Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-12-18-CEC-min Town of Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee Meeting Notes December 18, 2002 Town Hall, Room 111 Committee members present: Bhatia, Hornig, Rosenberg, Stolz. Absent: Burnell Senior-center presenters: Paul Lapointe and Don Chisholm, Council on Aging, and Heather Sweeney, Social Services director (Lapointe also chairs Selectmen’s Committee on DPW/Senior Center/201 Bedford Street); Selectman Bill Kennedy (also a member of the Selectmen’s Committee) DPW presenters: Bill Hadley, director, and Brian Gilbert (operations), Dave Carbonneau Also attending: Sheldon Spector, Appropriation liaison, and Ingrid Klimoff, citizen Minutes of the December 12 meeting, as corrected, will be circulated and forwarded to Appropriation Committee liaisons, subject to further revision as needed. Meetings Schedule (new items highlighted) 7:00 Room 105: Tuesday, Jan. 7,at Town Hall, tentatively Lincoln fields presentations to the committee to prepare for forthcoming Special Town Meeting; or a CEC working group meeting on budget and cash capital policy Tentative: Wednesday, Jan. 8., Summit III Tentative: Wednesday, Jan. 15, Summit IV Tentative: Wednesday, Jan. 22, Special Town Meeting, Lincoln fields issues Senior Center Presentation Paul Lapointe began the interrelated discussion of planning for and prospective construction of a new senior center and Department of Public Works (DPW) offices and facilities, funding for which would presumably be obtained in a 2005 debt-exclusion vote (unless a private transaction concerning town-owned property at 201 Bedford Street produces capital or other financing for part or all of either or both facilities). [The senior center preferred site is 201 Bedford, where the DPW is presently located. The Selectmen have charged a special study committee with examining siting options for DPW—reconstructing on site or relocating to the landfill to be capped on Hartwell Avenue—including soliciting private proposals on redevelopment of 201 Bedford in a sale or lease transaction. The Council on Aging (COA) feels that 201 Bedford could not accommodate both a senior center and DPW on its present footprint. Lapointe chairs the special study committee as well as the COA.] Lapointe presented the possibility of two or three separate warrant articles for the spring 2003 Town Meeting, based on a memorandum he sent to the Selectmen December 17 (which has not been vetted by COA or Sweeney yet) and on discussion at the special study committee that morning: •A COA request for up to $300,000 for senior center site evaluation and design work; •An item on disposal of 201 Bedford in connection with sale/lease and private redevelopment, pending proposals of interest now being solicited by the special study committee; and •A DPW request for site evaluation and design work for its new/renovated facilities, pending the outcome of the special study committee recommendation on siting. Capital Expenditures (“the committee”) will be very interested both timing and the definitive selection of a site for the senior center relative to the Town Meeting calendar, Bhatia and Hornig pointed out. Right away, Lapointe said, the COA would like to access the $50,000 authorized two years ago to do analysis of preferred sites, and to apply that to examining space requirements for an actual senior center (which is envisioned as up to 32,000 s.f., including adult daycare within the facility, and 150 parking places), access, outdoor amenities, etc. Stolz and Hornig reviewed the restrictions placed on the money then. So long as 201 Bedford is identified as an appropriate and preferred site by COA, the committee encouraged use of the funds, subject to town counsel/town manager approval that the work is within the legally authorized scope. Bhatia strongly encouraged COA to use the funds not just for architectural work, but for a true needs assessment and programmatic assessment relative to Lexington’s senior population and demographics. Sweeney , Chisholm, and Lapointe acknowledged that past efforts to assess the population, program interests, and unmet needs have been done by the staff and informal surveys; they suggested that professional help is needed and could be productive now. Rosenberg noted that the COA has met informally with architects who specialize in such facilities across Massachusetts, who have a much wider view of communities’ needs and facility options. Lapointe reiterated COA’s interest in understanding the population, its needs, and program possibilities in the context of flexible space to serve them. Hornig suggested that perhaps half the $50,000 could be applied to needs assessment and half to design and architectural considerations. Of the proposed $300,000 warrant item—all of which spending would be contingent on definitive site selection— Lapointe proposed that a portion be used for site analysis, test borings, etc.; a portion for assessing the use and reuse or retrofitting of the existing senior space in 1475 Massachusetts Ave. (the town owns this condominium space, totaling about 9,000 s.f., for which it pays a monthly condo fee of about $800); and the majority for schematic design work for the new center. The center is envisioned as 32,000 s.f, including the adult daycare now in the town of Lincoln (where about 30 people are accommodated daily in undersized rented space of about 2,000 s.f.; no medical services are offered). The $300,000 is a paper estimated based on 32,000 s.f. at $200 per s.f., roughly 5 percent of the total; later (separately authorized) spending would cover more detailed design development and construction documents. Hornig asked whether it was necessary to do design development for adequate costing, or would schematics