HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-ATM-CEC-rpt1CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE
TOWN OF LEXINGTON
OJS �110RNltiG
v im` �� A+
0 �P
V z � ;
Q �� x
V. C i
3 � 0 f)
Z
APRIL 19714
L �X ING '���
REPORT TO THE
2007 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING.
Released 3 Apri1
Submitted b
Charles Lamb, Chainnan
Ted Edson, Vice-Chairman
Ro Bor
William Hurle
Shirle Stolz
3/26/07 FY 2008 Capital Appropriation Summary (Continued on Inside Rear Cover)
CEC Town Meeting
Funding
Article
Description
Request
Recommended Appropriation
Source
Cash Debt
26
Community Preservation Act
$1
$1
26(a)
Center Playfield Drainage Study
$40
$40
Community Preservation Act (cash)
26(b)
Munroe & Old Burial Grounds Restoration
$367
$367
Community Preservation Act (cash)
26(c)
Fire Monitoring System - Historic Houses
$18
$18
Community Preservation Act (cash)
26(d)
Buckman Tavern Boiler
$10
$10
Community Preservation Act (cash)
26(e)
Comprehensive Cultural Resources Survey
$90
$90
Community Preservation Act (cash)
26(f)
Greeley Village Window Replacement
$228
$228
Community Preservation Act (cash)
26(g)
East Lexington Library Historic Structures Stu
$43
$43
Community Preservation Act (cash)
26(h)
Cary Hall Improvements
$147
$77
Community Preservation Act (cash)
Feasibility Study
$10
$10
Community Preservation Act (cash)
Blackout Curtains
$8
$8
Community Preservation Act (cash)
Stage Extension & Lighting
$59
$59
Community Preservation Act (cash)
Architectural Concept & Performance Stun
$70
$0
Community Preservation Act (cash)
26(i)
Unifying Signage
$18
$18
Community Preservation Act (cash)
260)
Douglas House
$300
$300
Community Preservation Act (cash)
26(k)
West Lexington Greenway Corridor
$125
$125
Community Preservation Act (cash)
26(1)
Muzzey Condominium Architectural Study
$53
$11
Community Preservation Act (cash)
26(m)
Administration
$25
$25
Community Preservation Act (cash)
27
Land Purchase - Off of Lowell Street
unknown
I.P.
Community Preservation Act ( cash/bond)
28
Land Purchase - Off of Adams Street
unknown
I.P.
Community Preservation Act (cash/bond)
29
Recreation
$265
$265
29(b)
Valley Tennis Court Improvements
$130
$130
Recreation E/F (Debt, 5 years)
29(a)
Center Basketball Court Reconstruction
$85
$85
Tax Levy (cash)
29(c)
Atheletic Fields
$50
$5000
Tax Levy (cash)
31
Municipal Capital
$3
$3
31(a)
Lincoln Field Methane'
$400
$400
Tax Levy (Debt, 10 years)
31(b)
Wireless Fire Alarms
$142
$142
Tax Levy (Debt, 5 years)
31(c)
DPW Equipment
$523
$523
Tax Levy (Debt, 5 years)
31(d)
Woburn Street Reconstruction
$120
$120
Tax Levy (Debt, 5 years)
31(e)
Geographic Information System
$195
$195
Tax Levy ($62,400), Water ($102,300),
Wastewater E/F ($31,200) (Debt,
5 years)
31(f)
Storm Drain Improvements
$460
$460
Storm Drains
$160
$160
Tax Levy (Debt, 10 years)
Lake Street Reconstruction (D /E + Constn
$300
$300
Tax Levy (Debt, 10 years)
31(g)
Sidewalk Improvements
$100
$100 1 000
Tax Levy Debt, 5 years)
31(h)
Central Business District Sidewalks
$175
$175
Tax Levy (Debt, 5 years)
31(i)
Bikeway Repair /Repaving
$175
$175
Tax Levy (Debt, 5 years)
310)
Building Envelope
$150
$150,000
Woman's showers, LFD Main Station
$35,000
$35,000
Tax Levy (cash)
ADA
$75,000
$75,000
Tax Levy (cash)
Miscellaneous
$40,000
$40,000
Tax Levy (cash)
Munroe Center for the Arts Fire Sprinkler
31(k)
and Alarm System Evaluation
$35,000
$35,000
Tax Levy (cash)
31(1)
Dam Inspection
$30,000
$30,000
Tax Levy (cash)
31(m)
Traffic Mitigation
$50,000
$50,000
Tax Levy (cash)
31(n)
Street Improvements
$1,200,000
$1,200,000
Ch. 90, Tax Levy (cash)
31(0)
Nstar Parking Lot
$50,000
$50,000
Parking Meter Fund
31(p)
Replace Engine 5
$80,000
$80,000
Tax Levy (cash)
Tax Levy ($25,000 cash), Water E/F
31(q)
Hydrant Replacement
$50,000
$50,000
($25,000)
'At the time of this writing, the amount was expected to be up
to 15% higher.
Executive Summary
Please read this Executive Summary if you do not have time to read the full report.
Last September, the Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) began vetting proposals
from the municipal departments and school administration as well as various citizens.
The committee feels it has fully vetted all the capital requests except those listed as
"pending" in the table to the left. Because of this extensive process, Town Meeting will
generally observe consensus among the boards and committees relative to capital
articles.
Lexington continues to maintain its Aaa bond rating. The CEC urges the town
management, boards, and committees to jealously guard this rating. With the strong
likelihood of over $100 million worth of future debt projects on the ten year horizon,
maintaining this rating will save the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars in reduced
borrowing costs. To that end, we commend the Town Manager, Board of Selectmen, and
Appropriation Committee for recommending a $1,000,000 appropriation to the
stabilization fund in FY 2008.
Community Preservation Act: This Town Meeting will review a full docket of CPA
requests. While the Community Preservation Committee has done an excellent job of
vetting CPA projects, the review cycle has not been "in sync" with the town's budget
cycle and as a result, some eligible municipal projects are not being paid for with CPA
funds. The Introduction of the Appropriation Committee report discusses this in more
detail.
DPW Facility: Town Meeting will consider a request for construction money for the
DPW Facility, contingent on passage of a Proposition 2 1 /2 debt exclusion. This project
has set new standards for committee and board review during the programming and
Design and Engineering phases.
The Cash Capital Policy set forth by the 2000 Blue Ribbon Committee seems to be
defunct. It can be argued that it was never rigorously followed anyway so this may just
be "calling a spade a spade." The Town Manager and Finance Director are both
conscious of present and future debt levels in their budget construction so we are
optimistic that this more ad hoc approach will be successful. Only time will tell.
School Energy Projects: This year the schools have put forth several capital proposals
which are designed to save energy. In light of the anticipated operating savings to be
realized, they have "self funded" these requests by taking operating budget reductions
equivalent to the expected debt service for those projects.
Table of Contents
Tableof Contents ............................................................. ............................... l
The Mission of the Capital Expenditures Committee ...................... ...............................
2
Howto Read This Report ................................................................ ...............................
2
CapitalOverview ............................................................. ............................... 3
CapitalBudget ................................................................. ............................... 4
Big - Ticket Projects .......................................................................... ...............................
5
The Community Preservation Act ................................................... ...............................
7
Small- Ticket Projects ....................................................................... ...............................
8
Programs ........................................................................ ...............................
14
Conservation.................................................................................. ...............................
14
Councilon Aging ........................................................................... ...............................
14
Fire................................................................................................. ...............................
