Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-02-02-TFMP-Workshop-min77S TOWN OF LEXINGTON a Ad hoc Townwide Facilities Master Planning Committee k_ APRIL IT � k1 NG'V Minutes Town of Lexington Public Workshop February 2, 2013 Place and time: Cary Memorial Building, Estabrook Hall, 9:00 a.m. Members Present: Richard Pagett, Acting Chair; Jeanne Krieger; Jessie Steigerwald, School Committee Members Absent: Bill Kennedy, Chair; George Burnell, Selectman; John P. Carroll; Peter Kelley, Selectman Liaisons Present: Mark Corr, Chief, Police Department; James Goell, Community Center Task Force (CCTF); Laura Hussong, CCTF; David Kanter, Capital Expenditures Committee; Paul Lapointe, Council on Aging; Linda Vine, Town Manager's Office; John Wilson, Chief, Fire Department; Alan Levine, Appropriation Committee; Louise Lipsitz, School Department Liaisons Absent: Joseph McWeeney, Permanent Building Committee (PBC) Also present: Ken Buckland, The Cecil Group; Eunice Kim, The Cecil Group; Pat Goddard, Department of Public Facilities; Karen Simmons, Recreation Department; Charlotte Rodgers, Human Services Department; Margaret Coppe, School Committee; Alessandro Alessandrini, School Committee; Mary Ann Stewart, School Committee; Richard Canale, Planning Board; Wendy Manz, Planning Board; Bob Pressman, Community Preservation Committee; Caroll Ann Bottino, Council on Aging (COA); Nancy Adler, COA; Mary Ellen Turner, COA; Joel Adler, Community Preservation Committee; Dawn McKenna, Tourism Committee; Glenn Parker, Appropriation Committee; Suchuan Lee, Historical Society; Carol Snell, Friends of Council on Aging; Pat Costello, Town Meeting Members Association; Sumner Perlman; Ashley McKenna; Tim Snail; Dorothy Tutko; Anne O'Neill; Stacie Bracken; Sarah Conrad; Meredith Applegate; Katharine Herrick; Liz Fray; Leslie Zales; Natalie Goodman; Chung Huang; Mei Shei; Jeanne Canale; Elizabeth Lin; Robert de Garavilla; Jane Olson; Jean Gordon; Jackie McShine; Katie Wipke; Rita Sagalini; Jane Pagett; Frank Sandy; Gretchen Reisig; others who did not sign in Recording Secretary: Sara Arnold The meeting was called to order at 9:02 a.m. 1. Welcome: Mr. Pagett welcomed those in attendance and reviewed the meeting's goals. He explained that the Ad hoc Townwide Facilities Master Planning Committee is soliciting ideas rather than looking for statements advocating for a particular plan or project. Mr. Pagett further explained that Cecil Group, the Town's consultant for this project, started by reviewing all of the existing needs assessments, and they will be preparing an evaluation of the benefits, timing and financing involved in pursuing various alternatives. At this time, the Committee is particularly interested in the criteria that the citizens want considered as priorities are developed for the future of the Town's facilities. 2. Background: Mr. Buckland said that developing a capital program is a challenge for any Town, primarily because of the costs involved. He complimented Lexington on the current layout of its facilities and services within the Town. He also commented that the Town was recently presented with a potential opportunity to purchase facilities at 33 Marrett Road. As a result, The Cecil Group completed a review of those facilities prior to pursuing a recommended 10 year capital plan for Lexington's facilities that links various projects together. 3. Overview of Projects: Using a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Buckland identified seven projects that have identified programs associated with them: Cary Memorial Building, the Bedford Street Fire Station, a Community /Senior Center, Hastings Elementary School, Lexington High School, the Police Station and the Visitors Center. As he reviewed the key improvements identified in the PowerPoint presentation, he added the following: ➢ The best use of Community Preservation Act funds needs to be factored into many of the proj ects. ➢ The Bedford Street Fire Station is currently using a trailer to meet all the demands. The East Lexington Fire Station will be considered when looking at the fire station proj ect. Originally, the Town was interested in having an upgraded Senior Center; now there is interest in a Community Center for use by all ages. A Community Center could provide a location to centralize the Human Services Department. Equity among the elementary schools has been identified as an important consideration. ➢ The High School project is estimated for 10 years hence, but because of the project's enormity, it is included in this study. ➢ The Police Station needs double the space that is now available; this project could involve the Hosmer House in some way. ➢ The Visitor Center can be used for education programs and for marketing the Town's businesses. Mr. Buckland discussed the financial impacts of the projects that have identified programs associated with them. The costs identified in the PowerPoint include escalation factors for FY2014 except for Hastings and the High School; they use FY2017 and FY2021 respectively. The goal is to prioritize the projects to meet the needs of the residents, provide the level of service desired, and minimize the impact on the taxpayer. Mr. Buckland identified three projects for which programs have not been identified: Hosmer House, Munroe School and the Stone Building. It is currently unclear how the Hosmer House might be used. The Town must decide whether to continue to lease Munroe School for its current uses. There have been some ideas mentioned for the use of the Stone building, but a best use has not been identified. Mr. Buckland also noted that agreements for the Waldorf School and for the current Senior Center in the Muzzey building need to be reviewed to begin an understanding of the future use of those facilities. W Mr. Buckland asked the audience if there were any other projects that should be added to the lists. No one made any suggestions. 