be sufficient, as the School Committee has found in new construction. Lapointe and Kennedy said such detailed design work was required unless the town were willing to tolerate very soft estimates requiring very large contingencies (on the order of 30 percent of project costs) in its estimates based only on a schematic rendering. Hornig asked whether 201 Bedford were viable for a senior center colocated with a reconstructed DPW. Chisholm said it was infeasible with the existing DPW footprint on the site, and was not preferred colocated with DPW even if DPW were reconstructed to the rear of the site. Therefore, the DPW siting decision is a prerequisite for proceeding on senior center. If that is so, Hornig asked, if both facilities require final siting decisions, and that is contingent on the outcome of the special study committee’s work (and perhaps Town Meeting decision on sale or lease of 201 Bedford, after considerable debate), isn’t it impractical to expect these warrants to be fully and timely addressed within the confines of the spring 2003 Town Meeting? Would a fall Special Town Meeting on 201 Bedford disposal if recommended, DPW, and senior center be preferable? That would authorize design funding in the winter of 2003 and into 2004, providing a timely basis for 2004 and 2005 Town Meeting consideration and funding for detailed design with construction approval at a debt exclusion in spring 2005 and construction thereafter. Bhatia also noted that needs assessment will drive project size, and therefore siting considerations and actual dollar size of the early design funding required. Lapointe agreed that the site of senior center plus needs assessment equal size of project and design funds; with the $50,000 available now, he hopes, the needs assessment and early project work could be ready for late spring 2003, when, he hopes, the siting issue could also be ripe for Town Meeting. And he is loath to see the schedule slip further, given the 2005 debt exclusion. If the siting is available, in, say, April and the needs assessment/size data in May, he hoped the matter could be before late sessions of this Town Meeting, or even extended/recessed sessions in late May or early June. Hornig felt that a later, more measured discussion would still allow for debt exclusion in spring 2005, with construction beginning later than Lapointe’s schedule (showing groundbreaking in spring 2005, immediately after the debt exclusion), as has been the case with school projects. Where would adult daycare go, Spector asked? Sweeney said not yet decided. Social Services has managed both on-site and at different locations. Part of the consulting expertise would help determine which is best. Rosenberg raised the issue of both the disposition of an inexpensive to operate town asset (1475 Mass. Ave. space) which might be difficult to sell or to reuse for other purposes, and also the need to assess the costs to retrofit it properly for daycare (elevator access, etc.), important issues in planning the new senior center size (just as DPW will be asked to evaluate renovation rather than all-new construction, and the real needs for new garage and equipment space, vs. maximal requests in the existing consulting studies). Hornig asked if there is a backup site to 201 Bedford St. Lapointe and Chisholm mentioned the greenfield site at North Street, but the Bedford Street process needs to play out first. If DPW is not moved, senior center siting is up in the air again. The wild card, Rosenberg said, is a sale/lease transaction at 201 Bedford, which could provide both siting and capital. And further out is Adams School, Stolz suggested; Lapointe was wary about Adams School in terms of renovation needs and parking potential, based on consultant opinions. [Harrington not mentioned, given time frame.] DPW Presentation Bill Hadley, like Lapointe and Spector, praised the caliber of the special study committee, and said the selectmen will listen to its recommendations. DPW’s consultant, CDM, has been asked to examine the possibility of renovating facilities at 201 Bedford (rather than building anew, as in its original study, which compared a new complex to Hartwell Ave. to comparable construction on Bedford St.), including new vehicle storage and office space renovation (possibly a second story, ADA compliance, etc.). CDM is also looking at the location decisions in other communities (Brookline, Bedford, Framingham) which have moved public works to edge-of-town locations; and is looking at incremental time and operating cost factors at Hartwell and how that plays out in other towns (Dave Eagle has provided data using the town’s bus routes, originating opposite 201 Bedford, vs. Hartwell Ave.). Internally, DPW is also working with CDM to refine its need/use estimates. This new work is due back to DPW by Jan. 15. Should a DPW request for design money be a separate warrant article? The committee said yes. Rosenberg asked whether renovation on site might move the DPW footprint back at 201 Bedford (senior center siting concern)? Carbonneau said CDM was asked, with the new needs assessment, how best to achieve it on site—new barn for sure, maybe raising height of administration building, etc. Then DPW will an idea of the best way to achieve its needs at Hartwell (all new) and at Bedford (renovation and new), given those sites. Those alternatives will speak to the senior center siting possibilities and options. Bhatia asked about a two-site solution for DPW but the discussion revealed concern over operating costs and supervisory oversight if offices were at Bedford Street and equipment, dispatch, and operations at Hartwell Ave. Hornig asked how long DPW’s design would take (schematics, design development, cost estimating). Carbonneau was unsure, but felt