14
Police.............................................................................................. ...............................
15
Library............................................................................................ ...............................
16
PublicWorks .................................................................................. ...............................
17
Recreation...................................................................................... ...............................
23
Schools........................................................................................... ...............................
24
Articles ........................................................................... ...............................
27
26: Appropriate The FY 2008 Community Preservation Committee Operation Budget
andCPA Projects ........................................................................... ...............................
27
31: Municipal Capital .................................................................... ...............................
28
The Mission of the Capital Expenditures Committee
From the General By -Laws of the Town of Lexington:
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 to each town meeting member, a
report of its findings, setting forth a list of all such capital expenditures together with the
committee's 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.
How to Read This Report
Our report is divided into four sections:
• An overview of capital projects in Lexington;
• Recommended five -year capital budget;
• Spending history and general capital plan for each department and program; and
• This year's capital articles.
When we report on a capital article on Town Meeting floor, a committee member will
provide commentary and the committee's recommendation. In the articles section of our
report, we provide a written report on each article based on our evaluation of the issue.
Our oral report on Town Meeting floor will verify our written report and present any new
information not available as of this writing.
0)
Capital Overview
Budget Summary
Briefly, this year's capital budget requests can be summarized as follows:
Requests
1 Includes $50,000 requested for the NStar Parking Lot project in Lexington Center to be funded from the
Parking Meter Fund.
3
Tax Levy
Roads set -aside
CEC
Debt
Cash
Enterprise
and Ch. 90
Recommended
Recreation
$135
130
265
Sidewalks
275
275
Bikeway
175
175
Roads
120
1
1
Building Envelope
150
150
DPW Equipment
523
523
Fire
142
115
222
Police
0
0
Schools
3
2
School Technology
400
400
Water, Sewer, Drains ,
Hydrants
460
25
3
3
CPA
1
1
Other
450
142
133
725
Total
7
432
3
1
$11
1 Includes $50,000 requested for the NStar Parking Lot project in Lexington Center to be funded from the
Parking Meter Fund.
3
Capital Budget
Lexington has traditionally tried to allocate appropriate resources to needed capital
projects by considering them in three categories:
Big - ticket projects (greater than $1,000,000);
Small- ticket projects (between $25,000 and $1,000,000); and
Enterprise projects (greater than $25,000).
The Capital Expenditures Committee:
• Assesses capital needs brought forward by each department (municipal and
schools) through the annual budgeting process;
Works with those departments to identify their anticipated capital needs during
the next five years; and
Independently examines public facilities and prospective longer -term needs, as
well as issues and capital facilities not being addressed within any department.
Through this report and in presentations, Capital Expenditures advises Town Meeting
about the necessary and prudent investments to maintain, improve, and create new
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 their 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. The degree of accuracy varies by project. Those
projected several years into the future are necessarily 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; in the current construction environment, for instance, the prices for
structural steel and concrete have inflated very sharply in recent 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.
11
Big - Ticket Projects
Big - ticket capital projects cost at least $1 million; for financing purposes, they satisfy the
conditions under which the Town is permitted to borrow funds for at least 10 years (their
expected service life is at least that long). Such projects obviously require both careful
analysis and budgeting, and broad support.
The Selectmen's capital policy has generally maintained that such big - ticket projects will
be funded through borrowing, consistent with their expected life and with responsible
annual budgeting for operating needs. Further, the intent has been to effect such
borrowing through voter - approved "debt- exclusion" overrides, which place the costs of
financing these projects outside the Proposition 2 V2 tax -levy limit. The latter goal has not
always been satisfied. The Town share of the costs to renovate Cary Library, for
example, was absorbed within the operating budget; so were certain additional costs
associated with the renovation of the secondary schools (this project was originally
approved by voters in a debt - exclusion override). In each case, it was imperative to
proceed within the time available for the projects to qualify for substantial state funding;
accordingly, debt - exclusion overrides could not be scheduled. It is important to bear these
cases in mind in thinking about major capital investments. Not every big - ticket project or
element of an existing project can be subjected to a debt - exclusion vote. When they
cannot, the costs are absorbed within the operating budget, with implications for Town
finances.
The Projects Agenda
Among the big - ticket projects Lexington is currently undertaking or may undertake in the
future, we note these priorities from last year's report:
• Replacement or renovation, in whole or part, of the DPW facility (at 201 Bedford
Street). Funds for this project will be requested at this Town Meeting.
Renovation or reconstruction of the "White House ". At this Town Meeting, the
building will be turned over to the Board of Selectman. Its future use is uncertain
at best, but given its current state of deterioration, it will need considerable
attention in the near future. This may be partially funded by CPA funds.
Renovation or replacement of the four elementary schools that have not been
rebuilt (Bowman, Estabrook, Hastings, and Bridge).
Construction of, or modification to the senior center.
• Renovation of the East Lexington Library building (possibly through CPA
funding); and
• Land purchases for conservation open space use (possibly through CPA funding).
In addition, we highlighted the importance of realistic planning for:
5
The Town -owned Munroe School, currently used as the Munroe Arts Center
(capital maintenance and repairs are clearly required to maintain present
operations and keep the building in shape for possible alternate uses in the future).
The original Harrington School building, after its use as swing space during the
construction of the new Fiske elementary school. The building is well located and
has enough room to accommodate future uses such as a senior center, while still
housing the school administration since plans for renovating the "White House"
have not moved forward. Such use, or adaptive reuse for other functions, will
require at a minimum extensive updating of systems.
Except for the DPW Facility and the Old Harrington School, no planning has been
undertaken on any of the other needs or prospective projects in the list above.
The Policy Setting
Planning for and funding big - ticket projects is a multiyear process.
At the November 2006 Special Town Meeting, funding requests for additional Design
and Engineering services for the DPW Facility were approved. Construction money for
this project will be requested at this year's annual Town Meeting, contingent on a
Propsition 2 1 /2 Debt Exclusion scheduled for June.
In the past, the Commonwealth has used the School Building Assistance (SBA) program
to partially reimburse municipalities for building replacements and renovations.
Lexington has received funds from the SBA for the Lexington High School, Clarke,
Diamond, Harrington, and Fiske school renovation/rebuilding projects. The SBA has
been replaced with the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA), which will
begin granting funds starting July 1, 2007. The grants will be prioritized based on
various criteria, including structural soundness of the existing building, degree of existing
overcrowding, prevention of loss of accreditation, and potential energy savings. The
scope of work, schedule, and funding mechanisms for this program are critical factors for
Lexington's capital expenditures during the next decade since the school physical plants
remain Lexington's largest, and most intensively used, building assets.
Project Status and Needs
Fiske elementary school and the neighborhood street refurbishment programs have been
completed.
Whatever strategy the School Committee sets for addressing structural needs at Bowman,
Estabrook, Hastings and Bridge schools, all require continuing maintenance while the
longer range options are explored. An assessment by the Permanent Building
Committee suggested that it might be desirable to replace Estabrook if structural issues
economically preclude significant renovation on the scale required. Bowman's future
needs depend in part on issues relating to the size of the school population and on
redistricting. All four schools have been upgraded over time to varying degrees with new
no
floors, windows, HVAC and electrical systems. The full spectrum of work will have to
be carefully evaluated for each school, along with needs for additional classrooms or
other spaces to satisfy the educational programs. What options are chosen have obvious
implications for the Town's reliance on future debt - exclusion financing versus its
capacity to accommodate needed work within the tax levy under the cash - capital policy.
