of samples and select testing of exterior paint chips assisted in dating some components of the building. • A review of the structure was included. No specialized mechanical, electrical, plumbing or landscape consulting was included in the project scope. The result of the research and investigations reveals that the building is composed of five interconnected pieces that were constructed or altered at different times. The original 1840s building consisted of a main block (the southernmost portion, facing Massachusetts Avenue), the attached north ell, the barn, and the connecting piece that is referred to as the `east ell'. The Barnes Addition was added in 1916, and the east ell enlargement added in the 1930's. EAST ELL ENLARGEMENT BARNES BARN EAST ELL BARN ADDITION NORTH BARNES NORTH ENLARGEMENT ELL J4L__0 EAST ELL ADDITION ELL MAIN BLOCK j { MAIN BLOCK FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR 1840s 1916 1930s 1840s falrriP mQrllf eri .n 1930s Figure is Diagram of building evolution over time The findings of the conditions assessment include a determination that a good deal of original 1840s historic fabric remains and has not been unduly compromised by subsequent additions and alterations. The main block and barn are good candidates for restoration. The north ell has been somewhat changed with some loss of historic material and the east ell has been altered to an extent that little historic material remains. 95 While from a preservation perspective it would be ideal to retain and restore the entire building, particularly given that it is the combination of parts that creates the connected farmhouse complex, the reality is that other demands for this site may dictate that that is not feasible. An approach that best serves the needs of the Town might be to retain only parts of the building and incorporate those parts, together with a new larger addition, into a facility that better provides for needed functions. For this reason the report identifies five `scenarios', ranging from full preservation, to partial demolition, to more extensive demolition and moving of the remaining building. The intent is that these give the Town an unobrstanding of the possible ways to retain components of the building, along with related short -term and long -term costs. Retaining and eventually restoring even parts of the building would be preferable to losing it completely. For parts that are demolished, individual components could be salvaged and reused, or relocated somewhere for display. The expectation is that the Town will select a stabilization option and proceed with implementing that work. It should be noted that the selection could be a variation on one of the stabilization scenarios, or could be a combination of one stabilization scenario and a different long -range scenario. For example, a possible combination might be stabilizing the entire building now, but later deciding to demolish the east ell and barn as part of a long -range solution. Stabilizing this building will provide much - needed protection of the remaining historic fabric against further deterioration until a more comprehensive renovation project is possible. Another advantage of doing stabilization work now is that the building is an eyesore in its current state. A stabilization project would include, amongst other things, stripping of the painted clapboards and repainting. This would be an opportunity to reintroduce the original paint colors, which included an off -white body and white trim, with green shutters. This work would help build momentum for retaining the building and incorporating a restoration into future work. The house across the street, of a similar age, at one point owned by Hosmer and likely constructed by the same builder as the Hosmer House, is representative of how attractive and well- suited a building of this age and scale can be on Massachusetts Ave. (Photo 0 -4). Photo 0 -4: 1598 Massachusetts Ave. restored across the street from no. 1557. 96 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS For each scenario, the stabilization scope includes the following: • Demolition of the components not being retained for long term use, and related enclosure of openings where removals are made. (An exception to this is Scenario 4, where due to the difficulty of removing the north ell and Barnes addition structurally from the main block, the scope includes deferring the demolition of those until the later work. This is in order to avoid duplicate effort at this area.) • Rehabilitation of exterior envelope items to prevent moisture infiltration and /or further deterioration. Work, where it is done, will be performed in a way that is intended to be permanent repairs rather than short -term patches. • Interior ventilation and other items to prevent interior deterioration. This includes fire detection. • Costs are based on work being done in 2011. For purposes of this report, the scope of long -range restoration scenarios assumes the following: • The long -range construction project will occur some years from now, after a use has been identified and funding is made available. Long -range scopes are priced in 2011 dollars and will require escalation added and a re- evaluation before practical use. • The internal layout will be relatively unchanged, and the structure will not require supporting loads beyond a residential -type use. • All mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fire protection systems will be replaced with new, as part of a larger building. • Interior finishes will be restored, as will windows. • The future restoration will include an addition, with the elevator located in the new part of the building. • The exterior envelope will be addressed as part of the stabilization done in 2011, and items restored as part of stabilization will not require additional work or removal /replacement as part of the long -range scope. • Costs include only the work on the existing building, not including the addition. The following chart and diagrams identify the five scenarios and the components of the building that remain and are demolished for each. The Stabilization and Long -Range costs also include the items listed above. Scenario Scope Stabilization— Long-range Restoration - 1 Retain all components No demolition $282,000 $667,000 2 Retain all except east ell* Demo east ell $358,000 $521,000 3 Retain main block, north ell and Demo east ell and $262,000 $443,000 Barnes addition barn 4 Retain main block and barn Demo east ell $325,000 Demo north ell and Barnes $409,000 addition 5 Retain only main block. Move to Demo east ell, barn, $294,000 Move remaining building $402,000 new location on site. north ell, and Barnes addition * `east ell', for purposes of these scope descriptions, includes east ell enlargement. ** Costs are construction costs, including general conditions and design contingency, but no soft costs or construction contingency. * ** Long -range costs are only for work performed at a later date, not a cumulative total including stabilization. 97 BARNES r- __.r - -_ ,w e EAST ELL - -- — - ENLARGEMENT r rl BARN NORTH a..� —mot ELL EAST ELL T r t MAIN BLOCK FIRST FLOOR Scenario 3: Retain main block, north ell and Barnes addition r EAST ELL ENLARGEMENT C� BARNES i ADDMON± NORTH iL BARN i r �r ELL r _�• ..��_. � t r EAST ELL r r r MWN BLOCK FIRST FLOOR Scenario 5: Retain only main block. Move to new location on site as part of long -range work. 98 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS r EAST ELL ENLARGEMENT r � BARNES qNORTH r BARN kDDITION !L _ _ - _ �_ - i C EAST ELL MAIN BLOCK FIRST FLOOR Scenario 2: Retain all except east ell BARNES EAST ELL EAST ELL GEMENT BARNES ENLARGEMENT LT BARN ADDITION NORTH r ' ' EAST ELL BARN ELL T ELL MAIN BLOOM FIRST FLOOR Scenario 1: Retain all components BARNES r- __.r - -_ ,w e EAST ELL - -- — - ENLARGEMENT r rl BARN NORTH a..� —mot ELL EAST ELL T r t MAIN BLOCK FIRST FLOOR Scenario 3: Retain main block, north ell and Barnes addition r EAST ELL ENLARGEMENT C� BARNES i ADDMON± NORTH iL BARN i r �r ELL r _�• ..��_. � t r EAST ELL r r r MWN BLOCK FIRST FLOOR Scenario 5: Retain only main block. Move to new location on site as part of long -range work. 98 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS r EAST ELL ENLARGEMENT r � BARNES qNORTH r BARN kDDITION !L _ _ - _ �_ - i C EAST ELL MAIN BLOCK FIRST FLOOR Scenario 2: Retain all except east ell BARNES FIRST FLOOR Scenario 4: Retain main block and barn. Demo north ell and Barnes addition as part of long range restoration 1840s 1946 1930s 1840s fabric modified in 1930s F1Deferred Demolition NORTH EAST ELL ELL ' ENLARGEMENT r ' ' EAST ELL BARN FIRST FLOOR Scenario 4: Retain main block and barn. Demo north ell and Barnes addition as part of long range restoration 1840s 1946 1930s 1840s fabric modified in 1930s F1Deferred Demolition The Hammond A. Hosmer House is an excellent example of a New England connected farmhouse type of building, and represents an early stage in the development of the Town of Lexington as it changed from a rural village to its present form. If restored and reused, this building would be a suitable landmark for the entrance to downtown Lexington. The next step is for the Town to select a stabilization scenario and authorize the design team to develop that approach in more detail, including the preparation of schematic design through construction documents. The design cost relating to this effort depends on the scope selected, but is estimated to range from $30,000 - $40,000. A bidding phase and construction would follow once funding is available. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The successful completion of this report is due to the assistance and support of the project by the following individuals Town of Lexington Frank Kern Richard Brown Patrick Goddard Mark Barrett Lexington Historical Society Elaine Doran Bargmann Hendrie + Archetype Deborah Robinson Alicia Svenson Consultants: Architectural Historian Edward W. Gordon, Public History Consulting Structural Engineer John Wathne, Structures North Consulting Engineers, Inc. Historic Paint Consultant Sara B. Chase, Preservation Consultant Cost Estimator Charles McGrory, D. G. Jones & Partners, Inc. 99 ISAAC HARRIS CARY MEMORIAL BUILDING EVALUATION, MILLS WHITAKER ARCHITECTS LLC, 2011. SUMMARY REPORT ISAAC HARRIS CARY MEMORIAL BUILDING EVALUATION THIS SUMMARY REPORT IS A CONDENSED VERSION OF THE FULL REPORT THAT WAS COMMISSIONED BY THE TOWN OF LEXINGTON (Contract No. 10 -55) AND EXECUTED BY MILLS WHITAKER ARCHITECTS LLC. Building Description Located in the Town Center, the Isaac Harris Cary Memorial Building is the most significant historic public building in Lexington, regularly hosting events, such as: Town Meetings, Town Elections, the Cary Lecture Series, Lexington Symphony performances and a range of other community activities. From its dedication in 1928, the building has been promoting Lexington's educational and community life, as expressed in the individual wills of his two daughters, Eliza Cary Farnham and Susanna E. Cary. "1 desire that the residue of my estate shall be devoted to a memorial to my dear father, Isaac Harris Cary, and to provide a fund which shall be commemorative of his constant interest and efforts towards assisting worthy young men to improve conditions in life, and generally to promote the moral, intellectual and educational advancement of the community..." The Cary Memorial Building occupies a prominent site along Massachusetts Avenue between the Town Offices Building and the Police Station. The parsonage of Benjamin Estabrook, the first minister of Lexington, formerly occupied this site. Designed by Kilham, Hopkins and Greeley along with architect Willard D. Brown, the facility is a red brick and white trimmed Colonial Revival structure set behind a front lawn and circular drive. Frequently mistaken for being Lexington's Town Hall, the stately structure has a physical presence that clearly communicates its importance within the civic life of the community. Monumental steps lead to a central entrance with three pairs of doors on a fagade graced with pilasters and an appropriately scaled and detailed pediment at the south elevation. The entrances lead into a central lobby that is located in the middle of three floor levels. The entrance lobby leads directly to the First Floor of the Auditorium, the signature space of the building. Second Floor gallery seating encompasses the Auditorium on three sides and a central stage and proscenium occupies the far end of the room. Smaller meeting rooms on the Basement and Second Floor levels are accessed by symmetrically placed stairways at the east and west portions of the entrance lobby. A more intimate lecture hall, named for Estabrook, is located in the Basement and includes a recital stage. Directly above the entrance lobby, the Bird Room is a vaulted space that was originally designated as an exhibition area, presumably for the display of historic relics. Each of the meeting spaces, rooms, lobby areas, stairways and support spaces are individually described and illustrated in the full study report in order to document the building's use and conditions and to recommend appropriate improvements to the facility. 100 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS Existing Conditions & Recommended Improvements Given the importance of the Cary Memorial Building to the Town, the facility has been reasonably well maintained and is in generally sound condition, retaining most of its original historic character and features. The primary areas of deficiency are in its lack of full accessibility, poor acoustics for speech intelligibility, inadequate lighting for performances, inadequate toilet facilities, noisy heating /cooling systems and various other elements that could be improved in order to better serve all activity groups. Auditorium & Support Spaces The Auditorium is the building's signature space and Lexington's primary public assembly hall. Town residents use this grand room heavily for events ranging from Town Meetings and elections to symphony concerts and children's recitals. Cosmetically, the Auditorium is in good condition, but there are a number of significant deficiencies that affect its use. While the acoustical performance of the space for symphonic music is exceptional, improvements to enhance speech intelligibility are critical. Noise generated by the heating, ventilating and air conditioning equipment is excessive, requiring these systems to be disabled during acoustically sensitive events. Acoustical dampening needs to be addressed in the Entrance Lobby in order to reduce sound transmission into the Auditorium during events. General house illumination and lighting for performances need to be expanded and improved. A temporary thrust stage, frequently in use but not compatible with the historic interior, should be replaced. The provision of a concealed wheelchair lift to the Stage, that could also serve a restored Green Room below, is proposed. Restoration of fixed seating and improvements to the fly gallery are also recommended. Meeting Room Amenities In addition to the Auditorium, the Cary Memorial Building has six meeting rooms: Estabrook Hall, Robbins, Ellen Stone, Legion, Civil and Bird. As part of this study, the Town conducted an online survey of Residents, Town Meeting Members, Committee Members and other users in order to gauge the interest of updating meeting room amenities. Building users were asked to evaluate the rooms' existing conditions and express their opinions about possible upgrades (e.g., installation of laptop ports, wireless internet, visual displays for presentations, LexMedia connections, flexible furniture, etc). Users expressed strong support for technology upgrades in Estabrook Hall but were undecided about the necessity in the other meeting rooms. The survey results are included in the full