The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2015-03-23-CEC-ATM-STM-rpt (Final - incorporates Updates & Errata 04-27-15) th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) CEC APITAL XPENDITURES OMMITTEE TL OWN OF EXINGTON REPORT TO THE 2015 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING (ATM) & 2015 SPECIAL TOWN MEETINGS, March 23, 2015 (STM) Released March 16, 2015 INCORPORATING ERRATA (Released March 19, 2015) & UPDATES (Released April 15, 2015) Released April 27, 2015 Submitted by: Jill I. Hai, Chair David G. Kanter, Vice-Chair Elizabeth DeMille Barnett Rodney Cole Wendy Manz th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Summary of Warrant-Article Recommendations isAppendix Eatthe end of the report th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................1 The Mission of the Capital Expenditures Committee .................................................................................2 How to Read This Report ...........................................................................................................................2 Summary of FY2016 Capital-Budget Requests ..........................................................................................3 Capital Budget ............................................................................................................................................4 Big-Ticket Projects ........................................................................................................................... 4 The Community Preservation Act (CPA) ........................................................................................ 6 Enterprise-Fund Projects .................................................................................................................. 8 Revolving-Fund Projects .................................................................................................................. 8 Small-Ticket Projects ....................................................................................................................... 8 .............................................................................................................................9 Five-Year Capital Plan Programs ................................................................................................................................................... 13 Conservation and Open Space ....................................................................................................... 13 Lexington Community Center & Muzzey Senior Center .............................................................. 14 Fire ................................................................................................................................................. 14 Police .............................................................................................................................................. 16 Library ............................................................................................................................................ 16 Public Works .................................................................................................................................. 17 Public Facilities .............................................................................................................................. 22 Recreation ...................................................................................................................................... 24 Schools ........................................................................................................................................... 25 Information Services Department (IS) ........................................................................................... 27 Affordable Housing ........................................................................................................................ 27 Warrant-Article Explanations and Recommendations ............................................................................. 32 2015 Special Town Meeting #1, March 23, 2014 ..................................................................................... 32 TM#1 Article 2: Appropriate For School Facilities Capital Projects ............................................ 32 2015 Special Town Meeting #2, March 23, 2014 ..................................................................................... 36 STM#2 Article 2: Pump Station Repairs ....................................................................................... 36 STM#2 Article 3: Appropriate For Purchase Of Fire Engine ....................................................... 36 STM#2 Article 4: Appropriate For Cary Memorial Building Sidewalk Enhancement (Historic Resources) ................................................................................................ 36 STM#2 Article 5: Amend FY2015 Operating, Enterprise And CPA Budgets (CPA Only) ......... 37 STM#2 Article 6: Appropriate For Authorized Capital Improvements ........................................ 37 2015 Annual Town Meeting ..................................................................................................................... 38 th Article 7 (4 Fund Only): Establish and Continue Departmental Revolving FundsÄ PEG Access Fund ........................................................................................................................... 38 Article 8: Appropriate the FY2016 Community Preservation Committee Operating Budget and CPA Projects (Multiple Categories) ........................................................................... 38 i th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Article 9: Property PurchaseÄ241 Grove Street (Open Space & Community Housing) .............. 45 Article 10: Appropriate for Recreation Capital Projects ................................................................ 47 Article 11: Appropriate for Municipal Capital Projects and Equipment ........................................ 48 Article 12: Pleasant Street Sidewalk (Citizen Article) ................................................................... 57 Article 13: Prospect Hill Road Sidewalk (Citizen Article) ............................................................ 57 Article 14: Appropriate for Water System Improvements ............................................................. 58 Article 15: Appropriate for Wastewater System Improvements .................................................... 58 Article 16: Appropriate for School Capital Projects and Equipment ............................................. 59 Article 17: Technical Correction To The Borrowing Authorization Under Article 13B Of The 2014 Annual Town Meeting .............................................................................................. 62 Article 18: Appropriate for Public Facilities Capital Projects ........................................................ 62 ii th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Article 24: Appropriate Bonds and Notes Premiums & Rescind Equal Prior Borrowing Authorizations .............................................................................................................. 66 Article 25: Rescind Prior Borrowing Authorizations ..................................................................... 67 Article 26: Establish and Appropriate To and From Specified Stabilization Funds (SFs) ............ 68 Article 27: Appropriate to Stabilization Fund ................................................................................ 69 Article 28: Appropriate from Debt Service Stabilization Fund ..................................................... 69 Article 30: Amend FY2015 Operating, Enterprise And CPA Budgets (Enterprise & CPA only) ....................................................................................................................................... 69 Article 31: Appropriate for Authorized Capital Improvements ..................................................... 70 Article 35: Accept MGL Chapter 90-I, Section 1 (Complete Streets Program ............................ 70 ) Article 41: Amend General BylawsÄContracts And Deeds ......................................................... 71 Article 42: Commission On Disability Request ............................................................................. 72 Article 46: Acquisition Of Land Shown On AssessorsÈ Property Map 22, Lot 51B ..................... 72 Appendix A: School Building Project Consensus Plan .......................................................................... A-1 Appendix B: School Building Project Funding ...................................................................................... B-1 Appendix C: School Building Project Schedules Scenario .................................................................... C-1 Appendix D: Information on the TownÈs Current Specific Stabilization Funds .................................... D-1 Appendix E: Summary of Warrant-Article Recommendations .............................................................. E-1 iii th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Executive Summary Beginning last October, the Capital Expenditures Committee (ÅCECÆ) vetted proposals from municipal departments, school administration, and various citizens groups for capital projects to be included in LexingtonÈs Fiscal Year 2016(ÅFY2016Æ) budget. Those that arein the budgetrecommended by the Town to these Town Meetings are addressed in this report, along with this CommitteeÈs recommendations thereon.ASummary of our Warrant-Article Recommendations isfound in Appendix Eandthe individual Warrant-Article Recommendations begin on Page 32 As a result of the detailed review and resulting refinement of capital requests since the initial presentations, Town Meeting will observe that the CEC most often has joined a consensus among the boards and committees relative to the capital articles being . presented to it As has been stated repeatedly over the last several years, our budgetary focus has been, and continues to be, Åcapital, capital, capitalÆ. The Town needs to invest in existing infrastructure to maintain our assets, yet also needsto expand or renew many elements, to meet changing demands. This means we have two tracks of capital demands: expansion, and maintenance and renewal. The demands placed on our schoolsÈ capacity by the growth in our school enrollment have been well publicized and discussed. The proposal before these Town Meetings will address needs at the primary and middle school levels, but there is also a significant need looming at the high school. That need, while just outside the five-year forecast on which this Committee reports, will likely dwarf the current cost estimates for all of the pre-K, elementary, and middle school needs combined. These significant investment needs are not all that the Town faces as there are also demands in municipal areas. Most immediate among those are our aged public-safety facilities that were designed for equipment and technology of an earlier century, but other needs are work to enhance our roads, sidewalks, and recreation facilities; major upgrades to our Central Business District Streetscape; changes to mitigate traffic issues; and continuing development and acquisition of affordable housing. In addition to demands for expansion, the Town faces a continuing and significant need to invest in our buildings and systems. With the creation of the Department of Public Facilities, the Town now has the capability, and has worked diligently, to reduce the backlog of deferred maintenance projects that had accumulated over many years. This investment needs to be ongoing as we continue to erase backlog and invest in building and systems renewal. This Committee is pleased to see the continued commitment in our building and system maintenance evidenced throughout the capital requests presented in this yearÈs budget. While this Committee lauds the significant contributions being made by the Town toward our capital needs, including through use of Community Preservation Funds, in order to accomplish the projects listed in our capital plan through 2020 (not to mention those which we know fall just outside that timeline) will take the additional support of tax payers through approval of debt exclusions from the limits of Proposition 2. 1 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) The Mission of the Capital Expenditures Committee From the Code of the Town of Lexington (¤29-13): A. Each year the Capital Expenditures Committee shall request and receive from the Town boards and departments a list of all capital expenditures that may be required within the ensuing five-year period. The Committee shall consider the relative need, timing and cost of these projects, the adequacy thereof and the effect these expenditures might have on the financial position of the Town. B. The Committee shall prior to each annual meeting for the transaction of business prepare, publish and distribute by making copies available at the office of the Town Clerk and at Cary Memorial Library, and by mailing or otherwise distributing to each town meeting member, a report of its findings, setting forth a list of all such capital expenditures together with the committeeÈs recommendations as to the projects that should be undertaken within the five-year period and the approximate date on which each recommended project should be started. This publication may be combined with and distributed at the same time as the Appropriation Committee Report. From the Code of the Town of Lexington (¤29-14): The term capital expenditures shall mean any and all expense of a nonrecurring nature not construed as an ordinary operating expense, the benefit of which will accrue to the Town over an extended period of time. From the Code of the Town of Lexington (¤29-26 ):¼the Capital Expenditures Committeeshall state whether it endorses each recommendation of the Community PreservationCommittee. How to Read This Report Our report is divided into four sections: An overview of capital projects in Lexington; Presentation of a five-year capital budget; Spending history and general capital plan for each department and program; and This yearÈs capital-related Warrant Articles. ÅTown WarrantÆ refers to the Town of Lexington Town Warrants for the 2015 Annual Town Meeting and two Special Town Meetings, March 23, 2015. ÅBrown BookÆ refers to the ÅTown of Lexington Fiscal Year 2016 Recommended Budget & Financing PlanÆ, February 27, 2015. Where our narrative includes a ÅSee Article __Æ (which is to an ATM Article unless ÅSTM#1Æ or ÅSTM#2Æ is included), it is referring you to that Article in the last sectionÄÅWarrant-Article Explanations and RecommendationsÆ. In that section you will find: We have quoted the TownÈs or a Town CommitteeÈs documentation for each of the Articles on which we are reporting. If we believe that quote has both adequately described the proposed work and satisfactorily made the case for the TownÈs need, we will not reiterate either of those matters in this report. However, additional narrative is included where we felt it helpful. Our CommitteeÈs recommendations and how we voted are shown only in the boxed header for each Article and, if applicable, in any sub-elements unless there are further comments on our recommendation. (In any case where we are not unanimous in an Approval recommendation to Town Meeting there will comments.)If there are comments, they will be at the end of the text in italics below the boxed header. Our oral report on Town Meeting floor will highlight elements of our written report and present any new information not available as of this writing. When we report on a capital article on Town Meeting floor during the deliberations, a committee member will provide the committeeÈs recommendation and, if applicable, comments related to that recommendation. 2 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Summary of FY2016 Capital-Budget Requests 1 Requests General FundEnterprise Approp. & CEC 2345 Art.CategoriesDebtDifferences CashFundsCPFAuth. Other Total Community/Economic Development 8(a)$26,400$26,400 Conservation Meadows Preservation Program 8(q)$369,813$369,813 Lower Vine Brook Paved Recreation Path Reconstruction 9$618,000$618,000 Acquistion of Wright Farm - Parcel 2 8(o)$18,000$18,000 Grain Mill Alley Additional Design Public Safety STM#2 3$500,000$500,000 Fire Pumper 11(p)$398,400$307,500$705,900 Police/Fire Dispatching and Records Software 11(q)$500,000$500,000 Parking Meter Replacement 11(r)$90,000$90,000 Public Safety Radio Stabilization, Phase 1 11(s)$50,000$50,000 Design/Engineering - Firing Range at Hartwell Ave. Site Culture and Recreation 8(m)$236,500$193,500$220,000$650,000 Lincoln Park Field Improvements 8(i)$68,000$68,000 Park and Playground Improvements 8(j)$85,000$85,000 Park Improvements - Athletic Fields 8(k)$78,000$78,000 Park and Playgrounds ADA Accessibility Study 8(l)$55,000$55,000 Park Improvements- Hard Court Resurfacing 10$68,000$68,000 Pine Meadows Equipment Public Facilities Department 18(a)$674,000$674,000 Middle School Space Mining 18(b)$363,000$363,000 Clarke Middle School Circulation and Parking Improvements, Design 18(c)$90,200$90,200 LHS Phase 2 Overcrowding/Completion Major Mechanical/Electrical SystemsÈ Replacement 18(d)$463,000$463,000 STM#1 2 $4,080,000$4,080,000 LPS Educational Capacity Increase - Short and Long Term & 18(e) 18(f)$150,000$150,000 LHS Heating Systems Upgrade Phases 2 & 3 - Design 2 18(g)$210,000$210,000 School Building Envelope and Systems 18(h)$182,760$182,760 Municipal Building Envelope and Systems 18(i)(1)$125,000$125,000 School Building Flooring Program School Paving Program 18(j)$150,000$150,000 18(i)(2)$133,425$133,425 School Interior Painting Program 18(k)$75,000$75,000 Public Facilities Bid Documents 18(i)(3)$77,000$77,000 Diamond Middle School Lighting to Rear Parking Lot 18(l)$38,500$38,500 Security Camera Upgrade STM#2 4 $194,200$194,200 Cary Memorial Building Sidewalk Enhancement & 8(g) 8(f)$50,000$50,000 Community Center Sidewalk Design 8(d)$75,398$75,398 Cary Memorial Bldg Records Center Shelving STM#2 6$350,000$350,000 Supplemental Appropriation - LHS Modulars Public Works Department 11(a)$2,700,000$2,700,000 Center Streetscape Improvements - Phase I DPW Equipment 11(b)$399,000$100,000$81,000$690,000$1,270,000 11(c)Storm Drainage Improvements and NPDES compliance $114,425$225,575$340,000 Comprehensive Watershed Storm Water Management Study and 11(d)$390,000$390,000 Implementation 11(e)$600,000$600,000 Sidewalk Improvements, Additions and Design 8(n) & $100,000$290,000$390,000 Town Wide Culvert Replacement 11(f) 11(g)$125,000$125,000 Town-wide Signalization Improvements Hartwell Avenue Infrastructure Improvements 11(h)$4,750,000$4,750,000 11(i)$2,270,145$961,105$3,231,250 Street Improvements Bikeway Bridge Repairs, Engineering 11(j)$10,000$10,000 11(k)$300,000$300,000($300,000) Hastings Park - Undergrounding of Wires Hydrant Replacement Program 11(l)$75,000$75,000$150,000 STM#2 2 $1,350,000$1,350,000 Pump Station Upgrades & 15(b) 14$900,000$900,000 Water Distribution System Improvements 8(e)$60,000$140,000$200,000($200,000) Battle Green Streetscape Improvements 8(p)$39,000$39,000($39,000) Minuteman Bikeway Wayfinding Signs 11(m)$35,000$35,000 Westview Cemetery Building Assessment 15(a)$1,200,000$1,200,000 Wastewater System Investigation and Improvements Lexington Public Schools 16(a)$117,500$200,000$317,500 Systemwide School Furniture, Equipment & Systems 16(b)$1,378,000$1,378,000 School Technology Capital Request 16(\[c)$208,000$208,000 Additional Time Clock System Funds 16(d)$82,500$82,500 Food Service LHS Dishwasher and Installation Information Services Department 11(n)$52,000$52,000 Replace Town Wide Phone Systems-Phase IV 11(o)$140,000$140,000 Municipal Technology Improvement Program- Phase III 7 (CPA $57,000$57,000 Network Redundancy & Improvement Plan - Phase III Only) Government (Other) 26TBDTBD Appropriate To and From Specified Stabilization Funds 31TBDTBD Appropriate for Authorized Capital Improvement Non-Government $36,790$36,790 ParkerÈs Revenge Restoration 8(c)$40,000$40,000 Study for the Restoration of the First Parish Church Community Preservation Committee (Other) 8(h)$25,000$25,000 Community Center Preservation Restriction Endowmenty 8(s)$150,000$150,000 Administrative Budget Totals$18,187,025$4,871,905$3,867,500$2,578,601$2,325,605$31,830,636($557,000) 1 Not included is the $124,057 debt service using State reimbursement for school projects (Art. 28) or the $138,032¯ of Bond Issuance Premium received that is being applied to exempt-debt Schools projects (Article 24) and rescinding other debt authorizations (Art. 25). 2 All types of General Fund (including set-aside for roads from FY2001 Override). For the specific types, see the Summary in Appendix E or the Warrant-Article Explanations and Recommendations starting on Page 32. 3 Includes use of retained earning and debt. For specific types, see the Summary in Appendix E or the Warrant-Article Explanations and Recommendations starting on Page 32. 4 Includes both cash & debt appropriations, but excludes the $2,417,200 debt service on prior, financed, appropriations (Art. 8(r)) and the $1,000,960 additional appropriation to reduce the outstanding financing of the Cary Memorial Building. 5 Includes using Town-created Revolving Funds (within the authorizations), the statutory Food Service Fund, and State Chapter 90 funds. 3 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Capital Budget Lexington allocates appropriate resources to needed capital projects by considering them in four categories: Big-ticket projects (greater than $1,000,000); Small-ticket projects (between $25,000 and $1,000,000); Enterprise & Revolving Funds projects (greater than $25,000); and Community Preservation Fund projects (any dollar amount). The Capital Expenditures Committee: Assesses capital needs brought forward by each department (municipal and schools) as well as the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) through the annual budgeting process; Works with those departments and the CPC to identify capital needs anticipated to manifest during the next five years; and Independently considers public facilities, infrastructure systems, and prospective longer-term needs, as well as issues and facilities not being addressed within any department; Through this report and in presentations, this Committee advises Town Meeting about the necessary and prudent investments to maintain, improve, and create facilities required to serve Lexington citizens safely, effectively, and efficiently. During the year, Committee members also work with and advise staff members in various departments, consult with other public committees, and make our views known to the Selectmen and School Committee, in an effort to shape a responsible capital budget for Lexington residents. Please note these important caveats: All cost figures are estimates and generally do not reflect the cost in then-year dollars. The degree of accuracy varies by project. Those projected several years into the future are the most uncertain. They are subject to refinement as projects are designed, bid, and built. Even relatively near-term work is subject to cost uncertainties until projects are bid and contracts signed as material, labor, and contract-management costs are often highly variable even over a period of just a few months. The scope of future projects is often highly uncertain. Accordingly, project budgets are subject to significant revision as the work is defined through the political and budgeting processes. Dates for appropriations and taxpayer impact of financing projects are given in fiscal years, beginning July 1, unless otherwise specified. Big-Ticket Projects Big-ticket capital projects typically cost about $1 million or more and satisfy the conditions under which the Town is permitted to borrow funds for at least 10 years. They require careful analysis, budgeting, and broad support. The Town Manager and BoSÈ capital policy has generally maintained that such big-ticket projects be funded through borrowing, consistent with their expected life and annual budgeting for operating needs. This borrowing can be done in one of two ways: 1.Through voter-approved debt exclusions that place the costs of financing outside the Proposition 2 tax-levy limit and ensuring broad support, or 2.By absorbing into the operating budget any portion of the borrowing not covered by CPA funds. This option has significant implications for the financing of other Town needs. When projects are funded under the CPA, a debt-exclusion vote is not required. Two past examples of this are: 1.The authorization at the March 18, 2013, STM of $7,652,500 toward the $11,212,500 purchase expenses of the land off of Marrett Road with the intended primary use as a Community Center. 4 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) 2.The authorization at the November 4, 2013 STM of $2,846,184 as the initial funding for the build-out of the Community Center. The Projects Agenda The following is a fairly comprehensive list of big-ticket items that are under consideration in Lexington. Except for the first three items that have been stated by the BoS as the TownÈs highest importanceÄand with which this Committee agreesÄno such ranking is intended by the rest of the order of this listing. 1.Fire Station Central HeadquartersÄRenovation or Replacement 2.Police StationÄRenovation or Replacement. Needed to accommodate current demands and to improve working efficiencies. 3.School BuildingsÄExpansion, Renovation & Reconstruction. Additional space is needed imminently at the elementary and middle school levels to accommodate growing enrollment. (See STM#1 Article 2, and Article 18) Expansion of existing buildings,replacement of the Maria Hastings Elementary School, and ultimately renovation or replacement of the High School are all contemplated in upcoming years. 4.Visitor CenterÄExpansion & Renovation. 5.Community (Affordable) HousingÄDevelopment and Acquisition. (See Article 9) 6.Conservation/Open Space LandÄAcquisition and Enhancement (See Article 9) 7.Center Streetscape Improvements (See Article 11(a)) 8.Greenways CorridorÄImplementation. Projects to link open spaces with trails. The major West Lexington Greenway ProjectÄthe proposed trail network west of I-95/Route 128 linking all Town-owner open space with the centerpiece of the project to consist of a universally accessible trail linking the Minuteman Bikeway with the Battle Road Trail in the Minuteman National Historic ParkÄhas been studied. 9.Hammond A. Hosmer House, 1557 Massachusetts Avenue (previously called the White House)ÄIt has been stabilized; will now require build-out for a use. 10.Minuteman Career & Technical High SchoolÄRenovation (through annual assessments) 11.Munroe SchoolÄReuse if current license with the Munroe Center for the Arts is cancelled. (The license has been renewed annually since its original term ended on October 1 2008, but has a 120- day right for cancelation by either party.) 12.Recreation FacilitiesÄA continuing need (See Articles 8(iÃm) & 10) 13.RoadsÄA continuing need. There are several arterial roads that need reconstructing. (See Article 11(i)) 14.SidewalksÄA continuing need. A large amount of work is needed on our sidewalksÄin residential areas, in the Central Business District (ÅCBDÆ), and in other business districts elsewhere in Town. (See Articles 8(f) & (g) and 11(e)) 15.Hartwell Avenue Infrastructure Improvements 16.Stone Building, 735 Massachusetts Avenue (previously the East Lexington Library)ÄBuild-out. It has been stabilized; will now require build-out for a use. 17.Traffic MitigationÄA continuing need. Actions taken are often an element of road-related projects, rather than being solely to achieve the mitigation. (See Article 11(i)) 18.Muzzey Senior Center, 1475 Massachusetts Avenue (a unit within the Muzzey High Condominium building). When that CenterÈs operations move to the new Community Center, a decision is expected to be made about what, if any, future use the Town has for that Town-owned property. As there is currently no commitment to retaining the property, it is not being shown in this CommitteeÈs Five-Year Capital Plan. The BoS, School Committee, Community Preservation Committee, and Permanent Building Committee will continue to evaluate, refine, prioritize, and schedule these projects for the next several years. Realistic cost proposals should be incorporated in the 5-year projections. The Town-wide Facility Master Plan, still a work in progress, will contribute to that process. 5 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) The Community Preservation Act (CPA) On March 6, 2006, Lexington voters approved adopting the CPA for our Town at the level of a 3% surcharge on property taxes. The proceeds under the CPA may be used for various capital projects within the categories of Community Housing, Historic Resources, Open Space, and Recreational Use. There are limitations in the Act regarding which projects within those categories can be funded under the Act. In addition to the funding provided by that surcharge on its taxpayers, the CPA provides a process by which all municipalities which have adopted that Act are eligible for supplemental State funding whose source are surcharges on the transaction fees charged by the StateÈs Registries of Deeds. Those funds are transferred to the StateÈs Community Preservation Act Trust Fund (CPATF) from which, according to a formula based on each townÈs prior-fiscal-yearÈs property-tax surcharges, that supplemental funding is distributed. The supplement can be as high as a 100% match to the townÈs own surcharge revenue, but the percentage is not guaranteed. When there are not sufficient funds for a 100% matchÄwhich has been the ndrd case since the distribution in FY2008, the State does a 2-round, and potentially 3-round, calculation to determine the final supplemental funding for those communities that have adopted the maximum 3% surcharge, including Lexington. In the last two year, and pending for FY2016, the State has also, annually so far, had a provision by which the CPATF has received additional funding if the StateÈs prior-yearÈs budget ended with a surplus. This table reflects how Lexington has fared since adopting the CPA, along with a projection for FY2016: Prior-Year's CPA State Supplement Percentage Year in whichTotal Suppl 1 Surcharge Collected supplement received1st Round2nd Round3rd RoundTotalAmount FY2008 (Actual)$2,556,362100.0%N/AN/A100.0%$2,556,362 FY2009 (Actual)$2,777,88267.6%1.8%N/A69.4%$1,927,708 FY2010 (Actual)$2,931,67834.8%0.9%0.5%36.2%$1,060,390 FY2011 (Actual)$3,042,58727.2%0.6%0.4%28.2%$858,729 FY2012 (Actual)$3,206,11726.6%0.6%0.4%27.6%$885,463 2 FY2013 (Actual)$3,344,37126.8%0.6%0.4%27.8%$929,507 3 ) FY2014 (Actual$3,572,46052.2%1.1%0.7%54.1%$1,932,347 4 FY2015 (Actual) $3,777,67631.5%0.7%0.4%32.6%$1,230,116 Total Actual:$25,209,133Received to date:45.1%$11,380,622 5 FY2016 (Projected) $3,945,000TBDTBDTBD23.5%$927,000 Totals including projected:$29,154,13342.2%$12,307,622 1 The "actuals" are the net amounts as used by the State; the "projected" is the Town's projection for the gross collection. The Total Suppl Amount includes $255 to correct an underpayment in FY2012 from an error with PhillipstonÈs surcharge. The Total Suppl Amount reflects there was a $25 million addition to the State's CPA Trust Fund because the State finished FY2013 with a surplus of at least that amountÄthereby permitting the maximum amount authorized by the State Legislature to go into that Fund. The Total Suppl Amount reflects there was a $11.4million addition to the State's CPA Trust Fund because the State finished FY2014with a surplus of at least that amountÄthereby permitting the maximum amount authorized by the State Legislature to go into that Fund. The projected percentage does not include any increase that would result from the State deciding to continue to infuse the State's CPA Trust Fund with additional funding from a prior-year budget surplus. ndrd As shown above, our prior experience in the 2 & 3 rounds has been at least an additional 1.0%. So while the supplement level had fallen substantially since our first yearÄbut with the last two years having a rebound when there was additional funding into the CPATF from the StateÈs surplusÄour Town will continue to receive significant help from the State toward the cost of our CPA-funded projects. Projects are put forth to Town Meeting for action by a Community Preservation Committee (CPC) whose membership, in our Town, is prescribed in the Code of Lexington as follows: . There is hereby established a Community Preservation Committee pursuant to Section ¤ 29-23A 5 of Chapter 44B of the General Laws (the ÅActÆ) consisting of nine members. The Board of Selectmen shall appoint three members of the Community Preservation Committee and the following bodies shall each select one of its members for membership on the Community Preservation Committee: the Conservation Commission, the Planning Board, the Recreation Committee, the Historical Commission, the Housing Authority and the Housing Partnership. 