The Board of Selectmen's Senior Center Action Plan Committee and the Council on
Aging have both done work to reevaluate and refine a location for a new Senior Center.
Discussions are now focused on using the Old Harrington School or the White House.
The politics of this situation are sketchy and this Committee prefers to remove itself from
such discussions until a firm determination has been made by the COA and Board of
Selectmen that one site or the other is most appropriate. Article 35 seeks monies to study
the White House as a possible location.
Funds for a structural study of the East Lexington branch library are requested under the
Community Preservation Act article.
While two land purchases are on the warrant this year, it is likely that they will be
indefinitely postponed since the negotiations have not been completed.
The school facilities staff will be moving to the Old Harrington School in September with
the school administration to follow some months later.
For all projects like these beyond the committee's five -year planning horizon, we are
unable to provide even provisional cost estimates. The most recent estimates for projects
about which some parameters can be provided are (for illustrative purposes only):
• $45 million, for the next two elementary schools (an estimate that reflects
inflation of I% per month of some materials for recent construction).
The Community Preservation Act
On March 6 2006, Lexington voters approved the Community Preservation Act. This
has imposed a 3% surcharge on property taxes; the proceeds may be used for various
preservation- related capital projects, including affordable housing, conservation land,
historic preservation, and recreation facilities. Funds are eligible for state matching
funds, although the funds are not guaranteed. Projects are put forth by a Selectmen -
appointed Community Preservation Committee and then approved by Town Meeting. As
with any capital project, the Capital Expenditures Committee will give its
recommendation on each of the projects put before the Town Meeting under Article 26.
The CPA certainly provides an alternative funding mechanism for capital projects. In the
past, the CEC has recommended that the CPA Committee and Town Meeting only use
these funds for those projects that would have been proposed anyway, whether or not
CPA passed. For better or worse, this has not been the case. Several CPA funding
requests this year are for lower priority projects, which under normal circumstances
would not be funded. The difficulty of the CPA is that it creates a separate pool of money
7
which can be used for a limited set of projects and can not be prioritized against the
town's traditional capital needs. It is this dichotomy of funds and debate which is
problematic.
The CEC recommends that the Community Preservation Committee consider the timing
of their deliberations carefully so that in the future their schedule coincides with the
municipal budget cycle. This issue is covered in more detail in the Introduction of the
Appropriation Report.
Small- Ticket Projects
Small- ticket capital projects are funded from the tax levy and do not qualify as big - ticket
projects. Generally, they cost between $25,000 (the minimum qualification for
consideration as a capital expenditure) and $1 million, and represent projects that should
be funded on a regular, timely basis to maintain Town infrastructure. Such items are
easily overlooked, or subjected to funding on an "as available" basis dangerous
practices, because they invite deferred maintenance, leading small problems to turn into
major deterioration and expensive repair or reconstruction. Proceeding this way also
makes it impossible to plan sensible replacement policies for Town assets, even when
their expected lives relative to routine use can be reasonably predicted. In this respect,
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.
The Former Cash - Capital Policy
In reaction to the problems of financing small ticket items, in 2000 the Selectmen
adopted a policy intended to establish a predictable funding source for smaller, routine
capital items. This policy provided that 5% of the Town's total general fund revenue for
the previous year (as estimated on the "tax rate recapitulation" or recap sheet) will be
allocated each year to fund both small - ticket capital projects and debt service on existing
non - exempt Town debt. Since future revenue and debt service can be predicted
accurately, this policy was meant to yield a predictable funding source. Furthermore,
were the Town's existing non - exempt debt repaid as then anticipated, an increasing
portion of the 5% would be available to fund these small, but very important, capital
projects out of cash each year.
As adopted, it was expected that most of the funds allocated for fiscal years 2001 -2007
would go to repay existing debt, so a limited amount of short -term borrowing was
authorized in the first few years so that critically needed projects could go forward.
The Town Manager, in consultation with the Board of Selectmen, does not believe that
relying only on a cash -based capital policy is feasible for capital projects costing less than
$1,000,000. It is anticipated that the Town will continue to rely on the prudent use of
debt and cash (operating revenues) to fund capital projects of this magnitude.
Under Article 28(c) of the 2006 Annual Town Meeting, which was ratified by the June
2006 Operating Override, a $150,000 "set- aside" for "Building Envelope" was
n6
established. This is similar to the $500,000 operating override set - aside, in 2000, that
was approved for on -going road maintenance.
The remainder of this section is included as a record of the cash capital policy and its
contributions to the Stabilization Fund, lest they be forgotten when it comes time to
withdraw money from the account.
In previous fiscal years, the former Cash Capital Policy's outer limits were repeatedly
been made more flexible, both by more extensive borrowing within the tax -levy limit (for
the Cary Library project and additional elements of the secondary- school renovation),
and by the Selectmen's decision to use cash resources in other ways. In FY 2004, for
example, some $100,000 of cash capital was appropriated to balance the operating
budget, and $216,248 of additional funds were made subject to the unsuccessful
operating- budget override put before voters in June 2003. In FY 2005 the Selectmen's
cash capital policy would have made $498,868 available in the fiscal year. But in order to
retain cash reserves as part of the Town's larger financial- management strategy, the Town
administration and Selectmen recommended that all small - ticket capital items be funded
by borrowing (the Capital Expenditures Committee supported that recommendation). Of
the cash available under the policy that year, $224,546 was put "at- risk" in the 2004
override and since that override passed, the $224,546 was placed in the stabilization fund.
The difference, $274,322, was also put in the stabilization. Thus, in FY 2005, the
"cash- capital" policy was drained of its cash, and for the second consecutive year, used to
balance the operating budget. In effect, the policy had been turned into a sort of
revolving short -term debt facility, in which repayments of prior borrowings made room
for renewed current and future borrowing, in order to fund acute small ticket capital
needs.
One other capital contribution has been made to the stabilization fund. In FY 2004,
$111,142 was set aside to fund approximately one -third of a new pumper truck, the
balance to be paid for by a portion of the failed operating override. When the override
failed, the appropriated funds remained in the reserve fund for future capital projects
(funds for the truck were appropriated in FY 2005 from the tax levy.)
In FY 2006, $83,000 was diverted from cash capital to the operating budget (Article 35)
for maintenance and repairs. This transfer had the support of the Capital Expenditures
Committee.
Cash Capital Contributions to the Stabilization Fund
FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Total
$111 $498,868 $0 $0 $610
In FY 2006, $713,000 was available under the cash capital policy, and all of it was used
for capital projects.
In FY 2007, $994,939 of cash capital money was used for balancing the operating
budget.
9
Recommendation Summary
The table below summarizes the recommendations of the CEC (as opposed to the
departmental requests) and contains all known small- ticket capital projects to be funded
within the tax levy, through cash capital and debt in FY 2008. Design and planning funds
for big - ticket projects are considered a part of those projects, and so are excluded here.
Descriptions of each department's small - ticket capital plans for fiscal years 2009 -2012
appear beginning on page 14.
O
Departmental Request Summary
The graph below shows a summary of the departmental requests for FY 2008 through FY
2012.
