Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-CEC-rpt Table of Contents Table of Contents......................................................................................1 The Mission of the Capital Expenditures Committee.....................................................2 How to Read Our Report................................................................................................2 A Livable Lexington: Our Physical Assets.................................................3 Capital Budget..........................................................................................7 Big-Ticket Projects.........................................................................................................8 Enterprise-Fund Projects...............................................................................................16 Programs................................................................................................18 Conservation.................................................................................................................18 Council on Aging..........................................................................................................18 Fire................................................................................................................................19 Library...........................................................................................................................20 Public Works.................................................................................................................21 Recreation.....................................................................................................................24 Schools..........................................................................................................................26 Articles...................................................................................................30 7: Adoption of the Community Preservation Act.........................................................30 8: Establishment of Community Preservation Committee............................................30 19:Conservation Land Transfer – North Street............................................................30 20:Acquisition of Former Middlesex County Hospital Land......................................31 21: Former Middlesex County Hospital Open Space&22: Fast Track Auction Law.31 23: Acquisition of Franklin School Apartments...........................................................32 24, 25: Water Distribution & Sanitary Sewer Improvements.......................................32 26: Playgrounds and Recreation Facilities Improvements............................................32 27: Lincoln Park Facility..............................................................................................32 28: Pine Meadows Improvement..................................................................................33 29: Supplementary Appropriations for Authorized Capital Improvement Projects.....33 30: School Capital Projects and Equipment..................................................................34 31: Maintain and Upgrade School Technology............................................................37 32: Municipal Capital Projects and Equipment............................................................37 33:Traffic Control Signals Upgrade and Installation...................................................42 35:Supplementary Appropriations for Current Fiscal Year (FY2005)........................42 1 The Mission of the Capital Expenditures Committee From the General By-Laws of the Town of Lexington: The Committee shall prior to each annual meeting for the transaction of business prepare, publish and distribute by making copies available at the Office of the Town Clerk and at Cary Memorial Library, and by mailing to each town meeting member, a report of its findings, setting forth a list of all such capital expenditures together with the committee’s recommendations as to the projects that should be undertaken within the five-year period and the approximate date on which each recommended project should be started. This publication may be combined with and distributed at the same time as the Appropriation Committee Report. How to Read Our Report This report is divided into four sections: x An overview of managing Lexington’s assets; x Recommended five-year capital budget; x Spending history and general capital plan for each department and program; and x This year’s capital articles. When we report on a capital article on Town Meeting floor, a committee member will provide commentary and the committee’s recommendation. In the articles section of our report, we provide a written report on each article based on our evaluation of the issue. Our oral report on Town Meeting floor will verify our written report and present any new information not available as of this writing. 2 A Livable Lexington: Our Physical Assets Every aspect of planning our community's public life for the fiscal year beginning this July 1 has been shaped by intense focus on Lexington's fiscal condition. The operating budget was balanced without resort to a Proposition 2 ½ override. Financial targets were set with a due regard for the possibility that the Town's Aaa credit rating might be lowered. And funds were committed to reserves in the hope of gradually making Lexington less vulnerable to cyclical budgets and more likely to maintain and merit its Aaa rating in the future. This is an important factor in financing major capital projects as cost-effectively as possible in years to come. Consistent with those priorities, the Town administration and School Committee advanced capital expenditures programs for fiscal 2006, and Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) here recommends a restrained level of spending—one which incurs no more new debt financing than the $2.760 million we are retiring in the current year. Our rationale, explained further below and in our description of specific articles and capital requests later in this report (see page30), in part reflects these financial realities: we are loath to spend beyond our means. But the capital requests presented to us, and our evaluations reported here and at Town Meeting, also reflect other issues we wish to bring to your attention. Each affects our ability to pursue the capital programs Lexington requires in the future; a year of relatively modest capital commitments gives us breathing room to perceive matters clearly. x The continuing transitions in the senior administrative ranks of our public institutions, including town manager, town finance officials, key Department of Public Works (DPW) personnel, and school superintendent, have slowed policymaking and significant decisions. x Nonetheless, work on significant, intensive projects authorized in previous years reached important milestones (reopening of Cary Library; the second season of four in the neighborhood road improvement program; construction of the new Harrington School and preparation for Fiske School replacement). Those big- ticket jobs understandably required much of our stretched-thin public supervisory and management resources, so some consolidation and regrouping are natural. Even so, the initial work on the next round of significant projects has recently progressed. It is significant that the Selectmen's Building Finance Advisory Committee (BFAC) singled out for attention the following two priorities (as well as the condition of the East Lexington branch library, as currently housed). You will be asked during this Town Meeting to authorize significant investments so we can, finally, address Lexington's most pressing, overdue capital needs: creating efficient facilities from which to operate DPW equipment and dispatch crews; and safe, productive offices in which to house our school administrators. 3 x But momentum on these major projects masks the degree to which depleted employee ranks have reduced the Town's capacity to continue less visible but vital long-term, successful capital programs. We will illustrate each of these challenges by reference to issues Town Meeting will debate. The fiscal 2006 capital requests endorsed by the Selectmen and School Committee total approximately$5 million. As of the date of this report, CEC recommends that Town Meeting approve $4.155 million of municipal and school projects; we await further information before presenting our opinion onproposals that would require $445,000; and we recommend that Town Meeting disapprove proposals that would cost $704,100. Our suggested program would be funded with cash capital of $713,000 and short-term borrowing (bond-anticipation notes, BANs) totaling $2.657 million (just below the debt being retired in fiscal 2005). These recommendations are shaped by prevailing fiscal constraints, our careful vetting of the strength of individual projects (or lack thereof), and, in individual cases: x The policy context. Last year, Town Meeting authorized $100,000 to begin constructing needed new sidewalks, and repairing existing sidewalks. The fiscal 2006 request, only half as big, reflects the relative lack of progress toward a comprehensive Town sidewalk policy, with priorities to guide repair requests and new investments. Similarly, the committee's mixed evaluation of Articles 32(c) and 33 reflects the ad hoc status of the Town's approach to advancing and evaluating traffic safety improvements and investments. These are just examples of the policy voids in which Lexington is attempting to allocate scarce capital funds. Absent such policies, there is a temptation to make decisions by political logrolling, with results that cannot satisfy the public at large, and that discourage our expert, professional Town employees, who work hard to do the public's business well. In some instances we think the results are very far from optimal under any financial circumstances. x Helped by the BFAC report, elected officials, committees, and senior managers have reached consensus, or nearly so, on taking action to correct the inadequate DPW facilities at 201 Bedford Street and School Administration quarters in the "White House" next to the Police Station. Sustaining momentum toward simple, feasible, timely projects, which can attract public support for the needed capital funding next year, may be this Town Meeting's most important public legacy. Success is not assured — nor are these instances of progress the rule. Looming in the future are consequential decisions about the modernization of the four remaining elementary schools; reuse of the "old" Harrington, Munroe, and East Lexington library structures; and perhaps senior-center facilities. Agreement on how to proceed cannot be said to exist for any of these major assets. The BFAC has played a positive role. Involvement of the Permanent Building Committee in evaluating needs, when asked, before we proceed to project design 4 and construction has also contributed. We must learn to build on these initiatives to secure political consensus more swiftly and easily than we have in the past. x Careful readers of these reports will note that some continuing programs are not being funded this year—most notably, the relining of water mains and repair of sanitary sewers—forcing a suspension of new activity in fiscal 2006. These major programs, funded by the Water and Sewer Enterprise Funds, respectively, and carried on for years, are in temporary suspense—we fervently hope for not longer than one year—because DPW has lacked the personnel needed to design and supervise the construction. This state of affairs is the result of prior years' workforce reductions, retirements, and staff departures. (We also refer readers to the reports of the Appropriation and School Committees, for narrative on the budget pressures that have forced the schools, for example, to leave janitorial staff positions unfilled and to operate and clean buildings without adequate equipment and tools. In our own work, we have noted time and again how DPW's tight budget and staffing make it nearly impossible to undertake routine building repairs and critical maintenance. Addressing such priorities, we suggest, is an urgent matter for future operatingbudgets, for planning Town-School staff and functionalcoordination, and for discussion of any future operating overrides.) Aaa Finances—and Facilities Our concerns are obviously real. But we do not wish to imply that Lexington citizens and our public employees cannot do what needs to be done. Even within a period of real financial stringency, we want to point out some less visible, but very successful, capital programs. The lesson we derive is that each is driven by successful, long-term planning processes: x DPW's equipment replacement request, which we support in full, continues to conform to a well-thought-out multiyear schedule reflecting critical functions, available personnel, operating efficiencies, and appropriate lifecycles for vehicles. The addition of better sidewalk snow-removal equipment reflects the staff's adaptability in refining the long-term plan as priorities rise in relative importance. x The Fire Department's regularly scheduled refurbishment of its vehicle fleet (this year, an ambulance) is back on track after the delay caused by the failure of the 2003 operating override. x The joint Fire-Police Department communications equipment plan should produce clear gains in safety and service for both emergency personnel and the community, and makes good use of available funding offered by the federal government for public-safety infrastructure. x The School Committee's proposals for investing in safer facilities and more efficient operations are a sound touchstone in an era of heightened security concerns and rising operating expenses (driven by utility costs). 