Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-06-10-TFMP-min77S TOWN OF LEXINGTON a Ad hoc Townwide Facilities Master Planning Committee k_ APRIL IT � k1 NG'V Minutes Town of Lexington Ad hoc Townwide Facilities Master Planning Committee (AhTFMPC) June 10, 2013 Place and time: Training Room, Public Services Building, 9:00 a.m. Members Present: Bill Kennedy, Chair; John P. Carroll; Peter Kelley, Selectman; Jeanne Krieger; Richard Pagett; Joe Pato, Selectman; Jessie Steigerwald, School Committee Members Absent: none Liaisons Present: David Kanter, Capital Expenditures Committee; Alan Levine, Appropriation Committee; Linda Vine, Town Manager's Office; John Wilson, Chief, Fire Department; Louise Lipsitz, School Department Liaisons Absent: Laura Hussong, Community Center Task Force (CCTF); James Goell, CCTF; Joseph McWeeney, Permanent Building Committee (PBC); Paul Lapointe, Council on Aging (COA); John Wilson, Chief, Fire Department; Also present: Ken Buckland, The Cecil Group; Pat Goddard, Department of Public Facilities; Rob Addelson, Finance Director; Bob Pressman, Community Preservation Committee; Fred Johnson, Center Committee & Cary Memorial Building Committee; George Burnell Recording Secretary: Sara Arnold The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. 1. Financial Component of Report for Selectmen: Mr. Buckland and Mr. Addelson reviewed the FINANCIAL SCENARIO spreadsheet for the 11 projects being discussed in the Committee's report to the Selectmen. • Costs for the listed facilities are based on figures developed in previous studies. Town - owned facilities are updated to Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 dollars; costs for school -owned facilities were updated to FY2017 dollars. These are estimates for planning purposes. • In most cases, costs are separated into those for design and those for construction. • The schedule in the scenario allows two years of design for schools and one for the design of municipal buildings. It was noted that there is a one year lag for implementing the funding. • Funding is identified as coming from bonded debt, Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds, or other sources (specifically the Mass. School Building Authority (MSBA) for schools). • The spreadsheet's scenario has each project phased in and shows the resulting total costs for each year through FY2026. • The sequencing demonstrated in the spreadsheet is based on the Committee's having identified the Fire and Police Stations, Cary Memorial Building, Hastings School and the Community Center as the highest priorities. • The high school and school administration building are presented as separate projects but could be combined if the school administration building were to be built as part of the high school. As shown, the School Administration project at the Old Harrington School would use CPA funds for historic preservation. The CPA source would not be available if the Administration offices are part of the new High School project. • MSBA funding is estimated to be 32% of the cost, which is based on the Estabrook School experience. • The total costs for each year attributed for the projects to general bonded debt are compared against the level of previously excluded debt above current payments, which is calculated to decrease annually by an average of 3.5 %, to help evaluate whether the tax burden will be acceptable. • The total costs for each year attributed to the projects from CPA funds are also compared with available unallocated CPA funds. If currently allocated funds for projects, such as Cary Memorial Building, are included, the required CPA funds for the identified projects will be acceptable until FY2021. The Committee discussed the information and concluded that: • The costs should be rounded up to the nearest million to ensure the reader understands that these are generalized estimates. • The MSBA figures should be identified as based on current experience because this could change. • Back up sheets for excluded debt and CPA funds would be helpful. • It may eventually be advisable to change the sequencing of the projects to avoid an unacceptable impact on the tax payer but it is not necessary to change the sequencing now. • The use of FY2014 dollars will be used, although Mr. Levine strongly recommended adjusting the costs for years beyond FY2014. • The spreadsheet will not be included in the interim report to the Selectmen. 