report. Fctahrnnk Hall Estabrook Hall is a small, well -used lecture hall and recital stage. Other than the installation of an elevator and ramp in 2000, Estabrook is essentially the same as it was when first constructed. With a few exceptions, the finishes are in good condition. The room is too lively from an acoustical perspective, making speech intelligibility difficult. The room orientation is confusing due to the presence of a bulky sectional table (used for meetings) at the room's entrance while the stage (used for recitals) is at the opposite end of the room. An abandoned projection booth and underutilized gallery, which consume about 30% of the room's overall length, could be replaced with an enclosed storage room for flexible furnishings. The entrance stairs could be reconfigured to bring users into the center of the room with orientation toward the stage. A concealed ramp could provide wheelchair access to the stage. Improvements could also be made to ventilation, acoustics, lighting and various room amenities. Cary Memorial Building Evaluation Mills Whitaker Architects LLC June 2011 / Town of Lexington MA SUMMARY REPORT / Page 3 101 Rnhhinc Rnnm The Robbins Room is a utilitarian space adjacent to the Lower Lobby and the Town Clerk's Record Storage. The room has a large sliding window used for coat checking during performances and events. The Recreation Department is the primary user of the Robbins Room, which is predominantly scheduled for classes in July and August. Of all the meeting rooms, Robbins is the least attractive due to its low ceiling and drab appearance. Upgrades to lighting, acoustics and room amenities would be beneficial. Ellen Stone. Legion and Civil Rooms The Ellen Stone, Legion and Civil Rooms are similarly sized small meeting rooms. Ellen Stone adjoins the Entrance Lobby while Legion and Civil are on the Second Floor. All three rooms are well maintained and in good condition but could be improved with consolidation of heating /cooling /ventilating systems, upgrades to lighting, acoustical modifications and the introduction of various meeting room amenities. The Civil Room is not wheelchair accessible and therefore not available for public meetings. Although the room is on the Second Floor, served by the elevator, there is no accessible route from the elevator to the room. Modifying the front row of the Auditorium's central balcony, by replacing 28 fixed seats with 24 moveable seats, would create an accessible route. The moveable seats could be stored except when needed during full house events, during which time the Civil Room would not be required by the public. Rird Rnnm The Bird Room is located a half level above the Second Floor and is not wheelchair accessible. This unique space is well maintained and in good condition. The original drawings indicate a pair of attractive glass display cases built into the south wall, a feature that was not executed but could replace the concealed pair of unused cabinets that occupy their rightful place. The provision of a wheelchair lift at the open gallery to the east could provide accessibility without modifying the existing stairs or significantly altering the character of the building. This wheelchair lift would also provide access to the upper cross aisle of the central balcony. In addition to accessibility improvements, consolidation of the heating /cooling /ventilating systems and upgrades to lighting, acoustics and meeting room amenities would enhance the overall quality and functionality of the Bird Room. Stairs, Railings, Guards and Doors There are a total of eight separate stairway systems within the building. Three stairways serve the public from the entrance lobby and have historic and character - defining features that should be retained. Four stairways are "back -of- the - house" systems with open railing and guard systems that should be upgraded. The eighth stair, which interconnected the former orchestra pit with the former dressing rooms, will be removed for placement of an enclosed wheelchair lift for access to the Stage and Green Room. Most doorways in the building are original but many lack adequate width for meeting accessibility regulations. Where accessibility is required, narrow paired doors can be retained and made compliant with the introduction of automatic door openers and upgraded hardware. Cary Memorial Building Evaluation June 2011 / Town of Lexington MA 102 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS Mills Whitaker Architects LLC SUMMARY REPORT / Page 4 Lower Lobby The Lower Lobby provides passage to Estabrook Hall, the Robbins Room and the public toilet rooms. The lobby is an open, utilitarian area that is well maintained and could be improved by treating the walls and /or ceiling with acoustically absorbent panels to reduce the overly reverberant nature of the space. Tnilct Rnnmc The existing Basement Level toilet rooms are inefficiently organized and should be fully renovated in order to meet current regulations, conserve water and alleviate congestion during events. By swapping locations of the existing Men's and Women's Rooms, the facility requirements for both sexes could be more adequately met. Both toilet rooms should incorporate accessible fixtures along with built -in, fold - up infant changing tables. The existing unisex toilet in the Basement could be removed while the First Floor unisex toilet should remain unaltered. The abandoned toilet rooms in the former dressing areas below the Stage should be renovated for the convenience of performers once again. Exterior Conditions The existing site and building exterior were not part of this study, as commissioned by the Town, except in terms of accessibility issues and any known water infiltration issues. A cursory review of the exterior was performed as a courtesy in order to include summary observations in the report and in the budget. Recommendations for improvements to accessible parking, accessible entrance ramp, brick walkways, drop -off areas, signage, brick masonry and historic windows are outlined in the full report. Preliminary Scope of Improvements A preliminary scope of improvements has been developed based on user comments, town needs and existing conditions of the facility. The various components of recommended improvements fall into the following related categories of work as described in the full report: • Accessibility Improvements: Stage, Green Room, Bird Room, Civil Room, Entrance, Parking, etc. • Auditorium & Support Spaces: Thrust Stage, Lighting, Sound Issues, Seating, Green Room, Toilets • Miscellaneous Improvements: Estabrook Hall, Meeting Room Amenities, Facility Storage • Exterior Structural Repairs • Interior Structural Repairs • Structural Modifications • Mechanical — Fire Protection System Improvements • Mechanical —Plumbing System Improvements • Mechanical — Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning System Improvements • Electrical Improvements • Acoustical Improvements • Repairs and Improvements to Stage Rigging Highlights of the preliminary scope of improvements are summarized on the following pages and illustrated with the existing and preliminary Basement, First Floor and Second Floor plans. Cary Memorial Building Evaluation Mills Whitaker Architects LLC June 2011 / Town of Lexington MA SUMMARY REPORT / Page 5 103 LEXINGTON FIRE STATION SCHEMATIC DESIGN STUDY. DONHAM & SWEENEY ARCHITECTS, 2011. Executive Summary The assignment given to Donham & Sweeney- Architects was to "provide the Permanent Building Committee with a conceptual design for two options related to the renovation/ expansion of the main Fire Station." Beginning in January 2010, and building on the 2008 Maguire Group Study, we interviewed Department personnel to determine the space needs for each division within the Department, we prepared an engineering analysis of the building, and we undertook a preliminary zoning and wetlands analysis of the site. Preliminary schematic design options were developed to meet the identified space needs. These options were reviewed with the Permanent Building Committee and over a series of meetings were refined leaving two viable options. One option calls for an addition to and renovations of the present building. The other option calls for building a new structure on the site. Preliminary construction cost and project cost estimates were also prepared for both options. We concluded that, due to modernization and updates to the Massachusetts Building and Life Safety Codes and the enactment of accessibility legislation since the facilities were originally constructed, a major work project undertaken on the building would expose serious Building Code, Life Safety Code and Accessibility Code deficiencies. Its heating, ventilating, air - conditioning, and electrical systems are past their expected useful life, are inefficient and we believe should be replaced. The Fire Station, in addition, is experiencing a structural failure of its apparatus floor and is greatly undersized for its present occupancies and uses. For instance, some of the staff is housed in a trailer adjacent to the building and they are forced to leave some of their apparatus outdoors. Currently, the Fire Department has 11,800 SF of space in the 1947 building but needs a total of 25,100 SF. The 1947 building was designed to support a town community that was half the size of the current population and generated as many calls in a year as are now responded to in approximately two months. The major shortcoming of the building is lack of space. The significant space shortage confirmed in this study should be addressed with a new building. We recommend demolishing the existing building and constructing a new one on the present site. From a response time perspective, the location of the Fire Station is almost ideal. Because of the traffic intersections at the site, the fire apparatus should exit onto Bedford Street rather than onto Camellia Place. Having all the apparatus exit onto Bedford Street cannot be done within the framework of the existing building. The costs to renovate and add on compared to the costs for building a new building are virtually identical. 104 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS The cost estimate comparisons, including hard construction costs, so- called `soft' costs, and contingency show: Fire Station, Renovation and Addition $13M to $14M Fire Station, New $13M to $14M Temp. Shoring; Cribbing for Apparatus Floor $450,000 If as recommended, it is decided to design a new station on the current site, we project that the A/E fees and owner's costs to complete Design Development, Construction Documents, and Bidding would be in the range of $800,000 to $900,000. These tasks could be completed within the course of a year thus obtaining bids for a subsequent funding request for construction which would be made at a later Town Meeting. The funding request for construction would include fees for construction administration, designing furnishings, and some of the LEED certification fees. In the event that funding for this project is postponed, the further failure of the Fire Station apparatus room floor slab should be addressed in the short term. The shoring of the floor is estimated to cost $450,000, pending discussions with specialty contractors. This shoring would consist of timber cribbing and should be routinely inspected to gauge its condition and remaining life expectancy. Replacement of the slab is not recommended because doing so would require that the building be made seismically resistant at far greater expense. Addressing other major issues with the building fabric and systems can probably be postponed 5 -7 years. However, regular maintenance and normal replacement of failed mechanical and electrical systems should continue. TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 105 LEXINGTON FIRE STATION SCHEMATIC DESIGN STUDY REPORT Space Needs Summary The present main Fire Station was built in 1946 and has 11,841 SF of space. An additional 972 SF in the form of a trailer housing the Fire Prevention Bureau and an equipment tent of 216 SF have been added in the rear yard. At the time it was built, the Fire Department staff was half full time paid personnel and half "call" or volunteer firefighters. The staff of the Department then was engaged largely in suppression and a limited amount of emergency medical transport. Other significant changes since 1947 affect the space needs of the Department. Population 1947 2008 Number of Responses 1947 2008 Full Time Staffing Levels 1947 2008 Space Needs 1947 2008 COMPARATIVE STATISTICS PERCENTAGE INCREASE SINCE 1947 14,450 30,491, an 111 %increase 650 4,208, a 547% increase 17 49, a 188% increase 11,800 SF 25,100 SF, an 113% increase 106 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 POPULATION 111% NO. OF RESPONSES F.T. STAFF i 188% SPACE NEEDS 113% 106 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS Functions that have been added since 1946 include; Fire Prevention Bureau Advanced Life Support, including ambulances Hazardous Materials Response Technical Rescue Response to weapons of mass destruction Specialized forestry equipment SCBA filling station and equipment Physical fitness Emergency generator Specialized vehicular equipment The mission, staff and equipment have grown in the last 63 years but the space to house and maintain them have not. In 1993, Lexington commissioned the "Lexington Public Buildings Facility Study ". It stated that the main Fire Station "needs modernization and expansion ", and noted that the Town "should look at the potential for a new Station." In 2000, the "Space /Building Needs Advisory Committee Report" identified a number of shortcomings with the existing building, both in space deficiencies and physical conditions and went on to recommend replacement. In 2008 the Town commissioned the Maguire Group, an A/E firm to study the building. They recommended that the Department needed 22,206 SF to perform its present and future functions. Donham & Sweeney - Architects was retained in January 2010 to review and update the Maguire Study and prepare options for schematic design solutions to meet the Department's needs. Our first step was to revisit the previous space needs study, looking carefully at how the department functions and particularly at their furnishings and equipment needs. In addition to our experience with approximately 20 other fire stations, we took into considerations the recommendations of the National Fire Prevention Association [NFPA 1500] and the Unified Facilities Criteria issued by the Federal Government for use by the Air Force, the Navy, and the Army Corps of Engineers. Our Space Needs Study indicated that 25,134 SF was needed looking ahead 20 to 25 years. This need is comparable to other similar towns. See bar chart below. TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 107 300D0 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 PAS` 4 ■ 7.0 Other Non Program/ Non Net Area ■ 6.0 Building Services ■ 5.0 FireFighter's Quarters ■ 4.0 Indoor Training ■ 3.0 Administration ■ 2.0 Public /Lobby /Dispatch ■ 1.0 Apparatus &Support A summary of Space Needs follows. A space by space detailed Space Needs Study can be found in Appendix A. 108 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS FIRE DEPARTMENT 1.0 Apparatus & Support 1.1 Apparatus Room 4,755 8,100 8,190 8,340 1.2 Emergency Mgmt Storage 0 180 130 148 1.3 Hose Storage Room 0 140 120 140 1.4 Training Tower 0 360 361 266 1.5 Equipment Storage 0 144 144 144 1.6 Repair/Mechanics Room 120 144 153 144 1.7 FireFighter's Toilets 39 80 112 110 1.8 Deluge Shower 0 36 36 42 1.9 Air Supply 0 144 120 140 1.10 Turn -Out Gear Room 0 500 512 500 1.11 Pump Storage 0 300 300 294 1.12 "Contaminated" Washer Extractor 0 100 84 100 1.13 BioHazard /Decon Room 0 247 230 247 1.14 BioHazard Equipment Storage 0 30 30 180 1.15 EMS Storage 0 150 121 150 1.16 First Aid 0 