5 x Recreation's continuing program of playground renovation is a sound investment (at relatively low cost) in both fitness and in neighborhood integrity, an important ingredient in making this a welcoming and friendly community. If we might characterize such annual requests and appropriations, alongside the larger projects visible to the community as a whole (Cary Library, the secondary-school renovations and initial primary-school replacements, road reconstruction), they are part of Lexington's commitment to Aaa facilities that match our Town's enviable financial ratings. This commitment is neither a frill nor a sterile bragging point. Rather, it represents a shared belief—sometimes long in coming, sometimes hard won—that it is better to have safe streets than to let them crumble; to have reliable rather than leaking water mains and sewer lines; to have a vibrant library; to support our public-works employees with appropriate vehicles, an efficient facility to store and service them, and a safe working environment; and to provide the buildings that our school children and teachers (and administrators!) need to pursue effective, enriching learning suitable for twenty-first-century citizens. In this spirit, we present for Town Meeting's consideration Lexington's 2006 capital budget, with our recommendations and updated forecast of work to be pursued in the next five years. We want to recognize the dedicated work of the Town and School staffs, Appropriation and other committees, and the Board of Selectmen and School Committee, all of whom have devoted hundreds of hours during the past several months in formulating these and other budget proposals and plans in the public's interest. We are impressed by their expertise and dedication to our special Town's continued well being. 6 CapitalBudget Lexington has tried to allocate appropriate resources to needed capital projects by considering them in three categories: x Big-ticket projects; x Small-ticket projects; and x Enterprise projects. The Capital Expenditures Committee x Assesses capital needs brought forward by each department (municipal and schools) through the annual budgeting process; x Works with those departments to identify their anticipated capital needs during the next five years; and x Independently examines public facilities and prospective longer-term needs, as well as issues and capital facilities not being addressed within any department. Through this report and in presentations, Capital Expenditures advises Town Meeting about the necessary and prudent investments to maintain, improve, and create new facilities required to serve Lexington citizens safely, effectively, and efficiently. During the year, committee members also work with and advise staff members in various departments, consult with other public committees, and make their views known to the Selectmen and School Committee, in an effort to shape a responsible capital budget for Lexington residents. Please note these important caveats: x All cost figures are estimates. The degree of accuracy varies by project. Those projected several years into the future are necessarily the most uncertain. They are subject to refinement as projects are designed, bid, and built. Even relatively near- term work is subject to cost uncertainties until projects are bid and contracts signed; in the current construction environment, for instance, the prices for structural steel and concrete have inflated very sharply in recent months. x The scope of future projects is often highly uncertain. (Witness the long discussion over where the Department of Public Works [DPW] facilities should be sited; whether that project should encompass complete replacement or a lesser construction and renovation program; and whether other departments should be co-located with DPW.) Accordingly, project budgets are subject to significant revision as the work is defined through the political and budgeting processes. 7 x Dates for appropriations and taxpayer impact of financing projects are given in fiscal years, beginning July 1. Big-Ticket Projects Big-ticket capital projects cost at least $1 million; for financing purposes, they satisfy the conditions under which the Town is permitted to borrow funds for at least 10 years (their expected service life is at least that long). Such projects obviously require both careful analysis and budgeting, and broad support. The Selectmen’s capital policy has generally maintained that such big-ticket projects will be funded through borrowing, consistent with their expected life and with responsible annual budgeting for operating needs. Further, the intent has been to effect such borrowing through voter-approved “debt-exclusion” overrides, which place the costs of financing these projects outside the Proposition 2 ½tax-levy limit. The latter goal has not always been satisfied. The Town share of the costs to renovate Cary Library, for example, was absorbed within the operating budget; so were certain additional costs associated with the renovation of the secondary schools (which project was approved by voters in a debt-exclusion override). In each case, it was imperative to proceed within the time available for the projects to qualify for substantial state funding; accordingly; debt- exclusion overrides could not be scheduled. It is important tobear these cases in mind in thinking about major capital investments. Not every big-ticket project or element of an existing project can be subjected to a debt-exclusion vote. When they cannot, the costs are absorbed within the operating budget, with implications for Town finances generally, and for the small-ticket cash capital policy. The Projects Agenda Among the big-ticket projects Lexington may undertake in the future, we note these priorities from last year’s report: x Replacement or renovation, in whole or part, of the DPW facility (at 201 Bedford Street); x Complete renovation, and prospectively expansion, of the “White House” in Lexington Center (adjacent to the police/Cary Hall/town office building complex), currently used as the Lexington Public Schools administration offices. The building is in a state of advanced deterioration. x Renovationsof elementary schools not currently being replaced (Bowman, Estabrook, Hastings, Bridge); x Replacement of the senior center; x Renovation of the East Lexington Library building; and 8 x Land purchases for conservation/open space use. In addition, we highlighted the importance of realistic planning for: x The Town-owned Munroe School, currently used as the Munroe Arts Center (capital maintenance and repairs are clearly required to maintain present operations and keep the building in shape for possible alternate uses in the future). x The original Harrington School building, after its near-term use as swing space during the construction of the new Fiske elementary school. (The building is well located and has enough room to accommodate future uses suchas a senior center; it could also continue to be used as swing space during future elementary-school construction projects. Such use, or adaptive reuse for other functions, will require extensive updating of systems at a minimum.) As noted in the introduction to this report, Town Meeting will be asked this spring to authorize design and planning funds for addressing the first two needs on this list (DPW and the White House/school administration building). Proceeding is consistent with the priorities identified by the Selectmen's Building Finance Advisory Committee (BFAC). No planning has been undertaken on any of the other needs or prospective projects in the list above. The Policy Setting Planningfor and funding big-ticket projects is a multiyear process. During the past year, as noted, Lexington made progress on addressing two pressing projects for which local decisions and local resources are the determinants of success (the DPW operations facility and the school administration offices). If this Town Meeting advances both projects, it will be an important success for securing adequate public services in Lexington, during a year when the municipal and school administrations have both been led by interim senior managers. As a permanent Superintendent and Town Manager take office and staff their administrations, each will have to address an accumulating backlog of important big- ticket capital projects. The Commonwealth has put the School Building Assistance (SBA) program—through which localities are reimbursed for building replacements and renovations—on a more stable fiscal footing. That means that planning can begin for appropriate work on the remaining unmodernized elementary schools. Updated, comprehensive assessments of each school, and a new set of strategies elaborated by the School Committee in cooperation with the Permanent Building Committee, are important priorities to engage the community in taking on the next round of school renewal. The scope of work, schedule, and funding mechanisms for this program are critical factors for Lexington's capital expenditures during the next decade: the school physical plant remains Lexington's largest, and most intensively used, building asset. 9 The Selectmen have, understandably, focused their attention on the operating budget, in the wake of state aid reductions, continuing pressure on costs and rising demand for services, and warnings from the financial ratings service which evaluates Lexington's debt. Nonetheless, the BFAC report is a helpful roadmap for the new Town Manager, financial manager, and other members of the senior management team as they assess Lexington's physical balance sheet in the years immediately ahead. Completing the neighborhoodstreet-repair program; restarting the water main relining and sanitary-sewer repair programs; and making the building-envelope repairs in a timely, rational way are obvious priorities. Other items detailed on our list await a new capital-needs assessment and funding process. We hope the Selectmen and re-staffed administration make that a near-term priority. It has become clear, during the past few budget cycles, that Lexington no longer follows a schedule of debt-exclusion overrides every third year (at the Selectmen’s discretion)— nor, indeed, at any regular interval. It seems unlikely, and perhaps even unwise, at this point to try to project such a schedule anytime soon. The interplay between the operating budget and capital needs depends importantly on realistic, pragmatic policymaking by the Selectmen and School Committee and their senior professional staff members. In the interim, we must expect to be opportunistic: advancing when we can on projects such as the DPW and school-administration facilities, while remaining aware that this is not the ideal way to plan for safe, efficient, and effective public facilities for Lexington residents. Project Status and Needs Assuming timely completion of neighborhood street refurbishment and replacement of Fiske elementary school, the major current municipal and school projects will wind down following the next two construction seasons. Whatever strategy the School Committee sets for addressing structural needs at Bowman, Estabrook, Hastings and Bridge schools, all require continuing maintenancewhile the longer range options are explored. An assessment by the Permanent Building Committeesuggested that it might be desirable to replace Estabrook if structural issues economicallypreclude significant renovation on the scale required. Bowman's future needs depend in part on issues relating to the size of the school population and on possible redistricting. All four schools have been upgraded over time to varying degrees with floors, windows, HVAC and electrical systems.The full spectrum of work will have to be carefully evaluated for each school, along with needs for additional classrooms or other spaces to satisfy the educational program. What options are chosen has obvious implications for the Town’s reliance on future debt-exclusion financing versus its capacity to accommodate needed work within the tax levy under the cash-capital policy (see below, page 13). No location or scope of facilities has been determined for an enlarged future senior center. 