Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-02-12-TFMP-min77S TOWN OF LEXINGTON a Ad hoc Townwide Facilities Master Planning Committee k_ APRIL IT � k1 NG'V Minutes Town of Lexington February 12, 2013 Place and time: Public Services Building, 8:30 a.m. Members Present: Richard Pagett, Acting Chair; George Burnell, Selectman; John P. Carroll; Peter Kelley, Selectman; Jeanne Krieger; Jessie Steigerwald, School Committee Members Absent: Bill Kennedy, Chair Liaisons Present: Mark Corr, Chief, Police Department; Laura Hussong, Community Center Task Force (CCTF); James Goell, CCTF; David Kanter, Capital Expenditures Committee; Louise Lipsitz, School Department; John Wilson, Chief, Fire Department; Alan Levine, Appropriation Committee Liaisons Absent: Joseph McWeeney, Permanent Building Committee (PBC); Paul Lapointe, Council on Aging (COA); Linda Vine, Town Manager's Office; Also present: Ken Buckland, The Cecil Group; Eunice Kim, The Cecil Group; Pat Goddard, Department of Public Facilities; Rob Addelson, Comptroller's Office; Charlotte Rodgers, Human Services Department; Karen Simmons, Recreation Department; Nancy Adler, COA; Fred Johnson, Center Committee; Carol Ann Bottino, resident; Joe Pato, resident; Christine Mackey, Senior Center volunteer; Ellie Noz, Senior Center volunteer Recording Secretary: Sara Arnold The meeting was called to order at 8:32 a.m. 1. Comments: Mr. Buckland reported being pleased with the turn out and response at the Feb. 2 Public Workshop. Ms. Steigerwald commented on concerns expressed at the Public Workshop that not all constituencies in Town had heard about the meeting. She will work with the School Department to ensure more outreach through the schools when the next public workshop is being publicized. 2. Criteria for Prioritization: Mr. Buckland provided a list of criteria identified during the Public Workshop for use in prioritizing projects associated with 10 facilities in Lexington. He noted that most of the buildings have a use associated with them, but three do not. The criteria identified at the Public Workshop were combined with criteria developed during AhTFMPC meetings and then were allocated to one of five subtitles: Cost, Service Impacts, Feasibility; Other Considerations; Additional Input. Further evaluation resulted in identifying the following criteria: ➢ Space compatible with use Location compatible with use ➢ Impact on service to the public Historic considerations —can Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds be used? (During the discussion it was agreed to change this to "financing ".) Community priorities —what has been identified in the past ➢ Re -use of an existing building Opportunities ➢ Construction costs Operation /maintenance costs ➢ Lifecycle costs (During the discussion, "long term value" was added to clarify this.) Mr. Kanter and Ms. Steigerwald asked The Cecil Group to prepare a presentation that shows how the specific criteria identified at the Public Workshop fit into the most current list of criteria so that those who attended the workshop can see how their input is being used. In response to concerns that not all of the identified criteria are of equal value, Mr. Buckland said that he plans to weight them 1 -5. His intent is to create a process that will allow the Town to make decisions over time, factoring in new data as it becomes available. He does not envision creating a single recommendation that should be followed until all of the projects are complete. To facilitate this Committee's work, he plans to create a series of scenarios that address all 10 facilities for consideration. Mr. Kelley expressed his concerns about getting projects completed in Lexington. He has observed over the last 20 years that the Town pursues studies, identifies needs, and develops plans, but doesn't follow through, or it takes too long to complete a project. He used the Public Facilities building as an example. Too much has been done by default, in his opinion, and he wants to see a plan that is best for the community over the next 20 to 50 years. Mr. Levine expressed concern about numerical ranking. He believes that the reasons for making a decision need to be clear and compelling; otherwise projects fall by the wayside. He suggested focusing on the largest questions that need to be answered: Do we renovate or reconstruct the police and fire stations, Hastings School and the High School? Answers will help with capital planning, particularly because the High School is a particularly expensive proj ect. Mr. Kelley suggested that determining the best location for the different facilities should be the first order of business. Discussion about the facilities and their locations included the following comments: ➢ Mr. Carroll and Ms. Bottino asked about the Liberty Mutual property on Bedford Street. Mr. Kelley noted that Liberty Mutual is not interested in selling the property at this time, but the Town has the option of an eminent domain taking. He can envision moving the Fire Station Headquarters to the Liberty Mutual site. It was agreed that although the Town doesn't own this site, it has been identified as a possible location for the fire department, and the fire chief has said that it meets response time