2. Draft Interim Report: A final draft interim report for the Selectmen was reviewed. It was agreed that the order of the projects presented in this report should reflect the order that will be used in the financial presentation. It should begin with the Fire Department, Police Department, and Hastings School because these are the Committee's highest priorities. Some clarifications and technical corrections were accepted. There was a motion to accept the interim report with the corrections, as discussed. The motion passed. VOTE: 7 -0 3. Minutes: There was a motion to accept the May 22, 2013 Minutes. It passed. VOTE: 7 -0 There was a motion to accept the May 29, 2013 Minutes. It passed. VOTE: 7 -0 It was agreed to defer a vote on the June 5, 2013 Minutes until the next meeting 4. Next Meetings: The next meeting is on Tuesday, June 18 at 8:30 a.m. 5. Adjourn: The meeting was adjourned at 9:58 a.m. Materials used at the meeting: ➢ Agenda for June 10, 2013 ➢ Interim Report of the Ad Hoc Townwide Facilities Master Planning Committee, June 10, 2013: draft prepared by The Cecil Group ➢ FINANCIAL SCENARIO, June 7, 2013, draft spreadsheet with Bond and Phasing Calculations prepared by The Cecil Group INTERIM REPORT OF THE AD HOC TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLANNING COMMITTEE June 10, 2013 Townwide Facilities Master Planning The Lexington Board of Selectmen (Board) wishes to have a Townwide Facilities Master Plan that will look out over a 10 year period. The Board charged the Ad Hoc Townwide Facilities Master Planning Committee (Committee) to evaluate the various facilities needs for the Town and to develop recommendations to be considered over that period. The charge is attached. This interim report covers the work of the Committee that has been completed to date, next steps to be taken, a summary of the conditions of the townwide facilities, and preliminary recommendations. The work of the Committee has to date encompassed: • Selection of The Cecil Group, Inc. as the consultant for Townwide Facilities Master Planning. • Review of the completed studies for the Fire Station, Police Station, Visitors Center, Senior Center, Community Center, Cary Memorial Building, Hosmer House (previously the "White House "), Stone Building, and schools, including the Final Report of the 2009 School Ad hoc Facility Committee. The complete results of this review will be in the Final Report. • Assessment of the impact of the deficiencies identified in these studies on the delivery of services and prioritization of the recommendations for improvements. The departments were asked to provide updated information on needs and service delivery impacts to incorporate into the plan. • Consideration of available prospective sites for the proposed facilities projects. • Identification of alternatives for sequencing the facilities construction /renovation for addressing the facility deficiencies. The alternatives are presented in the preliminary recommendations. The next steps to be taken by the Committee are: * Financial consideration of alternatives for addressing the facility needs of the Town. * Creation of a Final Report that includes the priorities, timing of projects, and proposed financing of the projects. The following map shows the 13 municipal and three school buildings addressed in this report, including the purchased 39 Marrett Road property. TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLAN ■ BUILDING BUILDING (SQF) A Town Office Building 22,900 B Cary Memorial Building 31,000 C Police Station 13,060 D Hosmer House 2,325 E Senior Center 9,236 F Munroe School 22,500 G Cary Memorial Library 62,500 H Visitors Center 2,591 1 Stone Building 3,500 J East Lexington Fire Station 5,250 K Central Fire Station 11,841 L Public Services 82,227 M 39 Marrett Road 31,504 1 Maria Hastings School 50,400 +9,453 modular 2 High School 328,500 3 School Administration 46,637 MEN LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS Preliminary Facilities Recommendations The following is a summary of the Committee's most recent discussion on recommendations andalternativesfor the town facilities considered in this study. These recommendations will be further refined in the next steps of the Committee's work after the financials and phasing plan are reviewed. AN At this time, the Committee considers the Maria Hastings School as the highest importance school project, and the Fire and Police Stations as the highest importance municipal building projects CENTRAL FIRE STATION AND POLICE STATION The Committee has spent much of its meeting time discussing the needs and alternatives for public - safety service facilities, including consideration of the 39 Marrett Road property for individual and combined facilities. The reasons are that the Committee places the Police and Fire facilities projects in the highest importance for implementation. The following alternatives for public - safety services are considered in order of the At majority of the Committee preference: CENTRAL EIRE STATION 1. Consideration for a combined facility on an appropriate new site location. 