10 The BFAC recommended that a structural analysis be undertaken of the East Lexington branch library, and expressed concern that the current use and loads exceed the building's capacity. No work is planned in the near future. Although no landpurchases have been proposed in recent years, for conservation or other purposes, that possibility always exists. Town Meeting will address articles this year on the Middlesex County Hospital tract (Articles 20-22), and the potential always exists for other parcels to come up for acquisition. No planning has been undertaken to consider reuse or appropriate investment in the old Harrington School and Munroe School buildings, but they remain issues for maintenance spending and longer-term adaptive reuse. For all projects like these beyond the committee's five-year planning horizon, we are unable to provide even provisional cost estimates. The most recent estimates for projects about which some parameters can be provided are (for illustrative purposes only): x $8 million for DPW facilities; x $2.5 million-$2.7 million for renovation and expansion of the White House to accommodate continued school-administration use; and x $38,330,000, for thenext two elementary schools (an estimate thatdoes notreflect inflation of 1% per month in materials for recent construction). Note that the School Committee has not recently indicated any time frame for this project. Although our report last year carried estimates for work on a senior center and on East Lexington library, we no longer have even remote confidence that such figures relate to potential projects, and so we no longer regard it prudent to publish them on even an advisory basis. Taxpayer Impact The graph on the next page summarizes the total impact of all approved projects that are excluded from Proposition 2 ½(i.e. all approved debt exclusions) as long-term financing is put in place in the next fiscal years(on the schedule assumed, shown below). The projects included in this graph are: x Secondary schools ($21,700,000 long-term debt issued, $35,035,000 unissued); x Harringtonand Fiske School reconstruction ($16,075,000 issued); x Fiske School reconstruction ($17,535,000 unissued); x Streets ($2,500,000 issued, $4,500,000 unissued); x Lincoln Park ($3,400,000 issued). The Town has managed long-term debt financing for school reconstruction projects by first considering the anticipated SBA payment and then issuing BANs for that portion of the cost and long-term bonds for the non-reimbursable portion. The net result is that 11 SBA payments result in non-issuance of additional long-term debt and equivalent retirement of BANs. The graph below only considers long-term debt and not BANs. Hence, SBA payments do not show as having any taxpayer impact in this context. The town recently received a $26,282,315 SBA payment representing 75% of the reimbursable portion of the secondary school reconstruction project ($35,035,000). It is not known when additional SBA payments for the secondary school and Harrington school reconstruction projects will be received. The following assumptions have been made when preparing the graph: x Nonewlong-term debt will be issued that requires payments in FY06; x Harrington School construction will be completed for $14,325,000; x Fiske School reconstruction will cost $19,281,264 (current estimate available at this writing– see page 27for details); approximately $13 million will be paid using BAN’s, which will be retired when SBA payment is received; x Fiske School long-term debt (approximately$4,400,000)will be issued in the second half of FY 2006 (with repayment starting in FY 2007); x The town is able to borrow longterm (10-20 years) at an annual interest rate of 4.0%; x The Selectmen choose to issue bonds with level principal payments; x An average residence is assessed at $639,000 in FY2005. Taxpayer Impact of Approved Excluded Debt 450 Permanent Bonding Issue Start(FY) End(FY) Harrington 04,05 14,23 400 Fiske 07 26 Sec. Schools 03,04 23 Roads 04-07 08-11 350 Lincoln Park 04 18 SBA Reimbursement (est.) 09 13 300 250 200 150 100 Fiscal Year (20xx) 50 0 05060708091011121314151617181920212223242526 12 Small-Ticket Projects Small-ticket capital projects are funded from the tax levy and do not qualify as big-ticket projects. Generally, they cost between $25,000 (the minimum qualification for consideration as a capital expenditure) and $1 million, and represent projects that should be funded on a regular, timely basis to maintain Town infrastructure. Such items are easily overlooked, or subjected to funding on an “as available” basis—dangerous practices, because they invite deferred maintenance, leading small problems to turn into major deterioration and expensive repair or reconstruction. Proceeding this way also, necessarily, makes it impossible to plan sensible replacement policies for Town assets, even when their expected lives relative to routine use can be reasonably predicted. In this respect, we continue to work closely with the stewards of our assets to prioritize, plan and project such work for aperiod of five years or more. The Cash-Capital Policy It was in reaction precisely to these problems that the Selectmen in 2000 adopted a policy intended to establish a predictable funding source for smaller, routine capital items. This policy provides that 5% of the Town’s total general fund revenue for the previous year (as estimated on the “tax rate recapitulation” or recap sheet) will be allocated each year to fund both small-ticket capital projects and debt service on existing non-exempt Town debt. Since future revenue and debt service can be predicted accurately, this policy was meant to yield a predictable funding source. Furthermore, were the Town’s existing non- exempt debt repaid as then anticipated, an increasing portion of the 5% would be available to fund these small, but very important, capital projects out of cash each year. As adopted, it was expected that most of the funds allocated for fiscal years 2001-2007 would go to repay existing debt, so a limited amount of short-term borrowing was authorized in the first few years so that critically needed projects could go forward. In previous fiscal years, the policy's outer limits have repeatedly been made more flexible, both by more extensive borrowing within the tax-levy limit (for the Cary Library project and additional elements of the secondary-school renovation, as noted previously), and by the Selectmen's decision to use cash resources in other ways. In FY 2004, for example, some $100,000 of cash capital was appropriated to balance the operating budget, and $216,248 of additional funds were made subject to the unsuccessful operating-budget override put before voters in June 2003. In FY 2005 the Selectmen's cash capital policy would have made $498,868 be available in the fiscal year, beginning last July. But in order to retain cash reserves as part of the Town's larger financial- management strategy, the Town administration and Selectmen recommended that all small-ticket capital items be funded by borrowing, a policy that the Capital Expenditures Committee supported. Of the cash available under the policy that year, $224,546 was put "at-risk" in the override;since the override passed, the $224,546 was placed in the stabilization fund. The difference, $274,322, was put in the stabilization fund regardless of the override outcome.Thus,in FY2005, the“cash-capital” policywas drained of its cash, and for the second consecutive year, used to balance the operating budget.In effect, the policy hadbeenturned into a sort of revolving short-term debt facility, in 13 which repayments of prior borrowings make room for renewed current and future borrowing, in order to fund acute capital needs. One other capital contribution has been made to the reserve fund. In FY 2004, $111,142 was set aside to fund approximately one-third of a new pumper truck, the balance to be paid for by a portion of the failed operating override. When the override failed, the appropriated funds remained in the reserve fund for future capital projects. In FY 2006, $83,000 has been diverted from cash capital to the operating budget (Article 35) for maintenance and repairs. This transfer has the approval of the Capital Expenditures Committee. Cash Capital Reserve Fund Contributions FY2004FY2005FY2006Total $111,142$498,868$0$610,010 In FY2006, $713,000 is available under the cash capital policy, and it is proposed to use all of it for capital projects. In other words, in order to break the cycle of using cash capital as a short-term revolving borrowing facility, the committee has recommended not incurring more debt in fiscal 2006 than is being retired, no matter how worthy the projects presented, and has therefore reviewed requests especially carefully during this budget cycle. This discipline, if it can be maintained, should begin bending the borrowing curve, so the cash-capital policy might begin, in future years, to yield the flow of cash for small-ticket capital funding originally envisioned when the strategy was adapted in 2000. Recommendation Summary The table below summarizes the recommendationsof the CEC (as opposed to the departmental requests) and contains all known small-ticket capital projects to be funded within the tax levy, through cash capital and debtin FY 2006. Design and planning funds for big-ticket projects are considered a part of those projects, and so are excluded here. Descriptions of each department’s small-ticket capital plans for fiscal years2007-2010 1 appear beginning on page18. The table onthe nextpageshould be read with the accompanying notes on the following page. 1 While Design and planning funds are generally included in the “Big Ticket” section of this report, the School Administration and DPW facility monies are shown in the chart below. 14 20062007200820092010 Schools 1 Technology $250,000$350,000$350,000$350,000$350,000 2 School Buildings$790,000 $1,455,000$1,625,000$950,000$350,000 Equipment$50,000 Administration Building$300,000 Public Works Equipment $485,000$645,000$516,000$470,000$480,000 Street Maintenance $960,000$1,000,000$1,000,000$1,000,000$1,000,000 3 Building Envelope$150 ,000$400,000$400,000$400,000$400,000 Traffic Signals $30,000$600,000$200,000 $75,000$350,000 4 Sidewalks $50,000$105,000$110,000$115,000$115,000 DPW Facility $720,000 Library 5 E. Lexington Library $100,000 Recreation Playgrounds$35$200,$$20$7 ,00000050,0000,0000,000 Public Safety Equipment $165,000$190,650$380,000$190,000$250,000 6 Communications study $50,000 $4,080,000 $4,695,650 $4,561,000$4,275,000 $3,215,000 Total 15 1 The school technology plan for FY2006 is subject to further review, by both the School Committee and Capital Expenditures.$350,000 for fiscal years 2006-2009 is an estimate, but is subject to change upon review of the technology plan in the next several months. 2 The School Buildings line reflects known and anticipated maintenance and repair spendingexcluding any building replacement and design costs during the time period. 3 Public Works “building envelope” projects for future years are an estimate based on dividing total identified needs evenly across the next four fiscal years; more refined project plans are subject to further work involving DPW personnel and the Permanent Building Committee. 4 TheCapital Expenditures Committee believes that strong emphasis should be placed on sidewalk construction and improvement. However, due to lack of DPW staff and lack of a coherent plan for sidewalk prioritization, we believe that no more than $50,000 should be spent in this fiscal year. We hope that the Board of Selectmen’s Sidewalk Committee can present a coherent prioritization next year. 5 This figure is not representative of any cost studies; it simply serves as aplaceholder and requires further evaluation. 