6 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Town Meeting can only approve, reduce the funding, or disapprove a project and it cannot change the purpose. Town Counsel has provided an opinion that Town Meeting can change the funding mechanism (cash or debt). As with any capital project, this Committee will give our recommendation on each of the projects put before the Town Meeting. (See STM#2, Article 4, ATM Articles 8, & 9) The CPA provides an alternative funding mechanism for capital projects. The CPA creates a separate pool of money that can be used for a limited set of projects and cannot be prioritized against the TownÈs traditional capital needs. See the report of the CPC for information on how Lexington has spent the funds received from its taxpayers and the State by the categorieseligible under the CPA. It is important to note that the projected available CPF cash is not a limitation on what the CPC can recommend to Town Meeting for approval. The method of paying for what the CPC recommends canÄ and now often doesÄinclude, in part or in total, the issuing of debt instruments. It remains the recommendation of this Committee that any such debt be for as short a term as practical after considering the funding projected for the CPF over at least the next 10 years and consideration of projects that might come before the CPC for consideration which would require funds beyond those allocated to the three, mandatory, 10% of revenue, Reserves for use on Open Space, Historic Resources, and Community (Affordable) Housing. If front-end loading of such debt were practical, that, too, remains a recommendation. The debt service on such debt instruments is an obligation borne by the CPF throughout the term of those instrumentsÄwhether short-term financing (e.g., notes, such as a Bond Anticipation Note \[BAN\]) and/or long-term financing (i.e., a Bond). In the future years, it is incumbent on the CPC to recommend to Town Meeting, and for Town Meeting to appropriate in full, those obligatory debt-service payments. One approach that provides flexibility in making a decision about how much, if any, CPF cash should be applied, up front, for a very-large project is to defer that decision by initially issuing a BAN that has a term of 1 year or less for the full amount of the project. When that BAN matures (which typically carries an interest rate substantially below even the relatively low rates on the TownÈs bonds), at that time make the decision on whether to use CPF cash to reduce the total for which a bond would then be issued. Doing so permits the Town to have a better idea of how much CPF cash should be held in anticipation of the nextÄand laterÄyearsÈ demands upon the CPF. That mechanism has been used in the past and this Committee would expect it to be proposed for FY2016 and in the future for other very-large projects. Although there are other factors that will affect the size of the StateÈs CPA Trust Fund from which the supplements are made (e.g., its administrative expenses and interest earned on that Fund), the following table has a year-to-year comparison of CPA Trust Fund collections at the Registry of Deeds, its revenue source, for the first 3months of this Trust-Fundyearwhich is the latest data we have been given, so far. Alsoincluded in the last column is the change from last-yearÈs collections to the year before that so the chart provides the percentages for each of the last two year-over-year comparisons. 7 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) See the CPA Summary in the Brown Book (Appendix C, Page CÃ3) for a summary of the CPF status including what projects have been funded from the CPF since its inception in Lexington and what is being requested in FY2016. Also see the CPCÈs report to these Town Meetings for its projection of what the CPF balance would be after these Town Meetings if Town Meeting were to approve all of the CPCÈs recommendations. Enterprise-Fund Projects The Town operates three enterprise funds for revenue-producing activities funded outside the tax levy by user fees: water distribution, wastewater distribution \[sanitary sewers\], and certain Recreation and Community Programs (R&CP) services, such as the golf course, swimming pools, and tennis courts. Recreational playground restoration and equipment, in contrast, is not fee generating and capital investment for such equipment is therefore, normally funded as part of the small-ticket program of the GF. The 2012 amendments to the CPA, however, expanded the range of recreation projects that are eligible under that Act; therefore, many recreational projects since then have been submitted to our CPC for consideration of recommending to Town Meeting the use of the CPF as the fund source. That continues this year and youÈll find many of the recreation projects coming before this ATM will either be for full, or at least partial, funding from the CPF rather than from the EF or GF. $100,000 per year is paid from the R&CPEnterprise Fund for Lincoln Field debt service that is expected to continue until February 1, 2018, when that debt will be retired. Unlike property-tax revenues, enterprise-fund fees are subject to a limit under Proposition 2. not Coming before this Town Meeting are recommendations for capital projects in support of responsibilities of the Departments that manage the Water, Sewer, and R&CP Enterprise Funds. This yearÈs submittals include Park and Playground Improvements (see Article 8(iÃm)), Pine Meadows Golf Course Equipment (see Article 10), DPW Equipment Replacement (see Article 11(b)), Hydrant Replacement Program (see Article 11(l), Water Distribution System Improvements (see Article 14Sanitary ), and Wastewater ( Sewer) System Improvements (see STM#2, Article 2, and ATM Article 15)). Revolving-Fund Projects Revolving funds established under the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 44, Section 53E, must be authorized annually by vote of the Town Meeting. The fund is credited with only the departmental receipts received in connection with the programs supported by such revolving fund, and expenditures may be made from the revolving fund, without further appropriation, for those programs. Revolving funds are usually expended to cover non-capital costs and, therefore, this Committee normally doesnÈt report on their annual authorizations unless a capital expense is contemplated. Such an expense is contemplated in FY2016. (See Article 7) Small-Ticket Projects Capital projects that do not qualify as big-ticket projects are funded from the tax levy. Generally, they cost between $25,000, the minimum qualification for consideration as a non-CPF capital expenditure, and $1 million, and represent projects that should be funded on a regular, timely basis to maintain Town infrastructure. With the creation of the Department of Public Facilities as well as the Building Envelope Åset-asideÆ passed in the June 2006 operating override, a new emphasis has been placed on continual infrastructure maintenance, a move that this Committee applauds. We continue to work closely with the stewards of our assets to prioritize, plan, and project such work for a period of five years or more. 8 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Five-Year Capital Plan The table on the next three pages summarizes the five-year capital plan that this Committee is submitting for Town MeetingÈsconsideration. It reflects theexpected FY2016appropriationsat the 2015ATM and the two March 24, 2014, STMs, and the FY2017ÃFY2020 requests this Committee contemplated. We started with the amounts and timing shown in the Brown Book, Page XI-3, for FY2016, and XI-26 & 27, for FY2017ÃFY2020. Those requests have been updated based on any information we received after it was published and we have made some additional entries or changes in the out years where we feel, based on earlier studies, design & engineering (D&E) (also architect/engineer \[A/E\]) work, or the existence of a multi-phase project, that there might be future requests, but where there is no formal position taken by the Town. In that vein, there are important caveats to that table: Please see the footnotes for some information on the status of many of the entries and how this CommitteeÈs position differs from that presented by the Town in the Brown Book. the many tens of millions of dollars of to-be-determined (TBD) entries, the total in this Excluding CommitteeÈs Plan for FY2017ÃFY2020 is already over $157 million. Because the TBD entries include such major undertakings as the construction phases on projects for which only a small percentage is that has even been estimated (e.g., the School Capital Projects addressed in STM#1, Article 2) or entire major facility projects (e.g. new public-safety headquarters), the TBDs may, in fact, be on the order of the total stated amounts in all the years of our Plan. The Capital-related Stabilization Fund is receiving a significant net infusion for FY2016. (See Article 26) These funds, along with available CPF resources, will help us make significant progress on our more-routine capital projects, but will still leave us with a huge challenge to fund all of the possible out-year projectsÄlikely including one or more appeals to the voters to support exclusion of the major capital projects just within the five-year span of this Plan from the limitation of Proposition 2. Compounding the challenge of the next five years, inevitably there will be Big-Ticket Projects facing the Town in the years past FY2020. largest of these not shown would be the replacement or major renovation of the High School, which has been preliminarily estimated near $200 million in the final report of the TownÈs Ad hoc Townwide Facilities Master Planning Committee (August 30, 2013). Because of the huge challenge this Town faces with regard to the renovation/replacement/renewal of its Capital Assets, this Committee continues to urge the BoS to move forward promptly to develop a formal, Town-wide, Facilities Master Plan for the Municipal facilities. A BoS-appointed committee has provided its input to the BoS for such a Town-wide Plan. This Committee stands ready to assist in any way that it can toward creation of such a Plan This Committee appreciates the TownÈs concern about citing a preliminary estimate for projects that are not at all well defined. We continue to urge the Town to present a prioritized and time-phased list of Big-Ticket Projects and their funding using a Åbest guessÆ for the likely costs. The TownÈs out-year amounts generally do not reflect the costs in then-year dollars. As this Committee does not have the means reasonably to adjust current-year values to then-year values, we are using the TownÈs dollar values unless we have made a change for another reasonÄin which case there will be a footnote explaining that. 9 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) 1 CEC FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL PLAN (FY2016ÃFY2020) Recommended Non-TBD Capital Projects (by executing department)FY 2017 PlanFY 2018 PlanFY 2019 PlanFY 2020 Plan FY2016TOTALS Community Development Conservation Meadows Preservation Program$26,400 $26,400 Lower Vine Brook Paved Recreation Path Reconstruction$369,813 $369,813 Acquistion of Wright Farm - Parcel 2$618,000 $618,000 Parker Meadow Accessible Trail ConstructionTBD TBD 2 TBDTBDTBDTBD TBD Land Acquisition SubtotalÄCommunity Development$1,014,213$0$0$0$0$1,014,213 Economic Development Parking Meter Replacement$500,000TBD $500,000 3 TBD TBD Grain Mill Alley SubtotalÄEconomic Development$500,000$0$0$0$0$500,000 Fire and Rescue Fire Pumper $500,000 $500,000 Police/Fire Dispatching and Records Software$705,900 $705,900 Ambulance Replacement$280,000 $280,000 Portable Radio ReplacementTBD TBD Ladder Truck Replacement$1,000,000 $1,000,000 Public Safety Radio Stabilization$90,000$90,000 $180,000 SubtotalÄFire and Rescue$1,295,900$1,090,000$280,000$0$0$2,665,900 Library 4 TBD TBD Cary Library Internal Reconfiguration SubtotalÄLibrary$0$0$0$0$0$0 Information Services Replace Town Wide Phone Systems$52,000$204,000 $256,000 Head End Equipment Replacement$125,000$250,000 $375,000 Municipal Technology Improvement Program$140,000$100,000$55,000$80,000 $375,000 5 TBD $57,000TBD $57,000 Network Redundancy & Improvement Plan SubtotalÄInformation Services$249,000$329,000$350,000$55,000$80,000$1,063,000 Police Police Outdoor/Indoor Firing RangeÄHartwell Avenue$50,000TBD $50,000 SubtotalÄPolice$50,000$0$0$0$0$50,000 Public Facilities 6 $242,000TBD $242,000 Fire Station Headquarters Replacement 7 TBDTBD TBD Police Station; Renovation and Add-on LHS Phase 2 Overcrowding/Completion$90,200 $90,200 Townwide Roofing Program$416,408$285,443$704,834$1,950,384 $3,357,069 Public Facilities Mechanical/Electrical System Replacements$463,000$423,500$484,000$544,500$605,000 $2,520,000 School Building Envelope and Systems Program$210,000$215,000$221,000$226,000$231,600 $1,103,600 8 $674,000$350,000 $1,024,000 Middle Schools Space Mining LHS Heating Systems Upgrade$150,000$368,000$4,460,000$2,570,000$3,230,000 $10,778,000 Municipal Building Envelope and Systems$182,760$187,329$192,012$196,812$201,732 $960,645 School Building Flooring Program$125,000$125,000$125,000$125,000$125,000 $625,000 School Paving Program$150,000$153,750$157,593$161,901$166,000 $789,244 Interior Painting Program$133,425$161,534 $294,959 Public Facilities Bid Documents$75,000$75,000$75,000$75,000$75,000 $375,000 Diamond Middle School Lighting to Rear Parking Lot$77,000 $77,000 9 $250,000$3,500,000 $3,750,000 Diamond Energy Improvements 10 $2,080,298 $2,080,298 Visitors Center Middle School Science and Performing Arts$250,000$3,100,000 $3,350,000 11 $3,800,000$55,200,000 $59,000,000 Hastings School Renovation/Replacement Clarke Middles School Circulation and Parking Improvements$363,000$2,200,000 $2,563,000 Security Camera Upgrade to Digital from Analog$38,500$77,000$82,500$49,500 $247,500 Cary Memorial Building Sidewalk Enhancement$194,200 $194,200 12 $4,080,000TBDTBDTBDTBD $4,080,000 Lexington Public School Educational Capacity Increase Community Center Sidewalk$50,000TBD $50,000 Cary Memorial Bldg Records Center Shelving$75,398 $75,398 LHS Modulars$350,000 $350,000 SubtotalÄPublic Facilities$7,481,483$11,374,819$67,882,548$4,653,547$6,584,716$97,977,113 Continued on next page 10 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) 1 CEC FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL PLAN (FY2016ÃFY2020) (continued) Recommended Non-TBD Capital Projects (by executing department)FY 2017 PlanFY 2018 PlanFY 2019 PlanFY 2020 Plan FY2016TOTALS Public Works 13 $2,700,000$2,800,000$2,900,000$3,000,000 $11,400,000 Center Streetscape Improvements Automatic Meter Reading System$657,250$496,000$496,000 $1,649,250 14 $1,270,000$840,000$790,000$790,000$770,000 $4,460,000 Equipment Replacement 15 $3,231,250$3,200,000$3,200,000$3,200,000$3,200,000 $16,031,250 Street Improvements 16 $10,000$70,000 $80,000 Bikeway Bridge Repairs, Engineering 17 $0 Hastings Park - Undergrounding of Wires Storm Drainage Improvements and NPDES compliance$340,000$340,000$340,000$340,000$340,000 $1,700,000 Sanitary Sewer System Investigation and Improvements$1,200,000$1,200,000$1,200,000$1,200,000$1,200,000 $6,000,000 Hydrant Replacement Program$150,000$150,000$150,000$150,000$150,000 $750,000 Pump Station Upgrades$1,350,000$600,000$600,000$600,000$600,000 $3,750,000 Comprehensive Watershed Storm Water Management Study and Implementation$390,000$390,000$390,000$390,000$390,000 $1,950,000 Water Distribution System Improvements$900,000$1,000,000$1,000,000$1,000,000$1,000,000 $4,900,000 18 $50,000See Note $50,000 Mass AveÄThree Intersections Improvement 19 $600,000$885,000$885,000$750,000$750,000 $3,870,000 Sidewalk Improvement Dam Repair$530,000 $530,000 20 $570,438 $570,438 Battle Green Master Plan - Phase 3 Town Wide Culvert Replacement$390,000$390,000$390,000$390,000$390,000 $1,950,000 Town-wide Signalization Improvements$125,000$125,000$125,000$125,000$125,000 $625,000 Hartwell Avenue Infrastructure Improvements$4,750,000TBD $4,750,000 21 $40,000$440,000 $480,000 Municipal Parking lot improvements Hartwell Avenue Compost Site Improvements$350,000 $350,000 22 $200,000$900,000 $1,100,000 Battle Green Streetscape Improvements 23 $39,000$330,000 $369,000 Minuteman Bikeway Wayfinding Signs Westview Cemetery Building$35,000TBD $35,000 Public Parking lot Improvement Program$100,000$500,000$500,000$500,000 $1,600,000 SubtotalÄPublic Works $17,441,250$13,916,250$14,806,438$13,371,000$9,415,000$68,949,938 Recreation Lincoln Park Field Improvements $650,000 $650,000 Athletic Facility Lighting$287,552$483,150 $770,702 Pine Meadows Improvements$50,000$75,000 $125,000 Park and Playground Improvements$68,000$68,000$68,000$60,000$75,000 $339,000 Town Pool Renovation$1,188,308 $1,188,308 Park Improvements - Athletic Fields$85,000$120,000$150,000$210,000$400,000 $965,000 Pine Meadows Equipment$68,000$50,000$52,000$45,000 $215,000 Park and Playgrounds ADA Accessibility$78,000TBD $78,000 Park Improvements- Hard Court Resurfacing$55,000$55,000$60,000$40,000 $210,000 Center Track and Field Reconstruction$3,000,000 $3,000,000 Recreation Site Assessment of Potential Land AcquisitionTBD $0 SubtotalÄRecreation$1,004,000$1,768,860$3,268,000$865,150$635,000$7,541,010 Schools Additional Time Clock System Funds$208,000 $208,000 24 $82,500$35,000$35,000$35,000$35,000 $222,500 Food Service Equipment 25 $317,500$100,000$100,000$100,000$100,000 $717,500 School Furniture, Equipment & Systems Program Design Funds for School Traffic Safety Mitigation$40,000$40,000 $80,000 LPS Technology Capital Request$1,378,000$1,320,000$1,320,000$1,320,000$1,320,000 $6,658,000 SubtotalÄSchools$1,986,000$1,495,000$1,455,000$1,495,000$1,455,000$7,886,000 Town Clerk's Office Archives & Records Management/Records Conservation & Preservation$20,000$20,000$20,000$20,000 $80,000 Election System Upgrade$75,000 $75,000 SubtotalÄTown Clerk's Office$0$95,000$20,000$20,000$20,000$155,000 Community-Wide (Potentially CPF Funded in Whole or in Part) 26, 27 $140,000TBD $140,000 LexHAB Projects 27 TBD $0 Lexington Housing Authority Projects 27 TBD $0 Community Housingk on the Leary Property CPA Restriction Drafting & Enforcement Funds$25,000TBD $25,000 Parker's Revenge Restoration$36,790 $36,790 Study for the Restoration of the First Parish Church$40,000 $40,000 CPC Administrative Budget$150,000$150,000$150,000$150,000$150,000 $750,000 SubtotalÄCommunity-Wide$251,790$290,000$150,000$150,000$150,000$991,790 Totals (No Allowance for TBDs)$31,273,636$30,358,929$88,211,986$20,609,697$18,339,716$188,793,964 Continued on next page 11 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) 1 CEC FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL PLAN (FY2016ÃFY2020) (continued) Footnotes 1 Thefollowingapplytoallitemsbelow:(a) allactionsorpositionscited,unlessotherwiseidentified,havebeentakenbythis ;(b)theamountsincludeallfundsources;(c)"TBD"indicatesundefinedatpresent,butthepotentialexistsforoneormore Committee requestsinthoseyears;(d)mostFY2017ÃFY2020amountsarenotpresentedonaninflation-adjustedbasis;and(e)individualamounts may be below the $25,000 capital threshold if projected to be funded from the CPF. 2 MayservetheTownforRecreation,CommunityHousing,and/orOpenSpace(whichcouldincludeprovidinglandfortheWestLexington Greenway Project). It is likely that a major portion of the funding would be request from the CPF. 3 Removed the $18,000 funding in FY2016 and replaced the $325,000 funding in FY2017. See Article 8(o) for the explanation. 4 ChangedtheFY2017$375,000requesttoaTBDastheLibrary'sgoalistoaccomplishwithprivatefunds;however,ifthatisnotsufficient funding, a request may be made in FY2017 for the Town to provide supplemental funds. 5 FY2016fundingissolelyforintra-buildingWiFiaccess,anancillarybenefittothepublicandstaff.butPhaseIIIhasslippedtoFY2017.As timing of the completion of the overall effort is dependent on earlier effort, a multi-year TBD has been added. 6 TheTowndoesnotyethaveanavailablelocation;therefore,theTownhasdeferredtheD&Efundingrequest.CECplacedtherequestinto FY2017;however,ifalocationweretobecomeavailable,anearlierrequestwouldbewelcomed.MovedthisprojecttoPublicFacilitiesas that department will execute the project. 7 WorktoupgradethePoliceHeadquartersisexpectedtofollowtheFireDepartmentHeadquartersreplacement.Movedthisprojectto Public Facilities as that department will execute the project. 8 Moved the FY2016 deferred $350,000 to FY2017. 9 This project may be affected by the decision made in regard to the School Facility Projects. (See STM#1 Article 2) 10 LefttheTown'sestimateforconstructionunchanged;however,untiltherecommendedscopefromon-goingD&Eisunderstood,thedollar amount is considered just a placekeeper. 11 TheTownissubmittingthisprojecttotheMSBAforfundingsupport.IfMSBAacceptstheproject,boththeactualoverallcostandthe timing of the request to Town Meeting may change. 12 See Article STM#1 Article 2 13 ConcernedthateventheFY2016costshownforthe1stphasemaynotprovesufficient.Therefore,escalatedeachoftheoutyear amounts. (See Article 11(a)) 14 See Article 11(b) regarding the one-time purchase in FY2016. 15 Replacedtheapproximately$2.6millionannualamountsFY2017ÃFY2020withtheamountrecommendedbytheTown'slatestupdateto the Pavement Management System Study. (See the description for "Roads" on Page 17.) 16 Added in FY2017 the projected construction; however, note that estimate does not include a contingency amount. 17 Removed the $300,000. See Article 11(k) for the explanation. 18 FY2017fundingisaplacekeeperincasethefinaldesignentailsanylandpurchasesrequiredtoaccomplishtheproject.Removedthe FY2019$6,550,000fundingasitisanticipatedthatthisprojectwouldonlybedonewithStateTransportationImprovementProgram fundingÄwhich is not expected to be appropriated. However, there may be unknown ancillary costs which the Town would bear. 19 Replacedthe$400,000FY2017ÃFY2020annualamountswithabaseline$750,000eachyearastheTown'scurrentPedestrian AccessibilityStudystates"Itwasobservedthatspending$750kayearkeepsboththenetworkconditionsandbacklogatcurrentlevels. ThisisagoodbaselinefortheTowntoestablishwhenbudgetingfortheirsidewalknetwork."Shortfallof$270,000intheFY2016request (seeArticle11(e))hasbeensplitasanadditionalincreaseacrossFY2017&FY2018inordertoremainonpacewiththerecommended program. 20 SlippedtherequestbyoneyearasthetimingofthisprojectfollowsorcorrelateswiththeadjacentphasesoftheCenterandBattleGreen Streetscape Projects 21 Believesanynear-termworkonthoseparkingareasshouldcommenceafteritisknownwhatwillbedoneabouttherenovationofthe adjacentPoliceHeadquartersand/ortheHosmerHouse.Therefore,slippedeachfundingrequestbyoneyear;however,recognizesthe deteriorating condition may not allow further slippage beyond that. 22 SlippedtheFY2016&FY2017requestseachbyoneyearasthe25%designoftheintersectionisnotcompletedandbelievesboth elements of the project should remain together. 23 Slipped the FY2016 & FY2017 requests each by one year. (See Article 8(p)) 24 Added funding in FY2020 as this is seen as, potentially, a continuing need. 25 Recognizes that the results of the District-wide inventory of its furniture is likely to affect the FY2017ÃFY2020 funding needs. 26 InsertedinFY2017thefundingdeferredfromFY2016,torenovatethebuilding(s)intheWrightFarmParcel2whosepurchaseis requested under Article 9. If an earlier opportunity presents itself (e.g., a STM), an earlier request would be welcomed. 27 Added as potential requests to the CPC during the time frame of this Plan. 12 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Programs Conservation and Open Space Following the TownÈs purchase of the Busa Farm property in 2012, it remained under lease for farming with the original owneruntil November 2013. At that time the Town signed a lease with the Lexington Community Farm Coalition, Inc., to operate a community farm on a 7.39-acre portion of the property. The term of the lease is 10 years, commenced on January 1, 2014, with an option for two 5-year renewal periods. Operation of the farm continues, with support from private donors. The 2012 ATM approved, under its Article 9, the acquisition of most of the Wright Farm property on Grove Street for open space. (See Article 8(r)) for the funding history.) This year the Town seeks Town Meeting's approval to exercise its option to purchase the remaining parcel of the Wright Farm. (See this ATMÈs Article 9) The 2014 ATM approved under its Article 8(l), a joint request from the Conservation Commission, the Commission on Disability, and the Recreation Committee for $34,500 from the CPF for the design of an accessible trail at Parker Meadow. A Request for Proposal (RFP) has been completed for a consultant to prepare the final bid documents for this project, and bids will be solicited this spring. Funding for the construction would be sought in the FY2017 budget cycle. The Town is applying for funding to preserve meadow lands in Lexington by clearing extensive woody vegetation and removing invasive species which block views of stone walls and interfere with passive recreation. Funding is sought this year for the first phase of a multiphase project. (See Article 8(a)) The Conservation Commission has taken over responsibility from the Recreation Department for a path along the Vine Brook from Fairfield Drive to North Street. (See Article 8(q)) Continuing prior practice, the CPC is requesting funding of its administrative budget. (See Article 8(s)) Conservation and Open Space 5-Year Capital Appropriation History (All Sources) $3,357,000 Cataldo/Cotton Farm Acquisition $320,000 Minuteman Bikeway Preservation $3,072,000 Wright Farm Acquisition $25,000 Conservation Restriction Enforecement $21,500 Lexington Center Pocket Park $5,875 ACROSS Lexington 5-Year Open Space & Recreation Plan $30,000 Update Land Acquisition Off Concord Avenue $220,000 (Portion of Sellars Parcel) Parkers Meadow Accessible Trail D&E$34,500 $3,677,000$0$3,072,000$82,375$254,500 Purchase authorized at the 2010 ATM, Article 9. Closing date not known. The full purchase price for the about 4.2 acres was $3,857,000, but subsequently, the Town accepted a $500,000 State LAND Grant (2011 ATM, Article 33) in regard to this purchase and it was subsequent received at the end of FY2012; therefore, the amount shown above is net of that $500,000. Purchase authorized at the 2012 ATM, Article 9. Closing date was December 20, 2012. The purchase price for the about 12.6 acres (Parcel 1) was $2,950,000 and there were $122,000 needed for purchase- associated costs. This project the result of a joint request from the Conservation Commission, the Commission on Disability, and the Recreation Committee. 13 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Lexington Community Center & Muzzey Senior Center LexingtonÈs Community Center (LCC), at 39 Marrett Road, was purchased for $10,950,000 (with an additional $262,500 for costs ancillary to the purchase) with funding appropriated at the March 18, 2013, STM, Article 2. Title to that land passed from The Supreme Council of the Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasons to the Town of Lexington on December 3, 2013, and was recorded on December 5, 2013. The BoS had already created the Ad hoc Community Center Advisory Committee (ÅAhCCACÆ) on April 22, 2013, to identify short-term and long-term improvements to the property needed to support Town and potentially other programs to be housed at the LCC. The LCC will incorporate the functions of the current Senior Center and other Town staff and programs, but the greatly expanded space will permit a much broader range of multi-generational services to the Town. (At present, there is no decision as to what the Town will do with the space in the Muzzey Condominiums that has been the Senior Center. There are deed restrictions on that space so the TownÈs options are bounded. Once the space is vacated, the DPF will maintain the space in a care-taker mode.) Major renovations were needed to convert the facility into one that can meet the needs of the services that are planned at the LCC. The contract for that work was awarded on August 7, 2014, and performance is proceeding on schedule. (For a summary of the funding actions for that work, see the background text explanation for Article 8(r), subparagraph c.) The LCC expects to open its doors in late May of this year. That opening will be with an initial capability and the services are expected to have ramped up within a few months, thereafter. To manage the LCC and the associated Town functions, the BoS has approved a reorganization that has created a Recreation and Community Programs Department. The new department includes what had been the Recreation Department and the new staff being added for the management of the LCC. That department also has close tie with the TownÈs Human Services staff. With the completion of the renovation contract, the currently known capital effort at the LCC will be completed. The AhCCAC had determined that the LCC could better provide an even-further-expanded program scope by the addition of two more buildings with which to provide a gymnasium and a larger, multipurpose, space. However, the other major capital demands facing the Town over at least the next five yearsÄwhich are addressed in this reportÄpreclude any further action in the near-term for such an expansion at the LCC. Fire The Fire Department uses industry standards and its own experience to establish the replacement schedule for its capital equipment. Unlike many pieces of Town equipment, fire engines and medic (rescue- ambulances) trucks are partially custom-made and equipped, require very detailed specifications, and typically require many months between placing the order and the delivery and acceptance of a piece of equipment. st The mission of the Fire Department in the 21 century has shifted beyond traditional firefighting to emergency services, homeland security, and community educationÄwith our firefighters now being trained for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and Advanced Life Support (ALS). The equipment to perform these missions has changed with new technologies for firefighting and communications, yet the basic pumper truck, ladder truck, and rescue-ambulance are still essential to the mission. There are three FY2016 Capital requests by the Fire Department: Replacement of a pumper truck (see STM#2, Article 3), Fire/Police Dispatching and Records Software (Article ll(p)), Public Safety Radio Stabilization, Phase I (see Article 11(r)). Lexington must continue to replace its aging equipment and retain back-up capacity. The table on the next page includes the forecasted need for replacing major capital vehicles in the current Department inventory. 