Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-03-10-CEC-min Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting March 10, 2015 Town Office Building, Reed Room; 8:00 .. Location and Time: AM Jill Hai, Chair; David Kanter, Vice-Chair & Clerk; Elizabeth Barnett; Members Present: Rod Cole; Wendy Manz None Members Absent: Joe Pato, Chair, Board of Selectmen (BoS); Carl Valente, Town Manager; Others Present: Bill Hadley, Director, Department of Public Works (DPW); John Livsey, Town Engineer, DPW; Dave Pinsonneault, Manager of Operations, DPW; Rob Addelson, Assistant Town Manager for Finance; Sara Arnold, Recording Secretary Documents Presented: Notice of Public Meeting/Agenda for March10,2015 Draft #3 Minutes of the CEC Meeting February 24, 2015 (Distributed by Mr. KanterÈs e-mail, March 3, 2015 7:24 .. to the other CEC Members and Ms. Arnold) PM BoS List of Articles that Might be Considered for Consent-Agenda Concept at Town Meeting (Distributed by Mr. KanterÈs e-mail, March 5, 2015 11:09 .m. to the other A CEC members, Ms. Arnold, and Glenn Parker, Chair, Lexington Appropriation Committee) Material Prepared by Ms. Manz for the Programs Section of the CEC Report to 2015 rd Annual Town Meeting (ATM) & 2015 Special Town Meetings (STMs) (March 23): and Å ÅConservation and Open SpaceÆRecreationÆ Draft #3 CEC report to 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23th) (Distributed by Mr. KanterÈs e-mail, March 3, 2015 7:24 .. to the other CEC Members and PM Ms. Arnold) Ms. Hai called the meeting to order at 8:00 .. Call to Order: AM Mr. Valente noted Capital Projects in the TownÈs FY2016ÃFY2020 Capital Program: that the CEC is currently not supporting a number of Capital Articles that are being supported by the BoS and Appropriation Committee. He wanted to understand this CommitteeÈs reasoning for its positions and provide additional information, as appropriate. Those Articles were discussed as follows: ATM Article 11: Appropriate for Municipal Capital Projects and Equipment: Ms. Barnett (a)Center Streetscape Improvements and EasementsÄPhase 1: explained that, according to her analysis, only $500,000 of the $2.7 funding request is for safety-related components, i.e., a traffic signal and crosswalks. Given the TownÈs other financial pressures for new buildings and expanded school capacity, this does not appear to be an appropriate time to fund the aesthetic enhancements that are part of the project. Ms. Barnett also expressed concern about doing work that might be disrupted by future projects associated with a new police headquarters and/or use of the Hammond A. Hosmer House. Mr. Livsey made several points, including the following: Page 1 of 5 Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting March 10, 2015 This phase of the Center-Streetscape plans address the area from the Massachusetts Avenue/Winthrop Road/Woburn Street intersection to the Cary Memorial Building. Only 10-20% of the requested funding is for aesthetic-only elements. Appropriately placed lighting is a safety measure; the recommended ornamental lights are consistent with plans for the entire Lexington Center area. The sidewalks in the project area are in poor condition and Americans with Disability Act curb cuts need to be added; the sidewalk plan includes a cement center with brick banding that has been selected as the standard design for Lexington Center. Massachusetts Avenue reconstruction is needed irrespective of this project. The rebuilding of infrastructure and safety components represents $2.3 million of the $2.7 million request. st Mr. Valente noted that this 1 phase of the project started out being approximately $4.0 million; the scope has already been reduced. He added that there is about one pedestrian accident a year in this area. Mr. Pato noted that safety is the BoSÈ highest priority and doing this project in its entirety Åmakes senseÆ as the Town moves toward a cohesive Center district. He added that addressing the Center Streetscape is the BoSÈ highest priority after the schools and the public-safety buildings for the Fire and Police Headquarters; there wonÈt be a better time in the next 10 years. During discussion, Committee member comments included the following: Most of the elements are Åall or nothingÆ. Eliminating the aesthetic-only elements does not result in a substantial savings. This is only Phase 1; the estimate for implementation of all the phases remains $8.0 million. Subsequent phases do not need to be done immediately, although they should be anticipated over the next five years. A motion was made and seconded to support ATM Article 11(a). Vote: 4Ã1 (Ms. Barnett in opposition) In response to this CommitteeÈs (k) Hastings Park Undergrounding Wires: questions about whether the above-ground wires and associated poles are a safety hazard or whether they prevent use of the space, Mr. Pinsonneault said that the groups that use Hastings Park have been able to work around the wires and poles. He added that NStar has quoted $300,000 for their work. A quote is coming from Verizon. It is anticipated that there will be a definitive price for ATM. A Motion was made and seconded to reaffirm this CommitteeÈs opposition to ATM Article 11(k). Vote: 5Ã0 Page 2 of 5 Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting March 10, 2015 ATM, Article 8; Appropriate the FY2016 Community Preservation Committee : Operating Budget and CPA Projects In response to this CommitteeÈs (e)Battle Green Streetscape Improvements: concerns about the need for a project that is cohesive with the Center-Streetscape plans and that addresses the Bedford Street/Harrington Road