HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-02-05-CEC-min
Town of Lexington
Capital Expenditures Committee
Draft
Meeting Notes
February 5, 2003, 7:30 p.m.,
Town Offices
Committee members present: Bhatia, Burnell, Hornig,
Rosenberg, Stolz
Also present: residents Ingrid Klimoff, Charles Lamb
Meetings Schedule (note earlier time)
Wednesday, Feb. 26, 7:00 p.m., Town Offices, room to
be determined
Liaison reports
Stolz reported that the Selectmen added to the Warrant an
article authorizing purchase of the Christian Science
Church building (37,000 sf lot, 9,600 sf building).
Identified as a priority in Space Needs Assessment.
Possible new School Administration offices (proximate to
High School). [asking price $1.7 million].
The Conservation Commission voted 3-2 last night (2
abstaining) not to claim jurisdiction over the Lincoln Park
fields project; appeal is possible.
The Town sold $51 million of debt Monday; price for the
15-year Lincoln Park fields was 3.99% approx. That is much
below the 4.5% assumed in modeling Town finances and the
borrowing costs flowing through the cash capital
policy/funding. Hornig will get spreadsheet from John Ryan.
Whether those savings can be captured for cash capital
funding, or will be reserved for free cash as the Selectmen
indicated at the Summit, matters a lot to CEC priorities
(and should figure in the Committee’s recommendation to
hold down borrowing; see priorities discussion below: if
the Selectment want more projects funded than the Committee
recommends, it faces either more borrowing, which we are
opposing, or reallocating the cash savings from the lower
interest costs).
Rosenberg reported on the status of DPW, Senior Center,
and 201 Bedford Street, and shared the latest interim Camp,
Dresser, McKee work on DPW. Neither project, he said, has a
useful program definition. The Committee discussed the
Council on Aging’s January 29 request to the Selectmen to
use some of the $50,000 appropriated by Town Meeting in
2000 to pursue two phases of a senior center needs analysis
and early conceputal design. After much debate, the
Committee VOTED 5-0 to support Phase 1 of the needs
analysis study using the 2000 funds (with the request that
the spending be detailed, and that the needs analysis give
metrics for a senior population like those resident in an
affluent town like Lexington); and also to convey the
Committee’s strong sense that funding for Phases 2-4 work
under the 2000 appropriation was contingent upon credible
indications that the COA could control a site for the
senior center (a threshold not yet crossed). Rosenberg was
directed to communicate that decision to COA, the Town
Manager, and the Selectmen, and to convey separately the
need for program and renovation work by DPW, and to
communicate to both its opposition to spring 2003 funding
of design work for either facility given the pending siting
and program questions. (See e-mail communications of Feb.
6, copies attached.)
Stolz introduced discussion of the sites Conservation
wishes Town Meeting to convey to conservation. The
Committee opposed conveying the dry high land at North
Street, which is under consideration for senior center or
other siting, and which would block access to Recreation
land behind. Stolz favors, Hornig is neutral, and Burnell
and Bhatia are opposed to designation of the Highland-
Pelham property; some discussion was raised of keeping the
part of the tract near the Armenian school out of
conservation (it is the driest land, and could figure in
redevelopment of the school site, which may be of interest
to the Scottish Rite Masons or others). Rosenbeg has been
involved as a neighbor and TMM in advocating designation of
the property for conservation, and so felt he should recuse
himself from the Committee’s vote. A vote was not taken.
Stolz will procure better images of the site for fellow
members to consider. Not enough information was available
to make a determination on the small parcel to the rear of
the DPW site, which abuts an existing Conservation parcel;
but some concern exists about moving on that decision while
the 201 Bedford Street site is being evaluated by a
separate study committee (to which Rosenberg is liaison).
Burnell reported on schools. Harrington design is 95%
complete, although there is some consternation the combined
cafeteria-performance space will not support summer theater
programming. Bids are due six weeks hence, with
construction to begin in spring. Burnell was asked to
determine:
•status of SBA reimbursement for LHS acoustical
modification;
•status of LHS and middle school final renovations,
vs. cost estimates.
Burnell introduced for discussion his draft write-up
of the schools section for the Committee’s report to Town
Meeting, including a request that the School Committee
consider a of a program of repair, rather than renovation
or replacement, for the remaining elementary schools. IF
SBA reimbursement becomes, effectively,unavailable, the
appeal of “comprehensive” rather than “piecemeal”
renovation diminishes. Discussion focused on whether such
repair (and space additions) satisfied changing program
needs for the schools and their education mission; and
equity concerns among neighborhoods and schoolchildren.
There are also technical questions about the point at which
such repairs trigger code compliance and other major
renovation thresholds. The Committee did not reach
consensus, but the discussion was well begun.
Report
The Committee’s report will be due likely no later than
March 11-12, and preferably March 4-5, a deadline hard to
meet in light of the holiday and travel schedules. Hornig
Prior to the Feb. 26
and Stolz will check with John Ryan.
meeting, if possible, draft langauge for the report
sections should be circulated to committee members for
their review
, to make that a productive working session.
Hornig reviewed the Committee priorities to advance
work on the budget section. It is agreed that those
priorities are:
Landfill closure, $450,000, borrowed
Diamond gym repair, $125,000, borrowed
Cary Hall retrofit, $150,000, borrowed
Harrington gym repair, $65,ooo, half borrowed, half
cash
Replacement fire engine, $327,000, at risk in override
Buckman Tavern roof, $60,000, cash
DPW skywalker equipment, $110,000, cash
This totals $755,000 borrowing, about the amount
borrowed last year; $205,000 cash, and $327,000 cash at
risk.
The next priorities would be building envelope study
($100,000); Hastings roof ($88,000), and miscellaneous DPW
replacement equipment ($125,000). This minimal budget,
Hornig said, was a reversion to the practice of five years
ago: funding crises, but not forward planning, a result of
squeezing funding out of the cash capital policy by making
it a capital borrowing policy. Bhatia made the case for
more borrowing, for example to cope with a leaking roof
awaiting repair next year, but the committee agreed to
maintain this bare-bones recommendation, and to devote part
of its report and presentation to showing this year vs.
prior years’ borrowing, the effect on cash-capital funding,
and the rising volume of capital requirements now being
deferred because of the underfunding of the policy. Perhaps
a reason for a Committee-Selectmen capital minii-summit.
The Committee recommendations are aligned with School
Committee priorities, but not with Town Capital Budget Team
recommendations, which involve more borrowing and full
funding of the building envelope proposals.
Education
Bhatia and Rosenberg introduced discussion of their memo on
a capital-needs education program for the town. While
endorsing the notion of public/voter education, other
Committee members were skeptical of the efficacy of such a
venture, noting that debt-exclusion campaigns are a
focusing, educational vehicle; that perhaps elite
education, focused on incoming Town Meeting Members might
be more effective; and that the message is hard to convey.
Rosenberg concurred on the difficulty of conveying the
message, and thought perhaps people could be engaged in a
discussion of “Why is the Town constantly being torn up and
rebuilt?” (schools, library, roads, etc.) as an entry point
to explain capital plant, aging, routine maintenance,
changing needs, etc.
Bhatia and Rosenberg will think further before coming
back to the Committee to see whether there is support for
involving the Selectmen, etc.; they do believe that the
effort can be made simpler by recycling messages for
different audiences, and thereby reinforcing the education.
There is general agreement on doing Minuteman op-eds, etc.,
but purely of an informational sort, not advocating a point
of view. Perhaps also a glossary for the Committee’s report
to Town Meeting, a brochure for new TMMs?
The meetingadjourned at 10:40 p.m.
John S. Rosenberg