14 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Major Capital Equipment Except for the first entry (which is an FY2016 requested purchase) and the last (which reports the final disposal of a truck), the following is the current inventory of the Fire DepartmentÈs major capital 1 equipmentÄordered by the year of the currently projected replacement funding: Originally Projected Projected Replacement Model Year Put-in-Service Useful Life FundingIDTypeMakePurchasedDate(Years)Original Cost 23 FY2016E-2PumperTBD2015TBD 20TBD Emergency 24 FY2017L-1Aerial2000Jun 2001 20$588,000 One/ Cyclone Chevrolet/ 56 FY2018M-09Ambulance2009Jul 2009 9$204,000 Lifeline 57 FY2021M-12AmbulanceFord/Horton2012Mar 2012 9$251,199 Emergency 2 FY2022E-3Pumper2004Jan 2005$345,000 20 One/Typhoon 58 FY2024M-15AmbulanceFord/Horton2015Feb 2015 9$240,127 Ferrara/ 2 FY2027E-1Pumper2007Apr 2008$389,000 20 Intruder II Emergency 29 FY2034E-4Pumper2013Mar 2014 20$465,000 One/Typhoon 2 FY2036E-2PumperTBD2015TBDTBD 20 10 S-1Bucket TruckInternational19841984 Not Applicable 1 IncludesIDseriesÅEÆ(pumpers),ÅLÆ(ladder),&ÅMÆ(Medic)(Mdesignationfollowedbyvehicleyear).NotincludedareID seriesÅCÆ(cars),ÅHÆ(trailer),ÅSÆ(servicevehicles,includingtrailer),"F"(forestry),andalightunitastheyare(orwouldbe) funded from the operating budget. 2 The life span of these vehicles is based on 10 years of frontline service, and 10 years in reserve status. 3 See STM#2, Article 3. 4 As of Mar 2015, projected replacement cost in FY2017 is over $1,000,000. 5 The life span of ambulances is based on 3 years of primary service, 3 years of secondary service, and 3 years in reserve. 6 As of Mar 2015, projected replacement cost in FY2018 is ~$280,000. 7 Netcostwas$241,199($251,199less$10,000forthetrade-inforoldM-3),butgrosscostbeinglistedasfuturestatusofa trade-inisunknownÄplusit'sexpectedanypurchase~8yearsoutwill,aswithalltheotherout-yearpurchases,beata much higher cost. 8 Netcostwas$230,127($240,127less$10,000forthetrade-inforoldM-06),butgrosscostbeinglistedasfuturestatusof atrade-inisunknownÄplusit'sexpectedanypurchase~8yearsoutwill,aswithalltheotherout-yearpurchases,beata much higher cost. 9 $485,000wasappropriatedinFY2014.Theenginecostwas$465,000less$50,000forthetradeinofa2003 Ferrar/Internationalpumper,putinserviceinJuly2003,withanetcostof$415,000.Approximately$20,000wasspentfor ancillary equipment for the new pumper.Æ 10 Thistruckhadbeenusedtoservicetheremainingwiredfire-alarmcircuits.Itsbucketwastransferredoverfroma1969 model-yeartruckthathadbeenintheinventory.Therecheckwasdonetoensurethatthosecircuitstoberemovedbyother partieshadalsobeenremovedandtheyhad.Thetruckhasbeenscrapped.Itcouldnolongerbecertified,ithadno remainingvalue,andwillnotbereplaced.EquipmentwouldbeborrowedfromDPW,ifneeded,forasimilarfunctioninthe future. 15 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Fire Department 5-Year Capital Appropriation History (All Sources) Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus $260,000 Fire HQ Alarm Receiver $30,000 Fire Trucks & Ambulances$240,000$485,000$250,000 Firefighter Protection Turnout Gear$88,000 Public Safety Radio Connectivity$50,000 Heart Monitor$105,000 $290,000$328,000$50,000$485,000$355,000 Police The Lexington Police Department (LPD), which provides public safety services through a team of dedicated police officers, detectives, dispatchers and support staff, is supported by the TownÈs Capital Program in the areas of communication systems, computer systems, and improvements to the facility in which it is housed and trained. The FY2016 Capital Budget contains one request for funding a Police Department capital project (and one joint request with the Fire Department (see above)). A new firing range at the Hartwell Ave compost site has been contemplated for several years in order to meet current firearms training requirements and needs of modern police work, as well ensuring readiness to respond to weapons currently on the streetsÄ and potentially serving a regional need. We are pleased to see the timing of this project moved to a D&E request this year. (See Article 11(s)) We note that the TownÈs recommended 5-Year Capital Plan reflects funding D&E related to a renovation and add-on to the existing Police Station located at 1575 Massachusetts Avenue in FY2019, with construction funding as TBD. Beyond correcting very basic needs due to overcrowding and functional inadequacy, the renovation of the police station will include other necessary enhancements. For instance, the Police Department must substantially improve its ability to process fingerprints with a larger fuming tank and replacement of the smaller tank. (Standing alone, these costs would exceed $25,000.) Because this upgrade requires a larger lab and building design to support the use, it will be incorporated into the Police Station renovation project. The Federal Government has mandated that public-safety agencies (including LexingtonÈs Police and Fire Departments) will be required to move their radio-band frequency from the current 400 band, to the 800 band. This will require a complete replacement of radio equipment, including hand held, mobile, and base stations. The radio system was upgraded and changed in 1994, at a cost of over $1 million. A change to the new frequency band will be a capital project affecting both the Police and Fire Departments. The departments are currently studying how best to comply with the new mandates. Cost estimates will follow once the scope and timing of the project is clearly defined Police Department 5-Year Capital Appropriation History (All Sources) $31,700 1 Police Station Ventilation System $31,700$0$0$0$0 1 CPF Library In December 2010, architects Adams and Smith were hired to study how operations at the Main Library could be improved ($25,000 under 2010 ATM, Article 12(q)). Funding of $100,000 for recommended changes was approved under 2011 ATM, Article 13(l). The recommendations include changes to workflow and ergonomics. Under 2013 ATM, Article 10(b), $124,000 was appropriated to purchase equipment and supplies and provide for staff time to convert Cary Library materials to Radio Frequency ID (RFID) as a direct result of that report. That implementation is underway. As a result of a 2013 16 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) strategic plan, the library is looking to realign and reconfigure some of its spaces and services to todayÈs library patron needs. That work is expected to be funded privately. Restoration work to, and updating the Massachusetts Historical Commission Inventory on, the Stone Building (former East Lexington Library Branch), including a new roof, gutters, aluminum siding removal, painting, and window glazing, were completed in 2010 using $202,933 from the CPF under 2010ATM, Article8(q). Although the Historic Structures Report on which this work was based recommended a small addition to the rear, those plans were not acted upon as the Town has not yet determined a new use for the building. The building continues to be maintained by the DPF under the oversight of the Cary Library Board of Trustees. Library 5-Year Capital Appropriation History (All Sources) $25,000 Materials Handling & WorkflowÄStudy RFID Conversion Project$124,000 $25,000$0$0$124,000$0 Public Works The Department of Public Works (DPW) is responsible for design, bidding, construction, and management of projects related to all Town facilities except buildings that are assigned to the Department of Public Facilities (DPF). The DPW is organized around seven divisions which are responsible for these elements: Administration, Engineering, Highway, Public Grounds, Environmental Services, Water, and Sewer. Environmental Services manages solid waste; recyclables; yard waste from Lexington, the Town of Arlington and private contractors; and hazardous products from Lexington and 8 other neighboring communities. Major components of DPWÈs FY2016ÃFY2020 capital projects include: Road and sidewalk improvements Water distribution and sanitary-sewer systems improvements Storm-water control and management Hartwell Avenue Infrastructure Improvements Trucks and heavy equipment necessary to accomplish the DPW mission DPWÈs capital needsÄexcept CPA, Revolving-Fund, or Enterprise-Fund projectsÄmust be funded by the general tax levy and/or voter-approved debt exclusions. Almost all construction projects for the sanitary-sewer system and for the water-distribution system are funded from Enterprise Funds. Likewise, large trucks and heavy equipment used in support of the sanitary-sewer and water-distribution systems are funded by Enterprise Funds. Engineering Engineering work for all DPW projects is either done Åin houseÆ or contracted to outside consulting and/or design firms. In addition to supporting on-going DPW work, it represents an essential component of the development of a majority of our DPWÈs future projects. The Engineering Division will oversee the design of multiple projects funded in this-yearÈs budget. (See Article 11(a), (cÃk), & (m)) Roads Lexington has a total of 199.6 miles of roads. That total consists of 135.0 miles of Town-accepted roadways, 18.5 miles of private/unaccepted roadways, and 46.1 miles of State highway. (Source: Fay, Spofford & Thorndike (FST) report delivered to the Town, January 9, 2015) DPW maintains the public roadways; the remainder being maintained by the private owners or the State. DPW also maintains the TownÈs portion (5.3 miles) of the 10.0-mile Minuteman Commuter Bikeway. 17 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) In April 2010, the Town retained FST, a civil-engineering consulting firm, to develop and implement a Pavement Management System (PMS) for its public roadways and its portion of the Bikeway. The first study was completed in November 2010 and has been updated annually. The latest update (cited above) states ÅLexington is in very good shape shape from a Pavement Management standpoint. Over 40% \[of\] the entire roadway network is in the ÇDo NothingÈ treatment band and 5.5% of the network requires ÇBase RehabilitationÈ, which is even less than last yearÈs 6%.Æ and ÅWe recommend the Town maintaina pavement management funding level in the $3.2 million range this year.Æ Funding for roads is a combination of State Chapter 90 funds and Town funds and fulfills that recommendation. (See Article 11(i)) The comprehensive study, with the annual updates, provides an extensive roadway database describing actual pavement conditions and roadway characteristics in order to better understand future roadway- funding requirements. The initial study reported the replacement cost for just the Town-accepted roadways would be in excess of $85 million in FY2011 dollars. (A more detailed analysis of the report is contained in this CommitteeÈs report to the 2011 ATM, starting on Page 21.) The latest update reports the current backlog of outstanding work is $23,231,870Äwhich is about $1.1 million more than last yearÈs. (ÅBacklogÆ is the cost of repairing all the roads within one year and bringing the average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) to a near perfect 100.) It also reports the current, average, PCI in Lexington is 73.2, which has decreased slightly from last yearÈs 74.1. That puts the TownÈs roadway network in what is considered the ÅRoutine MaintenanceÆ treatment band (68Ã87), one down from the top ÅDo NothingÆ band (88Ã100). This Committee remains extremely pleased to 8(g the annual update of the PMS study as that provides a quantitative basis for determining the condition of the pavements that the DPW maintains. That information, along with recognition of pending associated impacts on our pavements (e.g., cuts for utilities work, construction for storm-water and wastewater system improvements, sidewalk-related projects, etc.) offers the promise of an even-more productive and cost-effective program going forward. (See Article 11 (h) & (i)) Sidewalks The town has over 84 miles of sidewalks. In 2005, due to the overdue need to upgrade and extend the sidewalks, the BoS appointed the Sidewalk Advisory Committee (SAC). Sidewalk maintenance and extension are expensive. These costs reflect issues of obstructions, easements, and addressing objections from residents. The SACÈs overall policy is to develop a prioritized sidewalk construction plan focusing on the Safe Routes to School Program, other high-pedestrian-traffic routes, and high-walking-hazard streets. This Committee is pleased that funding requests for center-business-district sidewalks are presented separately from those for residential sidewalks and that there are now three sidewalk categories: residential, CBD, and non-CBD business. The FY2016 sidewalk-funding request will allow the completion of residential projects outside the CBD, chosen through cooperation between the SAC and the DPW. This work includes D&E (as needed), as well as construction of new sidewalks and rebuilding/repaving existing sidewalks in several areas, with a focus on residential areas. Funding is also being requested for the design of a sidewalk at the Community Center. (See Articles 11(e) & 8(f)) In addition, feasibility studies for sidewalks on Pleasant Street and Prospect Hill are proposed. (Articles 12 & 13, respectively) There also is additional sidewalk work proposed. (STM#2, Article 4, & ATM Article 11(a)) Town-wide Signal Improvements Many of the TownÈs signals are outdated and sometimes malfunctioning. An Engineering Division study, funded with Traffic Mitigation funds, has identified those locations in need of improvement, after assessment of condition, signal timing, delays, ADA requirements, etc. (See Article 11(a) & (g)) 18 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Water Distribution System Many of the TownÈs water mains were installed in the early 1900s and require an ongoing engineering program plan of pipe cleaning, lining, or replacement. On an annual basis, the DPW implements work for cleaning, lining, and/or replacement of unlined, inadequate, aged, and breaking water mains to improve water quality, pressure, and fire-protection capabilities, and to reduce frequency and severity of water-main breaks, as well as to minimize water-main Ådead endsÆ. Work continues to replace remaining unlined pipes. The work will then focus on replacing aging mains or those with a higher break history. Engineering has a program plan for this work and its project list is shortening. (See Article 14). Heavy equipment and trucks used by the Water Division are procured with Water Enterprise funds. Where equipment is shared with the Sewer Division, the costs are shared. (See Article 11(b)) The Engineering Division has documented the materials, age, and break history of the TownÈs water mains and uses that information as well as material sampling (when appropriate) to determine its engineering replacement-and-rehabilitation plan, as well as suitable methods therefore. Some of the Åout yearÆ funding in the capital plan is still approximate due to the difficulty of actual testing in a working water system (unlike roads which can be analyzed visually and with easily accessible samples, water systems can only be tested by shutting down service to the section being tested (and the residents that section serves) and deep excavation. In the instance of older components of the system, (Massachusetts Avenue, for instance, is over 100 years old), work scope cannot be completely developed until preliminary exploratory work on actual site conditions is performed. That exploratory testing is both costly and disruptive, and therefore is performed on as limited a basis as practicable. (See Article 14) Hydrant System The FY2016 funding for hydrant replacement is evenly divided between Tax Levy funds and the Water-Enterprise Fund. This Committee continues to encourage replacement at an accelerated rate and welcomes that the level of funding proposed for this year is 50 percent more than the FY2015 level. (See Article 11(l)) Sanitary Sewer The sanitary-sewer system (also known as the wastewater system), like the water-distribution system, has sections that date back to the early 1900s. Due to age-related deterioration, some sections are susceptible to storm-water inflow and groundwater infiltration which increases the total flow to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) treatment system, resulting in increased charges to the Town, and causing overloading of parts of the system. There is an ongoing program of investigating, evaluating, replacing and repairing sections of the system. (See STM#2, Article 2 & ATM Article 15) The system has 10 wastewater pumping stations that need continual maintenance and periodic updating and which the Sewer Division has been upgrading. In September 2012, the engineering firm Wright- Pierce performed a detailed survey of the pump stations, generating a 20-year repair/replacement plan for the 10 pumping stations. This yearÈs request is consistent with those findings. (See Article 15) Three pumping stations (Main pump station, Concord Avenue, and Potter Pond) now have backup electric-power generators. This Committee considers that emergency generators should be provided at other pump stations as soon as practicable, and we are pleased to report that DPW has made plans to accomplish that. With a combination of available Capital funds and their Operating Budget, this important enhancement began in FY2013 with the Concord Avenue station, and a comprehensive plan now exists for the remaining stations. Heavy equipment and trucks used by the Sewer Division are procured with Sewer Enterprise Funds that are funded by Sewer Rate-Payer fees, additional fees and charges, investment income, and connection fees. Where equipment is shared with Water Division, the costs are shared. (See Article 11(b)) 19 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Dam Restoration The State Department of Conservation and Recreation mandates inspecting every five years every dam that is rated as a Åsignificant-hazard damsÆ. That rating is assigned to dams based on the risk from the water it impounds being released; it does not reflect its state of repair. There are two dams in Lexington. Butterfield Dam on Lowell Street: Engineering studies and construction work were funded under 2011 ATM Article 10(a) & 2012 ATM Article 12(g). Construction of Phase II (the last) of that work is now complete with the exception of minor punch-list items. Old Reservoir Dam on Marrett Road: 2014 ATM Article 10(i) funded design and cost estimates for the work on it to insure its long-term stability. Proposals are currently being solicited for design work. This design work is expected to commence this spring.It is now contemplated that a request for the construction funding for that work will be brought to the 2016 ATM. Storm-Water Drainage and National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) Storm drains collect storm water along Town streets and parking areas, and convey this water to streams and other bodies of water. The storm-drain pipes and the pavement-level catch basins that direct storm water to them occasionally fail due to heavy loads passing over them and/or loss of supporting soil around them thereby creating holes in the street. In addition, as streets are repaired and repaved, it is frequently discovered that the storm-drainage system is seriously deteriorated. Concurrent drainage-system repairs are required to prevent further deterioration and to protect newly paved streets. It also is necessary to study and repair drains where overflow conditions develop and/or complaints are received. (See Article 11(c)) The goal of the Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) rogram, under which the Town has a State-administered permit, is to maintain water quality. New p permitting regulations are anticipated that are expected to increase costs and complexities of this work in future years. Comprehensive Watershed Storm Water Management Systems The Town must maintain its 18 brooks, three watersheds, and its numerous wetlands in a condition such that they do not reduce the volume of water that can be handled by our storm-drainage systems. Sediment and broken tree limbs impede the flow of water and cause flooding and damage to private property, thus creating liabilities for the Town. Funding is being requested for the continuing design/implementation of the watershed plans. (See Article 11 (d)) Culvert Repair There are more than 50 culverts in Town and many are near, or at, failure. A culvert is defined as a pipe or drain that carries a stream or ditch under a roadway. DPWÈs engineering program for on-going culvert inspections has confirmed a need for culvert replacement and extraordinary repairs. This is a companion program to the on-going Watershed Management Plan. The 2011 ATM Article 7(s) appropriated $65,000 for the review, design, and permitting for repairs to the three culverts under the access road to the Hartwell Avenue Compost Facility. The 2012 ATM Article 12(d) appropriated $390,000 for replacement of those three culverts and for D&E for repairs to culverts identified in storm-drainage studies. The three culverts at the entrance to the Compost Facility and an additional culvert on Concord Avenue near the Belmont Town Line, were replaced in 2014. In 2015, construction is planned for the culvert under Revere Street at the North Lexington Brook and for the culvert under Concord Avenue at HardyÈs Brook. FY2016 funding is being requested to replace a culvert carrying the Bikeway (including the D&E cost and a contingency) and design work for future culvert construction. (See Articles 8(n) and 11(f) Public Grounds The Town owns approximately 630 acres of land of which approximately 110 acres are in parks, playgrounds, conservation areas, athletic facilities, school grounds, and historical sites. In addition, Town 20 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) staff administers and maintains four cemeteries with a combined area of a little over 30 acres. The Forestry staff maintains approximately 10,000 trees along roadways and an indeterminate number of trees, shrubs, and plantings on Town-owned land. This yearÈs request is for the relocation from overhead to underground of electrical distribution lines in Hastings Park. (See Article 11(k)) Minuteman Commuter Bikeway This 10-mile Bikeway, which was opened in 1993, runs from the Alewife MBTA Station to the Railroad Freight House in Bedford; 5.3 miles of the Bikeway lies in Lexington. The DPW maintains the Lexington segment. A request is being made to investigate restoring the bridge carrying the Bikeway over Grant Street. (See Article 11(j)) and, as noted above under Culvert Repair, there is a request to replace a culvert supporting the Bikeway. In addition, funding is requested for the design of Way-Finding-and-Etiquette signage for the Lexington portion of the Bikeway. (See Article 8(p)) DPW Equipment DPW has 145 pieces of significant equipment (includes vehicles). The replacement value for that equipment today is approximately $8 million. Of these, 90 pieces had an individual acquisition cost in excess of $25,000; therefore, their replacement would normally be subject to this CommitteeÈs review. DPW has developed a well-conceived program of replacing the older, less fuel-efficient and high-maintenance equipment with standard, off-the-shelf vehicles and equipment that will last longer and cost less to maintain and operate. Replacement of equipment replacement with individual acquisition costs under $25,000, and of all automobiles, is funded with operating funds. The current 5-year equipment-replacement schedule projects annual costs between $700,000 and $800,000 per year. The FY2016 requested funding was increased above that usual annual range to purchase a windrow turner for the compost operation at Hartwell Avenue. This piece of equipment was added to the budget as a result of the study done in conjunction with the solar project that was approved for the compost site. The study demonstrated that the having the windrow turner will assist the compost operation by enhancing efficiency and productivityÄeven if not required to operate in a reduced space as a result of the solar project. (See Article 11(b)) 21 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) DPW 5-Year Capital Appropriation History (All Sources) FY2011FY2012FY2013FY2014FY2015 Capital using Tax Levy & Chapter 90 Funds DPW Equipment$400,384$365,000$595,000$349,000$428,440 1 Street Improvements & Easements$1,376,578$1,546,602$4,026,000$2,814,238$3,216,029 Street light/Traffic lights/Traffic mitigation$217,000$87,000$125,000$125,000$125,000 CBD Streetscape$240,000$600,000 Battle Green Area Improvements$203,845$90,000 Town-wide Culvert Replacement$390,000$390,000$390,000 Drainage/dams/brook cleaning$270,000$770,000$600,000$340,000$340,000 Sidewalk/bikeway improvements$340,000$200,000$550,000$3,304,000$400,000 Comprehensive Watershed Study & Implement$110,000$50,000$165,000$390,000$390,000 Hydrant Replacement$25,000$25,000$25,000$50,000$50,000 Public Grounds$35,000$15,000$120,000 $2,738,962$3,078,602$6,919,845$7,777,238$6,149,469 Tax Levy & Chapter 90 Totals 1 FY2013 includes $175,000 of D&E & $1,500,000 of construction for Grove Street & Robinson Road work that, although off the site and, thus, is the responsibility of DPW, is in conjunction with the New Estabrook School project. Capital using Enterprise Funds Sanitary Sewer Sanitary Sewer System$1,200,000$1,200,000$1,200,000$1,200,000 Pump station upgrades$100,000$100,000$100,000$100,000$600,000 DPW Equipment$45,000$145,000$40,500 $145,000$1,300,000$1,300,000$1,445,000$1,840,500 Sewer Sub-Totals Water Water Mains Relining & Replacement$900,000$900,000$900,000$900,000 DPW Equipment$57,420$145,000$216,500 Hydrant Replacement$25,000$25,000$25,000$50,000$50,000 Rehabilitate Standpipes$160,000 $1,142,420$25,000$925,000$1,095,000$1,166,500 Water Sub-Totals $1,287,420$1,325,000$2,225,000$2,540,000$3,007,000 Enterprise-Fund Totals Capital using DPW Compost Operating Revolving Fund Culvert Replacement$65,000 $0$65,000$0$0$0 Revolving Fund Totals Public Facilities The Department of Public Facilities (DPF) is responsible for the coordination and care of all Town-owned buildings including those under the control of the BoS, Town Manager, Library Trustees, and School Committee. Expenses associated with the DPF staffing, maintenance (including preventative maintenance), custodial services, capital-project management, utilities, landscaping and grounds (at schools only), and building rentals are the responsibility of this department. The DPF is organized around four areas of responsibility: Administration, Project Management, Facility Maintenance and Repair, and Custodial Services. Administration is responsible for the administration of the Department. Project Management is responsible for major capital renovations and providing staff support to the TownÈs Permanent Building Committee for new construction. Facility Maintenance and Repair is responsible for the maintenance and repair of all the facilities listed below. Custodial Services is responsible for custodial services in all those facilities. DPF is responsible for buildings at 23 locations: Town Office Building, Cary Memorial Building, Police Station, Fire Department Headquarters, East Lexington Fire Station, Samuel Hadley Public Services Building, Stone Building (previously used as the East Lexington Library), Cary Memorial Library, Visitors Center, Council on Aging Facility (Senior Center in the Muzzey Condominiums, 1475 Massachusetts Avenue), Community Center (property at 39 Marrett Road to which the Town took title in December, 2013, and to which a transition of the Senior Center is planned at the completion of the 22 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) renovation to that property (projected to be this May), Westview Cemetery, the Hammond A. Hosmer House, nine schools, and the SchoolsÈ Central Administration (in the old Harrington School). DPF has taken a systematic approach to solving problems that affect both Municipal and School buildings, including roofs, flooring, building envelope, and school paved parking and sidewalk areas. During FY2013, DPF further refined its estimates for these programs, which in a few cases should be more on-going maintenance than capital expenditures. However, as the needs exist and the work will be funded using GF cash, the Committee supports these projects being in the Capital Budget. This yearÈs request for DPF Capital funding includes a wide range of important work to both enhance buildings to meet the programmatic demands of the programs that occur in them as well as to attend to the extraordinary repairs and maintenance that are essential to extending the useful life of the buildings. (See Article 18) This fiscal year has required attention to concluding the project management of the new Estabrook Elementary School (completed except for a few punch-list items that are scheduled for close out this May), and renovation to the newly acquired property at 39 Marrett Road for a Community Center to accommodate the Senior Center programs, expanded programming for all ages in the community, and for the Social Services and Recreation Department staff which manage those activities. (When the Community Center opensÄcurrently projected for May 2015Äpending a decision by the BoS on reuse of the space currently occupied by the Senior Center, DPFÈs management of that space would become ÅcaretakerÆ as is the current case for the Stone Building and the Hosmer House.) The contract for the Cary Memorial Building Upgrades was awarded on June 19, 2014, and certificate of occupancy is scheduled for this September. Project Management also continues on previously authorized projects with the first phase of the project for pre-fabricated modular buildings at the Lexington High School finished in time for the opening of the current school year, and now moving into the second phase whose units are to be available before the start of the 2015/2016 school year. Additional funding will be requested at the March 23, 2015, Special Town Meeting #2 for that phase. (See STM#2, Article 6) There will be significant, continuing, management demands on the Facilities Department as other major and minor projects are being explored in the coming years. The School Master Plan was completed on January 28, 2015. That Plan determined the capacity of the existing nine schools and proposed options to expand capacity to meet the growing enrollment forecast by the SuperintendentÈs Enrollment Working Group. The March 23, 2015, Special Town Meeting #1 will request funds to address capacity increases for pre-kindergarten (pre-K), elementary, and middle schools by confirming the Master Plan concepts, developing schematic designs and then developing design-and- construction documents in preparation for future construction appropriations by future Town Meeting(s). As part of the process, the School Committee voted to authorize the Superintendent to submit a Statement of Interest (SOI) to Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) for the Maria Hastings Elementary SchoolÄand that is expected to be done this month after the BoS votes to do so. If MSBA selects to participate in replacing that school, the Town may receive approximately 30% of the eventual cost in State funding. (See STM#1, Article 2). 