6 This figure includes $50,000 for a communications design study. Enterprise-Fund Projects The Town operates three enterprise funds, for revenue-producing activities funded outside the tax levy by user fees (water supply, sanitary sewers, and certain recreation services, such as the golf course, swimming pools, and tennis courts; recreational playground equipment, in contrast, is not fee-generating, and capital investment for such equipment is therefore funded as part of the small-ticket program). The exception to this rule is that $100,000 per year is paid from the Recreation Enterprise Fund for Lincoln Field debt service.Unlike property-tax revenues, enterprise-fund fees are not subject to an arbitrary limit under Proposition 2 ½. From a capital standpoint, enterprise-funded projects are evaluated in terms of service and cost. The water enterprise funds have been used, in part, to maintain a nearly quarter- century program of relining and replacing aging water mains; the Town benefits from clean, safe, dependable drinking water supplies, and from a minimum of disruptive breakages. Similarly, funds appropriated last year were used for a sizeable sewer construction project tying Lexington lines into an MDC trunk line in order to alleviate . backups and flooding in the Grant Street and Brookwood Road areaThis year, as previously noted, the water and sewer projects will pause: no funds were requested this year due to limitations in DPW’s ability to manage more work effectively. 16 The only enterprise-related recreation projects proposed this year are the reconstruction of theCenter tennis backboard and Pine Meadows funding for studies of hydrology and drainage problems.Unknown funds (at press time) are requested for construction of bathrooms at the newly constructed Lincoln Park fields. There has been debate as to whether these monies should come from enterprise funds or the tax levy. In future years, the RecreationEnterpriseFund will face significant spending requests for large projects at Pine Meadows golf course and the center swimming pool complex. Water & Sewer Enterprise Fund Recommendations 20062007200820092010 DPW Equipment Water Distribution Improvements$850,000$800,000$800,000$500,000 Sanitary Sewer Improvements$525,000$600,000$600,000$600,000 Storm Sewer Improvements $1,375,000$1,400,000$1,400,000$1,100,000 For more information about DPW projects, see page 20. Recreation Enterprise Fund Recommendations 20062007200820092010 Center Pool Complex$30,000$400,000 Pine Meadows Improvements$50,000$200,000 Pine Meadows Equipment$50,000$50,000 Old Reservoir Improvements$50,000 Tennis Court Improvements$30,000$100,000 $80,000$80,000$500,000$250,000$50,000 For more information about Recreation projects, see page24. 17 Programs Conservation In recent years the Conservation Commission has spent no money on new land; its only acquisitions have been through gifts or transfer. The Commission’s Land Acquisition Planning Committee’s report in 1996 identified privately-owned parcels it wishes to purchase. Article 34 of the 1999 Annual Town Meeting authorized a $3,000,000 bond for future purchases. The bonding authorization is conditional on a two-thirds vote of Town Meeting. There are no current plans to use this authorization. Conservation has two articles in the warrant. The first concerns a transfer of land on North Street from Recreation/ Conservation to Conservation in order to more properly reflect what they consider its best use: unstructured passive recreation. See Article 19, page 30. Concern over actions by the Mass. Department of Capital Asset Management to auction surplus land prompted Conservation’s Article 20, (see page 31). The article asks the town to purchase Lot 1A, some 47.5 acres bordering Waltham on Walnut St. This land of varied terrain includes significant wetlands and old farm land with stone walls and paths andwas part of the former Middlesex County land. There is no funding available at this time. The article may be withdrawn as officials in Lexington, Waltham and Belmont are trying to persuade state officials at DCAM to pursue a re-use study by Sasaki Associates. The ideal solution whereby the entire parcel would be transferred to conservation is probably unrealistic, but some compromise with state officials looks possible. Citizens’ resolutions address Lexington’s concerns. Article 21 (see page 31) asks to preserve the entire parcel as open space and Article 22 (see page 31) to restore some town control over surplus state land, which has been pre- empted by the Fast Track Auction Law, Outside Section 548. Council on Aging The Council on Aging (COA) has long sought to create a new senior center for Lexington, because of the perceived program limitations imposed by the current location, in the Muzzey condominiums on Massachusetts Ave. In 2000, Town Meeting was presented with a request to appropriate $50,000 for evaluation of Town-owned sites to accommodate a prospective center. Town Meeting then authorized $50,000 “for site analysis and schematic drawings for a new senior center…provided that, before any site analysis or schematic design is undertaken, the Board or Committee having custody of the site must declare its intent to release the site for this use, and the COA must agree to the site so proposed.” Sites for a new Senior Center are quite limited. The Board of Selectmen recently voted to leave the Department of Public Works at 201 Bedford St., one possible site for a COA. Walgreen’s is 18 no longer an option and Conservation would like to transfer the recreation/conservation land on North St. to its jurisdiction (see the discussion of Article 19, page 30). Munroe School was on the list of sites examined by the Senior Site Committee and might merit further study. Harrington School will be available sometime in the future after its use as swing space is over. The Town should remain alert to the possibility that some new suitable property might become available. The COA estimates that the centerultimatelyneeds some 20,000-25,000 square feet of space, more than double the present facility. The present center’s buildings arein good condition according to the BFAC. Fire Fire Department Appropriation History for Fiscal Years 2001- 2005 The Fire Department uses industry standards and its own experience to establish the equipment replacement schedule. Unlike many pieces of town equipment, fire engines and ambulances are partly custom-made and equipped and require very detailed specifications, and typically a year for delivery. The mission of the fire Department in the twenty-first century has shifted beyond traditional firefighting to emergency services, homeland security, and community education, and our firefighters are now being trained for Emergency Services and Advanced Life Support. The equipment to perform these missions has changed with new technologies of firefighting and communications, yet the basic pumper or ladder truck or ambulanceis still basic to the mission. Lexington must continue to replace its aging equipment, and retain back-up capacity. This year the Fire Department is requesting a new ambulance to replace Rescue 2 of 1999 vintage for $165,000. See Article 32(g), page 41 for description. Also the Department is asking for $50,000 in Article 32(a) page 37, Building Envelope to study structural conditions of the apparatus floor which has been flexing under the weight of heavier equipment and to recommend remedial action. A small structural engineering study found the floor’s concrete to be 10% overload though in no immediate danger of collapse. The building has a floating concrete foundation. In June 2004 the East Lexington fire station went back into service when the operatingoverride passed. Some needed sprucing up and work on the electrical service have improved the station which now houses Engine 4, a smaller pumper with a number of capabilities including foam. In addition,the l985 brush truck is basedthere with the 1990 pumper Engine1. The new pumper, Engine 2,whichcost $345,000, arrived in February and has gone into much- needed service as the first-line vehicle. The Fire Department recommends that the l990 pumper 19 should also be replaced next year as it is reaching the end of its useful life. The cost is estimated at $380,000 in FY 2007. The request for the new communications equipment in Article 32(h)(see page 42)is for a $50,000 study of town-wide dispatch and intercommunicability of police, fire, and emergency departmental radios. The system will provide information from which the fire department can apply for a federal grant to purchase the equipment. If the grant fails to gain approval, the Townfaces funding improvement and upgrades to these systems, which are the heart of public safety, inFY 2007. The inventory of major capital equipment, date of origin, and original cost is shown below. ItemOriginLife (yrs)DescriptionOrig. Cost 120026Rescue 1 – Ambulance$159,050 219996Rescue 2 – Ambulance$123,050 3200015Ladder 1 – 90' Aerial Ladder Truck$588,000 4199015Engine 1 – Structural$310,300 5200415Engine 2 – Structural345,000 6199915Engine 3 – Structural$310,300 72003>20Engine 4 – Brush Fire Truck$210,000 81985>20Engine 5 – Brush Fire Truck$187,250 Library Main Library The newly renovated main library opened this spring and has been well-received by the community. The attractive décor and furnishings have provided a welcoming environment and help blend the new with the older sections of the building. The new meeting areas are in constant use by the community.When the new director has been hired, the Library can turn its attention to the East Lexington branch. East Lexington Branch Library The 2005 Building Finance Advisory Committee report identified the branch as needing significant work. They recommend that the structure be evaluated by a professionalengineer to study the loads imposed by the books and people in the building. They alsofound deficiencies in the windows, shutters, andcondition of pillars and masonry, and cited the need for a new boiler, new air conditioning, and electrical system as well as insulation. The BFAC’sestimate for the work is $193,000 and did not address difficult accessibility issues. Now that the main library is finished it will be necessary for the Trustees to evaluate the future of service in this building. Its future use is limited by the terms of the Trust of Ellen Stone in 1893 for such activities as a reading room, an art museum, a public meeting hall, a branch depository, or other suitable activity. A dialog as to the Library’s future should start when a new director is in place. 20 Public Works The capital-intensive components of the Department of Public Works services are: x Roads, sidewalks, sewers, water, storm drainage; and x Town buildings, Recreation facilities, DPW equipment, anda much-needed upgrade of the DPW facility at 201 Bedford Street; The capital projects in sewers and water services are adequately funded from the enterprise funds; however, the rest of the capital needs must be funded by the general tax levy and/or debt-exclusion overrides. Roads Lexington has a total of about 160 miles of roads, including state and unaccepted roads. Of these, 113 miles are within Town jurisdiction and maintained by DPW. Lexington roads include: 12 miles of major arteries, 18 miles of minor arteries, 20 miles of collector roads, 81 miles of residential thruways, and 28 miles of cul-de-sacs. The Town approved a $7,000,000 debt-exclusion override in 2002 and established a goal to do the necessary catch-up and bring up the quality of all the roads within the Town's jurisdiction to a quality index level of 83 by 2007. The $7,000,000 funding is in addition to ongoing funding of about $1,000,000 annually needed to maintain the roads once the goal of acceptable quality is achieved. Of the $1,000,000 annual spending, $500,000 is funded from the earlier 2000 override, and the balance is from the state. The catch-up program has been planned in four annual phases of 7.65, 9.16, 7.57, and 6.58 miles of roads. While the program appears to be on track, the committee recommends retaining a professional highway construction consultant to report to Town Meeting for 2007 on the condition of the roads. Sidewalks Currently the town has about 55 miles of sidewalks. The upgrade and extension of many of these sidewalks is long overdue, but there is no planned program for sidewalk maintenance or new construction. There are major streets like Burlington Street, North Street, and Spring Street that could use sidewalks because of students walking to school and for other purposes. A 1982 study called for 42 miles of sidewalks at a cost of $10,000,000 in 1982 dollars. Current costs would be much higher, probably double. Maintenance of the sidewalks is expensive, and construction of the new sidewalks is burdened by issues of easements and objections from residents. A limited program of construction and maintenance, for $50,000 is recommended in FY2006, followed by programs of $100,000 in succeeding years.The overall policy is to develop a prioritized sidewalk construction plan focusing on school and other high pedestrian-traffic routes and high walking-hazard streets. The 2006 funds will be used for repair of a section of Edison Way and installing new sidewalk on Marrett Road, from Downing Road to the Gulf station at Waltham Street. 