2009
Zoos
2011
CEC Recd
S chools
- - - - -- Town
Technology
$400
School Buildings
$2
Public Works
$400
Equipment
$523
Street Maintenance 1
$6209000
Building Envelope
$150
Sidewalks
$100
CBD sidewalks
$175
Bikeways
$175
Storm Drainage
$460
Traffic Mitigation
$50
Hydrant Replacement
$25
Geographic Info Systems 3
$62
Lincoln Field Methane Mitig
$400
Dam Inspection
$30
DPW Facility
pending
Recreation
Playgrounds
$50
Center Basketball Ct Recon
$85
Center ComplexRestrooms
$50
Park & Playground
Improvements 4
$50
Public Safety
Fire /Po lice Dispatch Ctr
$61
Fire Equipment
$222
CPA
$1
TOTAL
$7
1 Includes partial reconstruction of Woburn St
2 Includes correcting Lake St drainage
issues
3 Total cost prorated same as FY2008 costs
4 Improvements to Adams, Franklin and Munroe
5 Outyear programs are under development
2009
2010
2011
2012
------------------
- - - - -- Town
Request ------------------
- - - - --
$400, 000
$400
$400
$400
$2
$1
$1
$2
$591
$478
$615
$610
$1
$500
$500
$500
$1,000
$1
$1
$1,000
$200
$225
$225
$250
$175
$175
$175
$175,000
$160
$160
$175
$175
$50
$50
$50
$50
$50
$52
$61
$30,000
$100 $100 $50 $100
$77,000
$150,000
$295,000
$400
$8,148,500 $4 $5 $5
11
Enterprise -Fund Projects
The Town operates three enterprise funds for revenue - producing activities funded outside
the tax levy by user fees (water supply, sanitary sewers, and certain recreation services,
such as the golf course, swimming pools, and tennis courts; recreational playground
equipment, in contrast, is not fee - generating, and capital investment for such equipment
is therefore funded as part of the small - ticket program). $100,000 per year is paid from
the Recreation Enterprise Fund for Lincoln Field debt service. Unlike property -tax
revenues, enterprise -fund fees are not subject to an arbitrary limit under Proposition 2 1 /2.
From a capital standpoint, enterprise- funded projects are evaluated in terms of service
and cost. The water enterprise funds have been used, in part, to maintain a nearly quarter -
century program of relining and replacing aging water mains; the Town benefits from
clean, safe, dependable drinking water supplies, and from a minimum of disruptive
breakages. The FY 2008 program includes replacing approximately 8,500 linear feet of
obsolete, unlined iron pipe and other pipe with high repair records on Fern St., Moreland
Ave., Hibbert St., Bennington Rd., Bowker Ave, the Bird Hill Rd. area, the access to
Bowman School, and several other smaller sections of pipe townwide. Continuing with
this rate of funding, suggests that there will be no unlined pipe after 2011.
For the sanitary sewer system, approximately 7,000 linear feet of infrastructure will be
replaced this year in the Toffet Swamp, Moon Hill and Grant Street areas.
The only enterprise- related recreation project proposed this year is improving the Valley
Tennis Court.
In future years, the Recreation Enterprise Fund will face significant spending requests for
large projects at Pine Meadows golf course and the center swimming pool complex.
Water & Sewer Enterprise Funds Recommendations
Water Distribution
Water Distribution Piping
Hydrant Replacements
Geographic Information System
Sanitary Sewer System
Sewage Piping
Pump Station Upgrades
Geographic Information System
Total
Zoos 2009
$1 $1
$25 $50
2010 2011
$1 $1
$50,000 $0
2012
$1,800,000
$0
$102 $85 $100 $0 $0
$1 $1 $1 $1 $1
$1 $1 $1 $1 $1
$100 $100 $100 $100 $100
$31 $26 $30 $0 $0
$1 $1 $1 $1 $1
$3,258,500
$3 $3 $3,100,000 $3,100,000
12
Recreation Enterprise Fund Recommendations
Zoos 2009 2011 2011 2012
Valley Tennis Cts Improvements $130
Center ComplexAdd'1 Lights
Pine Meadows Improvements
Town Pool Renovations
Old Reservoir Improvements
TOTAL
$310,000
$400,000
$130 $310 $400 $300
$300,000
$50,000
$50,000
13
Programs
Conservation
Funds are now available for purchase of conservation land under the Community
Preservation Act which gained voter approval in March 2006. Two parcels are under
negotiation for 2007 town meeting and are listed with descriptions in the warrant.
Article 27 is the Busa farm off Lowell St. abutting the Arlington Reservoir and Article 28
for a portion of land off Adams St. the so called "blueberry farm patch" near the Chiesa
farm. At press time progress in negotiation suggest these may be indefinitely postponed.
Conservation is actively pursuing other potential purchases. The fate of Lot 1 off of
Walnut St. (47.5 acres under the control of the Mass. State Dept of Conservation and
Recreation) is still uncertain, and hope remains that some or this entire parcel can be
retained rather than sold to development. At least 10% of available CPA funds must be
used for conservation and recreation purposes. Since the North St. sandpit transfer in
2005 no maj or land has been added to the conservation inventory.
Council on Aging
This year under Article 35 the Senior Center is requesting the use of the $35,000
remaining from 2000 Town Meeting for a study of the potential use of the White House
for any all or part of their operation. For background: The Senior Center Action Plan
Committee report of last year can be found on the town website under Social Services/
COA. The sites studied, the program and the cost of developing a building that would
meet the requirements of the program are detailed. The SCAPC did not consider the
White House which was not available last February. The 76,000 s.f. of the site which also
contains the park -like Conscience land is probably inadequate for 20,000 to 28,000 sf.
building with about an acre of parking, but there is potential for a split center, the two
campus concept retaining the present Muzzey location.
According to the amendment to Article 8(a) of 2000 the COA is authorized to spend
$50,000 under the following conditions. [$15,000 has been spent developing the
programmatic needs] "for site analysis and schematic drawings for a new senior center
...provided that before any site or analysis of schematic design is undertaken, the Board
or Committee having custody of the site must declare its intent to release the site for this
use and the COA must agree to the site so proposed." The School Committee will
relinquish the Barnes property (the White House) to the Board of Selectmen under
Article 12 this year.
Fire
Fire Department Appropriation History for Fiscal Years 2003 - 2007
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Fire Trucks $210,000 $345 $380
Ambulances $165
14
The Fire Department uses industry standards and its own experience to establish the
equipment replacement schedule. Unlike many pieces of town equipment, fire engines
and ambulances are partly custom -made and equipped and require very detailed
specifications, and typically a year for delivery.
The mission of the Fire Department in the twenty -first century has shifted beyond
traditional freighting to emergency services, homeland security, and community
education, and our freighters are now being trained for Emergency Services and
Advanced Life Support. The equipment to perform these missions has changed with new
technologies for freighting and communications, yet the basic pumper or ladder truck or
ambulance is still essential to the mission. Lexington must continue to replace its aging
equipment, and retain back -up capacity.
This year the Fire Department is requesting $80,000 to replace Engine #5 (brush truck)
using general funds. This truck is used to fight off -road brush fires. The current vehicle
was purchased in 1981 and has far exceeded its useful life, and is to the point that it fails
to meet current safety and emission requirements. The new vehicle will be smaller, more
versatile and economical. The department is also requesting $35,000, in Article 31(j)
(Building Envelope) to build a women's shower at the Fire Station. Additionally, funds
for wireless fire alarms in municipal buildings, fire hydrant replacement and Monroe
Center Alarms are detailed under Article 31, sections (b), (p), and (k). See final CEC
recommendations inside the front cover. Also, the money for fire monitoring equipment
under Article 26(c) covering Buckman and Monroe Taverns and Hancock - Clarke House
is supported by CPA funds.
The inventory of major capital equipment, date of origin, and original cost is shown
below.