2. Sequentially phased projects that first puts Central Fire Station on a new site and then the Police Station on the existing Central Fire Station site permanently or as a swing space while the Police Station is rebuilt on site. If the Police Station moves permanently to the Central Fire Station, the Police Station would open up for alternative uses such as School Administration 3. Build new facilities in place, in accordance with the previous planning reports, but noting that additional property is required to accommodate the full building program for both projects. A minority of the Committee recommended this order of preference be reversed. I t� POLICE STATION TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLAN 0 ■ The pros and cons for these alternatives which have been identified during the process to date are summarized in the following table: Decide on best alternative for Fire and Police, including space to accommodate future expansion ALTERNATIVE PROS Combined Fire Possible reduction in multiple and Police spaces used for same function facility Sequentially Phased Facilities Build on Site (includes adjacent space) May require an eminent - domain taking Disruption of services during construction; will require swing spaces Reduction in size of mechanical/ HVAC when buildings combined All emergency and other department services in one location Does not require any temporary (swing) space during construction Allows for coordination between departments CONS May be minimal reduction in total space with more complexity in design, utilization and operations All emergency services would be in one location at risk for an event Requires purchase of private property suitable for expansion to meet future demands as no current town land is suitable May require an eminent - domain taking COMMENTS Only opportunity to explore a combined emergency services facility Current chiefs of Police and Fire are amenable to discussion Liberty Mutual site appears to be one option, but the site bounds could create restricted project design Allows sale of Central Fire Station property as fiscal benefit Does not require temporary (swing) space during construction Allows full program to be constructed Must review and mitigate neighborhood impacts Requires purchase of private property as no current town land is suitable May require an eminent - domain taking Must review and mitigate neighborhood impacts Police building requires visibility on the street Traffic on Bedford St. is becoming more difficult and may require roadway improvements Liberty Mutual site is one option May allow sale of Central Fire Station property as fiscal benefit Traffic on Bedford St. is becoming more difficult and may require roadway improvements including signalization Allows use of previous initial study Requires design considerations to fit Does not allow a combined facility results as basis for planning and current site and building, if building design is reused Maintains facades of existing Requires decision on Hosmer House older and historic buildings, which for Police Station expansion either may expand the allowable use of within the building or after building Community Preservation Funds is moved Eliminates need for additional land Requires decision on additional land purchase for space at Police Station acquisition for Central Fire Station E r i LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS Three prior actions should be taken prior to the decision on alternatives: 1. Review sites, including the Liberty Mutual site, as potential location(s) for siting emergency services, for either or both the Fire and Police facilities, while considering the following: • Initiate a process to identify potential sites; • Maintain emergency response time and service presence; • Ensure flexibility in facility design and potential for future expansion on the chosen site; • Understand that there are design options (see 2. below); • If the facilities are to be combined, consider sale of Central Fire Station property as fiscal benefit. 2. Analyze the design options for a combined facility, while considering the following: * Identify the shared facility elements to determine cost savings; * Consider multi -story and below grade facility design to fit the program with the chosen site. 3. Make decision on relocating the Hosmer House. MARIA HASTINGS SCHOOL This school lags behind the other elementary schools because of program expansion and deferred maintenance. The modular classroom additions have outlived their useful life. The School Committee intends to submit a Statement of Interest to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) in January, 2014. The recommendation is to address the School as soon as it is practical for rebuild. In the feasibility phase, consider options for alternate footprints, spaces, and programs. Proceed with facility improvement including consideration for possible replacement Renovate the building PROS Reduces the total project cost CONS Does