21 Water Distribution System The Town water mains were installed 75 years ago. For many years the Town has been systematically improving the system to improve water quality, pressure, and fire- protection capabilities, and to reduce frequency and severity of water-main breaks. The program to replace or line all small-diameter unlined water mains in Lexington is expected to be completed in 2008. Sewers and Storm Drainage System As the streets are being paved, it has been discovered that some storm drainage structures on streets are seriously deteriorated. Repairs are required to prevent further deterioration of an unsafe condition and to protect newly paved secondary streets. Additionally, funds are needed from time to time to study and repair sewers where overflow complaints are received. Maintenance of the Town Buildings DPW has jurisdiction over 16 buildings: Town Office Building, Cary Hall, Police Station, Fire Headquarters, East Lexington Fire Station, DPW Office and Barn, Animal Shelter, East Lexington Library, Cary Library, Visitors Center, Council on Aging facilities, Pool Complex, Park Building, Reservoir Building, Pumping Station, and Cemetery Building. Collectively, they have an insurable value of $36.4 million and consist of about 221,000 sq. ft. of aggregate space. This requires considerable planning for preventive maintenance for roofs; heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning; plumbing; windows; exteriors; and Americans with Disabilities Act access. A “building envelope” program has been developed that identifies critical repairs each year. School buildings are maintained by the school department under a similar program. DPW Equipment DPW has 150-plus pieces of equipment, with estimated replacement cost of $6 million. Some of the equipment is very old and less productive and efficient than the newer equipment being purchased. DPW has made good strides in its equipment replacement policy. Replacement criteria include condition, equipment usage, age, repair cost, availability of outside services, obsolescence, and selection of the most productive new equipment, as opposed to just replacement of equipment that has become old. The Town needs equipment for a variety of jobs from snow removal in big storms to fixing signs on a street. The kind of equipment owned, operated, and maintained by DPW includes: autos, dump trucks, sanders, cranes, trailers, pick-ups, loaders, rollers, backhoes, tractor- mounted snow throwers, sweepers, brush chippers, mowers, sprayers, vacuums, compressors, welders, portable generators, pumps, lifts, and compactors. An example of the current strategic vehicle program has been the replacing of old worn-out 10-wheel dump trucks with 6-wheel dumps, which are easier and cheaper to maintain and operate. The continued purchase of stainless steel sanders helps to reduce maintenance costs. The proposedpurchase of a large snow blower will make clearing the Center of snow quicker and cheaper. 22 DPW Facility The DPW operations facilities, located at 201 Bedford Street, must be reconstructed, renovated, or replaced. The facilities are well past their useful life. Beyond general wear, the successive additions and renovations yield a complex that is obsolete for maintenance and storage of numerous pieces of large and expensive equipment; is operationally inefficient; provides inadequate light, heat, and ventilation for many DPW employees; and does not conform to modern standards of access, safety, and building codes. In short, it is an accident waiting to happen A 2001 engineering report recommended constructing new facilities at the Hartwell Avenue landfill and leaf-composting site at a cost then estimated at $11,600,000, and reuse of the Bedford Street location. In the fall of 2002, the Selectmen created a “DPW Facility/Senior Center Re-Evaluation Advisory Committee” to examine “the economic and the practical implications of the future use of the 201 Bedford Street property,” including possible sale or lease of the site to a private developer while also accommodating the siting and/or development of a new senior center there; an option would be a new DPW facility developed at Hartwell Avenue. The committee was also charged with examininga joint DPW/Senior Center facility at 201 Bedford Street, and with considering financing options for both facilities. The advisory committee’s report to Town Meeting in 2003 resulted in no definitive decisions. The scope of future projects is often highly uncertain. For instance, while the location of the new DPW facility has been determined to be 201 Bedford Street, there is uncertainty about renovating or reconstructing the DPW administration space and about what else might be co-located at the site. Currently a thorough study of the DPW requirements is underway. Capital Expenditures is pleased that the Selectmen have determined that the facility will be located 201 Bedford Street. Citizens at the publichearing on the matter overwhelmingly preferred this location. It is strongly recommended that this Town Meeting authorize the necessary design funds.Pending completion of the pending DPW study (see Article 32(f), page 41), the committee thinks it likely that renovation and partial reconstruction at the 201 Bedford Street site (replacement of the vehicle- and equipment-storage barn, and renovation of the office facility fronting on Bedford Street) is the most reasonable, efficient, and economical solution for the Town, and carries a preliminary cost effort for such work in its longer-range capital plans for Lexington. 23 DPW Appropriation History for Fiscal Years 2001–2005 Recreation Since 1990 (fiscal year 1991), the recreationdepartmentcapital and operation budgets have been largely supported by the Recreation Enterprise Fund. This is defined as “an account supported entirely by user fees associated with or generated by that enterprise for specific services that a town operates as a separate business.” The Recreation Enterprise Fund is meant to be self-sustaining: all expenses are expected to be offset by income. Policy guidelines recommended in March 1997 by the Selectmen have attempted to stabilize and contain pressure on the fund: indirect park department payments are limited to $75,000/year, and capital projects should be supported by the enterprisefund only when directly related to fee-generating programs. Athletic Fields: Lincoln Park The new artificial turf fields have been very popular and have lived up to their billing as a safe and playable surface, but the construction of bathroom facilities hasnot progressed. (Seethe write-up under Article 27 on page 32,for a description of the project, which requests $200,000, 24 with $75,000 of the cost to be defrayed by a gift fromthe Lincoln Park Sub-Committee.) Until the bathrooms can be built, portables will have to be used. Playgrounds and Tot Lots TheKineen play lot is finished and this yearRecreationasks for work at Ridge Park in East Lexington for $35,000 under Article 26 as well as enterprise funds of $30,000 to replace the tennis bang board at Center Field (See page 32). The large wooden play structure at Center Field is slated for replacement in FY 2007 at an estimated cost of $200,000. The structure has been found safe from arsenic, but requires much maintenance as it has aged. A replacement will be ADA compliant and safer as it separates the age5-12 children from the 2-5year-oldtoddlers. The new tot lot at Lincoln has very popular and is an example of the contemporary materials being used for playgrounds. In FY 2009 Franklin and Adams play structures will be renewed at an estimated cost of $70,000. Basketball,Tennisand Softball: Center Field and Valley The Center basketball court is now considered as Phase 1 of improvements to this recreation area’s facilities. In FY 2008 the basketball courts will be addressed with new backboards, plus re-surfacing and lining of the court for cost of $50,000. This was last done in 1987 and it isfelt that crack sealers can no longer produce an adequate playing surface. In FY 2009 the plan is to re-do the lights for the tennis courts and softball field for an estimated cost of $200,000. Valley Tennis courts are slated to be rebuilt in FY 2008. Golf Course Discussion of this year’s request for a $50,000hydrological survey of the dam at the golf course will be found under Article 28 (see page 33). This study is expected to analyze the problems around the ponds, the dam and its structures, and drainage and will surely highlight the need for costly improvements (estimated at $400,000); that will be a large drain on the finances of the Recreation Enterprise Fund and its retained earnings.In addition to the annual contribution of $100,000 to the Lincoln Park fields reconstruction financing, the Recreation Committee has managed to finance all its enterprise projects out of cash generated by fee-based programs. In both FY 2007 and FY 2009 equipment to maintain the course will be renewed (estimated cost $50,000 ineach fiscal year). Swimming In FY 2007 the Recreation Committee wants a consultant to review the condition of the Center pools infrastructure-- pipes, skimmers, filtration, chlorinators --which have not been examined since 1980. In FY 2010 the parking lot at the Old Reservoir is scheduled for improvement over the present stone dust for about $50,000. 25 Recreation Capital Appropriation HistoryFiscal Years 2001-2005 Program20012002200320042005 Athletic Fields$3,400,000 Playgrounds & Tot Lots$30,000$50,000$30,000$35,000 Golf Course$230,000$30,000$50,000 Swimming$125,000 Tennis$130,000 Skate Park$30,000$30,000 $155,000$280,000$3,460,000$80,000$195,000 Schools Overview Lexington Schools provide educational and athletic facilities for over 6,100 students. The school system operates one high school, two middle schools, and six elementary schools. In addition to its physical plant, the system requires other capital assets, such as 2 computers, to deliver a modern, comprehensive education. School Administration Building (“The White House”) The school administration building is in dire need of major repairs and poses a potentially severe hazard to occupants. The siding on the outside can no longer hold a coat of paint, and the building foundation is sagging in many places. By nearly any standards it is obsolete and unproductive for contemporary use. Nevertheless, this deterioratedbuilding is a capital asset of the Town. Its visiblelocation inLexington’s Historic District makes the problem of maintenance or renovation more pressing,complex, and costly. Over the past year, the School Committee has taken a position that, if possible, they would like to have the School Administration remain in the town center. Synergy and close proximity with the municipal administration staff are important. Last year, Town Meeting appropriated $25,000 for a needs study which is ongoing by the Permanent Building Committee. Under Article 30(h), Town Meeting is being asked this year to appropriate $300,000 architectural expenses to complete the “Design Development” phase for reconstruction of the building, as well as any other extraordinary repairs necessary while the building is still occupied, but prior to reconstruction. While the article’s wording requests $400,000, 2 Traditionally, technology has been considered part of the capital budget. The Capital Expenditures and Appropriation Committees both believe that technology should eventually be moved to the operating budget as is already done in the municipal budget. Pragmatically, the committee understands that this should not happen this year, but should in fact wait until after a reassessment of the technology program has been completed. This reassessment is in progress by the School Committee’s Technology Review Subcommittee and its recommendations are anticipated in the next few months. 