Des cription
Year Life (yrs) Original Cost
Est. Replacement
Year
2009
2012
2014
FY 2007
2019
2010
2015
2008
R 1 Ambulance
2002
6
$159
R-2 Ambulance
2006
6
$165
L -1 90' Aerial Ladder Truck
2000
15
$588
E -1 Structural
1990
13 -14
$380
E -2 Structural
2004
13 -14
$345
E -3 Strucural
1997
13 -14
$310
E -4 Brush Fire Truck
2003
10 -12
$210
E -5 Brush Fire Truck
1981
10 -12
$187
Police
Below is the Police Department five year proposed capital plan. No capital funds are
requested for FY 2008.
15
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Dispatch
Software $295
Space Plan 1 $10000
Renovation 1 $5
1 Estimated values. Projects may be delayed beyond 2010.
FY 2009 - Replace Dispatch Computer Software Network. Existing software was
purchased in 1990 and is outdated and inefficient. It is recommended that this project
start with an independent expert /consultant to identify a modern integrated
police /fire /CAD /9 -1 -1 computer program. The existing hardware should accommodate a
new software system with the probable addition of laser printers, scanners, and optical
readers.
FY 2010 - Provide funds to study and propose an addition to the police station. The
addition would add onto the police station toward the existing school administration
building. The station does not have an elevator, sally port for prisoner access, bulk
storage, firing range, and male /female bathrooms. The station interior is not fully ADA
compliant.
FY 2011 - Provide funds to build an addition onto the police station towards the school
administration building and wrapping around the existing garage facility. The design
(depending on FY 2010 study) would match the three floor construction of existing
structure.
Library
Main Library
The newly renovated main library opened in spring 2005 and has been well- received by
the community. The attractive decor and furnishings have provided a welcoming
environment and help blend the new with the older sections of the building. The new
meeting areas are in constant use by the community. The Library Board of Trustees can
now turn its attention to the East Lexington branch.
East Lexington Branch Library
The 2005 Building Finance Advisory Committee report identified the branch as needing
significant work. They recommend that the structure be evaluated by a professional
engineer to study the loads imposed by the books and people in the building. They also
found deficiencies in the windows, shutters, and condition of pillars and masonry, and
cited the need for a new boiler, new air conditioning, and electrical system as well as
insulation. The BFAC's estimate for the work is $193,000 and did not address difficult
accessibility issues. Now that the main library is finished it will be necessary for the
Trustees to evaluate the future of service in this building. Its future use is limited by the
terms of the Trust of Ellen Stone in 1893 for such activities as a reading room, an art
16
museum, a public meeting hall, a branch depository, or other suitable activity. The
building is eligible for CPA funding as an "historic structure."
The BFAC recommended an engineering study and this year under article 26(g) $43,000
of CPA money is recommended for a study of the structural needs and potential ADA
access of this historic building which is in the National Register of Historic Places.
Public Works
The Department of Public Works (DPW) is the maintenance agent for all Town
departments, and is responsible for the execution, i.e., design, bidding and project
management of most Cash Capital projects. Currently, the Board of Selectmen and the
School Committee are discussing the possibility of a single building maintenance unit.
DPW will also execute Community Preservation Act funded projects. The Cash Capital
funded components of DPW services include:
Trucks and heavy equipment necessary to accomplish DPW missions,
Structural improvements and repairs to facilities: Town buildings, Recreation
facilities, e.g., methane gas containment at Lincoln Field, and a much - needed
replacement of the DPW facility at 201 Bedford Street, and
Roads, parking areas, sidewalks, sewers, water distribution, storm drainage, dam
inspections.
Cash capital projects for sanitary sewers and water services, and some Recreational
facilities, are adequately funded from enterprise funds; however, the rest of the capital
needs, except CPA funded projects, must be funded by the general tax levy and /or debt -
exclusion overrides.
Roads
Lexington has a total of about 160 miles of roads, including state and unaccepted roads,
including: 12 miles of major arteries, 18 miles of minor arteries, 20 miles of collector
roads, 81 miles of residential thruways, and 28 miles of cul -de -sacs. Lexington's DPW
maintains about 126 miles of them, the remainder being maintained by the State or
private owners.
In 2002, the voters approved a $7,000,000 debt - exclusion override to support a goal of
accomplishing necessary catch -up work to bring up the quality of all the roads within the
Town's jurisdiction to a quality index level of 83 by 2007. This project has been
completed, with the exception of a few streets that are having water main work
completed.
To maintain the quality index of 83, approximately $1,000,000 per year for roadwork,
other than patching, is required. Of the $1,000,00 annual spending, $500,000 is funded
from a set aside established in the 2000 operating override, while the balance is from
state Chapter 90 funds. For FY 2008, Capital Expenditures is recommending a total of
$1,320,000 for reconstruction work on Woburn Street, School Street, Wood Street and
Shade Street, of which $700,000 will be Chapter 90 funds.
17
Traffic Mitigation
Lexington owns 14 traffic signal installations and expects to add several more in future
years. In FY 2008, Capital Expenditures recommends funding $50,000 for the collection
of data, the analysis of the data and the development of strategies to correct identified
problems.
NStar Parking Lot
In order to provide more parking places in the CBD, the BOS is requesting $50,000 for
the design and construction of approximately 30 additional parking spaces on the land
behind the NStar transformer station on Massachusetts Ave. Capital Expenditures
recommends approval of this request.
Sidewalks
Currently the town has more than 58 miles of sidewalks. Because the upgrading and
extension of many of these sidewalks was long overdue, the Board of Selectmen
appointed a Sidewalk Advisory Committee in Spring 2005. Maintenance of sidewalks is
expensive, and issues of obstructions, easements and objections from residents burden
construction of new sidewalks. The overall policy is to develop a prioritized sidewalk
construction plan focusing on school and other high pedestrian - traffic routes and high
walking- hazard streets. The 2006 ATM approved $300,000 for the FY 2007 sidewalk
program. For FY 2008, the BOS is requesting $275,000, including $175,000 for CBD
sidewalks. The Capital Expenditures Committee recommends the entire amount on the
understanding that a prototype section of the CBD sidewalks will be constructed with FY
2007 Sidewalk funds.
Bikeway
Since its construction in 1993, there has been relatively little maintenance of the
Minuteman Bikeway. In FY 2008, DPW expects to repave and repair parts of the
bikeway, approximately, at a cost of $175,000 with an equal request to follow in FY
2009. Capital Expenditures recommends approval of this project which will reduce the
risk of injury to users and prolong its useful life.
Geographic Information System
A needs and cost assessment for a GIS system, funded in 2006, indicated that such a
system would be extremely valuable to the Town, particularly DPW. Funding in the
amount of $195,500 in FY 2008 is recommended. The cost sharing would be: $62,400
Tax Levy, $31,200 Sewer Enterprise fund and $102,300 Water Enterprise fund.
Water Distribution System
Many of the Town's water mains were installed in the early 1900's. For several years the
Town has been systematically improving the system to improve water quality, pressure,
and fire- protection capabilities, and to reduce frequency and severity of water -main
breaks. Capital expenditures recommends $1,800,000 for the FY 2008 program, which
will allow replacement of approximately 8,500 linear feet of unlined and obsolete pipe.
This amount, which is funded by Water Enterprise funds, if duplicated in FY's 2009-
IN
2011, will eliminate all unlined piping by 2011. An additional $50,000 will be used to
fund the start of a hydrant replacement program.
