Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-01-08-CEC-min Town of Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee Revised Draft Meeting Notes January 8, 2003 Town Hall, Room 105 Committee members present: Bhatia, Burnell, Hornig, Rosenberg, Stolz Appropriation Committee members attending: Debra Brown, Karen Dooks, Alan Levine, Eric Michelson, Sheldon Spector Lincoln Park/fields renovation presenters: John Fry, Rod McNeil, Kay Tiffany, David Williams, Jim Williams Also attending after 10:15: Ingrid Klimoff, citizen Minutes of the December 18 meeting, as corrected, will be circulated and forwarded to Appropriation Committee liaisons. Meetings Schedule (new items highlighted) 7:30 p.m., Hastings, Wednesday, Jan. 8, Summit III CEC (perhaps with appropriation), Wednesday, Jan. 15, 6:00, location to be determined, to discuss Special Town Meeting; , LHS Media Center Summit IV CEC, 7:00, Special Town Meeting, Wednesday, Jan. 22, preparation Lincoln Park; 8:00, Clarke Special Town Meeting, [Stolz or Hornig to post 1/15 and 1/22 meetings, determine location] Lincoln Park/Field Renovation Presentation McNeil: seek Special Town Meeting (STM) resolution for further study, by spring Town Meeting, on various options, ranging from 3 grass to 3 synthetic fields, and different layouts to preserve other aspects of Lincoln Park as a whole Baci: does project need permits from DEP? Hornig: not an issue for Capital Expenditures (CEC) Baci: did CEC investigate past geotechnical reports, regulatory issues, cost contingencies of building over cap? Stolz: cap not being disturbed; intent not to penetrate, but cap is of questionable reliability, so hard to provide asurances Hornig: CEC assumes permitting authority resides elewhere What kind of action will the petitioners ask the January 22 Special Town Meeting (STM) to take? McNeil, Tiffany: Likely (but not definitive yet) a nonbinding resolution asking that action on the fields renovation (for which a contract has been signed and engineering work begun) be stopped; that a study committee be appointed including representatives from Recreation, Lincoln Park, Appropriation, Capital Expenditures, Conservation, etc., to review the plans and proposals overall and consider alternatives (recreation, other uses, design) and alternative costs; and that that committee report back to the regular Town Meeting this spring. Burnell: last year, CEC, Recreation, Appropriation, Selectment, Town Meeting discussed, voters approved; what basis to overturn? D. Williams: differs from plan snown to TM las tyear Stolz: that was a schematic D. Williams: now has 175 parking spaces in center of fields, not along road, as per Sasaki plan; town will be surprised Burnell; moving parking spaces not a serious issue relative to plan approval D. Williams: large berm along Lincoln Street Spector: 7-8 months of process and voters have approved; those process points are key D. Williams: Lincoln Park Committee liaison from Recreatin never brought up Sasaki plan before Town Meeting Baci: voted for plan in TM, worked on override, but drainage issues not discussed, commitments to bring before Conservation not satisfied Michelson: issue is turf vs. grass? Baci: no, drainage, runoff J Williams; president Lex. Outh Soccer, played 20 years, teach at LHS; see as inappropriate in time of fiscal crisis; cost could be cut in half; if Lexington doesn’t fund maintenance (part of Recreation view of why grass inappropriate), that ought to be fixed and could be funded from enterprise fund, much as with Recreation debt-service commitment to the synthetic fields McNeil: 1 synthetic, 2 grass fields always cheaper Michelson, Rosenberg; questions about subsurface, compaction, geotextile fabric installation as necessary blow any field surface; may eliminate claimed savings of subsurface work for grass and “sand channel” drainage McNeil proposes? (discussion of erosion vs. upward migration of particles and contaminants from fill through playing surfaces, etc.) McNeil: subsurface for grass is no compation, vibratory rolling, or gravel base as with synthetics; instead, laser grrade, add top soil, amend fill, irrigate, sod; annual filling and resodding of spots as needed Bhatia; originally opposed last year, but became convinced synthetics overcame problem of fields out of service (rest and recovery for grass), need to correct uplift of materials, const of grass mantenance, and scheduling of heavy usage during times of year when grass often unavailable (i.e. real length of available playing season; and loss of Harrington fields) McNeil: rest fields in summer, when not used much; can fix contaminant migration Questions by attendees: Rosenberg: subsurface needs for ANY finish surface, performance, season, dual maintenance costs if two surfaces, lower bid than anticipated? Burnell: any evidence that Recreation, DPW not complying with what Town agreed to? History of attempts to resolve differences through consultation? (McNeil: referred from Recreation to Town Manager to citizen committee to Recreation to Geller; no answer; new project as now planned, not reviewed by Town.Burnell: seems like getting what was presented to Town, artificial fields, because believed then would be a better solution than grass—an no data specifically to overturn that decision so far, and were told both surfaces had a recurring cost and that grass was cheaper to install