100 121 95 1.17 Evidence Storage 0 50 42 54 1.18 Ready Room/Battery Charging 0 36 71 25 1.19 Suction Hose Storage 0 150 150 150 1.20 Cot, Blanket, & Tent Storage 0 180 180 450 2.0 Public/Lobby /Dispatch 2.1 Watch Room 198 144 220 140 2.2 Public Lobby /Vestibule Reception 0 100 425 197 2.3 Public Toilets 0 100 88 120 3.0 Administration 3.1 Fire Chiefs Office 206 200 235 244 3.2 Fire Chief Admin. Assistant 172 170 176 176 3.3 Assistant Chiefs Office 0 148 165 148 3.4 Fire Prevention Officer 0 112 120 120 3.5 Plan Review Room 0 140 142 140 3.6 Administrative Clerks 0 346 250 227 3.7 EMS Office 0 100 135 128 3.8 Haz Mat Office 0 100 146 115 3.9 Training Office 0 112 145 120 3.10 Captain's Office 0 152 145 145 3.11 Lieutenant's Office 0 200 195 187 3.12 Fire Investigation 0 128 148 128 3.13 Conference Room 0 140 151 120 3.14 Supply Room 128 64 67 50 3.15 Administrative Work Room 0 64 63 64 3.16 Administrative Toilet Room 26 64 100 64 3.17 Administrative Break Area 0 16 19 20 TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 109 LEXINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS PK -12 MASTER PLAN LEXINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS. AD HOC FACILITIES COMMITTEE, DESIGN PARTNERSHIP OF CAMBRIDGE, 2009. To: Members of the Lexington School Committee From: Ad Hoc Facilities Committee (AHFC) Re: Final Report to the School Committee Date: October 16, 2009 The Ad Hoc Facilities Committee is pleased to make its report to the School Committee. Background This past June, the Lexington School Committee established the Ad Hoc Facilities Committee (AHFC) to advise it concerning the Design Partnership Facilities Master Plan. The School Committee charge asked the AHFC to include, but not be limited to, the following areas: 1. Review the Design Partnership Master Plan and its recommendations; 2. Assess the impact of the deficiencies identified in the Master Plan on the educational process and then prioritize the recommendations; 3. Propose options for addressing the deficiencies, including timing; 4. Make a Final Report to the School Committee. The membership of the Ad Hoc Facilities Committee included two members appointed by the School Committee, two members appointed by the Board of Selectmen, and three members appointed by the Permanent Building Committee. Also in attendance were liaisons from the Appropriation Committee and the Capital Expenditures Committee. Individual School Committee members attended some meetings. Please refer to the end of this report for a list of participants. The Ad Hoc Facilities Committee met seven times from June through September. Considerations The AHFC evaluated the Design Partnership Master Plan and deemed it to be a commendable analysis of the current condition of the high school and elementary schools, complete with recommendations for further maintenance, renovation, and new construction. The Committee spoke about a number of issues. Here are the most important ones: The AHFC viewed the report as a snapshot in time and realizes that the Master Plan will be provided to the Architectural /Engineering firms hired for the various projects as a starting point. The Committee further realizes that the costs presented in the Master Plan are 1) provisional, 2) inextricably tied to the scope embodied in the Master Plan, and 3) possibly subject to escalation outside the bounds anticipated in the Master Plan. The Committee wants to warn all who extract costs from the Master Plan to extract the costs along with all "markups" and "qualifiers" contained in the Master Plan. • The Committee reflected on the former Commonwealth school construction reimbursement program (known simply as "School Building Assistance" or "SBA ") that favored new construction and provided the Town of Lexington reimbursement values jusl below 60% for the parts of the Fiske, Harrington, Diamond, Clarke and Lexington High School projects that met SBA criteria. Under the auspices of the former SBA program, 110 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS Town committees had anticipated that all of the schools would eventually be replaced with new buildings. The current Commonwealth school construction reimbursement program (the "Massachusetts School Building Authority" or "MSBA ") applies criteria for participation that are much harder to meet than were those of the former SBA program. If a Lexington project were able to meet the more stringent criteria, the Town could expect reimbursements just above the 30% range. It is with this observation that the AHFC recommends that Bowman and Bridge be renovated due to the low likelihood of either school being approved to receive MSBA funds for either renovation or a total replacement. • While the AHFC presents recommendations below, these recommendations may be reprioritized due to other realities and the political pressures of "overrides." • In responding to item 2, above, of the School Committee charge, the AHFC notes that less than acceptable building conditions are tantamount to "deficiencies having an effect on the educational process." Thus the Committee focused on attending to the renovations at the elementary schools in the same light as the proposed renovations and new construction at the high school. • The AHFC recommended that the School Committee submit to the MSBA a "Statement of Interest" (SOI) for the High School, because the High School project seems more likely to be approved than the other projects in the Master Plan. Having said that, the Committee also believes that the proposed building program needs to be fully vetted. The AHFC notes that some aspects of the work at Lexington High School may need to precede the SOI acceptance because of existing conditions, but recommends that as much of the full scope of work be in stride with the main renovation and new construction project as the SOI process and its timing allow. Recommendations With a quorum present, the Ad Hoc School Facilities Committee unanimously voted the following recommendations. (Note that the recommendations are not listed in priority order.) High School: Prepare and submit the Statement of Interest for the full project as described in the Design Partnership Master Plan. Thereafter, write Warrant Articles for design and then construction. Go through the necessary selection processes. 2. High School roofing and mechanical systems scope requiring immediate attention: Write a Warrant Article to cover the bid documents and construction related to the High School roof and mechanical systems scope requiring immediate attention. Go through the necessary selection processes. 3. Bowman and Bridge: Write an Article to cover the preparation of Bid Documents for Priority 1 and 2 + HC -1 and HC -2 scopes of work as contained in the Design Partnership Master Plan. Solicit designer interest and select the designer. Thereafter, prepare an Article for construction. Go through the necessary selection processes. TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 111 4. Estabrook: The Estabrook School stands a chance of securing state funds for reconstruction. Thus, submit an SOI for Estabrook once the high school SOI clears the Commonwealth evaluation process. When the Estabrook SOI disposition is known, write an Article for the preparation of bid documents followed by an Article for new construction. Go through the necessary selection processes. In the meantime, maintain the school so it does not further deteriorate. 5. Hastings: Maintain Hastings so it does not further deteriorate. Monitor enrollment statistics to determine future disposition. 6. Prepare a Technology plan for the schools. 7. Budget sufficient operating funds to keep the schools, as well as other town buildings, in proper repair commencing in FY2011. These "sufficient" operating funds are in addition to the funds needed to accomplish all that is listed above. Members of the Ad Hoc Facilities Committee: • Eric Brown, Permanent Building Committee representative • Jon Himmel, Permanent Building Committee representative • Peter Johnson, Permanent Building Committee representative • Tom Griffiths, School Committee representative • Phil Poinelli, School Committee representative • George Burnell, Board of Selectmen representative • Peter Kelley, Board of Selectmen representative Liaisons who regularly attended the meetings of the Ad Hoc Facilities Committee: Richard Eurich, Appropriation Committee representative Pam Hoffman, Appropriation Committee representative Bill Hurley, Capital Expenditures Committee representative Staff in attendance: • Dr. Paul Ash, Superintendent of Schools • Mark Barrett, Project Manager • Natalie Cohen, Principal, Lexington High School • Pat Goddard, Director of Public Facilities 112 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS Lexington Schools Preliminary Project Schedule 10.15.2009 task by 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 HIGH SCHOOL RENOVATION & EXPANSION 1. SubootSO/ to MSBA Ott. 2009 Assuming MSBA approves the 501 in time for a Fn112010 Town Meeting, Meproress b- asfollows: 2. MSBA approves HS to proceed with Feasibility Study Foil 2010 3. Town Meeting (TM) vote for FS & SO deign ph-- Nov. 2010 4. Designe S5 ktioo Feb. 2011 5. Completion of FS& SD Design Phases 6. MSBA approves SD& Project Funding Agreement Sept. Sept. 2011 2011 7. TM project vote induding find design & construction Nov. 2011 S. Debt Exdusion OVerridefor Construcdon Casts loo. 2012 9. Final Design & bid documents 10. Construction bid & award Dec Feb. 2012 2013 11. Constructi000f HSprojett (2yearduratioo shown) OR, IF MSBA DOES NOT APPROVE HS TO PROCEED M TH FEAS. STUDY is time for Nov 2010 TM, Me fdlowing course mn be pursued: Aug. 2015 2. TM Vote for construction of Roof -d HVAC work Mm. 2011 3. Debt Exdusion OVerridefm Construcdon Casts lun. 2011 4. Final Design & bid documents Mar. 2011 5. Construction bid May 2011 6. Construction of Roofand HVAC wo,k(2su -, durotionshown) IMPROVEMENTS TO BRIDGE & BOWMAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Aug. 2012 1. Town Meeting (TM) VOtefor Deign Mar. 2010 2. Designe S5 k tioo lun. 2010 3. Completion of Design 4. TM project vote far construction Jan. Mar. 2011 2011 5. Debt Exdusion OVerridefm Construcdon Casts lun. 2011 6. Construction bid & award lun. 2011 7. Construction (2 summers of ration shown) REPLACEMENT FOR ESTABROOK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Aug. 2012 1. SubootSO/ to MSBA Ott. 2012 Assuming MS. approves the 501 in time fora F.11 20. Town Meeting, Meproress maybe asfollows: 2. MSBA approves E tobrook to proceed with Feasibility Study Foil 2013 3. Town Meeting (TM) vote for FS & SO deign phases Nov. 2013 4. Designe S5 k tioo Feb. 2014 5. Completion of FS& SD Design Phases Sept. 2014 6. MSBA approves SD& Projetl Funding Agreement Sept. 2014 7. TM project VOte induding find design & construction Nov. 2014 S. Debt Exdusion OVerridefm Construcdon Casts loo. 2015 9. Final Design & bid documents 10. Construction bid & award Sept. lan. 2015 2016 11. Construction (1.5yeardurationshown) Dec 2017 TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 113 LEXINGTON POLICE STATION SCHEMATIC DESIGN STUDY. DONHAM & SWEENEY ARCHITECTS, 2011. LEXINGTON POLICE STATION SCHEMATIC DESIGN STUDY REPORT 1. Executive Summary The assignment given to Donham & Sweeney - Architects was to provide the Permanent Building Committee with a space needs analysis and conceptual design related to the renovation/ expansion of the Police Station. Beginning in January 2010 we interviewed Department personnel to determine the space needs for each division within the Department, we prepared an engineering analysis of the building, and we undertook a preliminary zoning review and analysis of the site. Preliminary schematic design options were developed to meet the identified space needs. These options were reviewed with the Permanent Building Committee and the Police Department, and over a series of meetings were refined leaving one option, which calls for an addition to and renovations of the present building. Preliminary construction cost and project cost estimates were also prepared. We concluded that, due to modernization and updates to the Massachusetts Building and Life Safety Codes and the enactment of accessibility legislation since the facility was originally constructed, a major work project undertaken on the building would expose serious Building Code, Life Safety Code and Accessibility Code deficiencies. Its heating, ventilating, air- conditioning, and electrical systems are past their expected useful life, are inefficient and we believe should be replaced. The Police Station, in addition, is greatly undersized for its present occupancies and uses. For instance, some of the department equipment is stored in shipping containers, a trailer and an SUV. Currently, the Police Department has 13,060 SF of space in the 1956 building but needs a total of 28,308 SF, including a qualifying firing range. The range presently in the building, which is too small, cannot be physically expanded. A new expanded range at that site would necessarily be above ground and the Permanent Building Committee had serious reservations about doing that in a residential neighborhood. If an off -site firing range were to be provided the total gross area would increase because of the needed support facilities. The 1956 building was designed to support a town community that was about 70% of the size of the current population and generated half as many calls in a year as it now does. The major shortcoming of the building is lack of space. The significant space shortage confirmed in this study should be addressed. We recommend renovating the existing building and constructing and addition to the rear and right side. The location of the Police Station is ideal. The cost estimate comparisons, including hard construction costs, so- called `soft' costs, and contingency show: Police Station, Renovation and Addition $12M to $13M 114 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS If as recommended, it is decided to design an addition and renovation to the present building, we project that the AT fees to complete Design Development, Construction Documents, and Bidding would be in the range of $750,000 to $850,000. These tasks could be completed within the course of a year thus obtaining bids for a subsequent funding request for construction which would be made at a later Town Meeting. The funding request for construction would include fees for construction administration, designing furnishings, and some of the LEED certification fees. If the town decides to postpone the project, addressing issues with the building fabric and systems can probably be postponed 5 -7 years. However, regular maintenance and normal replacement of failed mechanical and electrical systems should continue. TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 115 LEXINGTON TOWN HALL STUDY/ BUILDING EVALUATION. BARGMANN HENDRIE + ARCHETYPE, INC., 2008. Study /Building Evaluation of Lexington Town Hall Town of Lexington October 2008 EXISTING CONDITIONS SITE VISIT During the month of October 2008, the A/E team visited Lexington Town Hall and investigated the building. Existing architectural and M /E /P /FP systems were observed. EXISTING DOCUMENTATION Prior to the field visit, BH +A borrowed from the Town Engineering Department and copied a set of the Perry, Dean & Stewart construction documents prepared for the additions and renovations to the building. As- constructed conditions vary from the CD's at the Selectmen's Meeting Room and in other minor areas. Using the Perry, Dean drawings as a base, the team walked through the building and documented corrections and changes, resulting in a basic set of existing conditions floor plans suitable for rehabilitation space planning. OBSERVED CONDITIONS Although the original design intent has endured and proven its utility to the Town, and original details