Storm Sewers and Drainage
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 of an unsafe condition and to protect newly paved secondary
streets. It is also necessary, some times, to study and repair sewers where overflow
conditions develop and /or complaints are received, e.g., Lake Street. For FY 2008,
Capital Expenditures is recommending $460,000, including $40,000 for design and
engineering related to the Lake Street flooding problem (this is a drainage problem, not a
sewer problem).
Sanitary Sewer System
The sanitary sewer system, like the water distribution, has sections that date back to the
early 1900s. Due to age related deterioration, some sections are susceptible to storm
water infiltration causing overloading of parts of the system. The FY 2007 program
funding was used for mapping the system and determining flow characteristics and
instructing DPW personnel on how to use the data to develop future programs and
designs. The FY 2008 program of $1,300,000 will correct deficiencies in the Toffet
Swamp area and replace worn out valves and pump motors at several of the Town's 10
sewer pumping stations. The pipe replacement in the Toffet Swamp area will be the first
phase of a multi -year program of rehabilitating approximately 7,000 linear feet of
sanitary sewer per year.
Maintenance of the Town Buildings
DPW has jurisdiction over 17 buildings: Town Office Building, Cary Hall, Police
Station, Fire Headquarters, East Lexington Fire Station, 201 Bedford Street DPW
Facility, Animal Shelter, East Lexington Library, Cary Library, Visitors Center, Council
on Aging facilities, Pool Complex, Central Park Building, Reservoir Building, Westview
Cemetery and Munroe Cemetery Buildings. In addition, DPW is responsible for the
Town's 10 sewage lift stations. Collectively, they have an insurable value of about $40
million and consist of about 221,000 sq. ft. of aggregate space. This requires
considerable planning for preventive maintenance for roofs; heating, ventilation, and air -
conditioning; plumbing; windows; exteriors; and Americans with Disabilities Act access.
The FY 2008 program of $150,000 includes a ladies' shower room at the Fire Station on
Bedford Street, ADA improvements and $40,000 for unanticipated needs during the year.
Dam Inspection
Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation mandates triennial
inspections of dams. The $30,000 in the FY 2008 budget would permit inspection of the
Butterfield Pond Dam and the Old Reservoir Dam. These inspections must be performed
mid -2007 or the Town may be subject to fines. The Capital Expenditures Committee
recommends approval of the $30,000 request.
19
Lincoln Fields Methane Gas
To comply with Commonwealth of Massachusetts Environmental requirements,
Lexington is required to mitigate the migration of methane gases from the old landfill on
Lincoln Street across Lincoln Street to existing houses. DPW has submitted a plan to
DEP that involves building a slurry wall along the north side of the fields at a cost of
approximately $400,000. Capital Expenditures recommends approval of this amount,
which would not be spent until receipt of the state's approval.
DPW Equipment
DPW has 146 pieces of equipment, with estimated replacement cost of $6 million. There
is a well conceived program of replacing the older, less fuel efficient, more labor
intensive and high maintenance cost equipment with standard off the shelf vehicles and
equipment that will last longer and cost less to maintain and operate. The kind of
equipment owned, operated, and maintained by DPW includes: autos, dump trucks,
sanders, cranes, trailers, pick -ups, loaders, rollers, backhoes, tractor - mounted snow
throwers, sweepers, brush chippers, mowers, sprayers, vacuums, compressors, welders,
portable generators, pumps, lifts, and compactors. DPW has done a very commendable
job of developing a long -range equipment replacement schedule that will cost around
$500,000 per year, in 2007 dollars. The rationale for FY 2008 equipment, with a total
cost of $523,300, is shown below.
DPW Fiscal Year 2008 Capital Equipment Replacement List
# 88 1997 Elgin Sweeper, $130,000
To be replaced with a like piece of equipment
This sweeper is one of two and is the primary sweeper used on a daily basis from mid
March through December to sweep the streets. The other is used during the spring and
fall clean up, but that one is also old and will need replacement in the future. In 2005 we
had to reinforce the chassis because of corrosion, the transmission is now acting up, and
will need replacement, the cost of maintaining this sweeper is escalating annually.
Because of the nature of what they do, sweepers are subjected to more wear and tear and
tend to wear out much faster and require more maintenance then trucks. It has outlasted
its useful life and needs to be replaced.
#131 -1997 Toro Ground Master 580D (Parks), $65,000
To be replaced with like piece of equipment
This is one of our major grass maintenance machines for the Park Division. This machine
is used to cut the large lawn areas at parks and athletic fields. The mower decks have
been rebuilt multiple times, the hydrostatic drive is now failing, and the hydraulic system
piping is rotting away from the acidic action of the grass. The engine has over 3,000
hours on it and the machine has outlived its useful life. The mower is used on a daily
basis from April to November and is a key component of keeping well - groomed turf at
NEI
parks and athletic fields. Maintenance has become costly and down time reduces the
efficiency of the mowing operation and leads to unsightly and unhealthy turf areas.
#105 Small Vac- Truck, $255,000
This is a new vehicle and is an addition to the fleet.
The DPW has a need for powerful truck- mounted equipment for cleaning drainage pipes
and structures. Drainage systems in town streets are operated with the permission of
USEPA and Mass Department of Environmental Protection as part of the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES). The NPDES permit requires
increasingly aggressive drainage maintenance measures. All drainage structures, such as
catch basins, pipes and culverts, owned by the town must be cleaned frequently.
Cleaning must be done in the least disruptive way possible and the material collected in
the cleaning must be disposed of properly. The material includes grit, sand, oil, grease,
polluted water and trash. The most efficient way to clean structures and capture the waste
material is by vacuuming with a specially configured vacuum truck. Often, high pressure
flushing is required along with the vacuuming. In less - developed areas and open space,
drainage flows in open channels and crosses streets in culverts. These channels and
culverts are continually being blocked by trash and sediment. Blockage of channels and
culverts can lead to flooding and property damage. The vacuum truck can operate from
the roadway and extend the collection hose into open drainage channels to remove
sediment and restore the channels their natural contours without disturbing channel
vegetation. The requested vacuum truck is the standard equipment for Public Works
Departments in drainage maintenance.
#122 —1998 Howard Price Trim Mower (Parks), $38,300
To be replaced with Toro Trim Mower with Snow Package
This is one of our major grass maintenance machines for the Park Division. This machine
is used to cut the smaller lawn areas at parks and Town buildings. It supplements the
large area mowers and assists in maintaining good quality turf. The engine has over
2,000 hours on it and the machine has outlived its useful life. The mower is used on a
daily basis from April to November and is a key component of keeping well - groomed
turf at parks and athletic fields. Maintenance has become costly and down time reduces
the efficiency of the mowing operation. This machine is being replaced with a more
durable Toro Trim Mower, which can more readily handle the day -to -day wear and tear
of the mowing operation. In an effort to continually improve on our sidewalk plow
operations this new mower will also come with a snow package, which can transform the
unit into a sidewalk snow blower.
#137 —1980 Toro Ground Master 455D (Cemetery), $35,000
To be replaced with like piece of equipment
This is the only large area mower that the Cemetery Division uses. It is used to mow the
large turf areas at Westview Cemetery. Major repairs have been necessary over the past
few years with significant cost and down time, which has reduced the efficiency of this
21
operation and led to unsightly turf areas. Timely mowing helps to keep a more healthy
and vigorous turf cover. The mower is used on a daily basis from April to November and
is a key component of keeping well - groomed turf at Westview Cemetery. The engine has
over 2,400 hours on it and the machine has outlived its useful life.