26 this amount was a placeholder. CEC believes that the correct amount is $300,000; this amountis derived from an estimated reconstruction cost of $2.5 million, multiplied by 12 to 15% (typical architectural fees) and then calculating 75%of that figurefor design money plus an allowance for emergency repairs. This amount is estimated at $250,000 for design and $50,000 for emergency repairs while the school administration continues to reside in the building (see page 36). Reconstruction of the building would bring the interior square footage from approximately6,000s.f. to approximately 10,000 s.f., the additional area being used to house the Special Ed staff (approximately 2,000 s.f.) of the administration and accommodate accessibility requirements (approximately 2,000 s.f.). The high cost per square foot for reconstruction is largely due to the status of the building. Capital Expenditures Committee members met with the HistoricDistrict Commission in May 2004 to discuss the building. At that meeting, it was stated that the building could not be torn down and reconstructed from scratch. While the HDC does not have oversight of the interior of the building, the exterior construction must be performed in accordance with HDCspecifications. So, for example, if the foundation needs to be reconstructed, the existing building must be lifted off the present foundation, the foundation rebuilt, and then the building returned to the new foundation. School Construction Secondary The secondary-school reconstruction, authorized by a debt exclusion passed in 1998, has been completed. This debt exclusion, however, reduced the scope of the work proposed by the original proposal (defeated in 1997). Consequently, Town Meeting is being asked under Article 30(c) to consider an appropriation to rebuild the glass door entranceways to the high school (and two elementary schools), much as roof repairs to these buildings have been funded in recent years. Elementary In June 2002 the Town approved a $32,150,000 debt exclusion to build two new elementary schools, one at Harrington and one at Fiske. The Harrington School has been rebuilt and is now occupied.The final cost of Harrington is expected to be $14,325,000. Demolition of Fiske is expected to commence in July 2005. The old Harrington will function as swing space while Fiske is rebuilt. Due to extraordinary inflation in the construction industry (greater than 10% for the past two years) the cost of Fiske is estimated (at the time of this writing) to be $19,281,264. Considering the remaining appropriation after Harrington completion leaves a budget of $17,825,000, which is a shortfall of $1.456 million. Town Meeting will be asked to consider a supplementary appropriation to cover this shortfall. The School Committee had previously planned for complete renovation or replacement of Estabrook, Bowman, Bridge, and Hastings, two at a time, retaining old Harrington as swing space. However, this project has effectively been put on hold andno planning money has been appropriated for the next pair of schools (Estabrook and Bowman). 27 Pursuing this program would require additional debt exclusions ifthe schools are replaced. It is not clear how much reimbursement will be available, or when it might be available.Capital Expenditures has asked the School Committee to revisit the question of whether the remaining four elementary schools should be replaced, completely renovated, or renovated incrementally over time, including upgrading such items as roofs, electrical, heating, and windows, as well as constructingsome additions. Some renovations can be conductedin their entirety over summer vacations (e.g. windows, roofs, electrical) while others cannot (e.g. replacing an entire HVAC system including re-piping)and must be apportioned and phased, or alternativelymay require a swing space like “Old” Harrington. SBA Reimbursement As noted earlier on page 11, $21.7 million of permanent debt has already been issued for the secondary-school renovation project;this year stateSchool Building Assistance (SBA) reimbursement of $26,282,315 was received with approximately $9 million more in state funds anticipated in a future year. The lump payments will be used to defraythe remaining $35.035 million of project costs. Until the remaining payment of $9 million is received, the balance will continue to be borrowed using BANs. For the Harrington and Fiske projects, state reimbursement has been approved for both projects at the effective rate of 41%. Presently, it is not known when SBA payments for Harrington and Fiske can be expected, or whether they will be on a lump-sum schedule or the more traditional 20-year schedule. Maintenance Maintenance in the new and refurbished schools must be adequate to keep these facilities in prime condition. The four remaining elementary schools require a program that must be coordinated with the ultimate choice: minimum maintenance if schools are to be replaced, otherwise a gradual upgrading with a comprehensive maintenance plan. School Technology Program When the Technology initiative was passed in 1995, it was a five-year program to fund computer hardware, software, and teacher training. Presently there are approximately 2,000 computers in the school system with ages up to 10 years and an average age of 5 years. Eighty percent of the systems are used by students at all grade levels, and the remainder by staff and administrative personnel. Only computer hardware is included in the capital budget, with software and training built into the operating budget. Last year, $290,000 was appropriated for the technology capital program. This year, under Article 31, Town Meeting will consider $300,000 for continued upgrade and maintenance of school technology ($140,000), network equipment upgrades to bring the school backbones from 10 and 100 Megabit/sec to 1 Gigabit/sec ($90,000), andinstall LCD projectors in approximately 25 rooms at the High School ($70,000). 28 School Capital Appropriation HistoryFiscal Years 2001 – 2005 Program20012002200320042005 Technology$800,000$800,000$185,000290,000 Portables$100,000 Classroom Furniture Miscellaneous Secondary Schools$2,800,000$1,180,000$1,625,000$340,000 Elementary Schools$300,000$850,000$32,150,000$65,000$350,000 $3,900,000$1,750,000$33,515,000$1,690,000$980,000 29 Articles 7: Adoption of the Community Preservation Act Creating a fund for potential future projects merely for the lure of matching funds does not appeal to us. Such a fund will attract projects which would not otherwise be considered. Opportunities for open land are few and far between. Should we have such an opportunity, say perhaps at Middlesex County Hospital, we can decide on the merits of the proposal and address our funding options on that occasion. This is not free money. We are being asked to increase our taxes by 3% for unknown uses. This will be voted at the same time that we will be asking for an override for pressing Town and School needs. We will also be asking for funding of the School Administration building and the DPW facility. TheCapital Expenditures Committee UNANIMOUSLY recommends of REJECTION this article. 8: Establishment of Community Preservation Committee TheCapital Expenditures Committee UNANIMOUSLY recommends of APPROVAL this article. 19:Conservation Land Transfer – North Street The article asks that two contiguous lots on North St. and Lowell be transferred to the protection of the Conservation Commission, the so-called sand pits area with its ponds at the end of the bike path. The larger parcel with its ponds Map 69 [Parcel 99] 21.5 acres encircles the water and hooks down along the bike path and the Vinebrook wetlands. Part of the land [Map 68 Parcel 45] with 2.8 acres fronts on North and curves onto Lowell St. and is heavily wooded highland overlooking the water of the former pit. It was subject to a taking by the state for the widening of Route 3 and the unused portion returned in the 1970s. Three scattered-site houses were built on the North side and the pits area with its ponds was enlarged by almost 3 acres. The area has been designated as Recreation and Parks since at least 1976 according to the Lexington Open Space and Recreation Plan and presents one of Lexington’s great scenic resources as part of the Lower Vine Brook. The Recreation Committee has no plans for the area, and walking paths for passive recreation would be suitable under both Conservation and Recreation.However, it is a breeding ground for much wildlife, a valued wildlife corridor that stretches into Burlington.It is a recharge area in the Zone II Wellhead protection for that town’s drinking water supply downstream. 30 The COA did consider it as a possible site for a senior center although no extensive plan has emerged and many consider it a dangerous location for such a facility due to its remote location on the very narrow section of North Street. LexHab also has some preliminary plans for their low- and moderate-income housing program, some 16 units, utilizing parts of both parcels. Conflicting goals and plans make it imperative to settle the future of these parcels. In consideration of the unique quality and beauty of this land and its value as an entrance to Lexington, the Capital Expenditures Committee recommends transfer of both parcels to Conservation. One member favors consideringa portion of the smaller lot for housing and therefore recommends deferring conservation designation of the 2.8 acre parcel now. A majority of Capital Expenditures Committee recommends of APPROVAL part (a) this article (transfer of Map 68, Parcel 45 – 2.8 acres to conservation land). TheCapital Expenditures Committee UNANIMOUSLY recommends of APPROVAL part (b) this article (transfer of Map 69, Parcel 99 – 21.5 acres to conservation land). 20:Acquisition of Former Middlesex County Hospital Land At the time of this writing, theCapital Expenditures Committee has made no recommendation on this request, pending further information on the actual motion. 21: Former Middlesex County Hospital Open Space& 22: Fast Track Auction Law These three articles address the same problem. The State of Massachusetts intends to sell as surplus property 45 acres of land in Lexington, the grounds of the former county tuberculosis hospital, Middlesex Hospital. Under the Department of Capital Asset Management, the Outside Section 548 of the State FY 2004 budget (the so-called Fast Track Auction Law) permits sale with as little as 30 days notice . The process subverts local control, and puts communities at the mercy of the auction with no regard to orderly development only to serve the short-term fiscal needs of the state. The land, Lot 1 A on the Assessor’s map 2 on Webster Road, is old farm land with a variety of attractive wooded knolls, pastures and vernal pools and is the western portion of the Greenway Belt that stretches to Belmont and Waltham over some 1,000 acres. The resolutions are well described in Warrant article 21 to preserve the land as open space and article 22 to protest the Fast Track Auction law and call for a return a measure of local control as was the practice in the past. Article 20, which calls for the acquisition of the parcel of 45 acres in Lot 1 for conservation, is more problematical as no money is currently budgeted for this purpose. We do however strongly support the efforts of the Board of Selectmen, our State Representatives, and citizen groups in Lexington, Waltham, and Belmont to secure a planning process that best serves us all 31 by working with DCAM and the state’s Department of Conservation and Recreation to protect this valuable piece of land. TheCapital Expenditures Committee UNANIMOUSLY recommends of APPROVAL these articles. 23: Acquisition of Franklin School Apartments At the time of this writing, the Capital Expenditures Committee has made no recommendation on this request, pending further information on the actual motion. 24, 25: Water Distribution & Sanitary Sewer Improvements The DPW has not requested funds for FY 2006 because of the backlog in the design of work authorized in earlier fiscal years. This backlog was created by the voluntary resignation of key engineering personnel and the loss of personnel due to the failed override. The hiring of a new Assistant Town Engineer coupled with this one-year hiatus in authorizing additional new work will allow the department to resume a reasonable schedule. Restoration of funding in FY 2007 is anticipated. TheCapital Expenditures Committee UNANIMOUSLY recommends INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT of this request. 26: Playgrounds and Recreation Facilities Improvements The article requests money $35,000 from the tax levy for playground improvements at Rindge Park and $30,000 from enterprise funds for reconstruction of tennisbackboard at the Center Field.Each year as part of a renewal plan to upgrade small neighborhood playfields and their equipment, TownMeeting has approved a series of upgrades that improve the safety and ADA access of playgrounds in many areas of the town. At Rindge the 4 foot street fence will be replaced and the swings will be relocated with a safety surface.. The existing tot lot, which was renewed in 1997, will be edged in timber and have a new safety surface. At Center Field, the tennis practice board, which is in poor condition, will be replaced with a quieter material to solve neighborhood complaints and upgrade the facility. A new material will be used in construction, a composite of fiberglass, balsa, and epoxy-reinforced gypsum which will be both quieter and more durable and is satisfactory to the neighbors. TheCapital Expenditures Committee UNANIMOUSLY recommends of APPROVAL this request. 