are found throughout the 1928 building, the 1971 renovations comprise much of the finishes and fixtures visible to and used by staff and visitors. Site Roof drainage systems appear to be clogged; underground drain lines should be inspected and cleared of debris. (Refer to Lower -Level Moisture Migration Report for additional discussion.) • The building's wheelchair - accessible entrance is not adequately marked, and therefore does not communicate to the public that it is a primary entry. • Catch basins shown on the 1971 drawings have round covers marked "Drain" but do not have gratings (Figure 2). During a rainy site visit (10/28/08), excessive rainwater collected adjacent to the west entrance walkway and on the driveway, with no apparent outlet. A PVC pipe installed as a stopgap way to conduct water to the driveway (Figure 10) appeared to be minimally effective. Once the underground drainage system has been restored, the PVC pipe should be removed. Figure 1. Site stairs, with ground -floor entrance beyond. UM. Study /Building Evaluation of Lexington Town Hall Town of Lexington October 2008 Figure 2. Drains west of 1971 wing. Drawings indicate a 72" drain and sewer line below. Figure 3. Parking along circle, east of Town Hall. r TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 117 LEXINGTON VISITORS CENTER PROGRAMMATIC REPORT. DAWN MCKENNA, CHAIRMAN, TOURISM COMMITTEE; MARY JO BOHART & JEAN TERHUNE, LEXINGTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; AND COLIN P. SMITH AIA, COLIN SMITH ARCHITECTURE, INC., CHAIRMAN, CHAMBER BOARD OF DIRECTORS, 2012. Lexington Visitors Center Programmatic Report Prepared For The Town of Lexington Prepared by: Dawn McKenna, Chairman, Tourism Committee Mary Jo Bohart & Jean Terhune, Lexington Chamber of Commerce Colin P. Smith AIA, Colin Smith Architecture, Inc., Chairman, Chamber Board of Directors 118 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Working in conjunction with the Chamber of Commerce, the Tourism Committee believes that a redesign and expansion of the Visitors Center will best encourage visitors to spend their time and money in Lexington. Originally built in 1965 in anticipation of the nation's bicentennial (1975), over the years the Visitors Center has served as an information hub to Lexingtonians as well as millions of guests from around the world. With the growing demands for service, a renewed focus on the economic development opportunity that tourism provides, the expanding use of the Minuteman Commuter Bikeway and the rise of national patriotism, it is time to prepare our physical space to meet 21st Century expectations. Why is tourism important to Lexington? Through tourism, we have the opportunity to grow tax revenue. Tourism is the 3rd largest industry in the State and Lexington (including Concord) is the 4d' most visited area in Massachusetts, according to the Massachusetts Office of Travel and Tourism. New tax revenues in FY2011 totaled $478k from hotel/meals tax. In FY2012 the hotels and bed & breakfast will pay nearly $680k in real estate taxes. Their CPA combined contribution is just over $20k. Creating economic development opportunities through tourism will help relieve residential tax burdens. A modern Visitors Center designed to service 21st century tourists, is a key factor in harnessing this revenue potential. Each year at least 100,000 residents, families, friends and guests from around the world utilize the Visitors Center. This continuously utilized Town -owned facility needs work. It is Lexington's welcoming center 362 days per year, closing only for Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year's Day. This unique schedule honors the original vision and is reflective of Lexington's importance globally. We have identified and analyzed the following three broad goals for meeting visitor needs while maximizing our economic development potential: 1. Fulfill immediate information needs; 2. Increase visitor satisfaction and local spending; and 3. Encourage repeat visits to Lexington and the region. The programmatic needs for the Visitors Center are: 1. Education and multi -media room for tour groups 2. Self -serve kiosk 3. Counter space for assisting visitors 4. Veteran's display with visual connection to exterior memorials 5. Retail space 6. Food vending area highlighting local establishments 7. Bathrooms 8. Office and meeting space Through appropriate design, the building could also be made handicap accessible, provide community meeting space and support start-up businesses. Signage and design elements will better connect the facility to the Bikeway. Three different options for upgrading the facility have been identified: OPTIONS TO ADDRESS NEEDS Option 1: Renovate existing space Option 2: Renovate and add small addition Option 3: Redesign and renovate existing space and provide programmatic addition The Department of Public Facilities would oversee the design and renovation of this project. Option 3 will modernize visitor and business services and ultimately increase revenue to the Town giving consumers additional reasons to Linger in Lexington. Revenues generated by tourism spending and local taxes have the potential to recapture the costs of Option 3 within 3 -5 years. January 20, 2012 -3- TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 119 LEXINGTON VISITORS CENTER REVISE PROGRAMMATIC REPORT. LEXINGTON TOURISM COMMITTEE, 2013. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Lexington is known throughout the United States and internationally as a world -class tourism destination offering a unique and seamless range of services for tourists and residents alike. Visitors are encouraged to Linger in Lexington, thereby generating revenues for the town, attractions and businesses. Vision of the Tourism Committee Lexington is in every history book written. Visitors from across the country and around the world learn about the Birthplace of American Liberty and want to see it firsthand. Should we allow them to come, view the Battle Green and leave or should we inspire them to Linger in Lexington and spend their money here? We need to give visitors more reasons to stay and that is why it imperative for us to begin the process of redesigning the Visitors Center which plays a critical role in fulfilling our economic mission. This Programmatic Needs Assessment was originally written on January 20, 2012. The project was deferred last year for additional planning. In the last two years, invaluable and constructive feedback has been solicited from tourists, citizens, committees, local businesses, regional and State tourism partners, the Boards of the Chamber of Commerce and the Historical Society, as well as from Town staff. These conversations were instrumental in revising this Programmatic Report. The objective of the Visitors Center project is to maximize the economic development potential that tourism represents for Lexington. The tourism industry is the 3rd largest employer in Massachusetts and among the largest employers in Lexington, supporting some 500 jobs as a direct result of tourism spending. Together with Concord we are the 4th most visited destination statewide. This project is not solely about fixing a building that has outlived its useful life; it is also about providing opportunities to generate revenue through sources other than our taxpayers. It is the equivalent of rezoning a parcel of land to enable the development of projects that generate greater tax revenue. Do we want to take full advantage of the economic potential of tourism in Lexington? In FY2011 & FY2012 hotel/meals tax totaled just over $2 million of which $630k represented new growth. That means that 31% of revenues in this category are new to Lexington in the last two years. Imagine what we could accomplish with the right tools. The State understands these economics and has been investing domestically to market Massachusetts. Furthermore, the Massachusetts Office of Travel and Tourism (MOTT) is a founding partner in Brand USA, which is the federal government's first ever coordinated global marketing initiative to attract foreign visitors. A modern Visitors Center designed to service the global 21st century travel market, is vital to generating additional revenue thereby providing tax relief to our residents and businesses. We want the Visitors Center to make the best first impression. Whether it is cultural tourists from local communities or traditionally defined tourists travelling 50 miles or more, potential residents, family or friends visiting Lexington, or someone biking or walking on the commuter bikeway, the Visitors Center must be designed to meet the needs of these diverse users. The design must also recognize the important role the Chamber of Commerce plays in attracting and retaining businesses. The Visitors Center is often the first stop for prospective new employees; entrepreneurs seeking to open new businesses; large corporation considering a move to Lexington; and developers deciding whether to build or buy here. Enter the Visitors Center and ask yourself: Does the quality of that experience represent the excellence for which we strive? We only get one chance to make a first impression: Can we afford to wait? Originally built in anticipation of the nation's bicentennial (1976), documented evidence demonstrates that over 100,000 people visit this building annually. Minuteman National Park received over one million visitors according to the National Park Service's data collection systems. This combined with our anecdotal evidence affirms that Lexington's visitation numbers are significantly higher than documented. 120 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS How have we cared for this heavily used capital asset since it was built over forty years ago? Other than making the front door accessible and updating the bathrooms, the building is largely the same as it was then. Yet much has changed: national patriotism and the international demand for education about democracy has grown, the railway is now an active bikeway, the use of technology to research and plan their visits, distribute information, and make point of sales decisions about what they do once they arrive has exploded, and the need to capitalize on revenues outside the tax levy has become apparent. It is time to prepare this physical space to meet the needs of users in the 21st Century. A major change in this report is that design options have intentionally been omitted. While they were a physical representation to demonstrate how programming might fit in the existing location, readers had a hard time believing that the public design process would engage all stakeholders and that the Department of Public Facilities would oversee the design and renovation project. The significant takeaway from those sketches is that in order to meet the program outlined, an addition and renovation are required. The cost associated with that option is approximately $1.8 million. The projected economic impact of a well - designed Visitors Center justifies this investment. Based on new taxes and spending we believe that within 5 -7 years, our investment will be repaid in tourism dollars. The Programmatic Goals for the Visitors Center are: 1. Informing and orienting visitors to maximize their desire and ability to Linger in Lexington, 2. Creating and extending a welcoming environment for residents and visitors, 3. Promoting economic opportunities to generate income for the Town, attractions, local businesses and organizations, thereby benefitting Lexington taxpayers, 4. Educating our visitors, especially during the six months when our primary attractions are closed, and 5. Designing the facility to capitalize on the rapidly expanding international market. In fulfillment of the goals, the following programs should be included in a renovated Visitors Center 1. Customer service counter for welcoming and assisting multiple visitors simultaneously, 2. Orientation room for visitors, small groups, and larger tours, and for use during inclement weather, 3. Modern, sufficient, and easily accessible restrooms, 4. Redesigned rear entry from bikeway to attract guests, 5. Contemplative area for honoring Veterans with visual connection to exterior memorials, 6. Self -serve kiosk with materials in multiple languages, 7. Retail book and gift sales area, 8. Administrative space for Lexington's Chamber of Commerce; and 9. Indoor table(s) and vending machine area, In the past two years preparing for this financial request, we have learned the following: • There is broad consensus that this continuously utilized Town -owned facility needs work, • The programmatic goals outlined in this report incorporates the collective ideas of the stakeholders, • A public design process, guided by professional consultants, including an expert in interpretive planning, and our Facilities Department will inform the layout and flow of the site and facilitate improved visitor experiences. Two years ago, the Tourism Committee identified the renovation of the Visitors Center as our capital priority. We began working with Town staff, boards and committees to request appropriate funding to begin this process. Funding was originally sought in the 2012 Town Meeting. While the need for an upgrade was acknowledged, some felt that the program needed to be further developed and the project was postponed. Over the past year we have engaged the stakeholders, reviewed our goals, researched, and refined the program. Now is the time for Lexington to fund the professional architectural design as the next step in that process. Voted June 4, 2013 -5- TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 121 MUNROE CENTER FOR THE ARTS: CAPITAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT. ON -SITE INSIGHT, 2007. — Capital Needs Assessment PAR3' ON SITE Final Report The Munroe Center for the Arts Capital Needs Assessment The Munroe Center for the Arts Lcvcv;p °rani,. \[.