DPW Facility
Design for a new DPW Facility at 201 Bedford Street was initiated with the appropriation
of $720,000 at the 2006 ATM. This amount took the architects up to the 60% Design
Development (DD) point. At the November 2006 STM, an additional $1,600,000 was
appropriated so that the architects could finish DD and initiate Construction Drawings
and Documents. The idea was that by 2007 ATM., the architects could provide a good
cost estimate based on 50% CDs. The project has been subjected to critical review by all
interested boards and committees. Capital Expenditures concurs with the appropriateness
of the current program. It is noted that the new facility will allow all Public Works
Divisions to be co- located. In addition, the building will provide space for a combined
municipal and schools maintenance group and a designated area for an Emergency
Operations Center. Capital Expenditures will defer its comments on the cost until the
architects have provided a new cost estimate.
DPW Appropriation History for Fiscal Years 2003 -2007
Capital from the tax levy and Chapter 90 Funds
Capital from Enterprise Funds
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
DPW Equipment
$214
$100
$370
$485
$485
DPW Facilities
$0
$0
$0
$720
$1
Street Resurfacing( *)
$8
$960
$1
$960
$960,000
Street Lights /Traffic Improv
$180,000
$0
$0
$100
$0
Landfill
$0
$450
$0
$0
$0
Drains & Brook Cleaning
$0
$0
$0
$0
$160
Town Building Envelope
$685,000
$240
$340
$150
$90,000
Sidewalk Improvement
$0
$0
$100
$50
$300,000
Morgan Road Tanks
$9
$1
$1
$2
$3
( *) $7,000,000 in FY 2003 is from the 2002 debt exclusion
$0
$0
Capital from Enterprise Funds
00
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Sewer
Sewer System
$100
$225
$150
$0
$300
DPW Equipment
$0
$35
$0
$0
$0
Collection Sewers
$0
$0
$600
$0
$0
Water
Water Mains Relining
$900
$900
$0
$0
$900
DPW Equipment
$113
$0
$850
$0
$0
Water Mains Distribution
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Morgan Road Tanks
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Water Meters
$0
$0
$0
$0
$500
$1
$1,160
$1
$0
$1
00
Recreation
Two recreation articles have CPA as a funding source. A drainage study of center play
fields 26(a) for $40,000 which qualifies as the preservation of an asset, and the Master
Plan Engineering Study of a pedestrian walk and bikeway, the West Lexington Greenway
Corridor which will provides a connector from the Paint Mine area to the Minuteman
National Park path to the Cranberry Hill area utilizing public lands as much as possible.
Stage 1 cost is $125,000.
The FY 2008 capital plan for Recreation Department has utilized Enterprise Funding for
capital projects since 1990. The policy is defined as "an account supported entirely by
user fees associated with or generated by that enterprise for specific services that a town
operates as a separate business." The Recreation Enterprise Fund is meant to be self -
sustaining: all expenses are expected to be offset by income. $100,000 of the fund
supports some of the bond for Lincoln Field and another $100,000 of indirect charges
goes to DPW largely for field maintenance. The Golf operation a major source of
revenue is contracted by competitive bid and has generally been awarded to New
England Golf.
Past present and future plans for recreation department show a range of projects for
renewal and upgrades. Major infrastructures must be maintained, the swimming pool, the
reservoir, the playground and fields, the golf course, the basketball and tennis courts all
have continuing needs for upgrades and renewals and are planned in an orderly program
over a five year span. The priorities may shift from year to year but the need remains.
The largest capital project on the horizon is the drainage systems and retaining walls of
the cart path which divides the upper and lower ponds near the 9 th green of the golf
course as well as wet areas around the 4 th green and the 1 St and 2 nd fairways. Hydrologist
consultants have been working on a report to determine a course of action and a major
project estimated around $400,000 is planned for FY 2010. No equipment is requested
for this year.
Another large expense will be the renewal of night lighting for the center baseball and
basketball fields and tennis courts planned in FY 2009 for $310,000. User fees pay for
the actual time, but the fixtures are getting old and newer energy efficient lighting should
replace these 1986 fixtures. It will also reduce operating and repair costs.
FY 2008 requests are for total reconstruction of the popular double center court
basketball courts, Article 29(a) and the renewal of the Bowman School playfields, Article
29(b) from the tax levy. The total reconstruction of the two tennis courts at Valley Road
under Article 29(c) will be financed with Enterprise Fund debt bonded over 5 years.
The renewal of neighborhood playgrounds has largely been completed except at Franklin
and possibly Munroe in FY 2011 and attention has turned to the school playfields. Heavy
community and school use require periodic renovation for safety and playability.
23
Generally renovations address turf, drainage, irrigation and amenities such as benches
and backstops. The proposed schedule is Center multipurpose Playfields in FY 2009,
Bridge softball and baseball in FY 2010, Hastings ball field in FY 2011, and Adams
playfields in FY 2012.
The center pool was the subj ect of an FY 2007 engineering consultants study and a
placeholder for $300,000 is scheduled for FY 2011 pending recommendations from the
final report. This facility has not had major renewal since 1980 and serves 90,000 people
per summer. In addition the center restrooms need a new roof, painting, fixtures lighting
and doors, planned for next year at $77,000.
Recreation Capital Appropriation History Fiscal Years 2003 -2007
Program
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Athletic Fields
$3
Playgrounds & Tot Lots
$30
$3500
$35,000
$225
Golf Course
$30
$50
$50
$25
Sw immin g
50
Tennis
$130
$30
Skate Park
$30
$30
$3
$80
$195
$115
$300
Schools
Overview
The Lexington Public Schools provide educational, athletic, and club activities for pre K
(age 3 or more) through grade twelve to approximately 6,100 students. There are six
elementary schools (K -5), two middle schools (6 -8), and one senior high school (9 -12).
In addition there is a Central Administration Facility currently located in the center of
town in the building referred to as the "White House ". The school system has assets in
vehicles (maintenance trucks), furnishings, computers, and other technologies as well.
Lexington Public Schools include one high school, two middle schools and six
elementary schools, as well as the School Administration Building. Other assets include
the furnishings, computer, and other technologies to support the school system.
School Administration
The school administration committee plans to vacate the current administration building
( "White House ") during the summer months and to transfer system -wide administration
to the old Harrington School facility which was used until February of this year to house
Fiske students during the building of the new Fiske School.
Monies were appropriated at the FY 2006 Town Meeting to do a D &E study to determine
cost and feasibility of renovating and expanding the White House for continued use for
the central administration of the school system. Costs estimates exceeded $4 million and
the School Committee explored other options, ultimately deciding on a transition to the
old Harrington at the end of this academic year. A modest amount is requested to support
�►Z!
the transition to and preparation of a section of the old Harrington to house central
administration functions, and to secure the "White House" until a final disposition for the
building is determined.
School Construction
The newly constructed Fiske Elementary School has been completed and occupancy
started in February 2007. Future plans for existing elementary schools are currently still
under consideration by the School Committee, but plans have not yet been finalized.
Enrollment trends and the physical conditions of the existing elementary schools are
under consideration. There have been no recent requests for school building assistance to
the Commonwealth for additional school construction.
What was formerly known as the SBAB (School Building Assistance), under the auspices
of the Department of Education, has been dissolved and replaced by the Massachusetts
School Building Authority (MSAB) under the direction of the Office of the State
Treasurer. Payments for past construction work for Harrington, Fiske, Lexington High
School, and Clarke have been received. The state now studies all existing facilities and
ranks them for construction or renovation based on priority needs statewide. Any future
requests for new construction in Lexington would be subject to the state's needs based
criteria as well as approval by citizen vote in support of a debt exemption.