not provide spaces for education comparable with other town schools Building requires extraordinary maintenance Swing space is required TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLAN ■ � ■ MUNROE SCHOOL The activities provided under the Munroe School license address some, but not all, creative arts and education needs in the town. Currently, the building requires extraordinary maintenance. The Town needs to seek a viable program that considers this building in conjunction with other spaces. Decide on whether to complete building renewal ALTERNATIVE PROS CONS Disposition of One -time financial gain and reduces Lose public building the property capital maintenance Retain Maintains portfolio of municipal Expense without direct municipal ownership spaces use STONE BUILDING The Town needs to seek a viable program that considers this building in conjunction with other spaces. Once a viable use is determined, complete the suggested historic res- toration with a rear `el' building addition which will allow ADA accessibility to the 2nd floor lyceum for public activities. Determine viable program of use ALTERNATIVE PROS CONS CO Restoration of Expand programming options for the Cost of renovation building and building addition to permit use of 2nd floor LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS CARY MEMORIAL BUILDING The Committee encourages proceeding apace with the renovation of Cary Memorial Building. This building is in need of improvements to support townwide space needs. Action on financing the project will hopefully be timely to open opportunities for other projects with later starts. Continue currently planned and already initially funded renovation project VISITORS CENTER The Visitors Center is in the correct location and the facility should be improved for basic services — providing information and public toilets. However, while the facility is considered inadequate for proposed visitor programs, there must be further vetting r° to address overlapping of townwide visitor needs before expanding beyond the recommended improvements for basic information and public toilets. MEIF'Open review of proposed program COMMUNITY CENTER The Committee presented its position on the Community Center at 39 Marrett Road to the Board of Selectmen. The Committee supports that the Board of Selectmen has created an Ad hoc Community Center Advisory Committee to assist with the definition of what is to be accomplished at that recently purchased property. Once a program is defined, the Selectmen should proceed with the project. No further action by the Committee will be taken on this subject. Proceed with the project at 39 Marrett Road for a Community Center TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLAN 0 ■ E HOSMER HOUSE Regardless of other facilities actions, the Hosmer House should be relocated; preferably within a Historic District. The Hosmer House should not restrict options for the improvement of the Police Station. Determine option for relocating the building ALTERNATIVE PROS Incorporate Maintains building on the current into Police site Station Provides function for building expansion Move Hosmer Allows building to be incorporated House into a different context Allows vacated space to be part of larger public programs CONS Requires compromises in program and spaces for Police Need to find appropriate location for the building COMMENTS f HE HIGH SCHOOL The building and site layout functions are not consistent with current educational needs. The High School will be a significant fiscal burden that should be addressed within a 10 -year planning horizon to prepare for the project and ensure it is completed. Move on other projects prior to the High School to smooth the financial burden to the town when the project starts. Maintain the High School in 10 -year capital planning ALTERNATIVE PROS CONS Phased Allows on site construction during Increases time of disturbance construction other uses of the site and increases the total cost of the project Full rebuild Reduces period of disruption Swing space may be required COMMENTS New footprint of the building has to be determined New footprint of the building has to be determined ' LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION Prioritize the Administration offices for later phases, as a lower priority. Prepare for consideration of alternatives; adjunct to the High School project, inclusion in a vacated Police Station, or renovation in place. Maintain existing building until decision on future of program and space ALTER NATIVE PROS Adjunct to Links school construction with High School other needs Links administration with major school property In vacated Centralizes the core school Police Station administrative functions within the municipal building complex Renovation in Maintains existing programs and place spaces C