\ Lexington, MA Prepared for: The Town of Lexington, Massachusetts 1625 Massachusetts Avenue Lexington, MA 02420 By: ON -SITE INSIGHT 100 Crescent Road Needham, MA 02494 TEL (781) 449 7752 FAX (781) 444 5352 www.on-site-insight.com October 17, 2007 0 z_ ON.SrrE The Munroe Center for the Arts (Munroe Center) is a former public school building located within close proximity to Lexington's central business district. The building is currently leased to a non - profit organization and occupied by a variety of tenants with specialties in the visual and performing arts. Comprised of two upper stories and a basement level, the building contains approximately 22,500 gross square feet (GSF). Original construction of the building is estimated to date to the 1930s. After sitting vacant for a period of time, conversion and re -use of the building for studio and performance space reportedly commenced in 1984. This assessment is aimed at determining the Munroe Center's current and prospective capital needs for asset management purposes. As a leased facility, it is understood that the tenant is responsible for certain systems and components, and the Town of Lexington is responsible for certain systems at components. At the direction of the client, costs and timing of future capital actions for only those systems and components that are understood to be the direct responsibility of the Town have been included here. Quantities and notes regarding the general condition of the remaining systems and components have been included, however, no costs or timing of future capital actions related to these systems and components have been shown. Those systems and components that are understood to be the Town's responsibility are in fair to good condition. Near term needs include resurfacing of the parking area, boiler plant replacement and reconfiguration, upgrade /replacement of the fire detection and suppression systems, selective pointing and repair of the exterior brick and masonry surfaces, surface preparation and painting of the exterior wood trim, and handicapped accessibility upgrades. For planning purposes, Year 1 of the report is shown as 2007. Twenty -year capital needs are projected at approximately $113.81 per gross square foot in inflated dollars. -1- 122 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS Site Site Surface The Munroe Center is situated on an approximate 1.5 -acre parcel of land with generally level topography. An asphalt -paved driveway provides access /egress to a parking area of similar construction that is located at the rear of the building. The asphalt paving is older and in generally poor condition. Cracks and areas of significant deterioration, noted at various locations, pose potential concerns with regard to safety and liability. Based on observed conditions, costs to resurface the parking area, including selective rebuilding to base in some areas, are shown in Year 1. Subsequent costs for routine cycles of crackfilling, sealcoating, and striping of the asphalt are shown in Years 6, 11, and 16. A network of concrete sidewalks provides access to the building from the parking area and public sidewalk located along Massachusetts Avenue. The majority of the sidewalks have been replaced in recent years, and they are in very good condition at the present time. Older concrete sidewalks are located between the public sidewalk along Massachusetts Avenue and an area of new concrete sidewalks at the front of the building. The older is in fair to good condition at the present time. Isolated minor cracks and areas of displacement were noted during the course of the inspection. Allowances to replace 15% of the older concrete are shown in Years 1 and 11. A modest allowance to address potential future repair needs related to the newer concrete is shown in Year 11. Site landscaping includes an attractive mix of grass, trees, shrubs and other plantings. Landscape maintenance and upgrades are understood to be the responsibility of the tenant, and as such, no capital costs have been included here. The painted wood sign at the front of the site is in generally good condition. Like the landscaping, the sign is also understood to be the responsibility of the tenant, and no future costs are shown. The small play area /tot -lot located at the rear of the building is understood to be the Town's responsibility. The equipment varies in age, but overall, is in generally good condition. As a placemarker, an allowance for future replacement of the equipment is shown in Year 10. The replacement allowance shown here assumes replacement with equipment that incorporates compliant handicap accessible design features and set on a compliant handicap accessible base material. -2- Site Distribution Systems The development is served by a full complement of utilities including public water and sewer, and by natural gas and electric service from public utilities. There were no reported problems with any of the site distribution systems, which tend to be long - lived. Any maintenance and /or repair needs related to these systems and their components are understood to largely be the responsibility of the tenant, and no capital expenditures are anticipated with regard to them. Mechanical Room Boilers The building is heated with an original oil -fired HB Smith (low pressure) steam boiler. Recent activity included encapsulating the boiler and boiler room piping due to hazardous original insulation. Although functional, the boiler has exceeded its industry standard useful life and is not energy efficient. The plan carries costs for the removal of the existing equipment in the boiler room, abatement of the existing insulation, and estimated costs for the design and installation of a new heating system. There are two small domestic hot water tanks for the building. There is a gas -fired 30- gallon tank in the boiler room and an electric 40- gallon tank in the Men's room. Based on age and condition replacement costs are shown in Years 4, 8, and 19. Building Mechanical and Electrical Systems Mechanical Systems The main distribution systems include fire suppression, steam and condensate piping, domestic hot and cold water, and sanitary waste. There were no observed or reported concerns with the domestic water and sanitary piping. No capital costs are shown. Occupants of the building reported problems with winter heating conditions, as being unreliable with several cold or hot spots throughout the building. The comments were not surprising considering the age and type of the existing system. A new heating system that is designed for the current use of the building should eliminate these concerns. The age and condition of the existing fire sprinklers are somewhat of a concern. Several brass heads were discolored with age and the ability to function when needed is questionable. Based on discussions with the client, a significant allowance has been shown in the plan -3- TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 123 MUNROE CENTER FOR THE ARTS: USAGE STUDY AND INFORMATION. BOARD OF DIRECTORS, 2009. MUNROE CENTER Board of Directors Executive Director organization and ArtSpan Jeffrey Lipsky FOR THE ARTS Julian Miller, Chair 1403 Massachusetts Ave. John Hayward, Treasurer Education Director Joshua Miller Lexington, MA 02420 Robert Adams, Clerk Page 5 781 - 862 -6040 Donald Bailey Office Coordinator www.munroecenter.org Karen Hruby Sarah Noyes USAGE STUDY AND INFORMATION Page 2 Description and Brief History of organization and ArtSpan Studio Artists Usage Chart Outreach and Community Service Page 3 Local friends and supporters Page 4 The Dance Inn Page 5 ArtSpan Page 6 Lexington School of Ballet Page 7 Children's Arts Corner Lexington Players Page 8 Lexington Music School Page 9 Chung Do Kwan Page 10 -12 Selectmen's Q & A Page 13 Building Improvements 124 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS The Munroe Center For The Arts houses 14 studio artists, an art gallery, and five other schools offering classes and instruction in the arts. The center employs hundreds of local citizens. MCA, (Munroe Center For The Arts), is managed by an Executive Director, Education Director, 5 Board members, and a part time Office Coordinator. We focus on 3 primary objectives. 1) Run the ArtSpan creative arts education program and Munroe Gallery. 2) Manage the 100 year old building in which we reside. 3) Rent affordable space to creative organizations, schools, and programs in Lexington. These 3 objectives are detailed further in this report. In 1984 the town accepted a proposal to turn the Munroe School into a multi -use arts center and Arts /Lexington was established. The Munroe Center for the Arts, a non- profit, took over in 1994 as a new umbrella organization and has been flourishing for the past 12 years. In addition to our own ArtSpan program, MCA is currently home to five extraordinary schools: the Dance Inn, Lexington Music School, Children's Arts Corner, Lexington School of Ballet, and the Chung Do Kwan school of Tae Kwan Do. Most art centers are limited to offering only their own programs. The schools at Munroe are tenants who pay rent each month. Since each school offers and manages its' own specialty they are able to offer the highest quality of instruction. Munroe is truly a potpourri for creative arts education. MCA also provides studio space for 14 artists -in- residence. These artists are not only crucial to the creative foundation of the Munroe Center, but are becoming more visible and valuable in the Lexington community. They have community service requirements included in their leases and volunteer their time as artist mentors in ArtSpan's summer Counselor In Training program for teens. You can also regularly find their artwork beautifying the walls of many local businesses. ArtSpan is a unique and vital arts education program run by the Munroe Center that offers classes throughout the year. Each summer ArtSpan also offers a themed multimedia summer arts camp for 8 weeks. The goal of MCA, ArtSpan, and the extraordinary schools within its walls, is to provide the citizens of Lexington and the surrounding towns with the opportunity to explore a wide variety of artistic endeavors, and to integrate art into their lives. Art enriches, educates, provokes, inspires, and connects, allowing individuals of all ages to express and discover themselves anew. 2005 USAGE CHART 'Age Categories: C = Children ages 3 -17. A = Adults ages 18 — 62. S = Seniors ages 62+ PROGRAM & SQ. —USAGE TOTAL STAFF LEXINGTON TOTAL *AGES LEXINGTON STAFF ORGANIZATION FEET DESCRIPTION ENROLL RESIDENTS ARTSPAN PROGRAM 2200 2 rooms for art making 100 part time 75 part time 720 C: 645 659 Non Profit 501 (c)(3) 1 multipurpose teachers and teachers and A: 55 counselors counselors S:20 CHILDREN'S ARTS 1000 1 Dance room, 5 1 520 C: 440 283 CORNER 1 waiting room, A: 80 For Profit 2 storage closets THE DANCE INN 1538 2 dance studios 28 9 653 C: 501 430 Dance Inn Productions 12 x 12, & 12 x 16, A: 129 is Non Profit Org. 1 small office 10 x 15, S: 23 1 bathroom 4 x 4 LEXINGTON SCHOOL 3000 2 dance studios, 1 office, 2 storage closets 14 3 294 C: 269 A: 25 188 OF BALLET For Profit LEXINGTON MUSIC 1560 1 main piano studio, 16 5 275 C: 250 220 SCHOOL 2 small piano studios, A: 15 For Profit 1 multipurpose studio S: 10 CHUNG DO KWAN 532 1 martial arts studio. S 7 2 29 C: 17 20 For Profit hared with ArtSpan. A: 12 1 small office LEXINGTON PLAYERS 230 1 studio. 1 1 21 A: 21 7 Nonprofit 501(c)(3) 11 ARTISTS' STUDIOS 3,300 14 artists share 11 studios. Avg. Studio is 252 sq ft 0 0 14 A:14 7 MUNROE ADMIN 230 1 office, 2 small closets 3 1 0 0 1 Non Proft 501(c)(3) MUNROE GALLERY 240 2 rooms for exhibiting art 0 0 0 0 1 Non Proft 501(c)(3) TOTALS 13,830 28 rooms used for dance, 174 97 2526 C: 2077 1816 music & arts A: 396 S:53 TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 125 MUZZEY SENIOR CENTER AND WHITE HOUSE CONCEPTUAL AND FEASIBILITY STUDY. BARGMANN HENDRIE + ARCHETYPE, INC., 2008. Lexington Senior Center Conceptual and Feasibility Study Town of Lexington July 2008 A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Town of Lexington is the owner and long -time steward of the "White House," located at 1557 Massachusetts Avenue, in the Battle Green Historic District. The Town contracted with Bargmann, Hendrie + Archetype, Inc. to assess the current conditions of the White House, examine the existing Muzzey Senior Center building and evaluate the existing Senior Center programs, in order to determine whether the existing buildings could be renovated and expanded to serve as a two- building Senior /Community Center campus. The program analysis included a comparison with senior center facilities in other towns, with particular regard to project floor area per number of residents 60+ years of age in those communities. A tour of the existing Adult Supportive Day Care (ASDC) facility on Mill Street was also undertaken, and discussions with staff touched on the needs of a growing population segment. Looking at the use of existing activity spaces throughout a typical day, and in consideration of the possibility of additional programming (e.g., community meetings and events) and the opportunity to expand the existing activities calendar into evenings and weekends, the team met with stakeholders and proceeded to develop a table of recommended square footages. The team's observations and findings culminated with a set of conceptual design options for the White House site, accompanied by outline specifications and cost estimates. Due to the substandard conditions observed at the Muzzey Senior Center facility (including deficiencies in natural light and ventilation and limited hours of operation), the assessment team determined that Muzzey would be unsuitable as one anchor of a two- building Senior Center campus. Consequently, the study focused on the feasibility of a consolidated program at the White House site, with or without the ASDC. The team briefly considered relocating the ASDC to the parking -lot level of Muzzey but found it seriously lacking in the amenities required (e.g. enclosed outdoor space and views to the outdoors), compared to the very pleasant if somewhat out -of- the -way natural environment provided by the Mill Street facility. However, the current lease arrangement and the likelihood that the ASDC center's clientele will grow over the coming years adds a measure of uncertainty. For this reason, one of the three White House site scenarios developed by the team incorporates the AFDC on a separate, upper floor. The study concluded that an attractive and efficiently - designed, two -story building is feasible and in conformance with existing zoning (subject to site plan review, special permits and approval by the Lexington HDC). Each of the development options illustrate a careful integration of the historic main house and carriage barn components into a new mixed -use building clad with clapboard siding and capped with traditional sloped roofs. In order to retain the parcel's historic residential scale and to avoid overwhelming the site with new bulk, the proposed building is shaped into narrow wings bent into a C shape to create a small -scale courtyard. The administrative wing is situated to the west, adjacent to the existing Police Station and closer to the Town Offices. The proposed multi - purpose room grouping is of somewhat larger scale and would feature abundant windows facing the Town Conscience Land, at the eastern side of the parcel. In each scheme, the main entrance and drop -off area faces a new parking area north of the building, and vehicular access occurs via Fletcher Avenue, rather than busy Mass. Ave. Using the 22,500 square -foot Scenario B as the preferred solution, a conceptual construction and project cost estimate was prepared. Incorporating generous (35 %) design and construction contingency markups requested by the Town, the team estimates the 2008 Scenario B construction cost at just over $8,700,000 ($387/sf). Adding estimated soft costs to this figure results in an estimated 2008 Total Project Cost of $10,185,575 ($453/sf). The actual construction date of a new Senior Center is subject to numerous approvals and yet to be determined but, if an optimistic 2010 construction start is used, escalating the 2008 estimate results in an adjusted, estimated Total Project Cost of about $12.1 million. In consideration of the cost impact of reusing historic components of the White House, the study team estimated the cost premium to restore, relocate and rehabilitate the historic Main Block and the Barn /Carriage House at approximately $90,000, which represents about 1 %of the estimated construction cost. 126 MUZZEY SENIOR CENTER ENVELOPE AND SYSTEMS ANALYSIS. TBA ARCHITECTS, 2008. I. Introduction The purpose of this report is twofold • To characterize in detail the existing condition of The Muzzey High Apartments, located at 1475 Massachusetts Avenue, Lexington, Massachusetts. • To provide the basis to establish an appropriate scope of construction aimed at restoring and stabilizing the structure and building envelope, making all life safety systems code compliant providing full handicap accessibility, and improving overall energy performance and /or occupant comfort. Towards these ends, we have divided the report into five sections: I. Introduction II. Report Summary highlighting our findings and recommendations and also identifies our recommended project scope and budget. Ill. Existing Conditions and Treatment Recommendations, organized by the ten division Uniformat system, which characterizes in text, drawings and photographs our observations and treatment recommendations. In this section, we establish our general design intent raise questions related to the reuse and timing of the planned renovations, and provide a recommended scope of work. This section subdivides our treatment recommendations into three tiers: work clearly required, work in consideration for near -term renovations, and work not included in the proposed scope. It also outlines the various questions and alternatives that we see are appropriate for consideration on the work in question items. 