4. Criteria for Prioritizing Projects: Mr. Buckland asked the audience to identify criteria for prioritizing the identified projects. The following comments were made: ➢ Ms. Adler: Practical considerations include the need for safe, accessible facilities. Visionary considerations should look at whether a facility can successfully provide the intended services; will the space accommodate the program; are the acoustics acceptable? ➢ Mr. Sandy: What is the life expectancy of a project? Can upgrades extend the life of a facility? The life cycle of a building should be understood. ➢ Mr. Goell: Emergency situations always get prioritized. It's important to understand the benefits (what needs are being fulfilled, for how many people, and how frequently ?), fairness (how long has an advocate been waiting) and funding (timing and funding sources). ➢ Mr. Kanter: The capability of Town staff to execute multiple projects simultaneously needs to be considered. ➢ Ms. Fray: Equity among the elementary schools is important —this is currently of concern at Hastings School. ➢ Mr. Parker: The range of costs for different facilities is challenging particularly because the funding sources need to be identified; school projects need to factor in state funding. (Ms. Steigerwald clarified that the Town must submit a project with costs to the Mass. School Building Authority; there is no advance assurance that the project will be approved for state funding.) ➢ Mr. Sandy: The Waldorf School building would be appropriate for a Senior Center. (Mr. Pagett clarified that the Town has signed 20 year leases with the Waldorf School.) ➢ Ms. Sagalini: There has been a need for an upgraded Senior Center for 20 years. Needs have changed, and it would now be appropriate to have a Community Center that serves all ages. This would serve half the population (the young and old) in Lexington. ➢ Ms. Zales: She is concerned that there wasn't adequate publicity for this meeting. She thinks that various constituencies are missing from the meeting, and she offered to help for future meetings. ➢ Ms. Bottino: She supports a Community Center that provides indoor and outdoor space for all ages to gather. ➢ Ms. Reisig: The Town's demographics should be a consideration as should the range of financial resources that people have in Lexington. ➢ Mr. LaPointe: One criterion for prioritizing should be the impact on the Operating Budget. Also, the impact one project may have on other facilities needs to be considered. For example, if there is a new Community Center, what happens to the COA space at Muzzey? ➢ Ms. Conrad: Why is the Hasting project scheduled for 2017? (It was explained that the School Department needs the time to prepare this project for construction.) ➢ Mr. Kanter: The availability of swing space should be considered when planning the proj ects. ➢ Ms. Tutko: The Senior Center is currently inadequate. The lack of space impacts the number and quality of the programs. This is an equity issue. ➢ Unidentified person: Considerations should include the ability to get state funding, the ability to serve the maximum number of residents, including handicapped, and the ability to control the facility for things such as snow plowing. ➢ Ms. Hussong: She spoke for someone who could not attend the meeting. This person wanted priority given to programs that serve Lexington residents and can be pursued at little or no cost. Financial resources are a barrier for some people. ➢ Ms. Manz: Consideration should be given to projects that are "shovel ready ". ➢ Mr. Crampton: The youth should be asked whether they want a Community Center or any other facility that is for their age group. It is also important to talk to sports organizations; in some cases they send our youths to facilities in other Towns. Find out what is really needed. Don't assume that building a Community Center means that young people will go to it. The High School track is used by very few students while Lexington students travel to Reading to attend an indoor basketball clinic. The layout of the fields around the High School should be reconsidered. If there is a new High School, there will be more land for fields. ➢ Mr. Levine: The ability of the Town to finance a project must be considered. Lexington has spent $100 million on recent projects, but spending $200 million at once would be too much. The Town needs to anticipate future needs and needs to factor in costs for transportation and technology. Additionally, the Town needs recommendations on how to proceed once the study is completed. What roles should the Appropriation Committee, the Capital Expenditures Committee and the Board of Selectmen play? What needs to be done to get the projects implemented? ➢ Mr. Goell: The secondary impacts need to be considered. For example, if Recreation is moved to a new location, what happens to the space that was being used by Recreation? Also, why do the schools have identified dates? (It was clarified that the dates associated with the schools relate to dates identified by the School Committee.) ➢ Unidentified Person: Parking demand needs to be considered. ➢ Mr. Canale: Transportation alternatives and accessibility need to be considered. ➢ Ms. Costello: Public transportation in Lexington needs to be improved. It should be available seven days a week and later into the evenings. Also, publicity of this meeting should have started earlier. While these statements were made, Ms. Kim added notes to the PowerPoint to capture the criteria. 5. Closing Comments: Mr. Buckland explained that The Cecil Group plans to use the information shared during this meeting to rate the projects according to the identified criteria. He thanked the participants for their input. 6. The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 a.m. Materials used at the meeting: ➢ PowerPoint Presentation: Lexington Townwide Facilities Master Planning Workshop with Notes, February 2, 2013 Approved February 27, 2013