23 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Public Facilities 5-Year Capital Appropriation History (All Sources) As inconsistencies have been found with the FY2011ÃFY2014 data as presented in prior reports, at this this time they are not being repeated. (Once validated, they will be provided, as applicable, in a future report.) ProgramFY2015 Municipal Building Envelope$178,302 Visitors Center Design$220,608 Cary Memorial Building Upgrades$8,677,400 Community Center Renovations$3,551,000 E. Lexington Fire Station Fitness Rm$75,000 Municipal Sub-Total$12,702,310 Schools Evaluation of Middle Schools Spaces$40,000 Public Facilities Bid Documents$75,000 Building Envelope$230,000 Landscaping/Paving$100,000 Extraordinary School Repairs$423,750 Clarke School Auditorium$69,300 Clarke School Elevator$275,000 School Master Plan$250,000 LHS Heating System$75,000 Schools Sub-Total$1,538,050 $14,240,360 Grand Totals Recreation Recreation Department programs are funded from three sources: Tax Levy (e.g., used for neighborhood playgrounds, athletic fields, and basketball court ¥ improvements) Recreation Enterprise Fund (e.g., used for fee-based activities such as Pine Meadows Golf ¥ Course, Irving H. Mabee Pool, Old Reservoir, and tennis courts) CPA funds (e.g., preservation of recreation facilities, including those for fee-based activities) ¥ Fee collections for Enterprise Fund-based activities are weather dependent and can vary from year to year. The Recreation Enterprise Fund makes an annual debt-service payment of $100,000 per year for Lincoln Fields (ending in February 2018). It also makes an annual indirect payment to the Town that in FY2015 will be $233,600. CPA monies have enabled some large projects which otherwise might not have been financially viable. Most recently, the Center Playfields Drainage Project has been funded $2,392,754 through CPF appropriations in FY2011ÃFY2013. Significantly, amendments to the CPA that were signed into law on July 8, 2012, now allow CPA funding to replace playground equipment and other rehabilitation work on fields not originally purchased with CPA funds. At this Town Meeting, Recreation-related funding requests include funds to: Renovate the playground at Marvin Park. (See Article 8(i)) This project is part of an ongoing program to update community playgrounds and to bring them into compliance with current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. Renovate Lincoln Park natural-grass softball field, including permanent features. (See Article 8(j)) 24 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Conduct a study of the Town's recreation areas with regard to accessibility. (See Article 8(k)) Standards required by the Americans with Disabilities Act evolve over time, and compliance with the ADA requires ongoing efforts to meet them. Rehabilitatethe basketball courts at Marvin Park and Sutherland Park. (See Article8(l)) This is part of an ongoing hard-court-resurfacing program of the Town's track, basketball and tennis courts. rd Replace synthetic turf at the 3 of the 3 such fields at Lincoln Park. (See Article 8(m)) Replace a Pine Meadows Golf Club mower which has exceeded its life expectancy. (See Article 10) The Recreation Department tracks all of its capital-equipment life expectancy based on manufacturers' recommendations, but replacement is based on the actual, observed, condition.. Recreation 5-Year Capital Appropriation History (All Sources) Athletic Fields$50,000$60,000$65,000$100,000 Park, Playgrounds, & Tot Lots$185,000$147,500$150,000 Pine Meadows Golf Course$46,000$75,000$51,000 Swimming (Old Res & Center)$25,000 Center Playfields Drainage$875,173$911,863$605,718 Town Pool Renovations$165,000 Lincoln Fields Improvements$565,000$620,000 $950,173$1,076,863$896,718$852,500$921,000 Schools Overview The Lexington Public Schools (LPS) provide educational, athletic, and club activities for students in grades KindergartenÃ12. This is the enrollment for the current and the two previous academic years: Enrollment in Lexington Public Schools Academic Year Grades2012/20132013/20142014/2015 Kindergarten (K)Ã52,8472,9253,024 Middle Schools (6Ã8)1,6411,6571,616 High School (9Ã12)1,9912,0022,094 Totals 6,4796,5846,734 Enrollment figures are those as of October 1st as required by the StateÈs Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) for each academic year. Pre-school programs are also offered by the LPS. The number of children in Pre-K is variable, but the number of special-education children needing a full-day placement vs. a half-day placement has been rising which has added significantly to the pressing need for additional Pre-K classrooms LPS currently own and operate six elementary-school buildings, two middle-school buildings, and the high-school complex of four, freestanding, academic buildings and a field house. Central Office (ÅAdministrationÆ) personnel and services are located in what had been the old Harrington School. In addition, the old Harrington houses elements of the Lexington, Arlington, Burlington, Bedford, Belmont (LABBB) Collaborative and Pre-K programs. The maintenance of those fourteen buildings is overseen by the DPF. 25 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Perhaps the most important capital issue facing LPS is the fact that other than the Estabrook Elementary School, the schools are already at or over capacity, so the increasing enrollments present a growing pressure on the schools from a building-capacity perspective. To confront this issue, the LPS put together a group of citizens to address the issue of forecasting enrollments. That Enrollment Working Group reports that the recent enrollment growth was driven primarily by an increase in families with school-age children moving intoapartments. There exists enough headroom in apartments for this to continue for some years into the future, so the expectation is that enrollment will likely continue to grow for at least several years. As a result of the likely continued growth in enrollment coupled with the lack of additional capacity in the current schools and the condition of the Maria Hastings School, the LPS formed the Ad hoc School Master Planning Committee. It developed and began the process of assessing various options for school remodeling, school additions, and school replacement. Based on that work, the School Committee is expected to adopt a plan that is expected to begin implementation in the very near term, and will need an initial appropriation at the March 23, 2015, Special Town Meeting #1. The plan will start with further and more-detailed examination of various prefabricated classroom, brick-and-mortar additions, and building replacement if funding is appropriated at that Special Town Meeting While capital projects for the LPS buildings and their environs are managed by the DPF, there are often requests for capital appropriations directly managed by LPS in the following four areas: School Technology Program There is a long-term plan to upgrade technology throughout the schools by replacing the oldest computers, peripherals, projection systems, network-delivery systems, and other associated hardware and software to use as (See Article 16(b)) enhanced instructional and administrative tools. Classroom and Administrative Furniture On an annual basis the school department replaces and/or repairs old or outdated furniture such as student and teacher desks, chairs, tables, filing cabinets and other basic furnishings. In addition to classroom and office furnishings, other system-wide furnishings include conference and cafeteria tables, bookshelves, and storage units. This Committee is pleased to see that this yearÈs request includes funding to accomplish a District-wide inventory and assessment of all the furnitureÄand continuing inventory assessment as the assets change. That should provide important insight into the on-going management of that expensive asset base, provide for enhanced reuse and/or repair of existing furniture, and help tailor new requests to the minimum quantity, type, and costs of furniture that is needed to support the educational programs. (See Article 16(a)) Equipment Food-service operations in all schools serve hot and cold meals to thousands of students each school day. It is essential to purchase and maintain equipment for preparing and maintaining cooked items and that provides for safe distribution. The food-service operations are contracted to a private vendor, but the purchase of equipment is the responsibility of the school system. FY2016 funding is being requested to replace the dishwasher at the High School (See Article 16(d)) In addition, the District needs supplemental funding in order to make the purchase of a time-clock system to improve efficiency and to make it easier and more reliable to comply with State wage laws. (See Article 16(d)). Traffic Mitigation for Safety While traffic mitigation to improve safety has been a Capital request in past years, there is no FY2016 request for further School-District-wide studies as that effort continues using the previous appropriation. There is, however, an FY2016 request to proceed with developing construction documents and an implementation plan, for a future appropriation of construction funds, for the preferred option for the Clarke Middle School. (See Article 18(b)) 26 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) School 5-Year Capital Appropriation History (All Sources) Technology$696,000$737,000$1,002,000$1,213,000$1,110,000 Classroom Furniture$58,571$150,000$83,000$281,031$261,594 Food Service Equipment$99,500$64,000 Time Clock/Time Reporting System$97,000$30,000 School Traffic Mitigation for Safety$30,000 School Defibrillator Replacement$30,500 $951,071$951,000$1,085,000$1,524,031$1,432,094 In FY2012, includes $30,000 from the Food Services RF. Information Services Department (IS) ÅMission: The Information Services Department (formerly the Information Technology Department) provides information technology services and resources to all Town staff, including accounting and payroll applications, along with other core technology related services for municipal and school departments. ÅBudget Overview: The Information Services Department (IS) supports, maintains and manages the Town's information technology systems (hardware, software and web sites) that are critical elements of service delivery and program management for all of the Town's departmental operations. Services provided include: hardware and software support for all information technology activities in all municipal operations; training of end users; maintenance of financial management hardware and software (MUNIS) that serves town and school departments; electronic mail and internet access; support of the TownÈs website on the internet and intranet; voice over internet protocol (VoIP) infrastructure and applications; head end management and support; and co-management, with School Department Information Technology staff, of the Town's metropolitan area network that connects 27 town and school buildings. \[Brown Book, Page X-24\] There are two requests for capital upgrades to the IS infrastructure. (See Articles 11(n) & (o)) IT 5-Year Capital Appropriation History (All Sources) $50,000 Public Safety Radio Connectivity $55,000$591,000$146,000$260,000 Telephone System Replacements 1 $465,000$165,000$256,000$140,000 MIS Technology Improvement Program Town-wide Electronic Documentation $410,000$145,000$60,000 Management System $520,000$575,000$786,000$462,000$400,000 1 FY2011 includes $55,000 for a MUNIS Financial-Software Upgrade Affordable Housing The Capital Expenditures Committee recognizes that to provide for the needs of its residents and to meet the requirements of State law, the Town must plan and budget for the creation of units of affordable housing, in parallel with the continuing private production of market rate homes. Following is a brief primer on the requirements of State law and Lexington's efforts to provide affordable housing. The is a 14-member board of Town residents appointed by the Lexington Housing Partnership (LHP) Board of Selectmen to 3-year terms. The LHP was instrumental in Lexington's adoption of the CPA in 2006, as housing is one of the project categories that may be financed with funding under that Act. The 27 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) LHP's primary mission is to keep Lexington residents informed of the Town's housing needs and to plan and advocate for the preservation and creation of affordable housing units on an ongoing basis. The was created under Massachusetts General Law, Lexington Housing Authority (LHA) Chapter 121B, Section 3, passed by the State legislature in 1969. Under the statute, municipal housing authorities manage State- and Federally-subsidized housing units and administer Federal housing vouchers to individuals and households who qualify. Four members of the LHA are elected, and a fifth is appointed by the Governor. As of December 2012, the LHA owned or managed 240 units, which include one-bedroom units for elderly or disabled residents at Countryside Village, Greeley Village, and Vynebrooke Village, as well as 18 two-to-four-bedroom units scattered throughout the Town. The LHA also administers 78 housing vouchers, which are used by households to pay private landlords. Depending on the size and type of housing unit, the LHA's wait time for eligible households varies from 1 to 8 years. The ) is unique to Lexington. It was founded in 1983 by Lexington Housing Assistance Board (LexHAB a group of citizens concerned about the need for affordable and transitional housing for Lexington residents experiencing economic difficulties. With initial contributions from the developers of the Brookhaven Life-Care Living Facility and the Potter Pond condominium, LexHAB acquired attached and detached rental-housing units, which now total 64. They are administered by the volunteer 7-member Board, which uses rents to maintain and improve the units as needed. Since Lexington's adoption of the CPA in 2006, Town Meeting has approved annual allocations of CPA funds to LexHAB for the acquisition of additional units and, recently, for the construction of units on Town land. LexHAB also maintains a reserve fund to be used to purchase units on which the deed restrictions maintaining their affordability may expire. passed in 1969, is the State statute that requires each Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40B, municipality in the Commonwealth to have 10% of its housing "affordable" as defined by the statute and its regulations. An affordable unit is defined as one that could be purchased or rented by a household receiving income of up to 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI), assuming that the household spends no more than 30% of that income on housing. AMI for the Greater Boston Area is adjusted annually, and varies according to household size. To be maintained as affordable, a unit must be subject to a long-term, preferably perpetual, deed restriction limiting its sale price to the affordable level as determined at the time of sale. To encourage the creation of more rental units, the statute also provides that if a rental-housing development deed-restricts 25% of its units, of the rental units will count as part of the all town's Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI), even though 75% of them are actually priced at market rate. To avoid unlawful discrimination, the State requires affordable units coming available to be assigned by a lottery among applicants whose eligibility has been established. . The housing units administered by the LHA and those LexHAB units which have been Lexington's SHI assigned under the State's lottery procedure all count on Lexington's SHI. In 2007, the completion of the rental complex Avalon at Lexington Hills gave the Town 387 additional rental units, all of which count on the Town's SHI, although only 25% of them are deed-restricted. (Prior to including these units, 7.3% of LexingtonÈs housing was on the SHI.) This put Lexington's affordable housing (per the statutory definition) at 11.2%, making Lexington one of only 50 of the 351 Massachusetts municipalities that have met the statutory 10% requirement. (However, it should be noted that the actual percentage of housing units that are subject to deed restrictions maintaining them as affordable is closer to 5%.) If the Town's SHI falls below 10% of Town-wide housing units, the statute provides that private developers who deed-restrict 25% of units in their projects may not be subject to the density restrictions of Lexington's zoning bylaw, allowing them to build larger and more densely sited subdivisions than Lexington would otherwise allow. Prior to reaching 10%, Lexington saw such a "40B project" constructed on Lowell Street. provides that 10% of each year's revenue under the Act (i.e., The Community Preservation Act (CPA) the designated tax surcharge revenue, plus what is now partially matching State contribution, and interest earned on the Community Preservation Fund (CPF)) be allocated for community (affordable) housing. Since Lexington's adoption of the Act in 2006, the Town has relied primarily on the CPF to create and 28 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) support community housing. The CPC has recommended, and Town Meeting has approved, annual appropriation of funds to the LHA, LexHAB, and the LHP as set out in the following table. Town MeetingDescriptionProponentAmount ($) 2007 ATMReplacement of windows at Greeley Village LHA228,404 Construction of affordable units for brain Douglas House300,000 1 damaged individuals Structural evaluation of Muzzey LexHAB & 26,750 Condominimum (includes 12 affordable units)Muzzey Condominium Assocation Subtotal555,154 2008 ATMWindow replacements at Vynebrooke VillageLHA158,686 Purchase of three condomominium units at LexHAB652,800 Parker Manor for deed restriction Survey and define affordable housing LHP & LexHAB25,000 programs Subtotal836,486 2009 ATMRoof replacement at Greeley VillageLHA320,828 Purchase of 4 units at scattered sites for LexHAB845,000 rehabilitation and deed restrict Purchase of Leary property on Vine Street LexHAB600,000 2 (30,022 square-foot portion (0.7 acres)) Subtotal1,765,828 2009 STM Purchase of the 7.93-acres Busa property on LexHAB250,502 (May 6)Lowell Street had about 0.5 acres allocated for affordable housing. (The balance of about 7.4 acres was for Open Space.) 2010 ATMStudy for replacement of Vynebrook drainageLHA10,000 Replacement of siding at Greeley VillageLHA386,129 Purchase of 2 units at scattered sits for LexHAB695,000 rehabilitation and deed restriction Subtotal1,091,129 2011 ATMConstruction of Vynebrooke drainage systemLHA364,800 Set aside for purchase of properties as LexHAB450,000 available Subtotal814,800 2012 ATMConstruction of 4 handicapped accessible LHA810,673 3 units at Greeley Village Set aside for purchase of properties as LexHAB450,000 available Subtotal1,260,673 4 2013 ATMLHA172,734 Replacement of doors at Greeley Village 2014 ATMVynebrook Village Renovations (replacement LHA300,551 5 of roofing, siding,exterior doors) LexHAB set-aside funds for development of LexHAB750,000 community housing at Busa Farm on Lowell 6 St Subtotal1,050,551 Total7,797,857 1 Remainder of funds raised by the Douglas House 2 Purchase price for 14.2-acres parcel was $1,659,749, of which $1,059,749 was allocated to Open Space (13.5 acres) 3 Total project cost was $1,110,673 of which $300,000 was paid by a State grant. 4 Total project cost was $190,734 of which $18,000 was paid by a State Grant. 5 Total project cost was $901,653, of which $601,102was paid by a DHCD grant. 6 The 2014 ATM voted to add the requested sum of $750,000 to funds already held by LexHAB: $450,000 in unused funds from the 2013 allocation, and $84,653 in unused funds from the 2011 allocation, for a total of $1,284,653 for use in building community housing at the Busa Farm site. 29 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) As noted above, the housing units administered by the LHA are subsidized by the State (Greeley Village and Vynebrooke Village) or the Federal government (Countryside Village). However, in recent years State contributions toward the maintenance and improvement of these developments have been inadequate, despite the LHA's annual application for state grants. (For construction of new accessible units in FY 2013, the LHA secured $300,000 in State funds, and for replacement of Greeley Village doors in FY 2014. $18,000 in State funds.) CPA funds may be used for the creation and support of housing, including capital improvements. CPAfundsallocated to the LHA have been for capital improvements to keep existing units functional and in compliance with legal standards. The 2012 allocation for the construction of four accessible units in Greeley Village will bring it into compliance with statutory accessibility requirements when the units are completed, as well as adding to Lexington's SHI. Funds allocated to LexHAB have been the primary means of adding affordable units to Lexington's inventory. In keeping with its original practice of acquiring scattered units throughout town, LexHAB has requested CPA allocations to purchase and rehabilitate individual attached and detached homes, which are then deed-restricted and rented to eligible households. The CPC has established guidelines with regard to housing purchases with CPA funds, and has capped the amount available for any one purchase and rehabilitation at $525,000. For FY2012 and again for FY2013, LexHAB requested CPA allocations of $450,000, in order to have funds on hand to purchase properties when they became available, and not to lose a chance because of the annual Town Meeting appropriation cycle. However, as housing prices in Lexington continue to rise, there are fewer opportunities to purchase and rehabilitate properties within the guidelines. LexHAB underspent its allocation from FY2012 by $84,653 and has not yet spent the FY2013 allocation of $450,000. For FY2014, Town Meeting rejected the recommendation of the CPC to vote another annual allocation of $450,000 for the creation of new units on Town-owned land already designated for affordable housing, rather than for purchase of an additional existing home. Town Meeting rejected LexHAB's application, heeding arguments that the number and style of units on Town-owned land had not yet been determined by the BoS, leaving the project insufficiently specific for funding. There are two parcels of land purchased by the Town in 2009 with Community Preservation funds that include portions specifically designated for affordable housing: the Leary property on Vine Street and the Busa Farm property on Lowell Street. The 14.2-acres Leary property was purchased in 2009 with 13.5 acres as open space with 30,022 square feet (0.7 acres) on Vine Street designated for affordable housingÄpaid for with CPA open-space and housing funds. A committee appointed by the BoS investigated the potential of the parcel and recommended that six attached units be built there. In 2011, the Annual Town Meeting rejected a LexHAB application for design funds for this project, and no action is currently pending, although the designated land remains deed restricted for housing. The 7.93-acres Busa Farm property also was purchased in 2009 with both CPA open-space and housing funds. In response to community demand, about 7.4 acres has been designated as open space and is currently leased to the Lexington Community Farm, Inc., now operating as a community farm, The remaining about 0.5 acre (about 20,000 square feet) on Lowell Street has been designated by the BoS for affordable housing. LexHAB's FY2015 application for $750,000 in CPA funds was approved by Town Meeting to be added to the funds LexHAB already has on hand and used for the creation of six housing units, in two buildings, on Lowell Street. The project will require the completion and approval of a Local Initiative Program (LIP) application to the Zoning Board of Appeals before construction can begin. LexHAB has recently received approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals on another LIP program involving the purchase and rehabilitation of an existing home on Fairview Street and the addition of three more attached units on the same parcel. This project is being funded out of LexHAB's reserve (non-CPA) funds and construction is expected to begin this April or May. The CPC is recommending additional community housing funds for FY2016. (See Article 9) 30 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) . The Lexington Planning Department and the LHP Projected Need for Affordable Housing Units assisted the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) in preparing a draft Housing Production Plan for Lexington, which was presented to the Board of Selectmen on March 10, 2014. The BoS accepted the report, but has not determined what portions it may choose to implement. (Note: The Plan has not been presented to this Committee and, therefore, this Committee has not vetted it.) While allocations for affordable housing have been made each year since Lexington's adoption of the CPA in 2006, the number of new housing units actually produced or in process over that time has averaged less than 2.5 units per year: three at Parker Manor, four at Greeley Village, three on Fairview Street, and seven more at scattered sites. As the data in the Housing Production Plan receives more analysis, it should help the Town to determine what the actual housing needs of its residents are and where the greatest demand for housing will lie, for example, among down-sizing seniors, young families with children, professional couples, etc. With the Plan's preparation, the Town has begun to look more closely at its housing needs, whether funding should continue to come almost exclusively from the CPF, and how to provide the necessary amount of housing while realizing economies of scale and greener building methods. Unless totally funded outside of Town resources, including the CPF, this Committee will continue to participate in the evaluation of the housing program and housing projects. 31 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Warrant-Article Explanations and Recommendations Cites of the ÅTown WarrantÆ refer to the ÅTown of Lexington Warrant for the 2015 Annual Town MeetingÆ, January292015. Cites of theÅBrown BookÆ refer to the ÅTown of Lexington Fiscal Year 2016 Recommended Budget & Financing PlanÆ, February 27, 2015. 2015 Special Town Meeting #1, March 23, 2014 Funding Fund TM#1 Article 2: Authorization Committee Recommends Appropriate For School Source Requested Facilities Capital Projects $4,080,000 GF (Candidate for Approval (5Ã0) Excluded Debt) ÅThe 2015 School Master Plan, funded by Article 5 of June 2014 Special Town Meeting, concluded that eight of the nine Lexington Public Schools were at or over capacity. The Master Plan identified several short and long term options for meeting the capacity forecast over the next five years of the SuperintendentÈs Enrollment Working Group. The Ad hoc School Master Planning Committee recommended that the School Committee seek $4,080,000 in funds to move several projects through schematic design, design development, and construction documents, and then seek construction funds at a future Town Meeting. (At the time of the printing of this document, these projects were still under consideration by the Board of Selectmen.)Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-11\] \[Note: The following was developed in cooperation with the Appropriation Committee\] Background Recent enrollment growth in the Lexington Public School (LPS) System, and anticipated continuing growth over the next few years, will require the Town to increase the capacity of its school facilities to restore flexibility and avoid unacceptable levels of overcrowding. In addition, the Maria Hastings School requires extensive repair and renovation, or replacement. The capacity needs are greatest in the Pre-K program, where the town has statuary requirements that must be met either in-district or with expensive out-of-district placements (averaging approximately $100,000 per placement) and with strict class-size regulations. Pre-K has outgrown its space at the Harrington School and is currently using space at Old Harrington. This stopgap approach is unlikely to be viable long term. The elementary schools are nearing capacity as a system, and four of the six schools are currently over capacity. The middle schools are nearing capacity. As these students move through the system capacity issues may arise at the high-school level as well in later years. A confounding issue is that over time student density around Town has evolved and our school capacities have changed, most notably at the new Estabrook School. Our current elementary school districts no longer assign students in a space-efficient manner leading to increased overcrowding in some schools. The Enrollment Working Group (EWG), an ad hoc body of the School Committee and Administration, was formed to study the LPS enrollment history and to create a projection of enrollment numbers for the next five years. Their results are summarized in the following table. 