requirements; therefore it should be included as a possible project location. ➢ Ms. Steigerwald said that she will urge the School Committee to determine where they want the School Administration building to be located and how they want to address the overcrowding of the pre- school program at Harrington. ➢ Mr. Burnell suggested leaving the Fire Station Headquarters where it is and taking some land near that location by eminent domain to make the site large enough to accommodate an adequate station. He further suggested that the Police Station remain at its current location but incorporate the Hosmer House as an entry and use it for added space. In his opinion, the School Administration is satisfied with being located in the old Harrington School. He commented that there are options at Muzzey, where the Senior Center is now located, but it appears the Town is moving ahead on purchasing property and facilities at 33 Marrett Road that will be used as a Community Center /Senior Center. He supports creating numerical values for the different options because it may help everyone see where the Town should be headed. Mr. Pagett asked about moving the Hosmer House to land to the northeast of the First Parish Church and using it for affordable housing. Ms. Krieger suggested that the Hosmer House does not need to remain in the Historic District. Mr. Carroll noted that previous studies have demonstrated that the Fire Station Headquarters should not be renovated; it should be re- built. Chief Wilson invited anyone to come to the station for a tour. Chief Corr noted that swing space needs during construction projects should be a consideration. The domino effect of pursing these projects has influenced his thinking. Although the current location of the Police Station is desirable, moving elsewhere while a new facility is constructed there would be disruptive and complex. ➢ Mr. Pagett suggested that a decision about whether to renovate or rebuild the Fire Station Headquarters at a new location is the most critical first decision. Whether this building is moved influences options for the Police Station, because a new Police Station could potentially be built on the current Fire Station site. Mr. Levine suggested that the future of a Community Center /Senior Center is critical information because the Hosmer House site has been previously identified as a potential Senior Center location. Mr. Buckland asked about the Town's process for addressing capital projects. Mr. Addelson said he can estimate the financial impact based on certain assumptions, such as cost, financial source (inside Proposition 2'/2, outside Proposition 2'/2, or CPA funds) and estimated time frames. With this data he can estimate the annual impacts on debt service and he can integrate this with the Town's existing debt obligations. He said that the Town needs to balance its financial obligations, particularly in terms of the percent of total revenue required for debt service. The Town estimates 4 -5% in growth and debt service should not exceed 5% of revenue. It was generally agreed that the first effort at sequencing should not consider financial concerns. Mr. Addelson agreed to set up a model based on the Committee's first effort at sequencing the projects to determine whether the results are acceptable for the levy limit and the debt obligation. If the results are beyond acceptable, then alternatives can be developed. Mr. Buckland and Mr. Addelson will meet to discuss the financial analysis in more detail. Mr. Levine suggested that "back of the envelope" calculations indicate that the Town can absorb $10 million per year in exempt debt, plus $2 -3 million in CPA funds, if applicable. He added that the High School project may need to be broken into pieces. Mr. Addelson said that the Town could hope to receive 30 -32% return from the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) on the High School project, but Ms. Steigerwald commented that this shouldn't be assumed. She added that if the state rejects the project, it doesn't mean that it isn't a good project; it just means that the MSBA doesn't see it fitting into their program at that time. 3. Next Steps: Mr. Buckland said that he will continue refining the criteria, develop alternatives for each facility, and work on a financial model. It was agreed that another February meeting is needed. This Committee will meet at 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday, February 27. The following meeting is scheduled for March 20. 4. Minutes: A motion was made and seconded to approve the January 16, 2013 meeting Minutes with administrative edits. VOTE: 6 -0. 5. Adjourn: The meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 10:12 a.m. Materials used at the meeting: ➢ Agenda ➢ Criteria to Prioritize Projects, Criteria from February 2, 2013 Public Workshop; prepared by The Cecil Group, February 4, 2013 ➢ Categorized Criteria to Prioritize Projects; prepared by The Cecil Group, February 4, 2013 ➢ Evaluation Matrix, Alternative Scenarios; sample scenarios prepared by The Cecil Group, January 2013 ➢ PowerPoint slides to facilitate discussion; prepared by The Cecil Group for February 12, 2013 meeting ➢ January 16, 2013 Meeting Minutes Approved February 27, 2013