Loading...
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