32 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Current Current Enrollment Growth Over 1 Capacity Enrollment Grade Group in FY2020 FY2014 2 2 Elementary (K-5) 3,036 3,188 ¯ 267 260 ¯ 267 2,990Ã3,118 Middle School (6-8)1,6181,830 ¯ 70171 ¯ 701,620Ã1,656 High School (9-12) 2,112 2,290 ¯ 120 269 ¯ 120 2,250Ã2,290 3 6,766 7,279 ¯ 410 671 ¯ 410 6,860Ã7,064 Total 1 As of January 15, 2015 2 For the Elementary schools the value of 3,118 is from the Phase 1 SMMA report. The lower value of 2,990 is derived by reducing the SMMA capacities by 46 and 41 students to size Bowman and Bridge, respectively, to core space (532 students each) and a reduction of 41 students at Maria Hasting to account for the nature of its special-education program where moderately high-needs students are accommodated in general-education classes requiring somewhat smaller-class sizes. The ranges for the Middle and High Schools are from the Phase 1 SMMA report. 3 The analysis of the system was done independently from the individual elements so, except for Current Enrollment, the total is not simply the sum of the values in the columns. In June 2014, a Special Town Meeting appropriated $250,000 for school facility master planning. The School Committee and School Administration then appointed the Ad hoc School Master Planning Committee (AhSMPC). The AhSMPC and Public Facilities Department retained the architectural firm, Symmes Maini & McKee Associates to evaluate school facilities and capacity, and perform an initial assessment of various options to add capacity to the elementary- and middle-school buildings. SMMA and the AhSMPC evaluated the capacities of all the school buildings currently in use, and delivered a list of several options for addressing the perceived needs. The School Committee voted to pursue ÅOption 9Æ, which had an estimated cost of $119 million. After a series of summit meetings with the Board of Selectmen, Appropriation Committee, Capital Expenditures Committee, and Permanent Building Committee, a draft consensus plan evolving out of Option 9 was developed. An evolved version of the consensus plan was formally adopted at a joint meeting of the Board of Selectmen, School Committee, Appropriation Committee, and Capital Expenditures Committee held on February 25, 2015 (Budget Collaboration/Summit 7). (See Appendix A) This plan describes how to initiate a large interconnected group of projects to respond to growing enrollment needs in a timely and cost-effective manner, while respecting the need to continue studying and refining the school capital plan. It is expected that this plan will carry a somewhat lower cost, but that is yet to be verified. An initial estimate allocating the funds being requested (see Appendix B) and a schedules scenario reflecting one possible outcome of producing the additional capacity (See Appendix C) were provided based on the cooperative effort by Jon Himmel, Co-Chair, Lexington Permanent Building Committee, and Pat Goddard, Director, DPF. As part of that consensus and apart from the work proposed in this request, the School Committee has agreed to study redistricting options that could be implemented before new classrooms are available, even though redistricting is unlikely to mitigate the overall, long-term, capacity issues predicted by the EWG. Proposed Work The School Committee has requested $4,080,000 for a combination of concept-confirmation studies, design-development work, and construction documents to execute, or in some cases to refine, the school capital projects in the consensus plan. The work proposed in this request will establish the basis for a more-detailed discussion of the school capital plan in the summer and fall of 2015. The study results are critical for policy makers to have a fully informed debate on the construction components of the capital plan. This request would fund various components of the plan to different stages of completion. Approximately one-third of the request will fund an initial set of investigative tasks, each with potential follow-up tasks 33 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) to be performed contingent on recommendations from the School Committee and formal approval by the Board of Selectmen. This Committee, the Appropriation Committee, the Permanent Building Committee, and the Department of Public Facilities will be consulted during this approval process. This request will allow the Town to research key issues prior to making decisions about which projects to pursue, when they should be initiated, and how they should be financed. These issues include basic viability, cost estimates, timing, and scheduling factors for each phase of the proposed projects. With this information, the Town will have greater confidence in the successful completion and cost of each program element and will be prepared to proceed quickly with the school capital projects. The proposed work and estimated costs is provided in the table below. Each element in the second phase is contingent on review of the information gathered in the initial phase. Building, Construction Type Initial Phase Second Phase Total Cost Diamond, bricks and mortar $316,000$380,000$696,000 Diamond, pre-fabricated$130,000$388,000$518,000 Clarke, pre-fabricated $111,000$307,000$418,000 Bridge, pre-fabricated $93,000$250,000$343,000 Bowman, pre-fabricated $86,000$221,000$307,000 Hastings, bricks and mortar $390,000$530,000$920,000 PreÃK, standalone or addition, bricks $115,000$297,000$412,000 and mortar Harrington, Pre-K to K-5 Conversion $35,000$43,000$78,000 Other (Fiske bricks and mortar, School $45,000$0$45,000 Administration Building) Fiske, pre-fabricated $93,000$250,000$343,000 Total $1,414,000$2,666,000$4,080,000 The Financial Environment The school facilities projects in the present plan are not the only large capital projects that the Town is likely to need in the next five years or so. Some of the additional, major, municipal capital projects are listed in the following tableÄwhich this Committee believes may well be in excess of $70 million. When added on to the total anticipated costs for the projects in the current request, this represents a significant future burden on the Town. Project Description 1 Diamond energy improvements 1 Middle school science & performing arts 1 LHS heating system repairs 1 Clarke circulation/parking 2 Center Streetscape improvements 3 Fire Headquarters replacement 4 Police Headquarters renovation/expansion/replacement 1 Initial feasibility or design funded, but not yet construction 2 st 1-phase construction funding is in the FY2016 requests (Article ll(a)) 3 No funding yet appropriated for what is likely to be the new project 34 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) This Committee has reviewed a preliminary model of the finances and tax impacts prepared by the Town Manager and Assistant Town Manager for Finance. The model is built on a large number of assumptions, many of which that will need to be changed as the plan evolves. We therefore do not present the details of the model here as that will be a factor at the fall Town Meeting when decisions will have been made about what major construction elements will be proposed for execution. Many of these projects will require approval from voters through adebt-exclusion referendumunder the provisions of Proposition 2. If all of these projects are carried out in the next five years, the financing will require annual tax increases that could approach or exceed 10% for several years according to an initial assessment by the Town. In recent years the Town has appropriated funds into the Capital Projects/Debt Service Reserve/Building Renewal Stabilization Fund for the purposes expressed in its title as well as withdrawn funds for those same purposes. The table below states the current and anticipated reserves: Capital Projects Stabilization Fund Amount Balanceas of December31,2014$8,039,928 FY2016 appropriation (net of withdrawals) into $8,612,265 the Fund Total $16,652,193 Money in this Stabilization Fund can be appropriated to pay for a portion of the TownÈs annual excluded-debt service, mitigating the impact on taxpayers by limiting their annual increases to a lower percentage per yearÄto the extent the balance in that Fund is sufficient to do so. Consideration of this article should be taken with appreciation of this financial environment. Financial Aspects of the Present Request In our view, funding this request is a necessary first step, but this should not be construed as tacit approval by this Committee of any particular project. This Committee and other boards will have to evaluate any future capital requests based on what is learned in each phase of the planning process. In addition, significant future funding will require appropriation by Town Meeting. As noted above, several projects will require voter approval in a debt-exclusion referendumÄand that doesnÈt address what will likely be a debt-exclusion need for other municipal projects. Per advice from the TownÈs Bond Counsel, in order for significant design costs associated with each successful project to be financed as exempt-debt service, the funds expended on design work must be carefully tracked. One or more Bond Anticipation Notes (BANs) will be issued under the initial appropriation giving the Town a short-term, interest-only, loan. For projects that are eventually approved in debt-exclusion referenda, the BANs will be converted into bonds with a term of 20 or more years. The initial spending on any project that does not result in construction must be managed as in-levy debt. Supporting Material The various reports from the EWG, SMMA, and Ad Hoc School Master Planning Committee are available on the LPS website (http://lps.lexingtonma.org/Page/5740). 35 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) 2015 Special Town Meeting #2, March 23, 2014 Funding Fund STM#2 Article 2: Pump Committee Recommends Authorization Station Repairs Source Requested $750,000 Wastewater EF Approval (5Ã0) (RE) Å¼$750,000 of this funding request is for anticipated improvements to the main pumping station off of Route 95/128, which has serious operational issues impacting the force main on Gleason Road. \[Brown Book, Page XI-23\] See Article 15(b) for the balance of the funding for Pump Station work beyond the above scope. Funding Fund STM#2 Article 3: Authorization Committee Recommends Appropriate For Source Requested Purchase Of Fire Engine $500,000 GF (Debt) Debt Approval (5Ã0) Service to be Funded with FY16 Free Cash/ Settlement with Manufacturer ÅThis is a request to purchase a new fire pumper to return the department's fleet back to four (4) Pumpers. The Town was able to negotiate the return of a defective pumper (Engine 2, purchased in 2010). The cost of this new pumper will come from proceeds from the fire pumper manufacturer. Until this pumper is replaced, the Fire Department will continue to borrow back-up equipment from neighboring communities when the TownÈs front-line pumpers are out-of-service.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-5\] Funding Fund STM#2 Article 4: Committee Recommends Authorization Appropriate For Cary Source Requested Memorial Building $194,200 CPF (Cash) Approval (5Ã0) Sidewalk Enhancement (Historic Resources) ÅThe 2014 March Special Town Meeting appropriated funds to renovate the Cary Memorial Building. At the time of the funding request, the design of the sidewalk accessibility had not been decided. The Board of Selectmen¼voted that the material for this sidewalk will be a concrete surface with a wire cut brick band running parallel with the direction of travel. In addition, two additional post lamps are being added before the new concrete sidewalks are poured in placeÆ \[Brown Book, Page XI-19\] This request is instead of one being made under Article 8(g). The BoS is continuing its discussion with the Commission on Disability (CoD) with regard to the suitability of the sidewalk surface chosen by the BoS (as cited in the above quote from the Brown Book) for this project. There now is an extra focus as the position of the Historic Districts Commission (HDC) is 36 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) that the sidewalk in the front of the building, with its monumental steps, should have a granite surface, instead. A resolution on the surface to be used has not yet been reached; however, this Committee defers to the BoS, HDC, and CoD regarding the appropriate surface. As the cost estimate that led to the amount being requested included the extra cost for the use of granite according to the HDCÈs position, this Committee believes that any of the surfaces being considered can be implemented within the requested amount. Funding Fund STM#2 Article 5: Amend Authorization Committee Recommends FY2015 Operating, Source Requested Enterprise And CPA None None N/A Budgets (CPA Only) ÅTo see if the Town will vote to make supplementary appropriations, to be used in conjunction with money appropriated under Articles 4 and 5 of the warrant for the 2014 Annual Town Meeting, to be used during the current fiscal year, or make any other adjustments to the current fiscal year budgets and appropriations that may be necessary¼Æ \[Town Warrant\] At this time, there is no planned action to the CPA Budget under this Article; however, see Article 30 where such an amendment is being requested. Funding Fund STM#2 Article 6: Authorization Committee Recommends Appropriate For Source Requested Authorized Capital $350,000 GF (Debt) Approval (5Ã0) Improvements ÅPhase IIÄLHS Modular Classrooms:¼requested to complete the LHS prefabricated modular classrooms project. The low bid for the construction of the second phase prefabricated building exceeded the construction budget by $500,000. This supplemental appropriation, in addition to an $150,000 Appropriation Committee reserve fund transfer, will ensure that the schedule can be maintained to construct the specially designed vocational spaces for incoming ILP students.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-11\] This request, in conjunction with the Reserve-Fund transfer, will provide an amended total appropriation that has sufficient remaining funds to permit a contract award of the Phase II work. Providing suitable classroom space is an important component of providing a quality and educationally suitable program for these special education students. In addition to providing a high-quality education for these students, it reduces out-of-district placements that carry significant costs. It is important that this construction proceed in a timely fashion. 37 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) 2015 Annual Town Meeting th Funds Authorization Departmental Committee Article 7 (4 Fund Only): Establish Requested Receipts Recommends and Continue Departmental Revolving FundsÄPEG Access $57,000 (within the License Fees Fund $565,000 from Cable TV Approval (5Ã0) Authorization) Providers Å¼: The purpose of this multiphase project is to both Network Redundancy and Improvement Plan improve the resiliency of the Town Wide fiber network and to provide better networked services. This phase involves installation of a wireless network in Cary Memorial Building. Upon completion of the Cary Memorial Building renovation in 2015 a wireless system is proposed to serve both public/users, committees and Town staff. The installation of this wireless will improve both the usability and function of the building.¼ \[Brown Book, Page XI-24\] As this annual Article only provides the required authorization for revolving funds, this Committee normally would not comment on it; however, as the Town intends to pay for a capital project using funds from the PEG Access Revolving Fund, this authorization is being handled by this Committee as it does with other capital-related mattersÄwhich includes our review and recommendation to Town Meeting. Funding Article 8: Appropriate the FY2016 Funds Committee Requested Recommends Community Preservation Source Committee Operating Budget $4,183,601 CPF (Cash) + and CPA Projects (Multiple $60,000 GF (Free Cash) + $4,673,601 See Below Categories) $236,500 GF (Debt) + $193,500 R&CP EF (RE) Amount Funding Project Description (CPA Category) Committee Recommends Requested Source (a) Conservation Meadow $26,400 CPF (Cash) Approval (5Ã0 ) Preservation Program (Open Space) ÅThis project proposal is to preserve and protect Lexington's conservation meadows for their historical landscape significance, including historic stonewalls and vistas, for passive recreation, and for enhanced wildlife and plant habitat. The project will be implemented in multiple phases over several years; in year one, Hennessey Field and Joyce Miller's Meadow will be preserved. Of the approximately 1400 acres of conservation land owned and managed by the Conservation Commission, approximately 75 acres are upland meadows. ÅThe project entails: Preserving meadow land through an extensive woody vegetation removal program to clear heavily overgrown shrubs, trees, and vines, preserving views of stone walls, which serve as historic resources for Lexington's agricultural past. Managing invasive species encroachment on the field edges and throughout meadows that interfere with passive recreational opportunities and the historic vistas.È \[Brown Book, Page XI-19\] 38 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Amount Funding Committee Recommends Project Description (CPA Category) Requested Source (b) Parker's Revenge Site $36,790 CPF (Cash) Approval (5Ã0 ) Restoration (Historic Resources) ÅThe Friends of the Minute Man National Park are proposing to restore the ParkerÈs Revenge battle site for the education and enjoyment of visitors. The archeological research phase of the project to be funded with CPA funds includes a Military Tactical Field Simulation Event, archeological analysis, report and coordination with interpretative projects, and artifact conservation and materials analysis. The project includes archeological analysis, site restoration and implementation of an interpretative plan. The total project cost is estimated at $152,930, with the balance from private funding.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-25\] The Motion for this sub-element will specify that funding is to be from already available funds so they can be used once this Town Meeting has dissolvedÄsubject to a call for a voter referendum. Funding Amount Committee Recommends Project Description (CPA Category) Source Requested (c) First Parish Church Restoration Historic Structure Report(Historic $40,000 CPF (Cash) Approval (5Ã0) Resources) ÅThis project is for a historic structure assessment and report that will research and document existing conditions for the First Parish building, assess key elements of the exterior, structure and mechanical/electrical systems, and determine priority needs for future preservation and repairs. A portion of the total cost of this work will be provided by the First Parish.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-25\] Amount Funding Project Description (CPA Category) Committee Recommends Requested Source (d) Cary Memorial Building Records Center Shelving (Historic CPF (Cash) Approval (5Ã0) $75,398 Resources) ÅThis project is forthe removal of undersized shelving and replacement with stationary shelving. The Cary Records Center area is repository for retention of long-term and some permanent records of significant and historical value. The Current shelving in Records Center is repurposed from the time when the Cary Memorial Library Children's Department was housed in the Robbins Room and adjacent storage room area. Replacement of undersized shelving with standard sized archival/records storage shelving will provide for proper retention of boxed records.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-19\] Amount Funding Project Description (CPA Category) Committee Recommends Requested Source $140,000 CPF (e) Battle Green Streetscape (Cash) + $200,000 Disapproval (5Ã0) Improvements (Historic Resources) $60,000 GF (Free Cash) ÅFunds for a study of the Battle Green area were approved in FY13. The study reviewed the pedestrian and vehicular safety and flow in and around the Battle Green, ways to enhance the access and visibility of 39 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) the historical sites and how it relates to the overall Center Streetscape Project. A conceptual plan will be developed for review. The FY16 funding request of $200,000 will allow the Town to hire an architect/engineering firm to take the conceptual ideas to a 100% design, which will provide a plan and cost estimates for any recommended improvements to the area.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-23\] ThisCommittee unanimously disapproves this request as being premature. The request is to fund preparation of 100% design and cost estimates, but the project has not yet reached the previously funded 25% design stageÄwhich is considered especially important before anything further is done regarding the challenging Bedford Street/Harrington Road intersection. This Committee believes a prudent course would be to develop the plans to the 25% design stage, present the results to the CPC and the finance committees, and then if recommended by the CPC for its share of the overall funding, return to a subsequent Town Meeting to request funding for the 100% design stage. (Keeping the work that is more-specific to the Battle Green in the same scope with the adjacent intersection work is still considered reasonable.) Amount Funding Project Description (CPA Category) Committee Recommends Requested Source (f) Community Center Sidewalk $50,000 CPF (Cash) Approval (5Ã0) Design (Historic Resources) ÅThis request is for the design of a pedestrian sidewalk from Marrett Road to the new Community Center. The 2014 March Special Town Meeting appropriated funds to renovate the Community Center. At the time of the funding request, the design of the sidewalk from Marrett Road to the Community Center was not yet complete. The design for this sidewalk is complicated by the grade of the land leading from Marrett Road to the Community Center. The funding request, therefore, also includes an amount for preparing landscape renderings.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-19\] Amount Funding Project Description (CPA Category) Committee Recommends Requested Source (g) Cary Memorial Building Indefinite Postponement Sidewalk Enhancement (Historic N/A N/A (5Ã0) Resources) See STM#2, Article 4, under which the funds for this work are to be requested. Amount Funding Project Description (CPA Category) Committee Recommends Requested Source (h) Community Center Preservation Restriction Endowment (Historic $25,000 CPF (Cash) Approval (5Ã0) Resources) ÅThe Community Center at 39 Marrett Road was purchased by the Town of Lexington from the Scottish Rite in December, 2013, using CPA funding. The Community Preservation Act requires that any property so purchased using CPA historic resource funding be subject to a preservation restriction, deeded in perpetuity and approved by the Massachusetts Historical Commission. The preservation restriction will ensure that the architecturally and historically significant elements of the property be preserved and maintained to appropriate standards. The Lexington Historical Society has agreed to be the holder of this restriction, and has requested that an endowment fund be established to compensate the Society for its administrative expenses in maintaining the preservation restriction. Under the terms of the contract to be 40 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) signed between the Society and the Town, once the fund is depleted, estimated in 5Ã10 years, the Town and the Society will negotiate a replenishment of the fund.Æ \[Draft CPC Report to the 2015 ATM, February 28, 2015, Page 17\] Amount Funding Project Description (CPA Category) Committee Recommends Requested Source (i) Park and Playground $68,000 CPF (Cash) Approval (5Ã0) Improvements (Recreation) ÅThis project is to replace the play equipment at Marvin Park, which is outdated does not meet current safety standards. The new playground and play equipment will comply with the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-24\] The renovation of this playground on Morris street includes replacing an outdated play structure and swing set, installation of safety surfacing, and addition of amenities such as park benches, signage and trash barrels. Amount Funding Project Description (CPA Category) Committee Recommends Requested Source (j) Park ImprovementsÄAthletic $85,000 CPF (Cash) Approval (5Ã0) Fields (Recreation) ÅThis request is for funds to renovate the natural grass Softball Field at Lincoln Park. The renovation to the softball field will include laser grading the skinned infield, adding a new irrigation system, grading the outfield for proper drainage, replacing the existing backstop, and adding two permanent player benches. The TownÈs athletic fields see excessive use and timely renovations and replacement are critical to provide safe and playable fields for all user groups. This project was originally scheduled for FY2017, but based on the condition of the field, it has been advanced to FY2016.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-24\] Amount Funding Project Description (CPA Category) Committee Recommends Requested Source (k) Park and Playgrounds ADA $78,000 CPF (Cash) Approval (5Ã0) Accessibility Study (Recreation) ÅThis request is to complete a study of the Town's recreation areas to determine accessibility improvements. The Lexington Recreation Facilities and ADA Compliance Study will include a facility compliance assessment, recommendations and options of probable costs (play equipment, facility access, signage, handicapped parking, accessible pathways, accessible and non-compliant seating, bleachers, picnic facilities and golf course buildings). As a result of the study, a Transition Plan will be completed and incorporated into future capital plans.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-24\] 41 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Amount Funding Project Description (CPA Category) Committee Recommends Requested Source (l) Park ImprovementsÄHard $55,000 CPF (Cash) Approval (5Ã0) Court Resurfacing (Recreation) The FY2016 request is to rehabilitate the basketball courts at Sutherland Park and Marvin Park. The Å project will include reconstruction of the courts and installation of new backboards/poles. The current surfaces have extensive cracks and frost heaves that require reconstruction.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-24\] Amount Funding Project Description (CPA Category) Committee Recommends Requested Source $220,000 CPF (Cash) + $236,500 GF (m) Lincoln Park Field $650,000 (Debt) + Approval (5Ã0) Improvements - Phase 3 (Recreation) $193,500 R&CPEF (RE) This is the third phase of a three-phase capital improvement program to address safety and playability at Å Lincoln Park. The Recreation Committee requests $650,000 to replace the synthetic turf field at Lincoln Park field #3 and work in the vicinity of the field. The estimated cost is based on the actual amount for Lincoln Park field #1 in October of 2013 and cost estimate developed by a landscape architect in August 2014. Funding to replace the synthetic turf on Field #2 was approved in 2014 and that work should be completed in the Spring of 2015.Æ \[Brown Book, Pages XI-9 & 24\] This addresses the safety and utility of the Lincoln Park Fields, which see extremely heavy use. Installation of new turf on Lincoln Field 1 will begin this year as soon as the snow is gone. Bidding on Lincoln Field 2 closed this month, and installation is expected to begin in June of this year. The work on Lincoln Field 3 will include inspection and any necessary repair of drainage, grading, rehabilitation of walkways and edging, and installation of guard rails. It will be bid during the summer of 2015. CPA funds cannot be used for installation of synthetic turf, but are available for grading, underlayment, and related work. Amount Funding Project Description (CPA Category) Committee Recommends Requested Source (n) Minuteman Bikeway Culvert $290,000 CPF (Cash) Approval (5Ã0) Rehabilitation (Recreation) Å¼for the design and replacement of a culvert along the Minuteman Bikeway just North of Camelia Place at the headwaters of the North Lexington Brook. This includes construction funding, oversight, and contingency.¼Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-8 & 21\] This rehabilitation is the major part of the FY2016 request under the Town-wide Culvert Program. See Article 11(f) for the balance of the FY2016 request. 42 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Amount Funding Project Description (CPA Category) Committee Recommends Requested Source (o) Grain Mill Alley Design Funds $18,000 CPF (Cash) Disapproval (4Ã1) (Recreation) ÅThis request is to fund additional design development of a pocket park in the alley between 1775 and 1778 Massachusetts Avenue in Lexington Center and includes $2,000 of anticipated legal fees. The additional design development will allow for public outreach and a schematic design. The project is a public space project designed to enliven the Center by improving an underutilized area and creating a sense of place that will serve as people spot that draws in activity, improves pedestrian connectivity, and generates business for the Center. The size of the alley is approximately 6,300 SF in total, offering a pedestrian connection from the Minuteman Bikeway to the Center's retail corridor along Massachusetts Avenue (roughly 27 by 233 feet). In 2013 the CPC approved $24,000 to fund the preliminary schematic design, which included site analysis, design development, and cost estimates. It also included legal services to develop a contract with the adjacent property owners.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-20\] The majority of this Committee opposes the additional use of funds for this project which is well in advance of the Center Streetscape ImprovementsÈ phase that will address the alleyÈs connection to Massachusetts Avenue; the current alley adequately provides connectivity with the Minuteman Commuter Bikeway; and this project would be Town-funded improvement to private property, One member of this Committee supports the additional funding to bring the design process to a conclusion after a lengthy process of public input and design work to create this adjunct pieces of the Center Streetscape work. Amount Funding Project Description (CPA Category) Committee Recommends Requested Source (p) Minuteman Bikeway Wayfinding SignsÄDesign Funds $39,000 CPF (Cash) Disapproval (3Ã2) (Recreation) ÅThis request is to fund the design of wayfinding and etiquette signage related to the Minuteman Bikeway in Lexington. This is the next necessary step recommended in the report entitled 'Navigating the Minutemen Bikeway' that was completed with the cooperation of the Bicycle Advisory Committee as well as representatives from the towns of Arlington and Bedford. The goal of this plan is to design and install signage along the bikeway and adjacent roads and connections points. This signage will provide information to users which includes direction on accessing the bikeway, nearby points of interest (e.g. businesses, shops, tourist attractions), and signs clearly describing the rules of etiquette for users. Upon completion of the design plans, full bidding documents will be developed that include detailed cost estimates, specifications, stamped plan sets, and bid documents.