that with pre-engineered buildings, not too long (not as long as senior center). The time-consuming issues are identifying a site and then site work (assessment of contamination issues, construction suitability, etc.), not in design of the building program. Assuming the need for good design and cost estimates by 12/04, but not long before that (to keep the estimates from dating), did DPW need design dollars next spring, next fall, the spring of ‘04? Hadley acknowledged that DPW’s work was further advanced than the senior center’s; he would like design money sooner rather than later, even at the risk of some staleness later. Hornig urged working back from construction; the only holdup now for DPW is siting; he could envision a decision on design funds in the fall of ’03. Since DPW will have consulting reports in mid-January, it will share refined estimates of new construction vs. renovation line-by-line with the committee in late Jan. or early Feb. That will drive the size of the design-funds request. (Timing will depend on when the siting decision can be made.) Lapointe noted that DPW and the senior center are different kinds of projects, with the latter a new use and a need for more hearings and input; for the former, the issue might be renovation while maintaining operations, phasing, swing space, etc. Hornig suggested Town Meeting will need detailed information on the 201 Bedford site before making any of the other decisions, and that it, and DPW and senior center design funding, might best be dealt with in a fall Special Town Meeting. At 9:00, the DPW and senior center personnel departed. Sweeney remained to be present for the presentation by the Enablement Committee (Jennifer Oliver presenting, with Victoria Buckley; Steve Baran and Sweeney, staff). Enablement Committee Presentation Oliver presented paperwork on an ADA capital budget proposal ($50,000 per year for five years), which is the program element in the DPW Building Envelope request. She suggested a general town insensitivity to access issues and slow compliance with ADA, citing an unfinished 1993 agenda for ADA compliance, and the recent discussion over the Liberty Ride experiment (nonaccessible vehicles). The budget request is for about $10,000 of small items, mostly retrofitting door handles, widening door access. Bigger concerns are that town personnel (DPW, building inspectors) have not built ADA into their processes and thinking; school renovation not fully compliant, street repairs without curb cuts, etc. Hornig pointed out that the funding request is not detailed, and Rosenberg noted the projects listed for this year are too small for committee jurisdiction; the design, inspection, and compliance issues are outside committee jurisdiction. In general discussion, it was agreed that: Enablement ought to establish liaison with DPW, Schools, and Permanent Building Committee to design their concerns and needs into building process, contracting, and project management. Enablement ought to work with DPW (as Baran said it now is) to establish five-year and yearly priorities, and to build them into the Building Envelope program and the proposed study (if funded) of future Building Envelope needs. The committee strongly preferred this approach for smaller retrofitting items, as opposed to a separate line item. Enablement ought to work hard to be sure that the huge volume of once-in-a-generation construction (schools, library, road repair) is ADA compliant. Enablement out to report to Town Meeting under Article 2 to raise awareness, show progress (Cary Hall ramp, etc.), and highlight unmet needs, to which Town Meeting members would likely be sympathetic; and report to the Selectmen, who would likely promote DPW completion of small but urgent items (door handle retrofitting) within its operating funds. Enablement ought to advocate for as much employee training as possible to make all the town people involved in compliance, design, and construction aware of and sensitive to ADA provisions and build them into their operating processes, both for retrofitting and new construction on town facilities, and for code and compliance review on private properties. Enablement Committee members and staff departed at 9:50 p.m. Capital Discussion •Hornig has projections form John Ryan, using 4.5 percent for long-term borrowings and 3.5 percent for short- term borrowings (higher than market, but more realistic than last year), which show the current cash capital policy generating $800,000 to spend after debt service. The committee will want to try to protect additional funds freed up from actual market-rate debt issuance! More important, given $2 million of cash capital requests and a $450,000 landfill closure and $325,000 fire engine, there is nothing in the till. How to proceed? Bhatia suggests, say, borrowing for the landfill closing and a large and understandable project, freeing up capacity for essential funding •January 7, if not devoted to Lincoln Field, will be devoted to committee prioritizing of capital requests, and perhaps to a discussion of a new cash capital policy. •Stolz will try to determine when the Selectmen intend to discuss cash capital policy. •The committee is in general agreement that: •the issues surrounding 201 Bedford St., DPW, and a senior center are not likely to be ready for committee and Town Meeting deliberation by this spring, and therefore fit better in a fall 2003 Special Town Meeting; •the senior center must have a real Lexington- based needs assessment, as well as design work, but the latter depends on siting; and •the DPW needs assessment and renovation vs. new construction findings of Jan. 15 are essential briefing material for the committee before the Town Meeting season begins. Meeting adjourned 10:10 p.m. John S. Rosenberg