2002-02-21-CEC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Meeting Date 2/21/02 Meeting called to order 7.40 PM Present: NarainB, CharlesH, Shirley and TMM IngridH 1. Charles gave 1st draft of the CEC report for comments from everyone. The meeting then was joined by Appropriations Committee members and the joint meeting was conveyed at 7.50 PM The meeting was then joined by members of Lincoln Field Restoration Committee (LFRC)-- Bob Atchinson, Rick DeAngelis, Paul Leblanc, Dick Neumeier, Larry Kohler and their consultant Pat Maguire of Geller. 2. Bob Atchinson made the presentation and pretty much highlighted the salient points of why a restoration was needed as spelled out in their report -- the field is dangerous, cannot do patch work due to too many subsoil problems and dwindling field capacity in the town because Harrington school field will be unavailable and Clarke field will under renovation next year. During questions and answers following key points were brought out: a) Parks department not able to maintain -- spending about $4K Vs $34K needed. While there were no law suits for injuries they had come close in few cases. Lexington fields rated among bottom 20% of neighboring town fields. On Wednesdays and Fridays 200 players show up and some have to be turned away to lower Hayden smaller field. b) Information on the number of kids actually using and projected to use the Lincoln fields was not available but will be provided by LFRC. Suggestions were also made that this proposal should be part of a "Master Plan" covering all the playfields in the town. c) Life of the turf is 12 years, 8 years warranted by manufacturer. Cost to replace each field is $600,000 (future dollars). UV rating is 10 years. Flammability rating is not known, they will get back to us although per consultant the flame will not spread. Schedule wise it takes 16 weeks from start to finish and would be ready by next spring if override approved this spring. d) They have the political energy to go all the way to voters and they were not presenting for a "dry run". Politics of town meeting approval and then the voter approval were pointed out and hence the need to educate the voters. They acknowledged that recreation committee should have brought out the need in earlier years but thought it was too expensive to try. e) They will consider user charges and possible funding from recreation enterprise fund, in response to AC members but did not seem to think that it