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-23\] This Committee supports the concept of funding design for unified way-finding signage, following collaboration with neighboring towns on the Minuteman Bikeway, but that is not what this article proposes. As noted, the Towns of Arlington and Bedford participated in the early discussions with Lexington about the need for way-finding signage, but this article reflects a decision not to wait for Arlington or Bedford to commit to use of the outcome of this design in order that the signage design be unified. It is important to note that in January 2015, the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) launched its LandLine - Our Plan for a Connected Greenway which would link the Bikeway to other green resources. This MAPC initiative is in the early stages, but one of its future goals is to adopt unified signage in the Boston metropolitan area for bikeways and pathways. Funding is not expected to be a part of this initiative, but bikeway and pathway signage guidelines are expected to be one of the final products. With the goal of maximizing economic efficiencies and support for unified signage, we recommend that 43 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) the Town wait to fund Minuteman Bikeway way-finding signage once MAPC produces design guidelines. Two members of this Committee believe that wayfinding signs are needed on the Lexington portion of the Bikeway for safety and to encourage visits to the TownÈs commercial center, and that such work should not be contingent on commitment from adjoining towns that are not presently contemplated. Amount Funding Project Description (CPA Category) Committee Recommends Requested Source (q) Lower Vine Brook Paved Recreation Path Reconstruction $369,813 CPF (Cash) Approval (5Ã0 ) (Recreation) ÅThe project proposes to reconstruct the subsurface and surface of the entire 5,905 feet of paved pathway. The path has been degrading over the years and is now in need of full reconstruction if the path is to continue to serve as a safe and usable recreational resource. The project is similar to the path replacement completed at Lincoln Park in 2014. Components of Phase 1 of this project include: Wetlands permitting (including wetlands delineation and permitting fees); Tree pruning (to allow truck access on Fairfield Drive end of path); and Path reconstruction.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-20\] Amount Funding Committee Recommends Project Description (CPA Category) Requested Source (r) CPA Debt Service $2,417,200 CPF (Cash) Approval (5Ã0) ÅCommunity Preservation Fund Debt ServiceÆ \[Town Warrant\] Based, but with editorial changes, on the Draft CPC Report to the 2015 ATM, February 28, 2015, Page 28, and with independent updates to what is subparagraph d, below: a. Wight Farm Parcel 1 Purchase: $424,800. Under Article 9 of the 2012 ATM, voters approved the $3,072,000 acquisition of a substantial portion of the Wright Farm property. Of this appropriation, the Town was authorized to borrow $2,950,000. In February, 2013, the Town sold a $2.95 million bond anticipation note (BAN) that came due in February, 2014. The interest payment on the BAN was $36,875. The BAN was refinanced in February, 2014 through the issuance of a $2.95 million bond for a ten-year term. The first debt-service payments of principal and interest on the bond were made in the current fiscal year (FY2015) in the amount of $434,633. Debt service for FY2016 is $424,800. b. Community Center Acquisition: $1,065,100. At the STM in March 2013, voters approved an appropriation of $10,950,000 to fund the acquisition of a portion of the Scottish Rite Property at 39 Marrett Road. The CPF portion of this purchase was $7,390,000. In November, 2013, the Town sold a $7.39 million BAN that came due in February, 2014. The interest payment on the BAN was $9,237. At the same time, a $7.39 million bond was issued for a ten-year term to retire the BAN. The first debt service payments of principal and interest on the bond were made in the current year (FY2015) in the amount of $1,089,774. Debt service for FY2016 is $1,065,100. c. Community Center Renovations: $11,178 ($9,020+$2,158). At the November, 2013, STM, voters approved $3,169,000 in initial renovation costs to prepare the former Scottish Rite building for use as a Community Center and to enable Town Departments to move into the building. Subsequent to that time, the recommendations of the Selectmen-appointed Ad Hoc Community Center Advisory Committee resulted in an accelerated construction schedule and modifications to the scope of renovations at the Community Center. The revised total cost of the project is $6,720,000, of which $6,297,184 was CPA eligible. The bulk of this cost was financed from cash on hand under Article 3 of the March 24, 2014, and 44 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Article 10 of the June 16, 2014, STMs. Of this revised amount, it is estimated that $451,000 will be financed through the issuance of a BAN in June, 2015, to come due in February, 2016. Interest on this BAN is estimated to be $9,020. The BAN will be converted to a 10-year bond at that time. Estimated issuance costs for the bond, to be paid with FY2016 CPF funds, is $2,158. d. Cary Memorial Building Upgrades: $916,122 ($899,459+$13,447+3,216). Under Article 2 of the STM in March,2014, Town Meeting voters approved an appropriation of $8,677,400 to fund the costs of renovations to the Cary Memorial Building. Of this amount, $8,241,350 was requested in CPF funding to be financed through the issuance of debt. A BAN in the amount of $3,286,000 was issued in June, 2014. That BAN came due in February, 2015, at which time a bond of $6,569,000 was issued comprised of two components: the conversion of $2,286,000 of that BAN issued in June, 2014, to long-term debt, and new financing of the project in the amount of $4,283,000. In February, 2015, the residual portion of the June, 2014, BAN, $1,000,000, was refinanced as a new BAN with a term of 4 months, at which time it is proposed that it be retired with cash from the CPF. An appropriation of $1,000,000 for that purpose, along with the $960 for the interest due on that new BAN, will be sought under Article 30 of this ATM. The first debt-service payments of principal and interest on the $6,569,000 bond will be made in FY2016 and will be $899,459. The final piece of financing for the project is expected to be issued in June, 2015, as a $672,350 BAN to come due in February, 2016, at which time interest to be paid on the BAN, estimated at $13,447, will be due as well as the cost of issuance to convert the BAN to a bond, estimated at $3,216. Project Description (CPA Category) Amount Requested Funding Source Committee Recommends (s) Administrative Budget $150,000 CPF (Cash) Approval (5Ã0) ÅAdministrative BudgetÆ \[Town Warrant\] Of the request: $50,000 is for the planning, legal, survey and appraisal work associated with the acquisition of open space.Such funds will enable the Conservation Commission to complete the due diligence required to prepare for a land acquisition. While other Town projects use Åstudy moniesÆ to investigate the benefits of a particular project, the Conservation Commission does not have the advantage of this type of lead-time. It must often act quickly to evaluate a property through legal, survey and appraisal work. Without designating these funds for open space planning, the CPCÈs charge of allocating a portion of its revenues to open-space preservation would be hindered. The remaining $100,000 funds administrative, legal, membership, and advertising expenses. Included are funds for a year-round, 3 days/week, administrative assistant (the TownÈs GF covers the other 2 days) and $7,900 for membership in the Community Preservation Coalition, a State-wide, non- profit, organization working on behalf of communities who have adopted the CPA. If any of these appropriated Administrative Budget funds are not required by the end of the fiscal year, then that balance will become part of the Undesignated Fund Balance and, thus part of the CPFÈs total amount available for later appropriation. Funding Article 9: Property Funds Requested Committee Recommends PurchaseÄ241 Grove Source Street (Open Space & $618,000 CPF (Cash) Approval (5Ã0) Community Housing) ÅIn 2012 the Town purchased, for Conservation purposes, the 12.6 acre Wright Farm parcel on Grove Street for $2,950,000. At the time of the purchase Kathleen Wright retained a 43,446 sq. ft. parcel that included the house she was living in, a detached garage and a barn. With the passing of Ms. Wright in 45 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) January, the Town has the option to purchase this remaining portion of the Wright farm, for the pre- negotiated purchase price of approximately $520,000. The Board of Selectmen and Conservation Commission are recommending that the Town exercise its option to purchase this remaining parcel of the Wright Farm. The Selectmen propose to turn the house over to LexHab, to be an affordable housing unit, and for the barn and the remaining portion of the land to be used for conservation purposes. LexHabÈs estimated cost to renovate the house is $140,000. The remaining amount requested in this appropriation, $95,000, is for a land management plan, survey, deed restriction, legal and other closing costs. \[Brown Book, Page XI-25\] This Committee understands the Motion will only address the $520,000 purchase price, the $95,000 for ancillary costs, and $3,000 for protection of the house. It is expected that the funding for LexHAB to do the renovation will be requested at a future Town Meeting. While two of the funding sources ($264,428 for Community Housing and $253,027 for Open Space; totalling $517,455) are CPA-category specific, only the use of $100,545 of the Unbudgeted Reserve must be analyzed regarding assignment to CPA categories. (That assignment has no bearing on the financial sourcing, but is just for tracking how the Town is using the funding to meet the objectives of the CPA.) That use includes $5,545 related directly to Community Housing (including the $3,000 for protection of the house) and $95,000 for ancillary costs (legal and other miscellanous purposes related to the purchase and use of the property). This CommitteeÈs approach is to assign the ancillary funding in the same proportion as the category-specific funding. In this case, that category-specific funding (including the $5,545) is 51.6% for Community Housing and 48.4% for Open Space. That results in the $95,000 for ancillary costs having $49,020 assigned to Community Housing and $45,980 to Open Space. The total appropriation then has $318,993 allocated to Community Housing and $299,007 to Open Space. What is now proposed to be purchased is labeled as Parcel 2 in the following cropped and further annotated image of the Proof Plan, dated April 11, 2012. (The balance of the land, labeled Parcel 1, is what was approved for purchase by the 2012 ATM under its Article 9. See the Supplement to this CommitteeÈs report to that Town Meeting, released May 4, 2012, for further information on that purchase.) The parcel contains a house, a garage, and a barn. Some to-be-designated portion of the parcel (approximately the portion with the house and garage) will be a purchase for Community Housing. The balance (including the barn) will be for Open Space. Once the exact allocation of the parcel for those two purposes under the CPA has been determined, two lots will be established formally. 46 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Funding Source Article 10: Appropriate Funds Requested Committee Recommends for Recreation Capital $68,000 R&CP EF (RE) Approval (5Ã0) Projects ÅThis request is to purchase a Toro Grounds Master 4500D mower to replace the existing 2007 Toro Grounds Master. The life expectancy of golf course mowers average 7 years. New emission regulations increased the cost of the mower by over $10,000 from the FY2014 capital plan. The 4500D is approximately 9 feet wide and has five floating decks. It will be used almost daily in maintaining the rough at Pine Meadows that covers approximately fifteen acres of turf .Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-24\] 47 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Funding Article 11: Appropriate for Funds Requested Committee Recommends Municipal Capital Source Projects and Equipment $10,005,743 GF (Debt) + $2,270,145 GF (Cash) + $1,350,075GF (Free Cash) + $961,105 Chapter 90 + $690,000 Compost $15,539,150 RF (Debt) + $115,500 See Below Water EF (RE) + $40,500 Wastewater EF (RE) + $35,000 Cemetery Trust Fund + $71,082 Unexpended Cash Balances Project Description Amount Funding Committee Recommends Requested Source (a) Center Streetscape Improvements and EasementsÄPhase $2,700,000 GF (Debt) Approval (4Ã1) 1 ÅThis project is Phase 1 of a multi-phased request to address pedestrian, bicycle and traffic safety in the Center. As part of the design and analysis work for this project, in FY13 funding was approved for traffic counts and traffic modeling of multiple scenarios and for the design to progress to the 25% stage. The FY15 request of $600,000 provided funding to complete the design and develop plans and specifications necessary for bidding the project. The construction funding is requested in multiple years. The construction phases will provide for certain pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular safety improvements, the restoration, removal and replacement of the sidewalk along the northerly side of Massachusetts Avenue from Woburn Street to Harrington Road, streetscape improvement, improved lighting as well as other aspects developed in the Plan. In addition to the restoration of these areas, all of the existing pedestrian corridors and ramps will be brought into ADA compliance. This phase of the project will be for the portion of Massachusetts Avenue from Woburn Street to Cary Hall. \[Brown Book, Page XI-6\] The disapproving vote supported funding for the signalization component (including the road-alignment work) of this request and asked that this component be broken out. This request contrasts sharply with the TownÈs current capital fiscal pressures and need for school and public-safety building programs. A disproportionate amount of this request is for costly elective elements such as decorative walls, post-and- rail fences, boulders, special light fixtures and decorative brickwork. These elements are not only being proposed for this project, but also for three or more additional Center Streetscape construction projects over a five-year period, which will in aggregate be $5.3 million dollars beyond this request. 48 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Project Description Amount Funding Committee Recommends Requested Source $399,000 GF (Debt) + $100,000 GF (Free Cash) + $40,500 Water EF (RE) + (b) DPW Equipment$1,270,000 Approval (5Ã0) $40,500 Wastewater EF (RE) + $690,000 Compost RF (Debt) This is an annual request to replace equipment that is beyond its useful life and whose mechanical Å condition no longer meets work the requirements of the Department of Public Works (DPW)¼Without regular equipment replacement, the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the DPW's operations would be handicapped due to equipment down time and excessive repair costs¼The selection of vehicles to be replaced begins with the proposed replacement date. Then each vehicle is assessed as to its mechanical condition and work requirements. The systematic replacement program defines what equipment is expected to need replacement during the next five years, with the intent of preventing any unexpected emergency purchases.¼The proposed Loader for the Compost Site has an energy efficient engine, which will reduce fuel use by approximately 50%. The table below shows each piece of equipment recommended and its proposed financing source. \[Brown Book, Pages XI-6, 16, & 21\] Project DescriptionAmount Funding Committee Recommends Requested Source $43,343 GF (Debt) + $225,575 GF (c) Storm Drainage Improvements $340,000 (Free Cash) + Approval (5Ã0) and NPDES Compliance $71,082 Unexpended Cash Balances ÅThis is an annual request. $70,000 is estimated for the compliance with the construction related portions of the National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) minimum control measures as mandated by EPA in the storm water general permit issued to the Town. This includes the development and submittal of the Notice of Intent and Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) as required by the EPA as well as illicit discharge, detection and elimination. The draft of the next permit phase was issued by DEP in September 2014. Requirements measures include illicit discharge detection and elimination, 49 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) and BMP (best management practices) installation and retrofits. $270,000 will be used to repair/replace drainage structures encountered during the road resurfacing program, repair other drainage areas of concern in town and improve stormwater issues discovered during the NPDES investigation work. ÅThis request will provide funds to restore the function of select town drainage systems. Much of the town has been developed and old systems are inadequate. There are many trouble spots in the watersheds of the Vine Brook, Mill Brook, Beaver Brook, and Kiln Brook as well as other areas throughout town. Recent drainage installation and rehabilitation included Shade Street, Walnut Street, Adams Street, Ledgelawn Avenue and Hastings Park. Anticipated drainage installation is planned for Paul Revere Road. Illicit discharge detection and elimination has been ongoing in the Vine Brook and Mill Brook which are areas identified to have contamination.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-7 & 22\] The following table identifies the Unexpended Cash Balances from prior appropriations that are being reappropriated as part of the funding of this capital effort: Unexpended Cash Balances to be Re-Appropriated Original AppropriationOriginal PurposeAmount 1996 ATM, Article 14Library Construction$4,513 2009 ATM, Article 18ASchool Technology$721 2011 ATM, Article 12ASchool Technology$67 2012 ATM, Article 15BClassroom Furniture$78 2012 ATM, Article 11BPark ImprovementsÄHard Court Resurfacing$6,332 2013 ATM, Article 10AFire Pumper Replacement$47,687 2013 ATM, Article 13BClassroom Furniture$6,706 2013 ATM, Article 14MPublic Facilities Vehicle Replacement$4,978 Total$71,082 Project Description Amount Funding Committee Recommends Requested Source (d) Comprehensive Watershed Storm Water Management Study and $390,000 GF (Debt) Approval (5Ã0 ) Implementation ÅThis is an annual request. DPW-Engineering and Conservation are collaborating on addressing drainage/brook management issues. The Charles River, Shawsheen River, and Mystic River watershed management plans have all been completed with prior authorizations. Design work is underway for the daylighting and drainage improvements at Willards Woods and the bank stabilization at Vine Brook in the Saddle Club Road area. This request is for the continuing design / implementation of the watershed plans and for the construction of priorities established in the watershed plans. Staff has reviewed the three watershed plans and developed a likely prioritization schedule with built-in flexibility pending unforeseen changes. The requested funding will be used to move forward with the determined prioritized areas. Please note that there is some overlap with the Town Wide Culvert Replacement project, as some of these projects include culvert work as well as stream management work. Possible priority areas include the Valleyfield area and Whipple Brook area.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-7\] Project Description Amount Funding Committee Recommends Requested Source (e) Sidewalk Improvements, $600,000 GF (Debt) Approval (5Ã0) Additions, Design and Easements ÅThis is an annual request to rebuild and/or repave existing asphalt sidewalks and to begin design work on new sidewalks. Proposed funding has been increased from prior years in order to address the SelectmenÈs 50 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) goal of improving the overall condition of existing sidewalks and providing new sidewalks. Specifically, it is recommended that the Selectmen consider using a portion of this capital request to forward the neighborhood petitions for: a) a feasibility study for a sidewalk on Pleasant Street (estimated at $20,000); and b) a sidewalk and intersection improvements on Prospect Hill Road, subject to neighborhood consensus (estimated at $50,000 for the sidewalk and $50,000 for the intersection improvements). ÅDPW, in conjunction with various committees and other town departments develops a list each year of the sidewalks most in need of repair/replacement. There are four determining factors that dictate the repair of a sidewalk 1) Is the sidewalk unsafe for travel due to trip hazards, defects, etc. 2) Is the sidewalk within the Safe Routes to School Program 3) Is the volume of pedestrian traffic heavy, light or average, and 4) Is the general condition of the sidewalk poor, fair or good which dictates treatments such as full reconstruction, overlay or patching\[.\] All work will be ADA compliant. DPW has worked with Fay, Spofford & Thorndike, a pavement consulting firm, to compile a sidewalk condition survey that will help prioritize sidewalk repair locations. It is recommended that $20,000 of this funding be used for a feasibility study for a sidewalk on Pleasant Street, which is also being supported by a neighborhood petition. ÅThe history of prior Sidewalk appropriations is: Sidewalk Funding History FY2008$ 100,000 FY2009$ 275,000 FY2010$ - FY2011$ 200,000 FY2012$ 200,000 FY2013$ 300,000 FY2014 $ 400,000 FY2015$ 400,000 $200,000 of which is for the Hartwell Ave. mixed use path) Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-8\] This Committee appreciates that the funding request is 50% greater than last yearÈs, but is disappointed at that level for two reasons: (1) A Town-wide analysis of our existing sidewalks indicated that it likely would take annual funding of $750,000, considering an estimated, current, existing-sidewalk-network backlog of about $7 million, if we wished at least to maintain the current Sidewalk Condition Index (SCI) at 68 for the whole networkÄwhich funding level still projects a slow increase in the backlog, and (2) $120,000 of the request is being applied toward creation of two new residential sidewalksÄleaving only $480,000 available toward the projected $750,000 funding need; a shortfall of $270,000. At the same time, we welcomed the Board of SelectmenÈs decision to treat both of those matters as being an anomaly nd from what it supportsÄespecially, with regard to the 2 pointÄbecause the prioritization of those two new sidewalks surfaced so late in the budget cycle. Project Description Amount Funding Committee Recommends Requested Source (f) Town-wide Culvert $100,000 GF $100,000 Approval (5Ã0) Replacement (Debt) This is an annual program request. Ongoing culvert inspections indicate the need for a replacement Å program for many of the older culverts in town. Of the funding requested, $250,000 is an estimate of 51 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) construction costs necessary for culvert replacement with $65,000 for design, permitting, and bidding. The remainder is for contingencies. Of the total project cost, $290,000 is being requested through CPA funding for the design and replacement of a culvert along the Minuteman Bikeway just North of Camelia Place at the headwaters of the North Lexington Brook. This includes construction funding, oversight, and contingency. On-going culvert inspections are proving a need for a replacement program as many of the older culverts in town are near or at failure. The Watershed Management Plans have identified a number of these failing culverts. This replacement program is a companion effort with the ongoing Watershed Management Plan. DPW recently completed the Concord Avenue culvert near the Belmont line and the Compost facility culvert. The Revere Street at North Lexington Brook culvert and Concord Ave at HardyÈs Brook culvert are in permitting and expected to be constructed in 2015. Please note that there is some overlap with the Comprehensive Stormwater Management project as some of these projects include culvert work as well as stream management work \[Brown Book, Page XI-8 & 21\] This request is funding to address additional culverts as they are identified as needing replacement. See Article 8(n) for the CPCÈs recommendation to this Town Meeting for the balance of the FY2016 request for this program. Project Description Amount Funding Committee Recommends Requested Source (g) Town-wide Signalization $125,000 GF (Debt) Approval (5Ã0) Improvements ÅThis is an annual request for funds to update traffic and pedestrian signals in Lexington. A signal inventory and compliance study has been completed. The study includes ADA compliance, condition assessment; signal timing, delays, and prioritized recommendations. Potential locations for this funding include the intersections of Bedford Street at Worthen Road, Lowell Street at East Street, Lowell Street at North Road and improved pedestrian crossings along Massachusetts Avenue. In most cases the design work is minimal and is therefore reflected as 10% of the total cost.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-9\] Project Description Amount Funding Committee Recommends Requested Source (h) Hartwell Avenue Infrastructure Approval (5Ã0) $4,750,000 GF (Debt) Improvements and Easements ÅThis request is to design, permit, and construct vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements to a portion of Hartwell Avenue and, specifically, to address vehicle capacity and safety at the Hartwell Avenue/McGuire Road intersection. The proposed FY16 funding will be used to replace or rehabilitate the Hartwell Avenue bridge crossing at Kiln Brook and to upgrade the Maguire Road intersection and potentially provide a protected pedestrian crossing at the Bedford Street intersection. This proposed work was developed as part of the Transportation Management Plan for the Hartwell Avenue area developed by the Planning Board. The proposed funding request will be to provide construction, construction oversight and fund potential land acquisition (easements, land takings, etc.). Since this construction work will be phased over two or more construction seasons, the debt service table above reflects this phasing of the Additional work may be proposed beyond FY16 but the detailed scope and costs have not yet been work. developed.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-9\] 52 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Project Description Amount Funding Committee Recommends Requested Source $2,270,145 GF (i) Street Improvements and (Cash) Approval (5Ã0) $3,231,250 +$961,105 Easements Chapter 90 ÅThis is an annual request for the street resurfacing and maintenance program¼Funds will be used for design, inspections, planning, repair, patching, crack sealing and construction of roadways and roadway related infrastructure including repair and installation of sidewalks. A preliminary list of the streets to be repaired under this article is currently under development. A pavement management system is utilized to assist in analyzing the road network and selecting roadways for repairs. This model is kept updated on a regular basis. Approximately $20,000 of this funding is for data collection, analyses, proposal review, recommendations, and to develop plans for traffic mitigation and improvements town-wide. Traffic calming requests, complete street evaluations and other issues that require Traffic Safety Group (TSG) evaluation will be funded through this request. Significant traffic calming projects may require additional funding to be requested.Æ Street ImprovementsÄFinancing Components FY16 St. Improvements 2001 Override Increased by 2.5% per year$ 624,061 Maintenance of unallocated revenue from FY12 Revenue Allocation Model$ 281,234 Maintenance of unallocated revenue from FY13 Revenue Allocation Model$ 164,850 Additional Tax Levy due to Health Insurance Savings$ 1,100,000 Additional Tax Levy FundingÄShade Street Traffic Calming$ 100,000 Estimated Chapter 90 Aid$ 961,105 $ 3,231,250 \[Brown Book, Page XI-21\] Project Description Amount Funding Committee Recommends Requested Source (j) Bikeway Bridge Repairs and GF (Free $10,000 Approval (5Ã0) ) Engineering Cash) ÅThe Grant Street Bridge along the bikeway is showing signs of deterioration. The Engineering Division is working with a structural engineer to determine the extent of the work needed to restore the bridge. The Minuteman Bikeway is used by many residents and non-residents as a commuter and recreational path. This work is essential to keeping a safe pathway for all users. The estimated cost of the repairs is $70,000.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-22\] This Committee believes this effort (as well as any follow-on construction) is eligible for funding under the CPA and would have preferred that it have been presented to the CPC for consideration for FY2016 funding from the CPF, rather than the GF. Project Description Amount Funding Committee Recommends Requested Source (k) Hastings Park Undergrounding GF (Free $300,000 Disapproval (5Ã0) Wires Cash) ÅThis request is for the undergrounding of utility wires at Hastings Park. NStar \[Now ÅEversourceÆ\] has provided preliminary design and installation estimates to place the current overhead wires underground. The use and overall aesthetic view of the park is obstructed by the power lines that run through the park 53 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) from Worthen Road to Lincoln Street. This request will provide funds to put the power lines underground, which will open up useable space and make the park more aesthetically pleasing. The project will involve removal of the existing utility poles and wires and installation of underground conduit and wires. Hastings Park is one of the most used park areas in Town. It provides green space and a gazebo for events such as the carnival, weddings, company picnics, concerts, family functions, school events, recreation events and other community related events.