The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2002-11-20-CEC-min Town of Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee Meeting Notes November 20, 2002 Town Hall, Room 111 Committee members present: Bhatia, Burnell, Hornig, Rosenberg, Stolz Appropriation Committee liaison present: Karen Dooks Recreation Department staff presenters: Karen Simmons, director; Sheila Butts, assistant director. Recreation Committee members: Sandra Shaw, chair; Pam Varrin, vice chair; Don Chisholm; Richard Neumeier. DPW staff presenter: Dave Pinsonneault, public grounds superintendent Minutes of the November 14 meeting were approved, as corrected, and will be forwarded to Appropriation Committee liaisons. Meetings Schedule (new items highlighted, note earlier meeting time December 12) 7:15 p.m. Thursday, Dec. 12,, Schools, Town Hall Room (Meeting location may change to accommodate joint 111 meeting with Appropriation; start time is to accommodate photography) (Monday, Dec. 16, 8:00 p.m., Special Town Meeting PAYT Refunds, Clarke Middle School) Tuesday, Dec. 17, 7:30 p.m., Summit III, location to be determined Wednesday, Dec. 18, 7:30 p.m., Town Hall Room 111, DPW operations facilities and senior center planning updates/progress reports Recreation Presentation Karen Simmons presented “Recreation 5-Year Capital Plan, FY 2004- FY 2008,” October 28, 2002 (the document should be considered part of these minutes). •Park and playground improvements: Tax levy, $35,000 Kineen Park. Prior years, $30,000 to do park upgrades. New estimate reflects higher demolition, removal, and resurfacing costs; the committed urged Recreation to use an inflation factor for out-year requests. This work is given higher priority than Valley; Recreation now favors upgrading existing structures for ADA, etc., than upgrading lesser- equipped playgrounds. The 2008 request for lighting raises questions of fees and Enterprise vs. tax levy funding. FY ’07 envisions $200,000 to replace Center Playground with modular play equipment, assuming current equipment cost estimates, DPW-assisted demolition and uncomplicated removal/disposal of existing structure. •Pine Meadows equipment replacement: Enterprise, $50,000 for a package of mower ($36.5 k after trade-in), $9k for aerator, $4.5k for spreader (and a like amount/package in FY ’07). Individual items lower than $25,000 threshold, but sometimes useful to bid package of equipment from vendors, securing better pricing. The committee asked Recreation to provide its documentation of Pine Meadows equipment, totaling about 30 pieces, including estimated life, replacement schedule, and annual funding requirements. Approximately 4 of the pieces of equipment individually cost more than $25,000. Operating vs. capital items, vs. efficacy of package bidding. •Skate park: Tax levy, $35,000, new request. 1997 private fundraising group formed; funds and in-kind have gotten concrete slab installed, but inadequate to install skating features (“events”), cost of which is up to $50,000. This request is for safety fencing (590 linear feet, 6-foot height) to protect spectators, users of track and softball field; plus benches, bike rack, trash receptacles. Recommended by insurance carrier for safety. •Pine Meadows improvements: Enterprise, $400,000 in FY ’05. To replace failing Upper Pond dam, which is now subject to daily inspection and to a lower than designed water level. Has been patched by DPW, but partial failures when there is heavy rain. Recent engineering study suggests that can be deferred to FY ’05 with daily inspection and necessary patching, but Recreation would do sooner if it were sure of financial resources given new funding obligation for $1oo,000 annual debt service on Lincoln Field renovation. FY ’08 rebuild third hole, $200,000 (not discussed). •Old Reservoir: Enterprise, $50,000. FY ’06 resurfacing of currently heavily pitted parking area. Estimate assumed bituminous, but Lincoln Park designs suggest a perhaps more expensive paved gravel surface. DPW currently patches and regrades, but the lot has, fundamentally, failed, and is deeply holed. •Adams, Valley Tennis improvements: Enterprise, $125,000 FY ’06 reconstruction of failing, cracked tennis and basketball (Adams) playing surfaces (currently patched and crack-filled by DPW, but no longer working), and refencing. Usage not trackable since no consistent permit requests (vs. Center, Clarke courts). •Center Pool complex: Enterprise, $30,000, FY ’07 study of infrastructure, especially filtration system. Discussion •Is enterprise funding adequate given Lincoln Field debt service? Simmons said Recreation is working on that, and will make a December-January presentation to Recreation Committee on overall funding requirements, needed fee increases (pool complex, leagues, field permits, golf course) as debt service begins in FY ’04; some fee increases will just cover cost increases (e.g., golf-course management contract). Jointly brief Capital Expenditures and Appropriation on financial status in January. •Lincoln Field status? Will publicize progress/status to community. Presentations by five alternative filled turf manufacturers in Town Hall G-15 Nov. 27, 9:00 a.m. Bids due December 3, contract in early January. Construction as soon as spring weather permits, with use scheduled for fall sports season (end of August 2003). •Major issues for next decade? (1) Upgrading athletic facilities (fields, backstops, irrigation) as renew elementary schools. (2) Perhaps pool infrastructure, lighting track. (3) Indoor space. Old Harrington School? Cannot not adequately schedule activities at schools (PTA and concert use), and have demand (growing basketball leagues, minimal preschool program (Cary Hall?), would like teen weekend-night program for those not in team sports; Hayden not interested. The Recreation discussion concluded, and those participants departed. Discussion of Capital Issues The committee discussed current-year capital priorities under the assumption that there were no operating budget override, and essential no cash capital. It also considered whether current conditions would continue for the indefinite future, compelling the town to manage for cash conservation, and therefore to defer indefinitely a new DPW operations center, new Senior Center, and new school elementary buildings (in which case, Burnell suggested, it would be appropriate to renovate