ONS i COMMENTS Existing building requires extraordinary maintenance before High School project is built Would require other non -core functions to be housed separately Existing space is larger than necessary for program of uses MUZZEY SENIOR CENTER The facility may have a purpose for some other senior - related function, but otherwise is appropriate for disposition. Dispose of space ALTERNATIVE PROS Disposition of One -time financial gain and reduces space the town's operating and capital expenses, along with reducing its liabilities Maintain Maintains current portfolio of ownership municipal spaces CONS Lose town asset Requires finding a function for the space COMMENTS TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLAN ■ � ■ U WALDORF SCHOOL Under the existing long -term agreement, the building was sold and the lease for land is up to year 2063. The use will continue on the site beyond a phase contemplated by the Committee planning horizon. However, the town should consider allowing expansion of the Waldorf School's programming into the adjacent Stone Building to further justify the improvements to Stone Building, and add another source of revenue. This action should include a discussion of responsibilities for maintenance of the building. Approach Waldorf School about extension into Stone Building M■ E LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS Lexington Townwide Buildings Surveyed Recommendations and alternatives for buildings and program needs are summarized in this section. The Committee and consultant team conducted building tours and reviewed previous studies and reports to better understand the existing conditions of municipal facilities in Lexington. These documents largely focused on the physical condition of Lexington's municipal buildings as well as the space needs of Town departments. Many of the documents described structural, mechanical and other deficiencies of the buildings; the key issues and needs have been summarized below. Shown on the map below and in the summary chart on the following page are the 13 municipal buildings and three school buildings considered in this facilities review and addressed in this report. TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLAN N ■ m ASSESSED BUILDING 'This lot includes the Town Office Building, Cary Memorial Building, and the Police Station. j LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING LOT (ACRES) VALUE (SQF) RECOMMENDATIONS AND ALTERNATIVES A Town Office Building 3.4' 22,900 No change B Cary Memorial Building 3.4' $8.1 m 31,000 Proceed with building renewal a. Rebuild on another site with Central Fire C Police Station 3.4' $8.1 m 13,060 Station b. Rebuild on another site c. Repair and expand in place D Hosmer House 1.8 $1.Om 2,325 Define program Move historical building E Senior Center $2.8m 9,236 Move to 39 Marrett Road F Munroe School 1.6 $3.3m 22,500 Continue use as arts center G Cary Memorial Library 62,500 No change H Visitors Center 2.5 $1.7m 2,591 Define program Improve in place I Stone Building 0.4 $1.Om 3,500 Define program Expand restoration to add ADA access J East Lexington Fire Station 5,250 No change a. Rebuild on another site with Police Station K Central Fire Station 1.4 $3.Om 11,841 b. Rebuild on another site c. Repair and expand in place L Public Services 82,227 No change M 39 Marrett Road 10.3 $5.6m 31,504 Proceed with Community Center 1 Maria Hastings School 50,400 +9,453 modular Rebuild 2 High School 56.5 $36.4m 328,500 Rebuild a. Repair in place 3 School Administration 8.7 $24.1 m 46,637 b. Rebuild with High School c. Move core functions to vacated Police Station 'This lot includes the Town Office Building, Cary Memorial Building, and the Police Station. j LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS Next steps The Committee expects to complete a Final Report by June 30, 2013. The Committee has agreed to the following report outline to submit to the Selectmen. FINAL REPORT OUTLINE Introduction A. Existing Conditions 1. Assessments of Properties and Buildings 2. Building Programs and Plans a. Schools: Ad hoc Facility Committee report (2009) 1. High School 2. Old Harrington School /School Administration Offices 3. Hastings School b. Fire Station c. Police Station d. Visitors Center e. Senior Center f. Community Center g. Cary Memorial Building h. Hosmer House i. Munroe School j. Stone Building k. Waldorf School B. Program and Project Policies and Goals 1. Planning a. Master Planning b. Scoping and Program Planning c. Sustainability d. Validation 2. Service Delivery a. Basic Services b. Collaboration c. Technology d. Shared Space e. Scalability f. Location g. Feedback 3. Project Phases a. Study /Feasibility b. Design and Engineering c. Construction (including Commissioning) 4. Facility Maintenance a. Yearly Maintenance b. Building Renewal c. Building