27: Lincoln Park Facility WhentheLincoln Field project was bid, no bathrooms were included in the project, but conduits and water/sewer lines were installed toput a facility adjacent to the totlot if enough 32 money remained in the contingency funds. Unfortunately, Department of Environmental Protectionrequired that the project install monitoring wells for methane in the non-field area and to test for the gas in neighboring homes. None has been found, but it used the remaining contingency funds and the wells are to be monitored at a cost of about $10,000 a year currently charged to the Recreation Enterprise Fund. Before the cost of DEP work was known last year, a plan for bathrooms was bid with a design from a local architect, pro bono, which came in too high in a range of $225,000 to $300,000. There was a small storage area for fieldbrushes and a motorized cart to groom the artificial turf, plus a small equipment storage room, and a concession area. This year the Recreation Committee is asking for the funds necessary to restart the restroom project. The Lincoln Park Sub-committee has agreed to donate $75,000 from the Richard Kirk Fund toward the project, and the Recreation Committee is asking for $125,000 from the tax levy for a revised design with the same number of plumbing fixtures but with less storage and a possible elimination of the concession area. The architect has agreed to re-work the design in hopes of lowering the cost to about $200,000 and to bid several alternate plans. The project is to be financed out of tax-levy/BAN although there is little room in the budget for this funding option. $75,000 from the Lincoln Field sub-committee will defray part of the cost but the motion will ask for the total project cost of $200,000. TheCapital Expenditures Committee UNANIMOUSLY recommends APPROVAL of $125,000 this request. 28: Pine Meadows Improvement The Recreation Committee has changed the scope of the project to repair the dam at the golf course and instead willdo a complete hydrological survey of the upper and lower ponds, the cart path, and overflow systems and a reconstruction of the existing pipe near the spillway and to make recommendations for the Upper Pond Dam. The original cost to rebuild the dam and its structures was estimated to cost atabout $400,000 by Amory Engineers in 2001. The Recreation Committee felt that this was too expensive and that a different approach might yield a better long-term result and solve some downstream water problems that flood the first and second holes. DPW has been able to maintain the dam structure to date but a permanent solution is necessary.The study would be financed out of Enterprise funds for $50,000. $400,000 is carried in the Recreation Enterprise FY 2008 projectionfor the total project. TheCapital Expenditures Committee UNANIMOUSLY recommends of APPROVAL this request. 29: Supplementary Appropriations for Authorized Capital Improvement Projects Funding requests under the building envelope program are based on the best estimates that our staff and volunteer professionals can provide. Normally we have enough flexibility to accommodate actual costs of the projections, but occasionally the cost exceeds estimates for 33 reasons impossible to know until the project is underway. In this instance we experienced unexpected complications and ask for $165,000 of supplementary funds to complete the installation of the emergency Police generator and accompanying roof repair as well as the Town Office Building HVAC system. TheCapital Expenditures Committee UNANIMOUSLY recommends APPROVAL ofthis request. 30: School Capital Projects and Equipment 30(a): Phone/Intercom Equipment $125,000 is requested for the replacement of outdated, unreliable intercom and phone systems at the Bridge and Bowman schools. The current communications equipment was installed when the buildings were originally constructed, and both the PA and the phone system no longer serve the buildings’ needs. The PA system is required for both normal school announcements and to provide instructions in case of an emergency. The phone systems in both of these schools are frequently out of service sometimes for hours at a time while repairs are made. These frequent phone system failures and inadequate PA systems might jeopardize Bowman and Bridge students, faculty, and staff in case of an emergency. TheCapital Expenditures Committee UNANIMOUSLY recommends APPROVAL of this request. 30(b): Heating, Cooling and Energy Saving Equipment $445,000 is requested for energy saving heating and cooling controls at the Clarke and Diamond Middle Schools. Due to budgetary constraints, insufficient attention could be paid to installation of energy-saving heating and cooling controls during the renovation of both middle schools. Installing upgraded heating and cooling controls will save a significant amount of energy. Currently there is no way to control the heating and cooling in separate zones at Clarke, so very often there are portions of the building that are too hot or too cold regardless of occupancy. The new controls would allow not only maintenance cost savings, but also savings on energy consumption, as the building would be controlled from a central location and settings could be established for heating and cooling times, amount needed, and shutdown times. The estimated cost of the controls for Clarke is $445,000 and for Diamond the cost is $100,000 (these estimates are based on a preliminary report by consultants so they are the best available at this writing). NStar would provide up to a 50% rebate for Clarke,and Keyspan may be able to provide a rebate for Diamond. TheCapital Expenditures Committee will issue a supplementary report on this article based on the motion. 34 30(c): Building Envelope $75,000 is requested for Building Envelope for the replacement of multiple entrance- ways to the Bridge, Bowman, and High Schools. Bridge, Bowman, and the High School are in need of replacement (store front) entryways. Hinges, doorframes, locks, and hardware including crash bars are not working and have been fixed numerous times. This results in security issues as well as added cost to the town for false burglar alarms when the doors don’t close and lock correctly. Note that at the High School this much-needed work had been cut out of the original renovation project due to budget constraints. TheCapital Expenditures Committee UNANIMOUSLY recommends APPROVAL of this request. 30(d): Exterior Lighting $100,000 is requested for exterior lighting in school buildings system-wide. Many areas of the schools grounds, especially the parking lots, are dark at night causing concern for faculty and parents about safety and security. This appropriation would be used to update, retrofit and install additional energy-efficient exterior lighting to all of our elementary school buildings. The funding requested will greatly improve the lighting of walkways and parking lots at every elementary school, with an added benefit of reducing vandalism. TheCapital Expenditures Committee UNANIMOUSLY recommends APPROVAL of this request. 30(e): Security Equipment $250,000 is requested for a school security monitoring system for all school buildings. These funds would be used for installation of a new networked digital security surveillance system that would permit remote monitoring of the school premises by the school office staff including secretaries and administrators and by police/public safety staff when schools are not occupied. There would be cameras mounted on the perimeter of all school buildings, and also in the hallways of the main LHS building. While the CEC recognizes the possible need for a security system, we have prioritized this lower needthan other requests. We expect the School Committee to move indefinite postponement of this request. TheCapital Expenditures Committee UNANIMOUSLY recommends INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENTof this request. 30(f): Electrical Equipment $140,000 is requested for upgrading the Diamond Middle School’s generator and for purchase of a portable generator; and related electrical work in other school buildings. 35 The Diamond Middle School’s emergency electrical generator was not upgraded during renovation, so when a power failure occurs, the generator is not large enough to run necessary heating, lighting, and food freezers located in the school. Thus a prolonged loss of power can cause damage due to frozen pipes, food spoilage, etc. This article requests a generator of sufficient capacity to provide emergency power to critical Diamond circuits.The existing Diamond generator will be moved to Bowman, where the existing generator also does not have sufficient capacity.In addition, a mobile generator is needed for use at several other school buildings that are not protected by any on-site generator. The funding requested is sufficient for such a generator and for adapting the wiring with switches to allow for generator hook-up at each such building. TheCapital Expenditures Committee UNANIMOUSLY recommends APPROVAL of this request. 30(g): Custodial and Maintenance Equipment $143,000 is requested for replacement of custodial and maintenance equipment. This request is for a variety of maintenance equipment, including 3 ride-onfloor scrubbers,one robo-scrubber, and one bobcat for snow removal.This is the first time the SchoolCommittee has requested equipment for building maintenance using Capital money.With limited funds, webelieve it is appropriate to provide two units this year and consider additional equipment next year. The committee recommends approval of $50,000 for two ride-on floor scrubbers. TheCapital Expenditures Committee UNANIMOUSLY recommends APPROVAL of $50,000 of this request. 30(h): School Administration Building $400,000 is requested for the design phase of rebuilding the School Administration building as well as extraordinary repairs to the building. The School Committee has requested funding for a design phase of the Central Office (“White House”). A needs assessment is in progress and funding for the next phase of design is needed. At this writing, the Permanent Building Committee has recommended that 12- 15% of the anticipated construction cost ($2.5 million) be used for this phase, and that 75% of that money be available to bring the project to a bid-ready state.This amount is estimated at $250,000 for design and $50,000 for emergency repairs while the school administration continues to reside in the building. The Central Office currently has approximately 6,000 square feet (s.f.) of office space and 750 s.f. of attic and basement space. The consultant's preliminary report indicates a need for 8,004 s.f. (before ADA requirements are met). Needs increase to 10,000 s.f. in orderto meet ADA compliance. 36 The warrant was written with $400,000 requested since at the deadline, it was not known if 15% or 12% would be needed. TheCapital Expenditures Committee UNANIMOUSLY recommends APPROVAL of $300,000 of this request. 31: Maintain and Upgrade School Technology $300,000 is requested to maintain and upgrade technology. At the time of writing, $75,000 is requested for LCD projectors at LHS (approximately 25 classrooms at $3,000 per classroom, including installation and wiring); $90,000 for network equipment upgrade (upgrade various school “backbone” networks from 10/100 Mbs switches and hubs to 1 Gbs switches); and $135,000 for computer and printer upgrades (replacement would be for computers that are 8 to 10 years old). TheCapital Expenditures Committee recommends APPROVAL of $250,000 of this request. 32: Municipal Capital Projects and Equipment 32(a): Building Envelope This section requests $150,000.00 for the following Building Envelope projects: Building Envelope Projects in FY 2006 ADA Upgrades - Cary Hall Ramp, LPD Front Door$50,000 Struct Analysis of LFD HQ Apparatus Room floor$50,000 LPD Condensers & Flat Roof$50,000 $150,000 Total The ADA upgrades at the Police /Station and Cary Hall involve installing power assisted doors to comply with ADA requirements and will make access to these facilities for handicapped persons much better. In the main fire station, it is believed that the apparatus floor may not be strong enough to accommodate the new heavier trucks. $50,000 is requested for an engineering study to determine what action is necessary to strengthen the floor. At the Lexington Police station, HVAC condensers and the flat roof that they are positioned on need replacement ($50,000). TheCapital Expenditures Committee UNANIMOUSLY recommends APPROVAL of this request. 