one school every five years). In the immediate future, the equation has changed. During the past two years, essentially all cash capital items requested, except Fire Engine 2 replacement, were funded from cash and borrowing. Now, IF there is an override, the current fiscal year tight as it is, would be the best capital funding year; thereafter, things would again get tighter until the next override. Given current borrowing costs covered within the cash capital policy (5 percent of tax level), about $1.5 million is available for capital items each year: $1 million actual cash capital after debt service, and $500,000 from the prior override for road repair and maintenance. Current cash capital request total at least $2.0-2.5 million. The interest cost on short-term borrowing will certainly be below what the town is estimating (Hornig will get current rates and build into the committee’s model now), but debt outstanding, rather than declining, will begin to rise rapidly as school supplemental items and library funding ramp up. Current FY schools request: School presentation not until December, but based on preliminary outline shared by Town Manager, items appear to total $425,000 (roof, foundation, and gym floor repairs) plus the as-yet uncosted LHS acoustical retrofit ($2-3 million?) and unspecified requests for the LHS auditorium. Excluding streets and LHS acoustic and auditorium, total requests for cash capital therefore appear to be in the $2 million range, while the current funding policy would provide approximately $1 million. Again as noted, the squeeze would worsen in FY ’05 and ’06, even assuming an override, under the current cash capital funding policy. In the past cycle, that gap was covered by borrowing and modest project deferrals (fire engine, some school requests). This year, two pending requests (landfill closure, fire engine) would consume 80-90 percent of cash capital, absent borrowing. (Side discussion, for Appropriation consideration: Fire staffing, dispatch of truck with staff on ambulance runs?) •Policy. Committee wants to weigh in on new cash capital funding policy Rick White expects to draft, raise with Selectmen. White apparently favors a smaller percent of tax levy, but NOT including debt service in the costs the funds would cover. Bhatia asks whether having debt service included, for perhaps a small percent of the total spending, might not be desirable, in light of appropriate use of short-term borrowing to fund cash capital priorities. The problem is excluding the funding cost for the supplemental and big-ticket requests (school acoustic retrofits, library). The committee’s interest and expertise is in identifying the real needs, and then advocating for adequate funding in discussions with the Selectmen (Dec. 9? Summits? etc.)—allowing for appropriate flexibility, but keeping cash capital safe from indiscipline problems (supplementals, big ticket borrowing). Hornig will remodel the committee’s annual five-year assumptions, based on •Tentative priorities for FY ’04 requests (using the preliminary School list, prior to discussion with School Committee, and excluding LHS acoustics and auditorium; based on Town Manager November 14 list and prior presentations to the committee); assumption is cash, not borrowing, and with full 5 percent of levy (current funding policy). Further assumes street work funded at Ch. 90 level plus prior override ($950,000 total), but the remaining $85,000 cash capital funding at risk; and committee wariness about sneaking operating items (street striping, small equipment requests) into capital: 1. Landfill closure, $450,000 2. Fire engine replacement, $327, 000 3. Hastings foundation wall repair, $65,000 4. DPW equipment replacement (amount from cash capital vs. enterprise unclear, based on later presentation to Selectmen; assume about $125,000) 5. School roof leak repairs, as many as could be accommodated (up to about $190,000) 6. Cary Hall retrofit out of building envelope, $150,000 7. Fire air compressor equipment, $35,000 (Side discussion on whether School Committee will seek capital funding for LHS acoustical retrofit, or will consider offering in-room listening-assistance devices vs. tuitioning students out of the system.) Committee preliminary evaluation of remaining small- ticket items: “B” list: Playground improvements “C” list: Visitor center wiring; Town Hall lighting study; and access upgrades (all from building envelope); sidewalks; skate park; gym floors Items in disagreement: Building facilities inventory study (building envelope); Electric Utility Ad Hoc Committee funding ($150,000) Corrections: Social Services ADA upgrades is double- counted from DPW building envelope request; Selectmen presentation makes clear the $50,000 MIS automated permitting system request will not proceed. Stolz remains concerned over Buckman Tavern roof replacement (needed but not requested) Based on these priorities, Hornig’s modeling will inform both committee recommendations on cash capital funding policy and, in the Summit meetings, will show the effects on the town of various cuts and override scenarios, parallel to the operating/program/no growth in services being modeled at Appropriation request. Meeting adjourned 9:51 p.m. Committee members moved to the Selectmen’s meeting room to listen to budget presentations concerning capital items, and to ask questions. Among the points of importance raised in that hearing and discussion were: •As noted above, double counting of $50,000 request for accessibility upgrades, and deferral of MIS request at least until FY ’05. •McKenna urged that the $500,000 for Green road circulation improvements be brought forward from FY ’07 •McKenna urged wider discussion of appropriate sidewalks policy, center vs. neighborhoods •Sweeney said the Senior Center planning money request ($100,000) was a placeholder, and could grow; note, the committee did not prioritize this item, above •McKenna suggested that the committee consider inserting an item in the override for cash capital funding, much as the $500,000 for annual street repair/maintenance was included in the prior operating override. (This relates to cash capital funding strategy, of course, but raises two questions: Is it prudent to put this money at risk? Would voters entertain open funding for a grab bag of projects, vs. a visible item like annual road work?) John S. Rosenberg