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-22\] This project is not projected to have any material effect on the actual usage of the park. This Committee cannot support this request in light of the current, more-pressing, capital needs the Town faces. Project Description Amount Funding Committee Recommends Requested Source $75,000 GF (Free Cash) + (l) Hydrant Replacement Program $150,000 Approval (5Ã0) $75,000 Water EF (RE) ÅThis is an ongoing replacement program designed to maintain the integrity of the fire protection system throughout town. The Town of Lexington has 1,500 fire hydrants in its fire protection system. Faulty hydrants need to be replaced annually to meet safety requirements. A list of hydrants needing replacement each year is generated during the annual inspection and flushing of hydrants by the Water Department and the Fire Department as well as hydrants being replaced \[due to accidents.\] Based on discussions between the Water Department and the Fire Department the target goal is to replace approximately 60 hydrants per year. With a replacement cost of approximately $2,500 per hydrant the capital request will ensure the continued operability of the fire protection system. A total of 266 hydrants (approximately 18% of the system) have been replaced. Hydrants typically have a 50 year life unless they are damaged.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-23\] Project Description Amount Funding Committee Recommends Requested Source (m) Westview Cemetery Building Cemetery Trust Approval (5Ã0) $35,000 Fund Assessment ÅWestview Cemetery is the Town's active cemetery with an average of 200 burials per year. The current building, which serves as the cemetery office, meeting area for grieving families and work space for the maintenance staff has deteriorated, needs to be reconfigured and needs to be brought up to code. Many times a grieving family will come into the office while there is maintenance being performed in the adjacent garage area or other people or staff enter the office area with no other room for the grieving family. The maintenance area is small and not all of the equipment can be stored indoors which affects the durability and life of the equipment. The FY2016 requested funds of $35,000 will be used to hire an architect to assess the current building, determine if the existing building can be renovated and expanded and determine if a new building is needed. DPW and the architect will work closely with the Facilities Department to determine the best long-term solution for the building.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-25\] 54 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Project Description Amount Funding Committee Recommends Requested Source (n) Replace Town Wide Phone GF (Free $52,000 Approval (5Ã0) Systems Ã Phase IV Cash) ÅThis request is being submitted on behalf of the Municipal Information Services Department, the School Department and the Public Facilities Department. This is Phase IV of a multi-phase VOIP system to address Town wide telephone needs. The request is to fund the replacement of the phone system at the Police Station. The bulk of the two system cores, located in the High School and the Public Services Building, were installed in FY2014. Buildings that have received new VoIP systems in the earlier phases are the Town Office Building and the High School.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-21\] Project Description Amount Funding Committee Recommends Requested Source (o) Municipal Technology GF (Free $140,000 Approval (5Ã0 ) Improvement ProgramÄPhase III Cash) ÅThis request is for additional disk-based storage to be added to the redundant SANs and additional backup via disk and tape libraries. The SANs installed in both the Town Office Building and 201 Bedford St. server rooms will be expanded by adding expansion drive arrays to the SANs. Backup expansion will be achieved by adding another backup disk array and backup tape library. This storage growth is expected to meet the needs of the expanded use of the Town's document management system and the addition of Public Safety storage needs. Additional software will also be purchased to assist with file storage, archiving and discovery. Future year funding will be to continue to expand the SAN capacity by adding expansion arrays to the existing SAN and expanding backup capacity to match the file storage growth.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-21\] Project Description Amount Funding Committee Recommends Requested Source $398,400 GF (p) Police/Fire Dispatching and (Debt) + Approval (5Ã0) $705,900 $307,500 GF Records Software (Free Cash) ÅThis project is a joint Police/Fire Capital/Information Services request. In October 1990, the Lexington Police Department purchased CrimeTRACK from MICROsystems of Melrose, MA, a police software package. It is a menu driven system that has been upgraded through the years including a graphic user interface (with Windows like features). The software allows for tracking police/fire/9-1-1 calls, computer assisted dispatching, central records, tracking of warrants - citations - restraining orders, a report writing system, business-residence records, arrest management, personnel management, scheduling, and more. It was designed to be a fully integrated system linking police and fire operations. The 2004 Public Safety Staffing Review panel reviewed the computer network and recommended replacing the software as it has not met the needs of the Lexington Fire Department almost since it came on-line in 1994. The company has served Lexington well but remains a small operation with the inherent risk of losing the ability to service the system if one or more key members are lost. During 2014, the Fire and Police departments identified a product with a fully integrated police / fire / dispatch software system that is designed in a Windows format and compatible with a robust variety of software/hardware accessories. The product is used by over 300 public safety agencies including Nantucket, MA Police Department. Lexington's current hardware will need to be upgraded to accommodate the new software system to include new servers. This product requires 2-3 days training for basic users and 7-10 days for "power" users and "train the trainer" staff. There will also be costs for converting 24 years of current data from the existing system into the 55 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) new software. This request include hardware, software, project management and staff training costs.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-5 & 22\] Project Description Amount Funding Committee Recommends RequestedSource GF (Debt) Debt service to be (q) Parking Meter Replacement Approval (3Ã2) $500,000 funded from Parking Meter Fund ÅIn June 2014 the Board of Selectmen adopted the ÅLexington Center Parking Management and Implementation PlanÆ (the Plan) and approved the implementation of the initial recommendations that included replacing the CenterÈs 525 parking meters with new technology. The goal of the plan is to manage the existing parking supply more efficiently, increase parking availability, and simplify the parking system for users. New meter technology will allow users to pay with a credit card and possibly smart phone, in additional to coin payments. While meter rates are recommended to increase, the Plan also calls for providing users with the first 15 to 30 minutes free. The new meters will also have the ability for improved monitoring and reporting of parking utilization in the area thereby enabling Town Officials to assess and alter rates as deemed appropriate.¼Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-9\] The members in opposition to this project believe it is premature to provide this funding. Their concerns include, but are not limited to, that (1) exactly what will be purchased is not known; (2) the request is to fund the Åfull buyÆ of meters before any success has been demonstrated; (3) there is an insufficient understanding of just how the meters will be programmed with the expectation to achieve the presumed behavioral change; (4) there is no material change proposed in the enforcement activity (still just one Parking Enforcement Officer) to enhance the likelihood of the presumed behavioral change; (5) no requirement that employers will be required to work in parallel so employees are not using prime parking intended for customers; and (6) they have much doubt that in the Lexington context the expected change in behavior will be achieved and may, in fact, cause some customers to shop and visit elsewhere. Project Description Amount Funding Committee Recommends Requested Source (r) Public Safety Radio Approval (5Ã0) $90,000 GF (Free Cash) StabilizationÄPhase I ÅThis two-phase project is based on the 2013 radio study to identify options to improve reliability and redundancy in the Public Safety Radio System. There is some overlap in both police and fire radios (common antennas, power source, and grounds) that should be separated to have two separate (redundant) systems. Currently the main transmitter is in a shared shelter belonging to Verizon, is not secure, and only provides battery backup in case of power failure. Phase 1 (FY 2016) will include moving the existing police radio system from copper to fiber optic lines, relocating some existing equipment, and adding backup generators to our main radio and repeater sites. Phase 2 (FY 2017) will expand the wireless connections between the main radio system and outlying devices, by adding antennae locations to Cary \[Memorial Building\] and the Public Services building, and create a redundant repeater system at the DOT site. The results of the Information Technology Department engineering study of redundant pathways may alter the scope of Phase 2.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-20\] 56 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Project Description Amount Funding Committee Recommends Requested Source (s) Design/EngineeringÄFiring Range at Hartwell Avenue Compost Approval (5Ã0) $50,000 GF (Free Cash) Site This request if the first phase to relocate, expand and modernize the current Lexington Police outdoor Å firing range onsite at the Hartwell Avenue facility. The Lexington Police Department has been using a 150' x 75' area (dimensions do not include safety embankments) since the 1970's for required outdoor firearms training and qualification. Working closely with the Department of Public Works, this engineering phase will provide for a feasibility study as to how and where a firing range can be relocated at the Hartwell Avenue site. The firing range should be a minimum of 300 ' by 100' to accommodate modern firearms training. The range should be surrounded by structure and/or clean fill mounding (no less than 20' high) for safety and to absorb/deflect sound. An indoor facility abutting the range would provide secure storage of range materials, a training room, restrooms, and space for an indoor firearms simulation system. The outdoor range should be equipped with lighting, a variety of target locations, moving targets and a public address system.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-22\] Funding Article 12: Pleasant Street Funds Requested Committee Recommends Sidewalk (Citizen Source Article) Indefinite None Unspecified Postponement (5Ã0) ÅTo see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate a sum of money for a feasibility study relating to the installation of a new sidewalk on Pleasant Street which would connect the existing sidewalk segments and result in a complete sidewalk along the entire length of Pleasant Street¼Æ \[Town Warrant\] Provision for funding such a project is included in the scope under Article 11(e). Funding Article 13: Prospect Hill Funds Requested Committee Recommends Road Sidewalk Source (Citizen Article) Indefinite Unspecified Postponement None (5Ã0) To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate a sum of money to construct a sidewalk on Prospect Hill Road, \[Town Warrant\] Provision for funding such a project is included in the scope under Article 11(e). 57 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Funding Source Article 14: Appropriate Funds Requested Committee Recommends for Water System $894,845 Water EF Improvements (RE)+ $5,155 Unexpended Cash Balance from $900,000 Approval (5Ã0) 2010 ATM, Article 13B, Rehabilitating Standpipes ÅThis is an annual program for replacement of unlined, inadequate, aged and failing water mains and deteriorated service connections as well as the elimination of dead ends in water mains. For this fiscal year we are requesting $820,000 for construction and it is estimated that $80,000 will be used for engineering services which is approximately 10% of the construction cost. This is a lower design percentage as the Engineering Division designs and bids the water main work in-house and using engineering services only for construction oversight. Possible locations for water system improvement are Massachusetts Avenue from the Arlington town line to Oak Street or the Prospect Hill Road area.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-23\] Funding Source Article 15: Appropriate Funds Requested Committee Recommends for Wastewater System $1,200,000 Improvements Wastewater EF $1,800,000 (Debt) + $600,000 Approval (5Ã0) Wastewater EF (RE) Project Description Amount Funding Committee Recommends Requested Source (a) Wastewater System Wastewater EF $1,200,000 Approval (5Ã0) (Debt) Investigation and Improvements ÅThis is an annual request for rehabilitation of sanitary sewer infrastructure. Engineering investigation and evaluation will be done on sewers in various watersheds. Work will include replacement or repair of deteriorated sewers and manholes identified throughout Town. Sewage leaks and overflows present a direct danger to the health of the community through transmission of waterborne diseases. In addition, the TownÈs assessment by the MWRA for sewage treatment is based, in part, on total flow through the meter at the Arlington town line, so excessive flow of storm water in the sewer results in unnecessarily higher sewage bills. ÅProjects may be eligible for MWRA grant/loan program funding. Further identification, prioritization, and repair of sanitary sewer in the town reducing inflow and infiltration into the system has been ongoing in several sewer basins in town. Recent completed work in town includes sewer basin area 6 (Tophet swamp), area 7 (Reed Street area), area 10 (Marrett, Lincoln, School Street areas), area 3 (Adams Street, Grant Street, Saddle Club Road area), and area 9 (Parker Street area). Possible future areas of investigation and removal are the Bow Street, Maple Street, Woburn Street, Bloomfield Street, Waltham Street / Concord Avenue and Adams Street areas. Additional work may also include force main rehabilitation and replacement including, but not limited to pump station work.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-14\] 58 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Project Description Amount Funding Committee Recommends Requested Source Wastewater EF (b) Pump Station Upgrades $600,000 Approval (5Ã0 ) (RE) ÅThis is an ongoing program for upgrade of the stations including bringing them in compliance with federal (OSHA) regulations, equipment replacement and generator installations. Lexington has 10 Sewer pumping stations valued at over $6 million. In July of 2013 a detailed evaluation and capital plan was developed for the town with the assistance of Wright-Pierce. This includes a detailed engineering survey of the pumps stations to determine current and future needs as well as a time table and probable costs for the proposed work. $600,000 of the FY16 funding request is for full pump station replacement, which will likely be used for the Constitution Road Pump Station as shown in year 3 of the Capital Improvement Plan developed by Wright-Pierce.¼Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-23\] See STM#2, Article 2 for additional funding for Pump Station work related to the force main on Gleason Road. Funding Source Article 16: Appropriate Funds Requested Committee Recommends for School Capital $1,903,500 Projects and Equipment (An additional $1,703,500 GF $82,500 does not (Debt) + $200,000 Approval (5Ã0) require GF (Free Cash) appropriation. See (d).) Project Description Amount Funding Committee Recommends Requested Source $117,500 GF (a) System Wide School Furniture, (Debt) + $317,500 Approval (5Ã0) $200,000 GF Equipment and Systems (Free Cash) ÅThe school department annually requests replacement of furniture that has reached the end of its useful life. In addition, new furniture inventory is required to address growing enrollment in our schools. Generally furniture repair, replacement, or additions consist of workstations, office furniture, folding chairs/tables, conference room furniture, bookshelves, storage units and cabinets, student work tables, library furniture, carts, bulletin boards, partitions, and other classroom equipment or systems that facilitate the delivery of instruction. ÅThe Furniture, Equipment and Systems Replacement Program includes requests for a. Replacing Furniture Program: $88,230 i. School-wide Furniture Replacement ¥ Art Tables and Stools & Cafeteria Tables ¥ Whiteboards, Bookshelves, Wooden Cubbies, Adult Classroom Desks and Chairs, Student Desks and Chairs, Lab Tables ¥ Art Tables and Art Stools and Fire Proof Filing Cabinets ii. Disposal, Recycling, and moving of furniture b. New Program Furniture: $129,270 59 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) i. 3 elementary classrooms and Cafeteria Tables at $15,000 each ii. 2 Middle school Classrooms at $7,000 each iii. High School staff member replacement/new office furniture (5 @ $2500 each) plus $12,500 for other new office and classroom spaces. iv. Emergency Response Communication System (62 District Two Way Radios) $25,000 v. Special Education Equipment Program $20,270 c. District Furniture Assessment Analysis $100,000 i. Services would include: ¥ Assessment for Repair and Replacement ¥ Subsequent inventory assessment, surplus and discard each yearÆ \[Brown Book, Page XI-11 & 17\] Project Description Amount Funding Committee Recommends Requested Source (b) School Technology Capital $1,378,000 Approval (5Ã0) GF (Debt) Request ÅThis request is to the DistrictÈs Strategic Goal for enhancing the capacity to utilize technology as an instructional and administrative tool. This technology equipment includes technology workstations (desktops, laptops, and mobile devices), printers/peripherals, interactive projection systems, network head-end equipment, and improved wireless network delivery systems for the High School and middle schools. This capital improvement project would provide the funding for: (Desktops, Laptops, Mobile Devices) - $575,000 is requested of which Technology Workstations $525,000 is to replace aging computers that will be 5-6 years old during FY15 with up-to-date technology workstations. Approximately 550 computers during FY16 will need replacement. $50,000 will be allocated as part of a three year plan to make sure all six of our elementary schools are equitable in their technology. - $275,000 is Expanding One-To-One Mobile Technology Initiative at Grade 8 Middle Schools requested to provide every Grade 8 student (550 students) at Diamond and Clarke Middle schools an iPad for use at home and school. - $45,000 is requested to expand and Expanding Individualized iPad initiative in High School further embed our current iPad initiative at the High School to provide iPads to additional 9th grade classrooms so that these classes can utilize the iPads on a regular basis to engage in classroom activities supported by technology. $30,000 is requested to purchase and replace old printers, document Technology Peripherals - readers, and projection systems through the district as the building needs arise. - $277,000 is Upgrading the Managed Wireless Networks at the High School and middle schools requested to upgrade the density and capacity of our wireless networks at the high school and two middle schools. - $86,000 is requested to:(1) upgrade Upgrading Additional Components schoolsÈ LAN networks backbone between network head-end to 10 Gb for Estabrook, Clarke, and Diamond schools, (2) replace the current mail and media storage servers, and (3) purchase expanded fireproof data storage repository for the data backup of key systems. 60 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) - $90,000 is requested for the fourth stage in our Interactive Projector/Whiteboards Units completion of our goal that will allow the Lexington School District of having every Grade 3-12 classroom equipped with interactive projector/whiteboard unit. \[Brown Book, Page XI-12\] Project Description Amount Funding Committee Recommends Requested Source (c) Additional Time Clock System $208,000 Approval (5Ã0) GF (Debt) Funds Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, employers are required to record and have available for audit and Å payment to employees the following information for hourly employees: Time and day of week when employee's workweek begins; Hours worked each day and total hours worked each workweek; Basis on which employee's wages are paid; Regular hourly pay rate; Total daily or weekly straight-time earnings; Total overtime earnings for the workweek; All additions to or deductions from the employee's wages; Total wages paid each pay period; and Date of payment and the pay period covered by the payment. ÅThe goal of this system is to not only meet the requirements of pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act for School employees, but to also have accurate recording an reporting of time worked, overtime, and absences for hourly employees.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-13\] This would be the third appropriation for this project: Appropriations for the Schools Time-Clock System Town MeetingsAmountSource 2010 ATM, Article 15(c)$97,000GF (Debt) 2013 ATM, Article 13(c)$30,000GF (Free Cash) Prior Subtotal$127,000 This Request$208,000GF (Debt) $335,000 Total if This Request Approved The first additional funding was in recognition that ÅDuring implementation planning, it was discovered that the original estimate¼did not include one building and a management/supervisor interface for the first year.Æ A spring 2014 Request for Proposal resulted in no award as all responses were priced at far more than the then-available funding. This further appropriation is needed in order to have what is now believed to be sufficient funds to contract for the full scope that is recognized to achieve all the cited information goals and thus meet the District-wide needs and statutory requirements. This Committee expects that the wording of the motion will reflect that the original debt authorization is being amended to $305,000Äreflecting the increase this request is making that would also be financed. 61 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Project Description Amount Funding Committee Recommends Requested Source (d) Food Service LHS Dishwasher Food Service $82,500 N/A RF & Installation ÅThis request is for the purchase and installation of a dishwasher in the main kitchen of the High School. It is driven largely by the increase average daily participation from SY2012 through SY2015 of 21% and an increase in utensil usage by 35%. \[Brown Book, Page XI-17\] While this Committee unanimously approves of this project, as it is to be funded from a statutory fund, it will not be presented to Town Meeting as such funding does not require a Town Meeting appropriation. Funding Article 17: Technical Funds Requested Committee Recommends Correction To The Source Borrowing Authorization Under Article 13B Of The N/A N/A Approval (5Ã0) 2014 Annual Town Meeting ÅTo see if the Town will vote to make a technical correction to the borrowing authorization approved under Article 13b of the warrant for the 2014 Annual Town Meeting (School Technology) by deleting the figure Å$1,100,000Æ and substituting therefor the figure Å$1,110,000Æ, or act in any other manner in relation thereto.Æ ÅDESCRIPTION: This article seeks to correct a scrivenerÈs error in the motion as originally passed. The borrowing authorization was $10,000 below the authorized appropriation.Æ \[Town Warrant\] Funding Source Article 18: Appropriate Funds Requested Committee Recommends for Public Facilities $1,740,200 GF Capital Projects (Debt) + $808,925 $2,731,885 See Below GF (Free Cash) + $182,760 GF (Cash) Project Description Amount Funding Committee Recommends Requested Source (a) Middle School Space Mining $674,000 GF (Debt) Approval (5Ã0) ÅA study, funded by Article 14H of 2014 Annual Town Meeting for $40,000, evaluated the two middle schools for opportunities to improve space utilization. As a result of the study, two projects are being recommended. The first project is to divide the underutilized Clarke teacherÈs lunchroom into two spaces, a conference room and smaller lunch room. The second project, also at Clarke, is to renovate the Resource Room 318 into a more functional space. A suite with a group area and smaller educational spaces will be created for staff and students, and the remainder of the space will separated as a full classroom, thereby increasing overall utilization for the space. The Diamond School space mining project, originally planned for FY16, has been deferred by the Superintendent. \[Brown Book, Page XI-10\] 62 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Project Description Amount Funding Committee Recommends Requested Source (b) Clarke Middle School GF (Debt, Circulation and Parking $363,000 possibly Approval (5Ã0) Improvements, Design excluded) ÅThis project is requesting design funds to modify and expand paving around the Clarke Middle School for increased parking, improved circulation for vehicles and to improve the safety of pedestrian and bicycle routes. The construction funds will be requested after the design and phasing schedule is completed. The current construction estimate is $2.2 million. During the school drop off and pick up period, the existing paved areas do not provide adequate circulation for the amount of passenger cars and busses that access the site. Additionally, students weave themselves through the often stopped vehicles. Implementing this project will improve safety and circulation of vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists; provide adequate parking and provide needed capacity from increasing enrollments.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-10\] This Committee recognizes the need to increase safety and to improve the flow of traffic at the Clark Middle School as well as increase the amount of parking due the increasing size of the school population. Care during this planning phase will be needed to ensure that the eventual product will be compatible with any changes or additions to the school that might arise from adding capacity. (See STM#1, Article 2) The DPF is aware of, and is planning for, this coordination between projects. Project Description Amount Funding Committee Recommends Requested Source (c) Lexington High School Phase 2 Approval (5Ã0) $90,200 GF (Debt) Overcrowding/Completion ÅThis project is requesting funds to complete the renovation of Room 228. LHS Overcrowding Phase 2 repurposed Room 228 into programmable space. The room has been temporarily used as a small classroom, and for FY 2016 funding is requested to complete the renovation into offices for the English and Social Studies Department Heads. After this renovation is completed, the two department heads and administrators will be relocated and their current offices in suite 217 will be used to consolidate Special Education Department staff into one area.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-10\] Project Description Amount Funding Committee Recommends Requested Source (d) Public Facilities-Major Mechanical/Electrical SystemsÈ Approval (5Ã0 $463,000 GF (Debt) ) Replacement ÅThis project is an annual replacement of HVAC and electrical systems that have exceeded their useful life and require replacement before excessive failures begin occurring. The following systems have been identified for replacement in FY 2016: LHS Ã Replace RTU A-1, serving the IT Department, due to failure history and replace with larger, RTU with energy recovery, sized for the additional IT room 164. Town Office Building: Replace both AHUs serving the Town Office Building due to failure history and inability to maintain conditions. The Design will include return air and energy recovery.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-10\] 63 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Project Description Amount Funding Committee Recommends Requested Source (e) Lexington Public School Indefinite Postponement N/A N/A (5Ã0) Educational Capacity Increase See STM#1, Article 2, under which the funds for this scope of work are to be appropriated. Project Description Amount Funding Committee Recommends Requested Source GF (Debt or (f) LHS Heating Systems Candidate for $150,000 Approval (5Ã0) UpgradeÄPhases 2 & 3ÄDesign Excluded Debt) 2014 Annual Town Meeting, Article 14B, funded $75,000 to evaluate options to determine the most cost Å effective approach to extend the useful life of the LHS main building HVAC systems. Phase one of this project was completed under an authorization at 2009 Annual Town Meeting, Article 19C, which made improvements to the LHS outer buildings. The analysis completed by the consulting engineers presented four options: 1) replace all controls, including actuators and dampers pneumatic controls with DDC controls, 2) replace all equipment, including new DDC controls, but replace with the same equipment, 3) similar as option 2, but upgrade with condensing hot water boilers, hot water unit ventilators, and energy recovery ventilation, and 4) new energy recovery ventilation, with partial air conditioning, for all spaces. Remove unit ventilators from the classrooms. The steam distribution system and unit ventilators for the classrooms are original to the buildings (1948 and 1953). During the 2000 renovation and 2003 renovations several roof top units were added, some with steam heat and some with hot water. The project cost for option 4 is approximately $10,000,000. This is just over $50/sq. ft. for the 190,000 square feet that is part of this analysis. This project is recommending funding of the design of the option 4, so that funding for phased implementation, which aligns with the Lexington Public School Master Plan, can be presented at future Town Meetings.