Maintenance
The focus of this coming year will be to maintain the new construction and provide
replacement for end of life use of older operating systems including heating, ventilation,
controls, and mechanical operations of existing facilities. Working with their staff and
the Capital Expenditure Committee, the School Committee has agreed to self - finance
(through a reduction in their operating budget by an amount sufficient to pay the debt
service) approximately 30% of the capital requests that will result in energy efficiencies.
The details of the breakdown of self - financing and conventional financing appear in the
article summaries of the Budget Book.
Energy
The school system is making a concerted effort to identify and address those areas in
school facilities that need to be replaced and /or upgraded to realize energy savings as
well as improvement in the quality of air and space occupied by students and staff. In
particular, attention is focused on LHS and Clarke mechanical and ventilation, insulation
above ceilings at Bridge, Bowman, and Hastings, and steam traps at five schools.
School Technology Program
The long -range technology capital plan is based on a systematic replacement and upgrade
of network equipment, information delivery systems, desktop computers,
printers /peripherals, and LCD projectors. The amount being sought for FY 2008 is the
same as for FY 2007. At the current rate of $400,000 a year it is anticipated that it will
take until FY 2014 to bring the average age of school computers to less than six years.
25
School Capital Appropriation History Fiscal Years 2003 — 2007
Program
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Technology
185
290
270
400
Portables
Classroom Furniture
Miscellaneous
1,307,000
1,656,000
Secondary Schools
1,180,000
1
340
Elementary Schools
32,140,000
65
350
200
33
1
980
1
2
26
Articles
Traditionally this section of our report has discussed all capital articles on the warrant.
This year, in an effort to save paper, the committee will only discuss the differences they
have with the recommended amounts in the budget. Complete descriptions for each of
the articles and items can be found in the Town Manager's budget book. A complete list
of recommendations by the Capital Expenditures Committee can be found on the front
and back inside cover of this report.
26: Appropriate The FY 2008 Community Preservation
Committee Operation Budget and CPA Projects
26(h): Cary Hall Improvements, Requested: $147,130, Recommended: $77,130
This article requests CPA monies for the following items:
Feasibility Study, $10,000
Blackout Curtains, $8,000
Stage Extension and Lighting, $59,130
Architectural Concept and Performance Studies, $70,000
While the CEC is supportive of all four of these items, capital projects have traditionally
been funded in three phases: (1) Programmatic Study, (2) Design and Engineering, and
(3) Construction. The Feasibility Study ($10,000) represents the first phase and the
Architectural Concept and Performance Studies ($70,000) represent the second phase.
The article proponents have requested phase 1 and 2 monies in order to expedite the
process and avoid waiting for the next town meeting before beginning phase 2. Further,
they have indicated that, if appropriated, they would not begin spending phase 2 money
without the approval of the Board of Selectmen. While, we have no issue with the Board
of Selectmen or the article proponents, as Town Meeting's advisory committee, we
recommend that Town Meeting keep their "options open" and not appropriate phase 2
money until they have seen the results of the phase 1 study. It is also important to note
that CPA monies can be appropriated at any town meeting without impact to the tax levy
budget. Therefore, while we are not necessarily advocating a Special Town Meeting
during FY 2008, we note that the phase 2 money could be appropriated at that time
should Town Meeting decide to proceed with this project.
The Capital Expenditures Committee unanimously recommends APPROVAL of
$77,130 for Article 26(h).
27
26(1): Muzzey Condominium Architectural Study,
Requested: $53,500, Recommended: $11,900
The Capital Expenditures Committee recognizes the need for the proposed study as well
as the approximately 20% interest in the Muzzey Condominium Association that the
Town holds by way of the Senior Center and Lexhab units in the building. It also
believes that since this is a request for study money, that subsequent requests will be
made for construction funds using CPA monies. While the CEC is sympathetic of the
issues involved with the building, it also believes that the town should only put forth its
share of the monies needed for the study (20% of $59,500). Should the Community
Preservation Committee be presented with a proposal by the association for a means -
based grant system whereby residents could apply for CPA monies to cover the cost of
this assessment (and subsequent construction costs), this committee might view such a
proposal positively.
The Capital Expenditures Committee unanimously recommends APPROVAL OF
$11,900 for Article 26(1), contingent on a successful assessment by the association for
the remainder of the funds.
31: Municipal Capital
31(a): Lincoln Field Methane Mitigation, Funds Unknown at Press Time
At press time for this report, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
had reviewed the Town's proposal for methane mitigation at Lincoln Field and
recommended some minor changes which might require approximately 15% more in
funding.
The Capital Expenditures Committee recommends funding the requested amount as
long as it is mandated by the Commonwealth.
FY 2008 Capital Appropriation Summary
CEC Town Meeting
Funding
Article
Description
Request
Recommended Appropriation
Source
Cash Debt
32
Water Distribution Improvements
$1
$1
Water E/F (Debt, 10 years)
33
Wastewater E/F Capital
$1
$1
Wastewater System Improvements
$1
$1
Wastewater E/F (Debt, 10 years)
Pump Station Upgrades
$100
$100
Wastewater E/F (Debt, 5 years)
34
School Capital
$3
$3
34(a)
Classroom FF &E (Systemwide)
$275
$50
Tax Levy (Debt, 5 years)
34(b)
Interior Finishes (Systemwide)
$275
$50
Tax Levy (Debt, 5 years)
34(g)
Central Office Relocation and Mothballing
$50
$50
Tax Levy (cash)
34(k)
Demand Ventilation and Controls
$45
$45
Tax Levy (Debt, 5 years)'
34(k)
Steam Trap Replacement (Dia /Esta /BriBow /H
$130
$130
Tax Levy (Debt, 5 years)'
34
Renovate Locker Rooms (LHS)
$65
$65
Tax Levy (cash)
34(d)
Ventilation, HVAC (LHS Pottery Rm, IT Ctr,
$175
$175
Tax Levy (Debt, 5 years)
Foreign Language Lab, kitchen, music
34(e)
Auditorium Repairs
$200
$200
Tax Levy (Debt, 5 years)
34(1)
Energy Efficient Lighting (LHS Gym & Fieldb
$65
$65
Tax Levy (Debt, 5 years)'
34
LHS & Estabrook Paving
$50
$50
Tax Levy (cash)
34(h)
Mechanical Systems, bldgs G, H, J, F
$205
$205
Tax Levy (Debt, 5 years)
34(h)
Mechanical Systems, bldgs G, H, J, F
$420
$420
Tax Levy (Debt, 10 years)'
34(f)
Lockers (Hastings)
$110
$110
Tax Levy (Debt, 5 years)
34(h,i)
Clarke End of Life HVAC /Energy Conservatio
$710
$710
Tax Levy (Debt, 5 years)
34(m)
Insulation (Bridge, Bowman, Hastings)
$250
$250
Tax Levy (Debt, 5 years)'
34(k)
Estabrook HVAC, Deferred Maint.
$35
$35
340)
School Technology
$400
$400
Tax Levy (Debt, 5 years)
35
Senior Center Design/Conceptual Study
$35
pending
Unused funds from 2000/8(a)
36
DPW Facility
unknown
pending
Debt Exclusion (20 years)
' Indicates commensurate reduction in
School operating budget for debt service
12
Transfer Barnes Property (White House) to Selectmen
approve
43
Appropriate for Authorized Capital Improvements
pending
pending