1V. Cost Estimates: itemizing the approximate subcontract cost of each item and combining the total into a current estimate for all work, including general conditions. 127 Muzzey Apartments Conditions Study 11. Report Summary DRAFT January 30, 2008 TBA and its engineering subconsultants Ron Golay and Fred Goff were commissioned to evaluate the envelope and energy systems of the Muzzy Apartments. We reviewed original construction drawings for the project from 1984, worked with the Trustees, several residents of the Muzzy Apartments, and the staff of the Senior Center, and performed several inspections of the facility between September 2007 and January 2008. We organize our analysis in this Summary as follows: • Our observations organized by building systems; • An overview of the building's compliance with guidelines for accessibility for persons with disabilities; • Several alternatives for two major systems, windows and HVAC; • A project budget for the final recommended scope of work. Existing Conditions What follows is our "bottom line" about what we observe, what items of work require attention and what actions we recommend, and what priority we consider the work to be. We detail our specific recommendations for the various construction systems in our detailed observations in Section III Existing Conditions and Treatment Recommendations and present estimate construction costs in Section IV Cost Estimates. 128 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS Priority for Building System Observations Remedy per Foundation Cracks in foundation do not threaten structure but will Superstructure deteriorate further and result in leaks, other damage and 2 enerqy loss. Treatment: epoxy repair. Shell Superstructure Compromises in fire protection of steel elements that were 3 required at the time of construction, making the building 128 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS Muzzey Apartments Conditions Study DRAFT January 30, 2008 TC \A /N \A /ICE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 129 more vulnerable to collapse in the event of fire. Treatment: enclose exposed steel with fire resistant wall material. No deficiencies on main roofs although some decking may Roof Structure need replacement if roof is removed. Cupola may require 3 some structural repair as well as trim repair. Treatment: repair cupola framing, siding and trim. Floor Structure No deficiencies. Insulation is below current standards however does not need replacement. Need for some damaged and /or missing mortar. Treatment: partial repointing of brick to protect integrity existing walls 2 so as to avoid further damage. Caulk failures throughout resulting in water penetration. 2 Treatment. remove and recaulk all exterior joints. Window replacement or repair required for building stabilization and energy conservation. Treatment: Three 2 Walls alternatives are proposed, see below. Stone and cast concrete repair required to avoid continuing damage. Treatment: replace and /or repair with epoxy or 2 patching concrete. Peeling paint. Treatment: scrape and repaint all painted 2 surfaces. Exterior doors have some damage and compromised weather seals. Fourth floor balcony doors are single glazed. Treatment: repair and weatherstrip main building doors and 2,3 exterior doors at the fourth floor balconies; replace balcony doors. Gutters and No deficiencies. Limited repair may be required associated Downspouts with roof and trim work. Asphalt the and membrane roofs are at the end of their useful lives. Treatment: Reroof all systems to avoid future 2 Roof damage. Remove and replace existing asphalt tile, membrane roofs and cupola. Skylights are damaged and at the end of their useful life. 2 Treatment: remove and replace. Interior Elevator is acceptable however does not provide capacity for gurneys for medical emergencies. In addition the Conveying configuration is undesirable, requiring access by Senior 3 Center visitors into the apartments' corridors, violating the apartments' security perimeter. Treatment: provide two level lift for senior center and separate uses with secure doors. Mechanical Heating systems are inefficient, obsolete, compromising comfort and, in some instances, resulting in extremely high HVAC heating bills. Air conditioning system is at the end of its life 2 cycle. Treatment. Four alternatives are proposed for treatment, see below. Sprinkler systems do not offer complete coverage. Certain Fire Protection rooms have no direct sprinkler sensing or protection. 3 Treatment: extend existing system to establish complete coverage. Electrical Main Service No deficiencies TC \A /N \A /ICE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 129 Muzzey Apartments Conditions Study DRAFT January 30, 2008 Overview of Building Accessibility The Muzzey Apartments meets general needs for access for the disabled however has several deficiencies as relates to access to the senior center and to the apartments. Our review considers access as required by today's code or from the standpoint of universal access. Enumerated below is our assessment of existing conditions: 1. Parking: Spaces are provided and meet requirements for number and dimension. 2. The path of ingress to the building from parking areas to the main entry meets access requirements for pitch and width. Access from the street Via sidewalks does not meet access requirements as there is no sidewalk. 130 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS No deficiencies. Some work may be required associated Branch Wiring with HVAC system changes. Public Area Fluorescent systems are ageing and are inefficient. 2 Lighting Treatment: replace with more efficient systems. Not compliant with accessibility requirements. Treatment: 3 Entry Intercom replace entry intercom console. Public phone is not compliant with accessibility Telephone requirements. Treatment:: install new compliant telephone. Cable No deficiencies Alarm systems are functioning however do not meet Fire Alarm contemporary standards. Treatment: install new 1 addressable alarm panel and devices. No emergency power generation capacity for atrium ventilation or elevator operation, as required. Local battery Emergency Power systems for emergency lighting are functional however not I and Light optimal. Treatment: install new generator for emergency systems including lighting. Site Spalling and damage to concrete canopy over Senior Center Paving egress requires repair before possible collapse. Treatment: 1 re air condition and/or partially remove canopy, Side entry stairs: some deterioration of cast iron and connection to building. Treatment: scrape, paint and reset 2 at wall. Front stair: While the stones are in good condition, the Stairs building's front granite steps are heaved and irregular. This condition is potentially dangerous if a person falls on the 2 irregular stairs however this work is largely cosmetic. Treatment: remove and reset and scrape and repaint associated railings. Overview of Building Accessibility The Muzzey Apartments meets general needs for access for the disabled however has several deficiencies as relates to access to the senior center and to the apartments. Our review considers access as required by today's code or from the standpoint of universal access. Enumerated below is our assessment of existing conditions: 1. Parking: Spaces are provided and meet requirements for number and dimension. 2. The path of ingress to the building from parking areas to the main entry meets access requirements for pitch and width. Access from the street Via sidewalks does not meet access requirements as there is no sidewalk. 130 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS Muzzey Apartments Conditions Study DRAFT January 30, 2008 3. The main entry door does not have an opening device but opening pressure is lower than the maximum 15 Ibs as required by Massachusetts Barriers Board regulations. 4. The entry lobby meets requirements with the exception of a. Public telephone does not meet requirements for blind, deaf or other special needs. b. Intercom system and door release do not meet requirements of the Massachusetts Architectural Barriers Board (MAAB). c. Signage fails to meet the MAAB requirements both in locations required and dimensions and content. 5. Unit entry doors at exterior locations do not meet MAAB access requirements. 6. Unit doors at the interior do meet access requirements once main entry is opened. 7. Unit interiors do not in most locations meet present requirements for adaptability to being made accessible, which is a current code requirement. 8. Signage at the interior is very limited except at the elevator or the public restrooms in the senior center. Navigation by the disabled is difficult without directional signage in Braille and readily readable text. 9. Communicating stairs at the senior center do not meet present code for accessibility. 10. Restrooms at the senior center are adequate however they do not meet present code for accessibility primarily in placement and configuration of grab rails. The Muzzey Apartments were constructed under a code regime that did not require "for sale" condominiums to meet MAAB requirements then in force. The present configuration of the building's entries, signage, elevator, egress and ingress paths as well as internal unit configurations does not provide universal access nor conform to universal design. The building's configuration meets the letter but not the intent of the Massachusetts Barriers Board Regulations in force at the time of construction and therefore does not meet the current more stringent code. The requirements of federal law governing barrier free access are not dependent on code compliance but are in fact a civil rights issue. The building and grounds do present barriers to persons with handicaps from residing or visiting The Muzzey Apartments and, as such, may subject the Trustees or residents to the possibility of a lawsuit. At a minimum, TBA Architects recommends that the issues with regard to the lobby and signage within the building be rectified in the near term. TBA recommends the creation of a barrier reduction plan to move the building and 131 Muzzey Apartments Conditions Study DRAFT January 30, 2008 grounds towards universal access. This will become an increasingly relevant plan as a portion of the resident population ages in place. Construction Alternatives We have identified several alternative approaches to two of the principal work items to be considered: window repair and HVAC systems. We detail the alternatives below, indicating the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. We summarize them here: Windows The existing historic double hung wood windows can be either repaired or replaced. We consider three alternatives. Description Advantages Disadvantages Option 1 a: • Maintains historic • Changes exterior Repair existing windows, windows appearance remove interior storms, install . Reduced maintenance new exterior storms . Nicer interiors • Lower initial cost Option 1 b: • Maintains historic • Highest maintenance Repair existing windows and windows • Interior storms will require existing interior storm • Maintains exterior periodic repair windows appearance • Interior storms difficult to • Lowest initial cost operate Option 2: • Longer life • Highest initial cost Replace all windows with new . Highest energy • Loss of historic windows aluminum clad wood system performance • Maintains exterior appearance • improves unit interiors HVAC The existing system for heating, ventilating and cooling the building is inefficient and has come to the end of its life cycle. Repair bills are increasing and certain units in particular have extremely high heating bills and /or poor comfort levels. We have identified four different approaches to address this condition. Our assessment and cost estimate are based on modification of the entire building 132 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS Muzzey Apartments Conditions Study DRAFT January 30, 2008 system. Certain of the alternatives can be configured to cover portions of the building and groups of units. Should this be desired we can examine this approach in more detail for specific clusters of units. Description Advantages Disadvantages Option 1: Perimeter hot water . Best comfort • Common metering baseboard heat; existing . Lower first cost • Interior construction cooling system . More reliable • Cooling system may Reuses cooling system require replacement in future Option 2: Hot water heating • Improved comfort • Common metering coils in existing system; . Lower operating cost • Less comfort than option 1 existing cooling system . Avoids baseboard • Higher first cost intrusion on interiors . Cooling system may • More reliable require replacement in • Reuses cooling system future Option 3: Water source heat • Lowest operating cost • Less comfort pumps, existing cooling . Avoids baseboard • . Higher first cost system intrusion on interiors Noisier • More reliable • Cooling system may Separate metering require replacement in future 012tion.4: Perimeter electric • Good comfort • Highest operating cost baseboard supplementing • Lowest first cost • Baseboards intrude on existing systems • Separate metering interiors • Existing systems will have higher repairs A detailed review of the Muzzey condominium documents will be required to determine the allocation of construction cost for each of these items. Recommended Scope and Budget What follows is a summary of estimated costs associated with the selected scope of work for each Tier. The final scope of work is based on our professional experience and also in conversation with the Muzzey Trustees. The recommended scope of work includes all specific work items identified above and detailed later in this report; of the alternatives identified, the scope includes Window Option 2 (replacement with new windows) and HVAC Option 3 (water Source heat pumps). 177�,:', �,:'777 7 ^NNIN" 133 Muzzey Apartments Conditions Study DRAFT January 30, 2008 Cost items are for "subcontractor' costs for the recommended scope of work, adjusted for location and estimated for the present day. To develop the Recommended Budget for the work we adjust this subtotal to include the general conditions expenses, overhead and profit of a general contractor assuming a single general contract for each Tier scope, add the cost of design, engineering and construction administration, adjust for inflation to mid -2009 and include a contingency for latent conditions and other unexpected expenses. What follows is an initial budget reflecting the various items of construction that we recommend based on our observation and evaluation. Most of the individual line items can be related to the Recommended Treatments identified in the report below. In our report we have offered alternatives in two important areas: windows and HVAC. Our recommended scope includes the following: ■ Windows: we recommend replacement of all units with new aluminum clad wood units to match the existing. We believe this offers the best combination of initial cost and value, system performance, and low maintenance. ■ HVAC: we do not recommend any replacement alternative due to the high expense, limited operating savings and lengthy "payback" period. Because only certain units have severe performance problems as evidenced by poor comfort and /or high operating expense, we recommend that the Trustees consider a zoned replacement system that might improve only those units that are most deficient. Several of the alternatives we consider can be scaled down to serve specific zones of the building. The specific choice of system and feasibility of installation will be dependent on the specific apartments that might be served. We therefore have not include any HVAC related work in this recommended scope. 