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-11\] The heating system in the main building at the High School is over 60-years old and beyond its useful life. Modern heating units and controls are needed to provide efficient heating and adequate air-tempering, as well as quiet service suitable for classroom use. While the main building is over 60-years old, it is structurally sound and will likely be in service for many years even after the rest of the High-School complex is renovated/replaced. Therefore, we endorse that the replacement system be of high quality and energy efficient (i.e., the selection of option 4). Project Description Amount Funding Committee Recommends Requested Source (g) School Building Envelope and GF (Free $210,000 Approval (5Ã0 ) Systems Cash) ÅThis project involves performing annual prioritized design, repairs and modifications to prevent deterioration of school building exteriors and building systems. Proper maintenance of school buildings requires continual investment in the building envelope and building systems. This includes but is not limited to repair of damaged panels and siding, re-caulking and weatherproofing windows and doors, repainting the wood exterior and extraordinary repairs to mechanical systems. Small, individual items such as failure of a specific door or window or small painting projects will continue to be funded through the operating budget. FY 2016 priorities may include Clarke Middle School drainage improvements and caulking replacement, network improvements to the DPF building automation system, and educational space modifications from enrollment changes.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-18\] 64 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Project Description Amount Funding Committee Recommends Requested Source (h) Municipal Building Envelope $182,760 GF (Cash) Approval (5Ã0) and Systems This ongoing capital request, originally approved for funding in the 2006 Proposition 2 Override, Å includes repair/replacement projects for the maintenance and upgrade of municipal buildings and systems. Repairs to roofs, windows, mechanical and electrical systems, and interior finishes are required on a continual basis to maintain town facilities for their intended function. The public building infrastructure will always need to be maintained, repaired, and upgraded to prevent structural deterioration and avoid safety hazards. The projects within this program do not increase the size of the public building stock and therefore do not result in increased utility usage or maintenance costs. This year's request intends to implement extraordinary repairs and to install a drainage system for the Town Office Building basement.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-18\] Project Description Amount Funding Committee Recommends Requested Source (i) Extraordinary GF (Free $335,425 Approval (5Ã0) Repairs/Replacements/Upgrades Cash) 1.School Building Flooring Program ($125,000) ÅThis is a multi-year project that will replace carpet, vinyl tile, and ceramic tile flooring systems are beyond their useful life. Flooring systems must be replaced periodically to insure the surfaces are safe and cleanable. Worn or broken flooring creates a tripping hazard, can provide harborage for bacteria and water, and is difficult to clean. Smaller repairs of flooring components are funded through the operating budget. This is the sixth year of this program and new flooring systems have been installed in Clarke stairwells, classrooms, and auditorium, Hastings main corridor, Diamond School, and Central Administration and LHS. This year the Department will also be evaluating replacing flooring in areas that house 12 month programs with low maintenance flooring systems.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-18\] 2.($133,425) School Interior Painting Program ÅThis is a multi-year project for a school building interior painting program with the intent of systematically repainting interior surfaces on a 7 to 10 year schedule. Elementary school interiors are occasionally painted through PTA planning of community volunteers. The last two years has resulted in improvements at the middle schools and the high school. The third year will focus on the elementary schools and Town office buildings.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-18\] 3.($77,000) Diamond Middle School Lighting to Rear Parking Lot ÅThis project is for adding additional lighting at the Sedge Road side of Diamond Middle School. This project will install seven (7) new LED light fixtures on twenty five (25) foot aluminum poles.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-19\] 4. Diamond Middle School Motors for Backboards This sub-element has been withdrawn. 5. LHS Bike Racks and Installatio n This sub-element has been withdrawn. 65 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Project Description Amount Funding Committee Recommends Requested Source GF (Free (j) School Paving Program $150,000 Approval (5Ã0) Cash) ÅThis project requests funds for design and construction to maintain school parking and paved pedestrian surfaces in a condition suitable for public use. This program funds paving replacement on school grounds and has resulted in improvements at Bridge, Bowman, Fiske, Hastings, Diamond, and Central Administration buildings. In addition, improvements were made to various school buildings to remove access barriers identified in the ADA Survey completed in 2011. It is anticipated that a priority for next year will be to replace paving in the Bowman School parking lot and to study the requirements for the Sedge Road entrance to Diamond Middle School for replacement in FY 2017.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-18\] Project Description Amount Funding Committee Recommends Requested Source GF (Free (k) Public Facilities Bid Documents $75,000 Approval (5Ã0) Cash) ÅThis is an annual request for funding of professional services to produce design development, construction documents, and/or bid administration services for smaller school projects in anticipation of requests for construction funding at town meeting that that have a high probability of approval. This will insure that the projects can be completed in the then-current construction season, which is particularly important for the timely completion of such projects given the short window between the end of school in June and the beginning of school the following August.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-19\] Project Description Amount Funding Committee Recommends Requested Source GF (Free (l) Security Cameras Upgrade $38,500 Approval (5Ã0) Cash) ÅThis project is to upgrade the older PELCO analog security camera system to the newer evacqVision digital security camera system over a five year period.Æ \[Brown Book, Page XI-??\] Original Funding Article 24: Committee Recommends Amount Involved Appropriate Bonds Source and Notes Appropriate that amount Premiums & of premiums on bonding Rescind Equal Approval (5Ã0) ¯$149,140 received & Reduce the Prior Borrowing bonding authorities, accordingly Authorizations ÅTo see if the Town will vote to apply premium received on account of the sale of bonds or notes of the Town that are the subject of a Proposition 2 debt exclusion, to pay costs of the project being financed by such bonds or notes, provided that the amount authorized to be borrowed for such project, but not yet issued by the Town, is reduced by the same amount, or act in any other manner in relation thereto.Æ ÅDESCRIPTION: Passage of this article would permit premiums received upon the sale of bonds or notes issued to finance projects approved at a debt exclusion election to be appropriated to pay 66 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) for project costs, subject to guidelines promulgated by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue. Such appropriations would be for the purpose of supplanting, not supplementing, bond financing of the project in question.Æ \[Town Warrant\] It is expected that this Article will combine the two, equal, offsetting actionsÄrather than leave the rescission action as subject to an independent vote under Article 25. ActionsOriginal AppropriationDescriptionsAmount Appropriated Premiums on 2011 STM (Nov 14) Article 2Bridge/Bowman Reconstruction$32,858 Bonds Sold on February 19, 2015, and Reduce Bond Authorizations by the same 2012 STM (Apr 2) Article 2Estabrook School Construction$116,282 amounts Total$149,140 There is no change to the total funding authority for each project. Original Article 25: Rescind Amount for Rescission Committee Recommends Authorization Prior Borrowing Authorizations Approval (4Ã0) $3,264,471 See Below ÅTo see if the Town will vote to rescind the unused borrowing authority voted under previous Town Meeting articles; or act in any other manner in relation thereto.Æ ÅDESCRIPTION: State law requires that Town Meeting vote to rescind authorized and unissued debt which is no longer required for its intended purpose.Æ \[Town Warrant\] Beyond the rescissions addressed under Article 24, there are the following additional rescissions: Original AppropriationPurposeAmountReason Public Works Project completed without needing this 2007 ATM, Article 36$2,261,871 Facilityremaining authority. Land PurchaseÄOff Project completed without needing this 2010 ATM, Article 9Marrett Road $1,002,600 remaining authority. (Cotton Farm Acquisition) Total$3,264,471 Seller financed, without interest and over two years, the $2,300,000 balance due on the $3,800,000 purchase after an initial CPF cash payment of $1,500,000. The first payment due against the balance was under a BAN (for cash received). That payment originally was to be $1,300,000 in FY2012, but was accelerated and discounted to $1,297,400 due to financing costs to be borne by the Town that had not been contemplated; leaving $2,600 of the overall authorization unused. (That BAN was paid off under the 2011 ATM, Article 8(k).) The last $1,000,000 payment was due on a BAN (but written for the seller as security only; no cash received; and thus did not use any of the bonding authorization) that was paid off as a debt service under 2012 ATM, Article 8(l). The authorization now being rescinded is the sum of those two unused debt authorizations. 67 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Funding Article 26: Establish and Funds Committee Requested Recommends Appropriate To and From Source Specified Stabilization Capital Projects/Debt Service Reserve/Building Renewal SF Funds (SFs) Capital Projects/Debt Withdraw Service Reserve/Building $215,000; Renewal SF Approval (5Ã0) Deposit $3,042,797 GF (Cash) + $9,447,832 $6,405,035 GF (Free Cash) Traffic Mitigation SF Deposit Traffic Mitigation Special Approval (5Ã0) $18,174.93 Revenue Account ÅTo see if the Town will vote to create, rename and/or appropriate sums of money to and from Stabilization Funds in accordance with Section 5B of Chapter 40 of the Massachusetts General Laws for the purposes of: (a) Section 135 Zoning By-Law, (b) Traffic Mitigation, (c) Transportation Demand Management/Public Transportation, (d) School Bus Transportation, (e) Special Education, (f) Center Improvement District; (g) Debt Service, (h) Transportation Management Overlay District , (i) Avalon Bay School Enrollment Mitigation Fund, and (j) Capital Projects/Debt Service Reserve/Building Renewal Fund; and determine whether the money shall be provided by the tax levy, by transfer from available funds, or by any combination of these methods; or act in any other manner in relation thereto.Æ \[Town Warrant\] Note: All of the TownÈs Specified Stabilization Funds are in addition to the TownÈs General Stabilization Fund. See Appendix D for a table with information on all the current Specified Stabilization Funds. The only two of the funds identified in the Warrant under this Article with capital implications and for which actions are contemplated at this Annual Town Meeting are as follows: a. The Capital Projects/Debt Service Reserve/Building Renewal SFÄwhose balance as of December 31, 2014, is $8,039.928: rd (1) The first action is to withdraw from that fund, with a 2/3 vote, $215,000 to be used to mitigate the increase to the taxpayers from the exempt-debt service for the Bridge/Bowman, and Estabrook Schools projects. (An additional $620,567 will be withdrawn as an appropriation under Article 4 (Appropriate FY2016 Operating Budget) to provide similar mitigation from the non-exempt-debt service for the 2-year High School Modulars Project that was authorized at the November 4, 2013 STM under its Article 4.). (2) The second action is to deposit into that fund $9,447,832 that are not designated for use toward FY2015 expenses. (3) The projected balance after those actions (including the additional $620,567 withdrawal under Article 4) would be $16,652,193Äwhich fund has continued to accrue interest earned since the end of last year and will continue to accrue interest earned, going forward. That balance would remain in this rd Fund and be available later in FY2015 and thereafter to be applied, with a 2/3 vote by a future Town Meeting, toward any of the purposes in the full title of the Fund. b. The Traffic Mitigation SFÄwhose balance as of December 31, 2014, is $69,129. The deposit into this Fund is available as a result of a $18,175 payment received from Cubist Pharmaceuticals in connection with approval of a property-development project in Town. 68 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Funding Source Article 27: Appropriate to Funds Requested Committee Recommends Stabilization Fund Indefinite Postponement N/A N/A (5Ã0) ÅTo see if the Town will vote to appropriate a sum of money to the previously created Stabilization Fund.¼Æ \[Town Warrant\] At this time, there is no planned action under this Article. Funding Source Article 28: Appropriate Funds Requested Committee Recommends from Debt Service $124,057 Debt Service SF Approval (5Ã0) Stabilization Fund ÅTo see if the Town will vote to appropriate a sum of money from the Debt Service Stabilization Fund to offset the FY2016 debt service of the bond dated February 1, 2003 issued for additions and renovations to the Lexington High School, Clarke Middle School and Diamond Middle School, as refunded with bonds dated December 8, 2011;¼Æ ÅDESCRIPTION: This article would allow the Town to pay the debt service on the 2003 School Bonds from the Capital Debt Service Stabilization Fund set up for that specific purpose.Æ \[Town Warrant\] In August 2006, the Town received over $14 million from the Massachusetts School Building Authority as reimbursement toward the TownÈs secondary-schools renovation project. After using over $11 million of those funds to retire short-term debt taken on in anticipation of that reimbursement, there was $2,143,079 excess reimbursement that needed to be applied toward the projectÈs long-term exempt debt. By Department of Revenue \[DOR\] regulations, these funds must be used only to offset debt service on the outstanding bond for that exempt debt. With the prior-year appropriations from this fund and, over the same period interest being earned on the amount in the fund, the balance is now $1,014,881. With continued, yearly, appropriation of this same amount ($124,057), all the excess reimbursement will have been applied with the payment in FY2023. With the present balance, that would still leave $22,425 in the fund, but the residual balance will be higher in FY2023 as a result of interest that will be earned over the next 8 years. It is the TownÈs position that the residual balance should be applied against other exempt debt in FY2024 as the requirement to reserve these funds was to ÅreturnÆ the funds to the taxpayer through the mitigation of exempt-debt service. Funds Funding Committee Article 30: Amend Budget Purpose Requested Source Recommends FY2015 Operating, Recreation $30,000 Recreation Recreation EF Approval (4Ã0) Enterprise EF Expenses (RE) And CPA CPA $1,000,960 CPA Debt CPA (Cash) Approval (5Ã0) Budgets Service (Enterprise & CPA only) ÅTo see if the Town will vote to make supplementary appropriations, to be used in conjunction with money appropriated under Articles 4, 5 and 8 of the warrant for the 2014 Annual Town Meeting, to be used during the current fiscal year, or make any other adjustments to the current fiscal year budgets and appropriations that may be 69 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) necessary; to determine whether the money shall be provided by transfer from available funds, including the Community Preservation Fund; or act in any other manner in relation thereto.Æ \[Town Warrant\] Recreation EF The current estimate for the equipment needed for the Community CenterÈs exercise room is $60,000; however, that funding wasnÈt included in the CenterÈs capital budget and purchasing that equipment so the room is fully functional is considered important. DPF does not believe there will be a sufficient balance in the existing capital appropriation to finance that purchase. The requested increase in the EF budget, together with a matching amount that the BoS has authorized be spent from the SelectmenÈs Gift Account, will provide the funding needed for the exercise-room equipment. CPA It was contemplated when the financing was begun for the cost of the Cary Memorial Building Upgrade that there would be a review when the initial Bond Anticipation Note (BAN) was to mature as to whether the TownÈs CPF had sufficient cash to permit using some of it to paydown the BAN and, therefore, reduce the dollar amount of the follow-on long-term bond. The CPC was presented with an analysis of the CPFÈs current and projected cash positions by the TownÈs Finance Department and concurred with using $1,000,000 of the current cash balance for such a paydown. This appropriation provides the funding for both that principle amount of a new, note with a 4-month term and also the $960 of interest due on it. This Committee appreciates that the review was made to determine if the long-term obligation of the CPF could be moderated and, in this case, that the cash balance of that fund is able to permit a reduction. Trying to moderate long-term obligation has been a recommendation of our finance committees since the Town adopted the CPA. Funding Source Article 31: Appropriate Funds Requested Committee Recommends for Authorized Capital Indefinite Postponement Improvements N/A N/A (5Ã0) ÅTo see if the Town will vote to make supplementary appropriations to be used in conjunction with money appropriated in prior years for the installation or construction of water mains, sewers and sewerage systems, drains, streets, buildings, recreational facilities or other capital improvements and equipment that have heretofore been authorized;¼Æ DESCRIPTION: This is an annual article to request funds to supplement existing appropriations for certain capital projects in light of revised cost estimates that exceed such appropriations.Æ \[Town Warrant\] At this time, there is no planned action under this Article. See STM#2, Article 6 where such an action is requested. Funding Article 35: Accept MGL Funds Requested Committee Recommends Chapter 90-I, Section Source 1 (Complete Streets Program) N/A N/A Approval (5Ã0) ÅTo see if the Town will vote to accept Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 90-I, Section 1, as amended, the Complete Streets Program, to allow the Town to participate in, apply for, and receive funding from said section and Section 6121-1318 of the Session Laws, Chapter 79 of the Acts of 2014; or act in any other manner in relation thereto.Æ 70 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) ÅDESCRIPTION: Acceptance of this statute will allow the Town to apply for state grants under the new Complete Streets Program.Æ \[Town Warrant\] Funding Article 41: Amend Funds Requested Committee Recommends General BylawsÄ Source Contracts And Deeds DeferredDecision N/A N/A (5Ã0) ÅTo see if the Town will vote to amend Section 32-4 of Chapter 34 (Contracts and Deeds) of the Code of the Town of Lexington by deleting the following: ÅType of Contract Number of Years Lease of public lands and buildings 20Æ And replacing it with the following: Å Type of Contract Number of Years Lease of public lands 20 Lease of public buildings 30Æ ÅAnd further by adding the following to the end of said section: ÅThis section shall not apply to: Contracts excluded from the Uniform Procurement Act under M.G.L. c. 30B, Section 1, unless otherwise expressly included in the list above ( contracts for waste disposal and recycling, e.g. electricity and solar energy). Settlement agreements Copyright and other agreements with respect to intellectual property Agreements entered into by the Town or its boards and commissions in their capacity as permitting or regulatory authorities.Æ ÅDESCRIPTION: This amendment to the General Bylaw on Contracts and Deeds tracks exemptions from the state Uniform Procurement Code, G. L. c. 30B, and will leave to the Board of Selectmen and Town ManagerÈs discretion under the Town Manager Act, or other boards in their regulatory authority, certain types of contracts, such as intergovernmental agreements, settlement agreements, copyright agreements and subdivision covenants, some of which are intended to be perpetual or very long term, and other contracts not amenable to predetermined terms.Æ \[Town Warrant\] This Committee would support this change if it has been determined to be legally sound (e.g., does not introduce any conflicts or ambiguities) as it provides the Town with greater flexibility dealing with long-term lease arrangements; That assurance has not yet been given to this Committee; therefore, this Committee is deferring taking a position until the resolution of that matter has been reported. However, this Committee has voted that if there is no legal issue, it then stands unanimously for recommending approval. And if there is an issue, it stands unanimously for Indefinite Postponement. 71 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Funding Article 42: Commission Funds Requested Committee Recommends On Disability Request Source N/A N/A Disapproval (5Ã0) ÅTo see if the Town will vote to either amend the Code of the Town of Lexington, or request the Board of Selectmen to establish a policy, to specify appropriate materials be used for public pathways, both new and reconstructed, to ensure safe passage for citizens who have trouble traversing uneven surfaces; or act in any other manner in relation thereto.Æ ÅDESCRIPTION: This article seeks to prohibit the use of sidewalk materials that make passage difficult for people with disabilities.Æ \[Town Warrant\] While this Committee fully supports the TownÈs continuing commitment to comply with all requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and related State statutes to insure safe passage for citizens with disabilities, it believes that because of the imprecision and inherent redundancy of the Motion under this Article, it does not advance the cause. Funding Article 46: Acquisition Of Funds Requested Committee Recommends Land Shown On Source AssessorsÈ Property Map 22, Lot 51B N/A N/A Approval (5Ã0) ÅTo see if the Town will vote to authorize the Board of Selectmen to take by eminent domain or otherwise acquire for municipal purposes the land shown as Lot 51B on AssessorsÈ Property Map 22, now of owners unknown; or act in any other manner in relation thereto.Æ ÅDESCRIPTION: This parcel, with owner unknown, is adjacent to the Town-owned land by the Stone Building/Waldorf School in East Lexington. By making it Town-owned land, the Town can accommodate the Waldorf School, which is planning for a small addition and may need to restructure its parking spaces.\[Town Warrant\] \[Town Warrant\] 72 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Appendix A: School Building Project Consensus Plan A-1 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) A-2 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) A-3 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) A-4 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Appendix B: School Building Project Funding B-1 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Appendix C: School Building Project Schedules Scenario MarMar Apr11Apr May22May June33June 4 July4July 5 Aug65Aug Sep76Sep Oct87Oct Nov98Nov Dec109Dec Jan1110Jan Feb1211Feb Mar1312Mar Apr1413Apr May1514May June1615June July1716July Aug1817Aug Sep1918Sep Oct2019Oct Nov2120Nov Dec2221Dec Jan2322Jan Feb2423Feb Mar2524Mar Apr2625Apr May2726May June2827June July2928July Aug3029Aug Sep3130Sep Oct3231Oct Nov3332Nov Dec3433Dec Jan3534Jan Feb3635Feb Mar3736Mar Apr3837Apr May3938May June4039June July4140July Aug4241Aug Sep4342Sep Oct4443Oct Nov4544Nov Dec4645Dec Jan4746Jan Feb4847Feb Mar4948Mar Apr5049Apr May5150May June5251June 53July July52 Aug5453Aug Sep5554Sep Oct5655Oct Nov5756Nov Dec5857Dec C-1 1 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Appendix D: Information on the TownÈs Current Specific Stabilization Funds D-1 1 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Appendix E: Summary of Warrant-Article Recommendations Abbreviations: RF = Revolving Fund; CPF = Community Preservation Fund; EF = Enterprise Fund; RE = Retained Earnings; GF = General Fund; SF = Stabilization Fund; TBD = To Be Determined; ATM = Annual Town Meeting; STM = Special Town Meeting; R&CP = Recreation & Community Programs CEC Art.DescriptionRequestFunding SourceDifference $4,080,000GF (Debt) candidate for exclusion STM#1 2School Facilities Capital Projects $750,000Wastewater EF (RE) STM#2 2Pump Station Repairs $500,000GF (Debt) (Debt svc with FY2016 Free Cash & STM#2 3Purchase Of Fire Engine Settlement) $194,200CPF (Cash) STM#2 4Cary Memorial Building Sidewalk Enhancements None STM#2 5Amend FY2015 Operating, Enterprise And CPA Budgets (CPA Only) $350,000GF (Debt) STM#2 6Authorized Capital Improvements (LHS Modular ClassroomsÄPhase II $57,000PEG Access RF 7Establish and Continue Departmental Revolving 8Community Preservation Committee Operating Budget and CPA Projects 8(a)Conservation Meadow Preservation Program $26,400CPF (Cash) 8(b)Parker's Revenge Site Restoration $36,790CPF (Cash) 8(c)First Parish Church Restoration Historic Structure $40,000CPF (Cash) Report 8(d)Cary Memorial Building Records Center Shelving $75,398CPF (Cash) 8(e)Battle Green Streetscape Improvements $200,000$140,000 CPF (Cash) + $60,000 GF (Free Cash)($200,000) 8(f)Community Center Sidewalk Design $50,000CPF (Cash) 8(g)Cary Memorial Building Sidewalk EnhancementN/AN/A (See STM#2, Article 4) (IP) 8(h)Community Center Preservation Restriction $25,000CPF (Cash) Endowment 8(i)Park and Playground Improvements$68,000CPF (Cash) 8(j)Park Improvements - Athletic Fields$85,000CPF (Cash) 8(k)Park and Playgrounds ADA Accessibility Study $78,000CPF (Cash) 8(l)Park Improvements- Hard Court Resurfacing$55,000CPF (Cash) 8(m)Lincoln Park Field Improvements - Phase 3$650,000$220,000 CPF (Cash) + $236,500 GF (Debt) + $193,500 R&CP EF (RE) 8(n)Minuteman Bikeway Culvert Rehabilitation $290,000CPF (Cash) 8(o)Grain Mill Alley Design Funds $18,000CPF (Cash)($18,000) 8(p)Minuteman Bikeway Wayfinding SignsÄDesign $39,000CPF (Cash)($39,000) Funds 8(q)Lower Vine Brook Paved Recreation Path $369,813CPF (Cash) Reconstruction 8(r)CPA Debt Service$2,417,200CPF (Cash) 8(s)Administrative Budget$150,000CPF (Cash) $618,000CPF (Cash) 9Property PurchaseÄ241 Grove Street (Parcel 2) $68,000R&CP EF (RE) 10Recreation Capital: Pine Meadows Equipment 11Municipal Capital Projects & Equipment 11(a)Center Streetscape Improvements and Easements $2,700,000GF (Debt) Phase 1 11(b)DPW Equipment Replacement$1,270,000$399,000 GF (Debt) +$100,000 GF (Free Cash) + $40,500 Water EF (RE) + $40,500 Wastewater EF (RE) + $690,000 Compost RF (Debt) 11(c)Storm Drainage Improvements and NPDES $340,000$43,343 GF Debt + $225,575 GF (Free Cash) + Compliance$71,082 Unexpended Cash Balances 11(d)Comprehensive Watershed Storm Water $390,000GF (Debt) Management Implementation Measures 11(e)Sidewalk Improvements, Additions, Design$600,000GF (Debt) 11(f)Town-wide Culverts$100,000GF (Debt) 11(g)Town-wide Signalization$125,000GF (Debt) 11(h)Hartwell Avenue Infrastructure Improvements$4,750,000GF (Debt) 11(i)Street Improvements$3,231,250$2,270,145 GF (Cash) + $961,105 Chap. 90 11(j)Bikeway Bridge Repairs and Engineering$10,000GF (Free Cash) 11(k)Hastings Park Undergrounding Wires$300,000GF (Free Cash)($300,000) 11(l)Hydrant Replacement Program$150,000$75,000 GF (Free Cash) + $75,000 Water EF (RE) 11(m)Westview Cemetery Building Assessment $35,000Cemetery Trust Fund 11(n)Replace Town-wide Phone SystemsÄPhase IV$52,000GF (Free Cash) 11(o)Municipal Technology Improvement ProgramÄPhase $140,000GF (Free Cash) III Continued on next page E-1 th CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2015 ATM & 2015 STMs (Mar 23)(Final) Summary of Warrant-Article Recommendations (continued) CEC Art.DescriptionRequestFunding SourceDifference 11(p)Police/Fire Dispatching and Records Software$705,900$398,400 GF (Debt) + $307,500 GF (Free Cash) 11(q)Parking Meter Replacement$500,000GF (Debt) (Debt Svc from Parking Meter Fund) 11(r)Public Safety Radio StabilizationÄPhase I$90,000GF (Free Cash) 11(s)Design/EngineeringÄFiring Range at Hartwell $50,000GF (Free Cash) Avenue Compost Site 12Pleasant Street Sidewalk (Citizen Article)(IP)None 13Prospect Hill Road Sidewalk (Citizen Article) (IP)None $900,000$894,845 Water EF (RE) + $5,155 Unexpended 14Water System Improvements Cash Balance from 2010 ATM, Article 13B, Rehabilitating Standpipes 15Wastewater System Improvements 15(a)Wastewater System Investigation and Improvements$1,200,000Wastewater EF (Debt) 15(b)Pump Station Upgrades$600,000Wastewater EF (RE) 16School Capital 16(a)Systemwide School Furniture, Equipment, & Systems$317,500$117,500 GF (Debt) + $200,000 GF (Free Cash) 16(b)School Technology$1,378,000GF (Debt) 16(c)Additional Time Clock System Funds$208,000GF (Debt) 16(d)Food Service LHS Dishwasher & Installation $82,500Food Service Fund 17Technical Correction To The Borrowing N/AN/A Authorization Under Article 13B Of The 2014 ATM 18Public Facilities 18(a)Middle School Space Mining$674,000GF (Debt) 18(b)Clarke Middle School Circulation and Parking $363,000GF (Debt)(possibly excluded) Improvements, Design 18(c)Lexington High School Phase 2 $90,200GF (Debt) Overcrowding/Completion 18(d)Public Facilities-Major Mechanical/Electrical SystemsÈ $463,000GF (Debt) Replacement 18(e)Lexington Public School Educational Capacity N/AN/A Increase (IP) 18(f)LHS Heating Systems UpgradeÄPhases 2 & $150,000GF (Debt)(candidate for excluded) 3ÄDesign 18(g)School Building Envelope and Systems Program$210,000GF (Free Cash) 18(h)Municipal Building Envelope and Systems$182,760GF (Cash) 18(i)Extraordinary Repairs/Replacements/Upgrades$335,425GF (Free Cash) 18(i)(1)School Building Flooring Program$125,000 18(i)(2)Interior Painting Program$133,425 18(i)(3)Diamond Middle School Lighting to Rear Parking Lot$77,000 18(j)School Paving Program$150,000GF (Free Cash) 18(k)Public Facilities Bid Documents$75,000GF (Free Cash) 18(l)Security Cameras Upgrade$38,500GF (Free Cash) $138,032Bond Premiums appropriated and same amount 24 Appropriate Bonds and Notes Premiums & of debt authorization rescinded. Rescind Equal Prior Borrowing Authorizations See Article for original authorizations. 25Multiple Rescind Prior Borrowing Authorizations See Article for specifics. 26Multiple Establish and Appropriate To and From Specified Stabilization Funds (SFs) 27N/A Appropriate to Stabilization Fund (IP) $124,057Originally a State reimbursement for school 28 Appropriate from Debt Service projects. Stabiiization Fund See Article for specifics. 30Multiple Amend FY2015 Operating, Enterprise And CPA Budgets (Enterprise & CPA only) 31N/A Appropriate for Authorized Capital Improvements (IP) Totals (excluding values of "Multiple" entries)$34,509,925($557,000) E-2