Renovation and Replacement TOWNWIDE FACILITIES MASTER PLAN 0 0 5. Facility Use and Reuse a. Design for Use and Reuse b. Lifecycle Design 6. Building and Land Preservation a. Interim Preservation b. Disposal C. Alternatives 1. Scenarios and Alternatives 2. Building Design Concepts 3. Alternative Project Costs a. Projected Design, Development, and Construction Costs b. Projected Capital and Operating Costs 4. Benefits and Impacts a. Service Impacts 1. Department Improvements 2. Potential Customer Benefits and Demands b. Considerations of Health, Safety, and Environment 1. Public Accessibility 2. Effect on Town Infrastructure 3. Legal Issues 5. Phasing a. Phasing and timelines for projects D. Financial Model 1. Relative Financial Demands and Risks 2. Projected Town Budgeting E. Planning Options 1. Public - Private Partnerships 2. Options for Master Plan Project Phasing and Delivery of Services Attachment: Charge of the Ad Hoc Townwide Facilities Master Planning Committee, Amended September 24, 2012. Bird's eye view images ©2013 Google, Map data and ©2013 MDA Geospatial Services Inc. MM I LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS Ad Hoc Townwide Facilities Master Planning Committee Members: 7 Members Appointed by: Board of Selectmen Length of Term: Preliminary recommendations to Board of Selectmen December 15, 2012 Final Report by March 1, 2013 Meeting Times: One evening every other week (day to be determined) Description: To evaluate the various facility needs for the Town and develop a plan of recommendations to be considered over a 10 year period. The work of the Ad Hoc Facility Master Plan Committee will include, but not be limited to: 1. Review the completed studies for Schools, Fire Station, Police Station, Visitors Center, Senior Center, Community Center, Cary Memorial Building, White House, Stone Building, Munroe School and the Final Report of the 2009 School Ad Hoc Facility Committee, 2. Assess the impact of the deficiencies identified in these studies on the delivery of services and then prioritize the recommendations; 3. Consider various financial options for meeting the facility needs of the Town, 4. Propose sequencing of facility construction/renovation options for addressing the facility deficiencies, 5. Make a Final Report that includes the priorities, timing of projects, and proposed financing of the projects. 6. An initial task of the Committee will be to utilize the Designer Selection Process, M.G.L Ch.7, to select a consultant experienced in Municipal Master Planning. The consultant will provide technical expertise to the Committee and provide additional information as required by the Committee. 7. Consider available or prospective sites when considering proposed facility projects. In particular, assess whether the 33 Marrett Road property, owned by the Scottish Rite and available for purchase, can meet any of the Town's facility needs. This aspect of the Committee's work should be given priority, as the Town should respond to the Scottish Rite by early December. Criteria for Membership: The Task Force members shall consist of members of other committees, town staff with and citizens with sufficient background to understand facility and operational management and impact on delivering services. Appointments will be made by the Board of Selectmen, who will also designate a Chairman. Representatives from the following boards will be considered for this committee: • Two members of the Board of Selectmen • One School Committee member or designee • Four members appointed by the Board of Selectmen Staff Support: The Director of Public Facilities will provide staff support to the committee. Ex Officio /Liaisons (non - voting): • Capital Expenditures Committee • Appropriation Committee • Permanent Building Committee member or designee • Police Chief or designee • Fire Chief or designee • Superintendent of Schools or designee • Town Manager or designee • Council on Aging or designee • Community Center Task Force Prior to serving as a member of this Committee, appointees are required to: 1. Acknowledge receipt of the Summary of the Conflict of Interest Statute. Further, to continue to serve on the Committee the member must acknowledge annually receipt of the Summary of the Conflict of Interest Statute. Said summary will be provided by and acknowledged to the Town Clerk. 