intersection, Mr. LivseyÈs comments included the following: The Town is using the same consultant for both projects. The Bedford Street/Harrington Road intersection is a challenge. The designer has created over 10 possible re-configuration alternatives and every one results in degraded conditions at this intersection or at other nearby intersections. The 25% design will be completed in the late summer or early fall, and the requested funding would support continuing the project in a timely manner. Mr. Pato added that the BoS is supporting this article unanimously. He noted that th the 250anniversary of the Battles of Lexington and Concord will be celebrated in ten years, and this provides an impetus for moving forward on plans to improve the Battle Green area. A Motion was made and seconded to reaffirm this CommitteeÈs previously voted opposition to ATM Article 8 (e). Vote: 5Ã0 Mr. Pato reported that the BoS is conflicted (o) Grain Mill Alley Design Funds: about this Article and is interested in getting more information. This Committee shared its reservations about the Article, which included the following: The project does not have a safety component; it only improves aesthetics . There are questions about spending Town funds to enhance private property, particularly because it might enhance the value of that property. This should be privately funded. A Motion was made and seconded to reaffirm this CommitteeÈs opposition to ATM Article 8(p). Vote: 4Ã1 (Ms. Manz in opposition to the Motion) In response to this (p) Minuteman Bikeway Wayfinding SignsÄDesign Funds: CommitteeÈs questions about this projectÈs coordination with efforts in the Towns of Arlington and Bedford and at the State level, comments made by Mr. Pato and Mr. Livsey included the following: The Toole Design Report recommended signage plans for the Minuteman Bikeway, which runs through the towns of Lexington, Arlington, and Bedford. The three towns generally agreed on the signage plans, although the plans for etiquette signs were not unanimously endorsed. The Town of Arlington already has some signage and is not planning to move forward on plans for its portion of the bikeway at this time. Page 3 of 5 Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting March 10, 2015 Only about one mile of the bikeway is in Bedford, and there is no particular incentive for that town to pursue the plans. This project would include the development of signage using the fewest words possible and would determine optimal locations for the signage. Ideas for State-wide consistency for bikeways relates to branding efforts, not wayfinding signage, and currently there is no funding available at the State level for pursing this concept. A Motion was made and seconded to reaffirm this CommitteeÈs opposition to ATM Article 8(p). Vote: 3Ã2 (Mr. Cole and Ms. Manz in opposition to the Motion) CommitteeÈs Report to the 2015 Annual and Accompanying Special Town Meetings (including Continued Development and Approval): There wasa brief review of aspects of the report that needed additional clarifying edits. Ms. Barnett asked to reverse her abstaining vote on ATM, Article 9; Property PurchaseÄ 241 Grove Street, making the support for this Article unanimous. Individual Motions were then made, seconded, and votes were taken as noted, except where explained as otherwise, for the approval of specific Articles as follows. (The one disapproval vote is .) bolded ATM Article 30: Amend FY2015 Operating, Enterprise and CPA Budgets. Vote: 5Ã0 ATM Article 31: Appropriate for Authorized Capital Improvements. It continues that no actions are currently known to be presented under this Article. N/AVote: 5Ã0 ATM Article 35; Accept MGL Chapter 90-I, Section 1: Complete Streets Program. It was reiterated that this Article does not entail a financial obligation; it provides the Town with an option to seek grant funding. Vote: 5Ã0 ATM Article 41; Amend General BylawsÄContracts and Deeds: This Committee is voting on this because it impacts the use of assets. Vote: 5Ã0 ATM Article 42: Commission on Disability Request: Although this Committee supports the concept, there is concern that the language lacks precision and could cause confusion with State or Federal mandates. Disapproval Vote: 5Ã0 ATM Article 45: Townwide Process for Safety (Citizen Article). The Committee discussed whether this Article has a direct Capital implication and, therefore, warrant inclusion in our report. Remove from Report Vote: 5Ã0 ATM Article 46: Acquisition of Land Shown on AssessorsÈ Property Map 22, Lot 51B. Vote: 5Ã0 Mr. Kanter asked that everyone review the table illustrating the CommitteeÈs Five-Year Capital Plan in the draft report and submit comments. Of particular importance is a review of the footnotes to determine whether there should be additions, deletions, or edits. The table will be reviewed at this FridayÈs meeting. Other Maters Related to the CommitteeÈs Role in Those Town Meetings: Consent Agenda Ms. Hai asked that each member review the Articles that are being : considered for the Consent Agenda, as identified in the e-mail from Mr. Kanter, and submit Page 4 of 5 Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting March 10, 2015 any objections to her. If there isnÈt unanimous support for an Article to be included, it will be removed. None. Member Concerns and Liaison Reports: Action on the Draft #3 Minutes of the CommitteeÈs meeting on Approval of Minutes: February 24, 2015, was deferred until a future meeting. A Motion was made and seconded at 10:26 .. to adjourn. Adjourn:Vote: 5Ã0 AM These Minutes were approved by the CEC at its meeting on March 25, 2015. Page 5 of 5