initially—but opted for longer season, less rest) Stolz: factor favoring synthetic was no use of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides to run off into wetland (McNeil: can be controlled. Tiffany, Lincoln Park Committee opposes synthetics anyway, because this plan [not playing surfaces per se] ruins park aesthetics). Sasaki also comfortable with synthetic surface. Hornig: so motion to STM will be resolution asking work be stopped and study committee appointed to report to TM in spring? (McNeil: yes, report on project or competing proposals); so question for CED is should we go forward with project or stop and reconsider it? Spector: TM will want to know contract termination costs, effect this motion has on what voters voted at debt- exclusion override (Hornig: possibly nothing, if within scope of TM and debt-exclusion language); is it moral after voted, is the timing appropriate, can it be done, and what are the political effects? (McNeil: feel stonewalled before, would be angry not to have chance to discuss it now) Michelson: originally opposed; concerns about layout vs. schematic as presented, but question petitioners’ data on subsurface costs, engineering, sand channel drainage proposal (golf course not equal coccer field), performance, future costs; cost of maintenance has to include cost of resting greass fields, so 3 grass fields do not equal 3 fields for 25 years, in fact may effectively be 2/3 that because of resting and rotation Brown: concerned about field placement vs. schematic, but not persuaded by data just presented and time between STM and spring TM too sort to review process and redo appropriately; need to know contract delays Dooks: concern about future grass maintenance in light of constrain on operating budgets Levine: competing expertise on cost, engineering, field use hard to resolve by time of STM Jan. 22.. Geller presentation reasonable and persuasive, and elements of petitioner presentation the same; have to rely on professionalism of Geller? McNeil summary: passionate about park, proposal fails in many senses including financial (which was, frankly, late in petitioners’ consideration, McNeil noted at outset); see Park itself at risk J. Williams collating answers, will forward to Hornig for CEC consideration The petitioners will attempt to answer questions posed to them, and Hornig will ask them to do so within the next few days. He and Spector (as Appropriation liaison to Recreation) will also talk to Recreation about the process followed since Town Meeting approval last year and during design and bidding. Committee discussion: Pending receipt of clarifying information from the petitioners in response to questions; and absent any compelling evidence that the case made for the synthetic fields last year was based on incorrect, wrong, or misleading information, or that the design work since was based on equivalent error; committee members generally felt that the reconstruction and synthetic fields case presented last year (if admittedly expensive) reflected reasonable and persuasive professional judgments about how the Lincoln Park playing fields could be successfully reconstructed atop the unstable landfill foundation, and that there did not yet exist convincing evidence or reasoning to overturn the judgments made last year. That is, the program proceeding now to the point of bid acceptance and the beginning of engineering work is consistent with the program presented to Town Meeting and the electorate last year, and so the committee sees no reason for the Special Town Meeting to act on the petitioners’ motion (that is, the committee would not favor voting to stop or delay the project). Based on information currently available, if Town Meeting is asked to delay the program and study it further, the committee would vote 5-0 recommending against such a proposal. The committee will revisit this apparent consensus when it meets 1/15, perhaps with Appropriation (which will explore contract-cancellation costs, redesign and other issues, dual maintenance costs, etc.); the committee hopes to have answers to its questions to petitioners by then. If possible, the committee and Appropriation will both try to draft and mail their recommendations to Town Meeting Members then, and committee members should send suggested language to Hornig now to expedite that process. The committee will reserve time before the STM to review and revise its recommendation in light of late information, if required. Capital and Budget Items •Big-ticket project design funds. Hornig moved that the committee recommend that all requests for design funds for forthcoming big-ticket capital projects (DPW facilities, senior center, and Bowman/Estabrook school renovation or replacement) be deferred from consideration during the forthcoming spring town meeting, for separate consideration either at a fall 2003 Special Town Meeting or a spring 2004 Special Town Meeting within/preceeding Town Meeting. The rationale is that the projects are now well advanced; there will not be adequate time to review them appropriately for this spring Town Meeting; and a fall 2003 STM would provide adequate planning time for each project for a spring 2005 debt-exclusion vote. Burnell said the schools would not request planning funds this spring; the only sensitivity, Hornig thought, was that if the elementary schools are to be renovated