32(b): Street-Related Improvements This section requests $960,000 ($460,000 from Chapter 90 funds and $500,000 from the tax levy using the FY 2000 override “roads set-aside”) to fund ongoing street reconstruction. This funding is separate from the street reconstruction program funded through debt exclusion in 2002. 37 TheCapital Expenditures Committee UNANIMOUSLY recommends APPROVAL of$960,000 of this request ($500,000 tax levy and $460,000 from Chapter 90). 32(c): Traffic Improvements This section requests $75,000 for improvements to the traffic light at the intersection of Lowell and Maple Streets. The existing traffic light installation at this location is totally inadequate for location, particularly with the additional school related traffic created by the opening of the new Harrington School and the relocation of students from the Fiske School. The planned continued use of the old and new Harrington schools effectively doubles the school related traffic. This project is of particular interest to the School Committee and staff at the Harrington school location. Additional funds are requested for a left turn signal at the Concord Ave and Waltham St. traffic intersection. The Committee believes that this intersection does not require this upgrade now; when the work is needed it should be handled using Avalon Bay traffic mitigation funds. TheCapital Expenditures Committee UNANIMOUSLY recommends APPROVAL of$75,000ofthis request and DISAPPROVAL of any money to be used for the Concord Ave./Waltham St. intersection. 32(d): Sidewalk Improvements This section requests $50,000 to fund repairs to Edison Way as well as to construct a new sidewalk along Marrett Rd. from Downing Rd. to Waltham St. (at the Gulf station). The Capital Expenditures Committee is hopeful that a sidewalk program, which is long overdue, will be forthcoming next year from the Selectmen’s appointed Sidewalk Committee. The MAJORITY (4-1)of the Capital Expenditures Committee recommends APPROVAL of this request. 32(e): Public Works Equipment This section requests $485,000.00 for replacement of aging DPW equipment and for three new snow blowers. Description of equipment being replaced follows listing of equipment to be purchased. 38 New Equipment to be PurchasedCost F450 Dump Body w/ plow$49,000 Navistar Dump-6 Wheel w/ Plow & Wing Blade$119,500 F450 with Utility body$49,000 F450 Dump Body w/ plow$49,000 F450 Dump Body w/ plow$39,500 F350 Pick-up 4WD w/ plow$39,000 Loader Mounted Snowblower (1)$75,000 Sidewalk Tractor w/ Snowblower (2)$51,500 6 yd Sander Body (1)$13,500 $485,000 Equipmentto Be Retired 1990 Ford F350 1-Ton Dump Body (item 11) This vehicle has over 135,000 road miles and is used daily by the Public Grounds Department. It is used for hauling and towing equipment most of the year and is used for plowing during the winter months. As with most trucks that plow, salt and corrosion have eaten away at the cab, toolbox and chassis. This combined with many years of heavy- duty work has taken its toll. The truck will soon need a new or replacement transmission. The truck is too small for the work required, has outlasted its useful life, and will cost more to maintain than to replace. 1985 International Cab & Chassis with Stainless Steel Sander Body (item 13) This vehicle has over 72,000 road miles and is used by the Highway department primarily as a plow and sander vehicle. Salt, corrosion and years of service have taken their toll on the cab and chassis. Some chassis parts have already been replaced because of corrosion. This truck is a vital tool in the clearing of snow and ice during the winter. The Stainless Steel sander body currently on the vehicle will be re-used on a new cab & chassis. The new truck will be outfitted with a new plow and wing blade. This truck has a large amount of corrosion on the frame, has outlived its useful life, and will cost more to maintain than to replace. 1992 Chevrolet 3500 Dump Body (item 37) This vehicle has over 93,000 road miles and is used daily by the Public Grounds Department for various tasks, carrying and towing equipment for ball field and park maintenance. This vehicle is also used for plowing and route checking during winter months. Salt and corrosion have eaten away at the chassis and cab, the truck will now begin to cost more to repair than to replace. Several frame and chassis parts have already been welded to hold it together. Again this truck has outlasted its useful life. 39 1994 Chevrolet 3500 Dump Body (item 40) This vehicle has over 107,000 road miles and is used daily by the Highway Division. It is primarily used for sign maintenance and towing crosswalk painting equipment during the year. The truck is also used for plowing snow and route checking during the winter season. The engine has been overhauled once and the rear end replaced once. This truck plowed snow until it was no longer capable. Salt and corrosion have eroded the cab and chassis and this truck will begin to cost more to repair than to replace. 1994 Chevrolet 3500 Dump Body (item 57) This vehicle has over 47,000 road miles and is used daily by the Cemetery Division. It is also used for plowing snow and route checking during the winter season. Salt and corrosion have eroded the cab and chassis. The truck has had the fuel injection pumps replaced several times and is no longer dependable. It is a highly visible vehicle and should be replaced because of age and its required usage. 1994 Ford Explorer (item 85) This vehicle has over 105,600 road miles and is used by the Building Maintenance Division on a daily basis. It was passed down from the Police Department and is not the correct vehicle for the needs of the Department. It will be replaced with a full size heavy- duty 4-wheel-drive pick-up with plow and the necessary bins for carrying the tools and equipment required of the Building Maintenance Dept. We wanted to move this vehicle down to the Community Development Dept. to replace one of their high-mileage vehicles that is costly to maintain, but this vehicle may not be worth moving down. 10-year-old Sander Body (1 unit being replaced) We are looking to replace one more of our sander bodies with a stainless steel unit. Our present sander body is built of steel and the corrosion from the road salt and the abrasive action of sand have deteriorated the welded frame to the point that major fabrication is required, a large expense. Currently to maintain the steel units we sandblast and re-paint each summer and rewire the electrical system as necessary, a cost of $1,500 to $2,000 each unit. The purchase of stainless steel units would increase the useful life of the sanders from 10 years to 20 years and maintenance costs would be significantly reduced. Description of Snow Blowers to Be Purchased Loader Mounted Snow Blower (1 unit) DPW is looking at less costly and more efficient methods to clear snow from the Center area and along parking areas in and near the center of town. This piece of equipment attaches to a loader, which DPW already owns, and is capable of clearing snow from the Center area and blowing it into trucks at the rate of 800 to 1,200 tons per hour. This will allow DPW the opportunity to clear snow from the Center area more frequently if required at a much lower cost per clean up. Sidewalk Tractors with Snow Blowers (2 units) DPW is looking at better and faster methods to clear snow from sidewalks. DPW currently has three snow blowers in use, but still requires the use of V-blade plows, 40 which do not give the quality results DPW is trying to achieve. DPW is trying to clear walks more efficiently and leave them in a more user-friendly state. This would be a step in the right direction to make the sidewalks safer for the children who walk to school. TheCapital Expenditures Committee UNANIMOUSLY recommends APPROVAL of this request. 32(f): DPW Operations Facility This section requests $720,000 for planning and design of a new DPW facility at 201 3 Bedford Street. The current DPW operations facility at 201 Bedford Street is well beyond its useful life and needs to becompletely renovated, reconstructed, or replaced. It is operationally inefficient, provides inadequate light, heat, and ventilation for the employees, and is not ADA accessible for employees or visitors. The Board of Selectmen have made a decision to locate the new DPW facility at 201 Bedford Street because of its central location and desire of the surrounding residents to have it remain there. The Selectmen desire to keep the options open for co-locating other Town agencies at the site. As part of the design effort covered by this section, the design team will be directed to design a new facility that is cost effective, including reuse or renovation portions of the complex, and is respectful of other possible uses of the site. Current plans include relocating the Engineering and Building Maintenance units from the Town Office Building and Cary Hall, thus freeing up space downtown. The Capital Expenditures Committee remains convinced that retaining the DPW facility at 201 Bedford Street, is the most reasonable, efficient and economical solution for the Town and carries a preliminary estimate of $8,000,000 (including design costs) in its longer-range capital plans for Lexington. TheCapital Expenditures Committee UNANIMOUSLY recommends APPROVAL of this request. 32(g): Fire Rescue Vehicle The Fire Department is asking for $165,000 to replace the 1999 ambulance with a new heavier unit. The current unit is used in backup and currently has about 120,000 miles of service and requires repairs to the front end. The 2001 vehicle would go into back-up upon delivery of the newunit in about a year. This would retain our 8-year replacement schedule. Both are housed at the central station. TheCapital Expenditures Committee UNANIMOUSLY recommends APPROVAL of this request. 3 The Permanent Building Committee has recommended 12 – 15% of the total construction cost for Planning and Design money. Based on this, CEC suggests spending 75% of the design money to bring the project to a bid-ready state. 12% of $8,000,000 is $960,000, and 75% of that is $720,000. 41 32(h) Public Safety Communications The article asks for $50,000 to fund a study of new communications systems for town departments, but especially Police, Fire, and DPW. Age and lack of interoperability hamper the Town’s emergency response systems as well as ordinary communications. All calls are routed through the dispatch center. With information from the study the departments will apply for a grant from Federal Emergency Management Agency to fund implementation. If successful, the original $50,000 study money will cover the Town’s 10% part of the cost.Included in the study are a review of the physical arrangement of the dispatch system, the network and wiring its infrastructure, and the interoperability of radio and telecommunications. TheCapital Expenditures Committee UNANIMOUSLY recommends APPROVAL of this request. 33:Traffic Control Signals Upgrade and Installation 33(a): Maple Street and Lowell This is a citizen’s article placed on the warrant to insure that the issue of Maple and Lowell was addressed by Town Meeting. Since Article 32(c) covers this intersection, there is no need for this article to be considered. TheCapital Expenditures Committee UNANIMOUSLY recommends INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT of this request. 33(b): Maple Street and Massachusetts Ave This section requests funds for the design and preparatory work for traffic control signals at Maple Street and Mass Ave. Discussions with Mr. Silverman, the sponsor, and DPW’s Engineeringteam convinced Capital Expenditures that it would be unwise to consider this intersection in isolation because two other intersections (Pleasant and Massachusetts Ave. and Mass Ave. and Marrett Road) wouldbegreatly impacted by anything done at Maple and Mass Ave. TheCapital Expenditures Committee UNANIMOUSLY recommends REJECTION of this request. 35:Supplementary Appropriations for Current Fiscal Year (FY2005) This request is for funding of emergency repairs of Town facilities in excess of the DPW maintenance budget. The operating budget has been increased accordingly for FY06. TheCapital Expenditures Committee UNANIMOUSLY recommends APPROVAL of this request. 42