134 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS Muzzey Apartments Conditions Study DRAFT January 30, 2008 say $2,500,000 135 Recommended Scope Low High A SUBSTRUCTURE A 10 Foundations 20,000 40,000 B. SHELL B 10 Superstructure B 1020 Roof Construction Subtotal 45,000 63,000 B20 Exterior Closure B2010 Exterior Walls Subtotal 168,824 269,996 B2020 Exterior Windows Subtotal Option 2 580,160 640,864 B2030 Exterior Doors 22,800 27,360 B30 Roofing Subtotal 215,366 248,366 D SERVICES D50 Electrical D5022 Lighting Equipment 15,000 20,000 D5034 Call Systems 7,200 8,500 D5037 Fire Alarm Systems 140,000 175,000 D5092 Emergency Generator 50,000 75,000 G SITEWORK G20 Site Improvements G2030 Pedestrian Paving 15,000 25,000 G2040 Stairs Subtotal 32,000 40,000 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION $1,311,350 $1,633,086 Z 10 SOFT COSTS Z 1010 Contractor's Overhead 10% $131,135 $163,309 Z 1020 Contractor's Profit 10% $144,249 $179,639 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION BID $1,586,734 $1,976,034 Z1030 Contingency 20% $262,270 $326,617 Z 1040 Design $158,673 $197,603 Z 1060 Testing $12,000 $15,000 Z2000 Inflation to mid -2009 7.5% $119,005 $148,203 RECOMMENDED PROJECT BUDGET $2,138,682 $2,663,457 say $2,500,000 135 POLICE STATION SPACE NEEDS. DONHAM & SWEENEY ARCHITECTS, 2010. POLICE STATION SPACE NEEDS LEXINGTON MASSACHUSETTS Prepared for TOWN OF LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS Mark Barrett, RA Project Manager Department of Public Facilities Permanent Building Committee Police Department Chief: Mark J. Corr Prepared by Donham & Sweeney ARCHITECTS Brett Donham, Principal -in- Charge Jeff Shaw, Principal, Project Manager 08 June 2010 Sixth Draft 136 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS LEXINGTON POLICE STATION SPACE NEEDS Staffing Proiection to 2030 POLICE DEPARTNIENT Staff/ Na Total Present Description Shift Shifts Stab Total POLICE DEPARTNIENT Administration Chief 1 1 1 1 Captain of Operations 1 1 1 1 Captain of Administration 1 1 1 1 Lieutenant 1 4 4 4 Administrative Asst. /Office Mgr. 1 1 1 1 Records Clerks 3 1 3 3 Custodian 1 1 1 1 Matron NA NA 1 1 Mechanic 1 1 1 1 Officers Sergeants - Patrol Officers 2 3 6 6 Lieutenant - Detectives 1 1 1 1 Sergeant - Detectives 1 1 1 1 Detectives 2 2 5 4 School Resource Detective 2 1 2 2 Prosecutor 1 1 1 1 Patrol Officers (Day) 3 to 4 4 13 11 Patrol Officers (Evening) 2 to 3 2 7 6 Patrol Officers (Night) 2 to 3 2 7 6 Patrol Officers (Night) 2 to 3 2 7 6 Special Officers NA NA 9 9 Other Animal Control 1 1 1 1 Parking Enforcement 1 1 1 1 Dispatcher 2+ 4 9 9 Cadets 2 2 2 Crossing Guards 16 1 16 16 Accreditation 1 1 1 TOTAL STAFF 25 to 26 76 70 137 THE STONE BUILDING: HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REHABILITATION & REUSE. MENDERS, TORREY & SPENCER, INC., 2009. The Stone Building HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT LEXINGTON_ MA Executive Summary It was a privilege to be selected to study and conceive of strategies to preserve Lexington's venerable Stone Building. The challenges of preserving the historic fabric of this distinguished old building while facilitating its rebirth as a functional, accessible community resource are many, but the rewards are rich for the residents of Lexington. Paramount in our approach was the retention of the building's uniquely important historic character and its embodied association with Asher Benjamin and the Greek Revival in American architecture, beautifully expressed in the East Lexington neighborhood in residential buildings and especially in the Follen Church. Today, after performing the Historic Structure Report and Recommendations, we have a deep understanding of the historic significance of the Stone Building as one of the United State's earliest Lyceums built purposefully for enlightened dialogue and learning. We know which of the issues observed in examination of the physical condition are of real concern, and which can be readily managed. We appreciate the constraints and opportunities of the historic building, and have envisioned a rehabilitation scenario that helps achieve the community uses envisioned by the Town and would continue the tradition of intellectual discourse and lively public use for the citizens of Lexington. We also have cost recommendations attached to immediate repairs, permanent stabilization of the historic building, and renovations and additions that will expand the accessibility and functionality of the building and extend its life within the community for generations to come. In June 2009, Menders, Torrey & Spencer, Inc. (MTS) was engaged by the Town of Lexington, acting through Carl F. Valente, Town Administrator, to provide a detailed Historic Structure Report for the Stone Building. Stated requirements included identifying changes in the building over time, assessing stabilization needs, restoration plans, paint analysis of paint schemes over time, preparing a cyclical maintenance plan and adaptive use and universal access assessment. The report's overarching objective was to lay the groundwork for understanding the history of the building and describe needs to be met for use of the building compatible with its history. The study is broken into four parts and begins with an historical analysis of the historic setting and context, the rationale for construction of The Stone Building, and a chronology of use history. Next is the architectural history, an annotated chronology of the building from 1833 to the completion of this report. Following that are four pages of floor plans illustrating the conjectural original construction, changes in the 19t` century, the 1946 -1947 renovation and the 2009 plan. With history as a foundation, the report then describes structural deficiencies and building code concerns, assesses the historic building fabric, identifies character - defining features, describes and prioritizes preservation treatments, provides estimates for those treatments, and lays out a cyclical maintenance plan. The second part of the report contains the materials investigations. Exterior paint analysis has chronicled 19 generations of exterior painting, including surprising early paints that included sand paints and pigments. Interior analysis shows less layering, as is expected, and speculation about use of calcimine paint that has left no trace. The section concludes with a listing of character - defining features, which are physical elements of building history that tie directly to its historical significance as an early Lyceum. Our recommendations begin with conditions assessment of the building today. Following that is a description of work to be executed in the Fall and Winter of 2009 as immediate stabilization, projected at a cost of $15,000. Long -term preservation of the historic building consists of restoring the building envelope at a projected cost of $205,000. Finally, interior rehabilitation and construction of an addition in the not -too- distant future is described at a projected cost of $1,625,000. 138 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS The Stone Building HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT LEXINGTON, MA The maintenance plan is in two sections, first showing requirements for a building which has had the exterior preserved and the second a maintenance plan for a fully renovated building with an addition. Appendices include research bibliography, the unabridged research methodology and structural report, pricing estimating and outline specifications for the recommendations, copies of presentations, and copies of photographs taken during the report research portion of the project. Summary Grounded realism should be joined with vision and energy in imaging and describing a future for the Stone Building. The legacy of this building, just as the necessities that created and sustained it over nearly two centuries, should be celebrated actively — not just remembered. To preserve it is to do more than keep the roofs weather tight — its future must be logical, visionary and compelling. We have been consistently impressed with the interest and commitment of the Town Administrator, Community Preservation Committee, Historical Commission, the Special Stone Building Committee of the Permanent Building Committee, the Heritage Center Committee, and the Lexington Library System. Collaboration, creativity and insight amongst these groups brought this project to its current place in time, and will be necessary to move it to the next stage. Menders, Torrey & Spencer, Inc. viii 2009 TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 139 SPACE /BUILDING NEEDS ASSESSMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT, 2000. 'I he Board o:'Selcctnlell tor Ill ed the Space duIIdInd Nceds Assessnicnt Advisory Comm ittee tG take a conlprehcrnsivc look at municipal building space needs for the present and future, "In "! tc make rccomMandations as to how those; nccds can be met for the future. It is important to the Comm, MCC that The To%tin Manmgcr, Board of Selectmen, and ultimately the 2000 Town Nlectin'L� rc%icw this report and then develop a tintlncin) strntcgy to implement the rccommcndntions that thev choose to support. It is evident by the doeulltentatioll referred to in this rcport that space ceds and hL:11dill", conditions ha\c been examined and overlooked for \cars. It is time ti) ti:: ':01" )1111,] III\ to act oil a comps -CIM ive plan to address the space needs and corresponding c It is ]IMPO tc:i1t to undcrs[and w;1�1t [his rcport is and what [his report is nu[. -I his rcp0I is teit:platc for ilo« the space needs cLm be met. This report i, not an attempt to qunlltltti either 1ctt1 : :1 s ��1cc needed or the cost implications of that ,pnce. Where possible. the Committee make reasonable cost assumptions. I lie Committee expects that an appropriate cost ana v> s o1 ;he rCC�)IllnlelldaUUI1S VV'111 be collductcd. I lie Committcc also Understands that gllamltatme WPM requirements w.:i have to be determined before the assumptions the Committee has niude CM bEt mt1 Uur C 1 Oits to develop rccomniendations included surve%"np and interviewin,(' eacil deplir : Ill cnt. rk'% ic% %Iii i cxX t L,, Studies Icid sites. Needs across depart111ents are: trallltll'-', sp1 :ce. c,rcc space, parking,,torae, and vole ;u wo ser rkspace. ICI :icicncv in confcrcncc room �n u��nion cou,cl be ua :ncc'di b� a ccntralI computer based booking system, which the < <- �n :n�ttcc rc.onlnlcuds he implcmel:tcd inunedi The Co111n11ttCC also I�nind thai n1.1n, ;Vs buildin'�s are up1I'1dCd or rcpiac.a. :h :� th J'd ;I1,1i%IdLlal 0 IICes 1 tionl [hlrl� t:1. CC ?n1i111C ,_ hen one enter; our Tmvli b_IiidiIILs. there arc fc%% signs or personnel to *fit thww It is theret�lre the rcco: Ill icrndation o;'the Corllnittce that a centrrtlizcd rcceptiull person in �a�l bt :ildina he pliysicall%; placed so thnt citizens cL1n imme`3i itely receive guidance and scry ice_ yIa:v o" spaces t:nd conditions fur t1le employees are less than ideal. YCLIrs of brduct constraints have resuItcd in the spcndin'-� inadequate resources on facility up¢ lc:, I11c :allot! of ;hc computer has not lessened space needs but rather increased space nccd +ti, �I� :k space :utd storage shacc nee -as increased. Add IIionaIIv, voluntCcrs haVc hclpe1'I" _Liaand to., ;erg :cc; anal thcv need space in %v hich to ',A44 `�.c co:.11d not idol tile, "utuu i , ' for all I ovvn buildin'-'s a:1e1 propc:-t� (yo:nc o 1'cCU: reeo?I"Iles tllat 1<11ld Is a %'11uablc aSSc a: q 140 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS gone, it is lost forever. We urge the Town to think carefully before selling property. We further recommend that the Town be prepared to acquire property in a strategic and fiscally responsible manner. There are multiple space needs in the Community. Contained in the report are all the recommendations in detail. In summary, it is the recommendation of the Committee that the following should be addressed as soon as practical in this order: Build a new DPW facility at 201 Bedford Street to accomodate Engineering, Planning, Community Development, and Recreation, in that order as necessary Add wing additions connecting the Town Office Building and the Police Station to Cary Hall to incorporate School Administration and municipal office needs Move main Fire Station to 201 Bedford Street Provide a new senior center Build parking facility Build athletic fields TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 141 FFINANCIAL MODELS BOND AND PHASING CALCULATIONS ALL PROJECTS First following 11 x 17 sheet BOND AND PHASING CALCULATIONS PRIORITY PROJECTS Second following 11 x 17 sheet COMMUNITY PRESERVATION FUND CALCULATIONS Third following 11 x 17 sheet TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 143 Lexington Facilities Master Planning Phased Projects Option 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 FINANCIAL SC Phase Project Costs Type of Funds Debt Payments Term Start Date GF CPF MSBA Fiscal Year FY15 FY16 1 Fire Station $14,100,000 $913,000 Design $82,212 20 years FY15 $13,140,000 Construction 1 Police Station $13,000,000 $845,000 Design $76,021 20 years FY15 $12,150,000 Construction 1 Maria Hastings School $48,700,000 $3,166,000 Design $284,895 20 years FY15 /FY17 $29,951,000 $15,584,000 Construction 1 Cary Memorial Building $8,500,000 Design Funded Design 10 -years FY15 $7,988,000 Construction $1,137,764 1 Community Center $12,500,000 $163,000 $651,000 Design $107,427 10 years FY15 $2,341,000 $9,365,000 Construction 2 Visitors Center $2,100,000 $1,281,000 $819,000 Design & Construction 10 years FY17 2 Munroe School $3,500,000 $227,000 Design 10 years FY17 $3,273,000 Construction 2 Hosmer House $550,000 $550,000 Design & Construction 10 years FY17 2 Stone Building $2,100,000 $2,100,000 Design & Construction 10 years FY17 3 High School $196,500,000 $12,773,000 Design 30 years FY21 $120,848,000 $62,880,000 Construction 3 School Administration $11,500,000 $748,000 Design 10 years FY21 $10,753,000 Construction Totals $313,050,000 $209,070,000 $24,974,000 $78,464,000 $0 $1,688,320 Source: Excluded Debt Service (a) Actual and Projected Debt Service for Authorized Debt $ 8,324,279 $ 8,087,794 (b) Changes in Actual and Projected Debt Service Relative to FY15 Base $ 236,485 (c) Designated Debt Service Project Costs $0 $464,614 (d) Difference: Changes in Debt Service for Authorized Debt less Designated Debt Service Project Costs $0 ($228,129) [(b) - (c)] (e) Projected Tax Levy (within levy limit) (f) Total Currently Committed Excluded Debt and Designated Debt Service Project Costs as a % of Tax Levy [(a + c) /e] Source: Community Preservation Act Funds (h) Designated CPA Project Costs $ 146,346,982 $152,005,657 5.7% 5.6% (i) Projected Net Balances of CPA Funds After Financing of Master Planning CPA Projects (see note $ 1,302,443 below) 706 Assumptions: Notes: Bond Interest Rate 4.0% Project Costs are rounded figures Design as % of Project Costs 6.50% 'Total Currently Committed Excluded not reduced by any assumed appropr MSBA [Massachusetts School Buildin Projected Net Balances of CPA Funds properties, and Improvements to Cai Prepared by The Cecil Group, Inc. and Lexington Finance Department 144 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS :ENARIO A: ALL PROJECTS FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 $80,385 $78,559 $76,732 $74,905 $73,078 $71,251 $69,424 $67,597 $65,770 $1,182,594 $1,156,314 $1,130,034 $1,103,754 $1,077,474 $1,051,194 $1,024,915 $998,635 $972,355 $74,332 $72,642 $70,953 $69,264 $67,574 $65,885 $64,195 $62,506 $60,817 $1,093,532 $1,069,231 $1,044,930 $1,020,630 $996,329 $972,028 $947,728 $923,427 $899,126 $278,564 $272,233 $265,902 $259,571 $253,240 $246,909 $240,578 $234,247 $227,916 $3,445,525 $3,385,624 $3,325,723 $3,265,822 $3,205,921 $3,146,020 $3,086,119 $3,026,218 $1,105,913 $1,074,062 $1,042,211 $1,010,359 $978,508 $946,657 $914,806 $882,955 $851,104 $104,172 $100,917 $97,661 $94,406 $91,150 $87,895 $84,640 $81,384 $78,129 $1,545,301 $1,498,474 $1,451,647 $1,404,819 $1,357,992 $1,311,165 $1,264,337 $1,217,510 $1,170,683 $295,232 $286,797 $278,362 $269,927 $261,492 $253,056 $244,621 $236,186 $227,258 $457,662 $444,586 $431,510 $418,434 $405,358 $392,282 $379,206 $49,320 $48,224 $47,128 $46,032 $44,936 $43,840 $42,744 $41,648 $294,011 $285,451 $276,892 $268,333 $259,774 $251,214 $242,655 $234,096 $936,650 $919,620 $902,590 $885,560 $8,862,150 $8,701,020 $104,650 $101,660 $98,670 $95,680 $1,505,350 $1,462,340 $1,419,330 $5,464,793 $9,633,776 $9,643,827 $9,410,398 $9,176,969 $9,984,840 $11,236,740 $19,802,431 $19,344,842 $ 7,478,076 $ 7,241,378 $ 6,925,740 $ 6,672,747 $ 6,407,653 $ 6,209,578 $ 5,985,562 $ 4,472,974 $ 4,332,629 $ 846,204 $ 1,082,902 $ 1,398,540 $ 1,651,533 $ 1,916,626 $ 2,114,702 $ 2,338,717 $ 3,851,305 $ 3,991,651 $3,039,301 $6,594,474 $6,458,983 $6,323,492 $6,188,001 $7,093,810 $8,443,649 $17,107,278 $16,747,627 ($2,193,097) ($5,511,572) ($5,060,443) ($4,671,959) ($4,271,375) ($4,979,108) ($6,104,932) ($13,255,973) ($12,755,977) $157,805,798 $163,750,943 $169,844,716 $176,090,834 $182,493,105 $189,055,433 $195,781,819 $202,676,364 $209,743,273 6.7% 8.4% 7.9% 7.4% 6.9% 7.0% 7.4% 10.6% 10.1% $2,425,492 $3,039,303 $3,184,845 $3,086,906 $2,988,968 $2,891,030 $2,793,091 $2,695,153 $2,597,214 $4,503,247 $3,205,754 $1,916,616 $883,251 $109,737 ($399,708) ($640,716) ($608,768) $734,815 Debt" is actual gross debt service for debt authorized and issued, and projected debt service for debt authorized but yet unissued. The debt service amounts shown are iation from the Debt Service /Capital Projects /Building Renewal Stabilization Fund for debt service mitigation. g Authority] reimbursement is included in net bonded debt Available After required 10% Set-Asides, set - asides for Other Projects and Administrative Costs, Financing of Acquitistions of Wright Farm and Marrett Road ry Hall, the Community Center, the Visitors' Center, the Hosmer House, the Stone Building and the Munroe School. See attached CPA fund calculations spreadsheet. Jul TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 145 Lexington Facilities Master Planning Phased Projects Option 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 FINANCIAL SCE Phase Project Costs Type of Funds Debt Payments Term Start Date GF CPF MSBA Fiscal Year FY15 FY16 1 Fire Station $14,100,000 $913,000 Design $82,212 20 years FY15 $13,140,000 Construction 1 Police Station $13,000,000 $845,000 Design $76,021 20 years FY15 $12,150,000 Construction 1 Maria Hastings School $48,700,000 $3,166,000 Design $284,895 20 year FY15 /FY17 $29,951,000 $15,584,000 Construction 1 Cary Memorial Building $8,500,000 Design Funded Design 10 -years FY15 $7,988,000 Construction $1,137,764 1 Community Center $12,500,000 $163,000 $651,000 Design $107,427 10 years FY15 $2,341,000 $9,365,000 Construction NA Visitors Center $2,100,000 $1,281,000 $819,000 Design & Construction 10 years FY17 NA Munroe School $3,500,000 $227,000 Design 10 year FY17 $3,273,000 Construction NA Hosmer House $550,000 $550,000 Design & Construction 10 years FY17 NA Stone Building $2,100,000 $2,100,000 Design & Construction 10 years FY17 3 High School $196,500,000 $12,773,000 Design 30 years FY21 $120,848,000 $62,880,000 Construction NA School Administration $11,500,000 $748,000 Design 10 year FY21 $10,753,000 Construction Totals $313,050,000 $209,070,000 $24,974,000 $78,464,000 $0 $1,688,320 Source: Excluded Debt Service (a) Actual and Projected Debt Service for Authorized Debt $ 8,324,279 $ 8,087,794 (b) Changes in Actual and Projected Debt Service Relative to FY15 Base $ 236,485 (c) Designated Debt Service Project Costs $0 $464,614 (d) Difference: Changes in Debt Service for Authorized Debt less Designated Debt Service Project Costs $0 ($228,129) [(b) - (c)] (e) Projected Tax Levy (within levy limit) (f) Total Currently Committed Excluded Debt and Designated Debt Service Project Costs as a % of Tax Levy [(a + c) /e] Source: Community Preservation Act Funds (h) Designated CPA Proiect Costs $ 146,346,982 $152,005,657 5.7% 5.6% (i) Projected Net Balances of CPA Funds After Financing of Master Planning CPA Projects (see note $ 1,302,443 below) $1,223,706 $4,034,577 Assumptions: Notes: Bond Interest Rate 4.0% Project Costs are rounded figures Design as % of Project Costs 6.50% "Total Currently Committed Excluded not reduced by any assumed appropr MSBA [Massachusetts School Buildin Projected Net Balances of CPA Funds properties, and Improvements to Cai the following page. Prepared by The Cecil Group, Inc. and Lexington Finance Department 146 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS :NARIO B: PRIORITY PROJECTS FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 $80,385 $78,559 $76,732 $74,905 $73,078 $71,251 $69,424 $67,597 $65,770 $1,182,594 $1,156,314 $1,130,034 $1,103,754 $1,077,474 $1,051,194 $1,024,915 $998,635 $972,355 $74,332 $72,642 $70,953 $69,264 $67,574 $65,885 $64,195 $62,506 $60,817 $1,093,532 $1,069,231 $1,044,930 $1,020,630 $996,329 $972,028 $947,728 $923,427 $899,126 $278,564 $272,233 $265,902 $259,571 $253,240 $246,909 $240,578 $234,247 $227,916 $3,445,525 $3,385,624 $3,325,723 $3,265,822 $3,205,921 $3,146,020 $3,086,119 $3,026,218 $1,105,913 $1,074,062 $1,042,211 $1,010,359 $978,508 $946,657 $914,806 $882,955 $851,104 $104,172 $100,917 $97,661 $94,406 $91,150 $87,895 $84,640 $81,384 $78,129 $1,545,301 $1,498,474 $1,451,647 $1,404,819 $1,357,992 $1,311,165 $1,264,337 $1,217,510 $1,170,683 $936,650 $919,620 $902,590 $885,560 $8,862,150 $8,701,020 $5,464,793 $8,767,956 $8,565,693 $8,363,431 $8,161,168 $8,895,555 $8,676,263 $17,319,120 $16,938,697 $ 7,478,076 $ 7,241,378 $ 6,925,740 $ 6,672,747 $ 6,407,653 $ 6,209,578 $ 5,985,562 $ 4,472,974 $ 4,332,629 $ 846,204 $ 1,082,902 $ 1,398,540 $ 1,651,533 $ 1,916,626 $ 2,114,702 $ 2,338,717 $ 3,851,305 $ 3,991,651 $3,039,301 $6,414,382 $6,284,036 $6,153,691 $6,023,346 $6,829,650 $6,682,275 $15,397,049 $15,088,544 ($2,193,097) ($5,331,480) ($4,885,497) ($4,502,158) ($4,106,719) ($4,714,949) ($4,343,558) ($11,545,744) ($11,096,893) $157,805,798 $163,750,943 $169,844,716 $176,090,834 $182,493,105 $189,055,433 $195,781,819 $202,676,364 $209,743,273 6.7% 8.3% 7.8% 7.3% 6.8% 6.9% 6.5% 9.8% 9.3% $2,425,492 $2,353,574 $2,281,657 $2,209,740 $2,137,822 $2,065,905 $1,993,988 $1,922,070 $1,850,153 $4,503,247 $3,891,483 $3,505,532 $3,349,333 $3,426,964 $3,742,644 $4,300,739 $5,105,770 $7,196,414 Debt" is actual gross debt service for debt authorized and issued, and projected debt service for debt authorized but yet unissued. The debt service amounts shown are iation from the Debt Service /Capital Projects /Building Renewal Stabilization Fund for debt service mitigation. g Authority] reimbursement is included in net bonded debt Available After required 10% Set-Asides, set - asides for Other Projects and Administrative Costs, Financing of Acquitistions of Wright Farm and Marrett Road ry Hall, the Community Center, the Visitors' Center, the Hosmer House, the Stone Building and the Munroe School. See attached CPA fund calculations spreadsheet on TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING, 147 (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Projected Revenue Estimated Estimated FY2014 Current Resources Resources at 2013 Revenue on Hand ATM for FY14 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Property Surcharge $ State Match 1 $ Investment Income 2 $ Undesignated Fund Balance 3 3,691,000 961,957 17,000 $ - $ $ $ 0: 3,820,185 $ 3,953,891 $ 4,092,278 995,625 $ 1,030,472 $ 1,066,539 17,595 $ 18,211 $ 18,848 5,002,574 1,005,040 $ 975,480 Potential Marrett Rd. D & E Projected Claims Against Projected RE (s) ...................... Open Space ...................... ...................... ................... $46,500 $ 483,341 $ 500,257 $ 517,766 (7) ...................... ...................... 4 Historic Resources $ 8,545,775 $1,591,500 $ 483,341 $ 500,257 $ 517,766 (s) Community Housing ::::::::::::: ...................... ...................... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: $622,734 $ 483,341 $ 500,257 $ 517,766 (s) ...................... ...................... ...................... Other Projects::::::::::: ...................... ................. $367,500 $ 483,341 $ 500,257 $ 517,766 (10) ...................... ...................... Administrative Expenses ::::::::::::: ..................... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: $150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 (11) $ 1,086,232 Potential Center Pool 8 0' 2016 Potential Center Track Project 9 Total Projected Debt Service $ 2,400,000 2017 Projected Debt Service - 10 Year Term :0 AMOunt A I M Action F421J'4 FY2U1b 4Nr�F4Nr� (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) Wright Farm Potential Marett Rd. Purchase ° $ 7,390,000 2013 $ - $ 1,034,600 $ 1,005,040 $ 975,480 Potential Marrett Rd. D & E $ 949,531 2013 $ 132,934 $ 129,136 $ 125,338 Potential Marrett Rd. Construction $ 8,545,775 2014 $ 1,196,409 $ 1,162,225 Potential Cary Hall D & E $ 550,000 2013 PROPOSED FUNDING ATTHE 2013 ATM FRC Potential Cary Hall Construction (including Contingency) 7 $ 7,987,000 2014 TBD $ 1,118,180 $ 1,086,232 Potential Center Pool 8 $ 1,200,000 2016 Potential Center Track Project 9 Total Projected Debt Service $ 2,400,000 2017 $ 36,875 $ :0 Residual Balance Net of Debt Service $ 3,812,979 $ 1,169,509 $ (998,420) $ (782,077) Application of Residual Balances $ 3,812,979 $ X3,984,067 Net Balances Available " $ 2,814,559 $ 3,201,990 Marrett Rd. General Fund Obligation - Purchase Marrett Rd. General Fund Obligation - Construction $ 3,560,000 $ $ - $ - $ $ 2,398,411 Projected Net Balances of CPA Funds Available After Financing Acquitistions of Wright Farr FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 Residual Balance Net of Debt Service $ 3,81Z979 -4- 1,302,443 221,599 $ (833,773) Application of Residual Balances $ 3,812,979 5,337,020 Net Balances Available " $ 4,034,T11-$ 4,503,247- 1 FY14 figure assumes a 27.7% reimbursement rate based on the October 2012 distribution. 2 FY14 figure based on historical experience. FY15 to FY21 assumes a 3.5% annual increase based on assumed growth in the CPA surcharge of 3.5% annually. 3 "Current Resources on Hand" includes the 7/1/12 Undesignated Fund Balance of $1,438,035. 4 FY14 figure excludes $526,818 for Muzzey upgrades which would be deferred if Marrett Road is purchased and excludes $68,950 for the Visitor Center project. It include acquisition including surveying, legal services, and due diligence on environmental site conditions prior to the signing of a purchase and sale agreement, as well as $115 issuance costs. 5 FY14 Balance comprised of $428,170 from the Open Space Reserve, $1,756,882 from Unbudgeted Reserves and $1,438,000 in Undesignated Fund Balance as of 7/1/12, a to It is assumed that 100% of the CPA share of the purchase price for the Man-ett Road property, and therefore its annual debt service, constitutes preservation of historic applied to mitigate or meet the 10•% threshold required under the CPA, thus precluding the need to set -aside a portion or all of the amounts shown in row 7 above. Relate( threshold for open space shown in row 6 above. 7 The need, if any, to issue a bond anticipation note for construction financing is not known at this time and therefore is to be determined (TBD) 8 Current Estimate of total project cost. Recreation Enterprise Fund retained earnings is a potential source to mitigate project costs. 9 Current estimate of total project cost is $3.0 million. Portion assumed to be funded with CPA funds is $2.4 million. Recreation Enterprise Fund retained earnings is a poi 10 Balances do not reflect the potential closing of the 2012 annual town meeting appropriation for Phase 1 of Muzzey Center repairs of $561,518 to the Historic Resources 148 LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS m and Marrett Road properties and Improvements to Cary Hall, the Community Center, the Visitors' Center, the Hosmer House, the Stone Building and the Munroe School FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 $ (1,297,493) $ (1,289,138) $ (1,033,365) $ (773,514) $ (509,445) $ (241,008) $ 31,948 $ 1,343,583 $ 2,463,849 $ ,503,247 $ ,205,754 $ ,916,616 $ 883,251 $ 109,737 $ (399,708) $ (640,716) $ (608,768) $ 734,815 $ 3,205,754 1,916,616 883,251-$- 109,737 $ (399,708) 4 (640,716) (608,768f-$ 734,815 3,198,664 ?s $247,500 for incidental costs associated with the Marrett Road 5,000 for interest expense on a bond anticipation note and associated 311 of which could be used to paydown Wright Farm BAN. resources. Consequently, annual debt service payments could be idly, debt service for Wright Farm could be applied to mitigate the 10% itential funding source to mitigate project costs. s reserve if the Marrett Road property is acquired. TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 149 Meeting - March 2013 (G) (H) (1) (J) FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 $ 4,235,507 $ 4,383,750 $ 4,537,181 $ 4,695,983 $ 4,860,342 $ 5,030,454 $ 5,206,520 $ 5,388,748 $ 5,577,354 $ 1,103,867 $ 1,142,503 $ 1,182,490 $ 1,223,878 $ 1,266,713 $ 1,311,048 $ 1,356,935 $ 1,404,428 $ 1,453,583 $ 19,508 $ 20,191 $ 20,897 $ 21,629 $ 22,386 $ 23,169 $ 23,980 $ 24,819 $ 25,688 $ 614,944 $ 636,467 $ 658,744 $ 681,800 $ 705,663 avenue $ 535,888 $ 554,644 $ 574,057 $ 594,149 $ 535,888 $ 554,644 $ 574,057 $ 594,149 $ 614,944 $ 636,467 $ 658,744 $ 681,800 $ 705,663 $ 535,888 $ 554,644 $ 574,057 $ 594,149 $ 614,944 $ 636,467 $ 658,744 $ 681,800 $ 705,663 $ 535,888 $ 554,644 $ 574,057 $ 594,149 $ 614,944 $ 636,467 $ 658,744 $ 681,800 $ 705,663 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,001 065,330 $ 3,177,866 $ 3,294,341 $ 3,414,893 $ 3,539,665 $ 3,668,803 $ 3,802,461 0: i p@ 4% 377,600 365,800 354,000 342,200 330,400 318,600 306,800 $ 945,920 $ 916,360 $ 886,800 $ 857,240 $ 827,680 $ 798,120 $ 768,560 $ $ 121,540 $ 117,742 $ 113,944 $ 110,146 $ 106,347 $ 102,549 $ 98,751 $ - $ 1,128,042 $ 1,093,859 $ 1,059,676 $ 1,025,493 $ 991,310 $ 957,127 $ 922,944 $ 888,761 DM CASH ON HAND (included in C7 above) $ 1,054,284 $ 1,022,336 990,388 958,440 $ 926,492 $ 894,544 $ 862,596 $ 830,648 $ 168,000 $ 163,200 $ 158,400 $ 153,600 $ 148,800 $ 144,000 $ 139,200 $ 134,400 $ 336,000 $ 326,400 0: $ 316,8001$ 307,200 $ 297,600 $ 288,000 $ 278,400 0• $ (730,057) $ (837,431) $ (595,266) $ (349,025) $ (98,565) $ 156,263 $ 415,610 $ 1,808,589 $ 4,083,974 $ X3,201,990 $ 2,471,934 $ X1,634,503 $ X1,039,237 $ 690,211 $ 591,647 $ 747,909 $ X1,163,520 $ 2,972,108 $ 2,471,934 $ 1,634,503 $ 1,039,237 $ 690,211 $ 591,647 $ 747,909 $ 1,163,520 $ 2,972,108 $ 7,056,082 m and Marrett Road properties and Improvements to Cary Hall, the Community Center, the Visitors' Center, the Hosmer House, the Stone Building and the Munroe School FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 $ (1,297,493) $ (1,289,138) $ (1,033,365) $ (773,514) $ (509,445) $ (241,008) $ 31,948 $ 1,343,583 $ 2,463,849 $ ,503,247 $ ,205,754 $ ,916,616 $ 883,251 $ 109,737 $ (399,708) $ (640,716) $ (608,768) $ 734,815 $ 3,205,754 1,916,616 883,251-$- 109,737 $ (399,708) 4 (640,716) (608,768f-$ 734,815 3,198,664 ?s $247,500 for incidental costs associated with the Marrett Road 5,000 for interest expense on a bond anticipation note and associated 311 of which could be used to paydown Wright Farm BAN. resources. Consequently, annual debt service payments could be idly, debt service for Wright Farm could be applied to mitigate the 10% itential funding source to mitigate project costs. s reserve if the Marrett Road property is acquired. TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING 149