rather than replaced, the design process would take longer than the spring 2004 STM authorization might allow. Without settling on a fall 2003 or spring 2004 STM, the committee voted 5-0 to defer planning and design funds from consideration at this spring Town Meeting, and will so report. •Budget and Summit preparation. Hornig and Brown reported that based on the Selectmen’s actions the prior night, the gap between anticipated FY 2004 revenues and desired expenditures for operations is roughly $6 million (+/- $0.5 million), pending School Committee budget decisions; this gap reflects taking $1 million of free cash into the operating budget, AND realizing significant savings (on the order of $1.5 million) on benefit (principally health-care) costs from employee negotiations. This sort of override figure does not take into account further deterioration in state aid; Brown also noted that if the $1 million in free cash were NOT used to fund FY 2004 operations AND if the Selectmen wished to have an ovrride good for three years and to end up FY 2006 with $1 million in free cash, the gap/override amount would be more like $11 million. Issues of concern to the committee: First, we will want to urge the Selectmen to adhere to their schedule, agreeing to a budget this month, if the committee is to complete its work and make its report in a timely fashion. Second, Hornig’s projections of cash capital (considered a part of these minutes) shows the cash capital policy (5% of prior-year General Fund, less debt service) generating $1.87 million in FY 2003, further augmented by the $500,000 road program, $450,000 Ch. 90 funds, and borrowing, for a total potential of $3.77 million, of which $1.3 million was taken to balance the FY 2003 operating budget. For FY 2004—excluding some discrepancies between Hornig’s figures and John Ryan’s; assuming short-term borrowing at 3.5% and long-term borrowing at 4.5 % (and there will be real data shortly, after the current large town borrowing is effected)—the cash capital policy yields only $632,000 for spending; augmented by the road program and Ch. 90 funds, that makes $1.58 million available BEFORE any borrowing. Obviously, the debt-service burden is severely depleting cash capital funding, and of the $632,000 available, the Selectmen have put $216,000 at risk. Given requests for $3.357 million of capital projects and $1.58 million available (cash capital policy plus road money plus Ch. 90 funds) and assuming NO borrowing and NO loss of funds to the at-risk/override exposure, the committee would be required to reject about $1.8 million of proposals. In project terms, that means funding the landfill closure ($450,000,); the road programs (roughly $1.05 million); and essentially nothing else ($100,000-$150,000 remaining to allocate). In light of these data, committee members decided: —To recommend that NONE of the cash capital funds be put at risk, in light of the use of cash capital funds to balance the FY 2003 operating budget, and to minimize borrowing needs for identified projects (roof repairs, for instance); that is, that the full cash capital policy be funded, and not put at risk, for FY 2004 budget; and —To recommend a restrained amount of borrowing for cash capital purposes this year. Against unfunded requests of roughly $1.8 million, the committee would look at borrowing somewhere between $1 million (Hornig) and $1.2 million (Bhatia) and therefore not funding somewhere between $800,000 and $600,000 of other capital proposals. Burnell, who favored borrowing countercyclically, also favored putting in place a policy of paying down such borrowings during periods of fiscal strength, and certainly within 10 years or less. The more restrained amount of borrowing and capital spending envisioned for FY 2004 is not consistent, strictly, with his countercyclical vision, but is appropriate restraint in light of the strained fiscal situation currently. The rationale for the amount of borrowing will be tied to specific projects as the committee sets its priorities (eg., landfill closure, as a one-time, nonrecurring sort of expense). •Schools planning. Burnell has advanced the notion that the School Committee reexamine its strategy for the elementary schools, considering (a) Bowman/Estabrook, remodeled vs. new/replacement; then (b) Bridge/Hastings remodelved vs. new/replacement; and (c) all four schools subjected to a scheduled program of roof and window replacement, mechanical overhaul, over several years, without closure for gut renovation or replacement. Option (c) would release for Town reuse the current Harrington within the next few years, after the Harrington/Fiske replacement projects are concluded, with implications for senior center siting, etc. The committee is not committed to any one of these particular strategies, but encourages thinking about the alternatives. Burnell will walk through the four elementary schools with a School Committee member soon to evaluate the potential for renovation or aggressive maintenance vs. the currently envisioned new/replacement strategy. •Public awareness. Bhatia and Rosenberg distributed, for committee member review and consideration, notes on a public awareness and education outreach effort to inform Lexington residents about the Town’s public capital assets and their maintenance and improvement over time. Meeting adjourned 10:58 p.m. John S. Rosenberg