2. Provide evidence to the Town Clerk that the appointee has completed the on -line training requirement required by the Conflict of Interest statute. Further, to continue to serve on the Committee, the member must acknowledge every two years completion of the on -line training requirement. Ref: Adopted by the Board of Selectmen on June 4, 2012. Board of Selectmen voted to designate as Special Municipal Employees on July 30, 2012. Charge amended by the Board of Selectmen on September 24, 2012. Lexington Facilities Master Plan Phased Projects Option FINANCIAL SCENARIO Source: Excluded Debt Service Available Excluded Debt $238,836 $849,781 Debt Payments $1,593,791 $1,833,451 $2,064,722 $2,287,899 $2,503,265 $2,711,093 $2,911,647 Designated Debt Service Project Costs $454,093 $2,954,422 $6,483,027 $6,350,240 $6,217,454 $7,021,318 $6,871,501 $15,583,835 $15,272,889 $14,961,942 $14,636,021 $14,110,320 Difference: Debt Service Available- Bonded Project Costs ($454,093) ($2,715,586) ($5,633,246) ($5,262,160) ($4,872,015) ($5,427,526) ($5,038,051) ($13,519,113) ($12,984,990) ($12,458,678) ($11,924,929) ($11,198,674) Source: Community Preservation Act Available for Appropriation to the Projects $1,302,443 $5,522,250 $5,687,953 $4,983,367 $4,336,807 $3,589,011 $3,089,657 $2,842,963 $2,853,296 $3,125,177 $3,663,283 Designated CPA Project Costs $85,942 $2,459,285 $2,907,589 $3,042,004 $2,949,127 $2,941,363 ------------------- $3,940,081 $3,809,792 $3,679,503 $3,489,316 $1,679,591 Difference: CPA Available- CPA Project Costs $1,216,501 $3,062,965 $2,780,364 $1,941,363 $1,387,680 $647,648 ($980,713) ($1,097,118) ($956,496) ($554,326) $173,968 ($1,679,591) Non - Excluded Debt Service Total Levy $145,732;330 $150,832,962 $156,112,116 $161,576,040 $167,231,201 $173,084,293 $179,142,243 $185,412,222 $191,901,650 $198,618,207 $205,569,845 $212,764,789 Non - Excluded Capital Budget Limit [5% Policy] $7,286,617 $7,541,648 $7,805,606 $8,078,802 $8,361,560 $8,654,215 $8,957,112 $9,270,611 $9,595,082 $9,930,910 $10,278,492 $10,638,239 Current Payments to Levy Supported Debt Service $5,856,865 $5,207,186 $4,477,024 $3,369,608 $3,251,672 $3,137,863 ------------------- $2,922,057 $2,819,785 $2;721,092 $2,625,854 $2,533,949 Remaining Capital Budget Capacity [5% Policy] $1,429,752 $2,334,462 $3,328,582 $4,709,194 $5,109,888 $5,516,351 $5,929,074 $6,348,554 $6,775,298 $7,209,818 $7,652,638 $8,104,290 Assumptions: Notes: Yearly Growth in Levy 3.5% Debt and Levy Figures to FY18 taken from Town Budget Report 2013TM Yearly Reduction in Excluded Debt 3.5% Total Excluded Debt FY14 reduced by $1.6 Million at 2013 TM Bond Interest Rate 4.0% MSBA reimbursement is included in net bonded debt Design as %of Project Costs 6.50% CPA funds available for appropriation after funding 10% reserves and debt service for Wright Farm and Marrett Road land purchases Non - Excluded Debt Capacity shown for illustration but is considered already committed o�0���������� Source: Excluded Debt Service Available Excluded Debt $238,836 $849,781 $1,088,080 $1,345,439 $1,593,791 $1,833,451 $2,064,722 $2,287,899 $2,503,265 $2,711,093 $2,911,647 Designated Debt Service Project Costs $454,093 $2,954,422 $6,483,027 $6,350,240 $6,217,454 $7,021,318 $6,871,501 $15,583,835 $15,272,889 $14,961,942 $14,636,021 $14,110,320 Difference: Debt Service Available- Bonded Project Costs ($454,093) ($2,715,586) ($5,633,246) ($5,262,160) ($4,872,015) ($5,427,526) ($5,038,051) ($13,519,113) ($12,984,990) ($12,458,678) ($11,924,929) ($11,198,674) Source: Community Preservation Act Available for Appropriation to the Projects $1,302,443 $5,522,250 $5,687,953 $4,983,367 $4,336,807 $3,589,011 $3,089,657 $2,842,963 $2,853,296 $3,125,177 $3,663,283 Designated CPA Project Costs $85,942 $2,459,285 $2,907,589 $3,042,004 $2,949,127 $2,941,363 $4,070,369 $3,940,081 $3,809,792 $3,679,503 $3,489,316 $1,679,591 Difference: CPA Available- CPA Project Costs $1,216,501 $3,062,965 $2,780,364 $1,941,363 $1,387,680 $647,648 ($980,713) ($1,097,118) ($956,496) ($554,326) $173,968 ($1,679,591) Non - Excluded Debt Service Total Levy $145,732;330 $150,832,962 $156,112,116 $161,576,040 $167,231,201 $173,084,293 $179,142,243 $185,412,222 $191,901,650 $198,618,207 $205,569,845 $212,764,789 Non - Excluded Capital Budget Limit [5% Policy] $7,286,617 $7,541,648 $7,805,606 $8,078,802 $8,361,560 $8,654,215 $8,957,112 $9,270,611 $9,595,082 $9,930,910 $10,278,492 $10,638,239 Current Payments to Levy Supported Debt Service $5,856,865 $5,207,186 $4,477,024 $3,369,608 $3,251,672 $3,137,863 $3,028,038 $2,922,057 $2,819,785 $2;721,092 $2,625,854 $2,533,949 Remaining Capital Budget Capacity [5% Policy] $1,429,752 $2,334,462 $3,328,582 $4,709,194 $5,109,888 $5,516,351 $5,929,074 $6,348,554 $6,775,298 $7,209,818 $7,652,638 $8,104,290 Assumptions: Notes: Yearly Growth in Levy 3.5% Debt and Levy Figures to FY18 taken from Town Budget Report 2013TM Yearly Reduction in Excluded Debt 3.5% Total Excluded Debt FY14 reduced by $1.6 Million at 2013 TM Bond Interest Rate 4.0% MSBA reimbursement is included in net bonded debt Design as %of Project Costs 6.50% CPA funds available for appropriation after funding 10% reserves and debt service for Wright Farm and Marrett Road land purchases Non - Excluded Debt Capacity shown for illustration but is considered already committed Prepared by The Cecil Group, Inc. June 7, 2012