Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-06-18-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 (AhTFMPQ June 18, 2013 Place and time: Training Room, Public Services Building, 8:30 a.m. Members Present: Bill Kennedy, Chair; John P. Carroll; Peter Kelley, Selectman; Jeanne Krieger; Richard Pagett; Joe Pato, Selectman Members Absent: Jessie Steigerwald, School Committee Liaisons Present: Laura Hussong, Community Center Task Force (CCTF); David Kanter, Capital Expenditures Committee; Alan Levine, Appropriation Committee; Linda Vine, Town Manager's Office; John Wilson, Chief, Fire Department; Louise Lipsitz, School Department, Hastings School Liaisons Absent: Mark Corr, Chief, Police Department; James Goell, CCTF; Joseph McWeeney, Permanent Building Committee (PBC); Paul Lapointe, Council on Aging (COA) Also present: Ken Buckland, The Cecil Group; Pat Goddard, Department of Public Facilities; Bob Pressman, Community Preservation Committee; Kris Spriano, Hastings School Site Council (HSSC); Tina Weber, HSSC Recording Secretary: Sara Arnold The meeting was called to order at 8:37 a.m. 1. Financial Component of Report for Selectmen: Mr. Buckland reviewed three FINANCIAL SCENARIO spreadsheets for the 11 projects being discussed in the Committee's report to the Selectmen. Each spreadsheet demonstrates a different schedule for phasing in the projects and the subsequent impact on funding sources between Fiscal Year (FY)2015 and FY2026. • Per requests at the last meeting, the estimates for each project are rounded up. Costs for the listed facilities are based on figures developed in previous studies. Town -owned facilities are updated to FY2014 dollars; Hastings School is updated to FY2017 dollars and the High School is updated to FY2021 dollars. • Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds for any particular project are spread out over 10 years; bonded debt for municipal buildings is spread out over 20 years; bonded debt for school buildings is spread out over 20 years with the exception of the High School which is 30 years. • The Town is currently carrying $8,324,279 in debt service. Each scenario demonstrates when the amount of debt service will exceed this amount and by how much. • Each scenario shows the Town's expected use of non - excluded debt service through FY2026, demonstrating that the Town does not rely entirely on excluded debt to maintain and/or rebuild its facilities. • In all scenarios, the building of a new high school results in a substantial increase in the demand for funds. • The spreadsheets show the use of CPA funds for the school administration building, but if a new facility is built for the school administration offices, such as at the high school, the project will not be CPA eligible • The spreadsheets show the use of CPA funds for the Community Center, but this does not include a gymnasium, which can be postponed or eliminated. • The projects' start dates reflect the Committee's having identified the Fire Station, Police Station, Cary Memorial Building, Hastings School and Community Center as the highest priorities. • The high school and school administration offices are presented as separate projects but could be combined if the school administration building were to be built as part of the high school. • The police and fire stations are modeled as in -place facilities, not combined and not at new locations. The Committee discussed the spreadsheets and made suggestions for improvements. • The Police Station, Fire Station and Hastings School might be combined in one override for excluded debt —in FY16 under the current presentation. These three facilities should be listed first. The Community Center and the Cary Memorial Building, which rely heavily or exclusively on CPA funds, should be listed next. • It would be helpful if the spreadsheets could identify when and what town action is needed for each project. • Inflation needs to be consistently factored into the calculations, basing this on the start date for each project. • The costs associated with a combined police and fire station should be estimated, particularly because this Committee is recommending a combined facility. Two sets of spreadsheets can be used to show the impact of a combined facility versus two facilities. • Because of the complexities associated with determining the cost of purchasing land for a combined police and fire station, such an estimate should not be identified, but the future need for such undetermined financial resources should be noted. • It should be noted on the spreadsheets whether the costs of swing space are included. • The spreadsheets should indicate that CPA funds may be bonded. Mr. Kelley reported having met with Chief Corr and Chief Wilson to discuss the pros and cons of a combined police and fire facility and the pros and cons of the Liberty Mutual site for such a facility. He still believes that a combined facility has advantages, but based on the conversation, he no longer supports the Liberty Mutual site for this. In his opinion, the only viable site for a combined facility is where Walgreens is now located, but he has concerns related to the impact this could have on the businesses that are there. The Committee discussed the stabilization fund that is used for capital projects. It was noted that these funds are used for maintaining and preserving the quality of the Town's assets, but some citizens may think that these funds should be used for the large projects being discussed in this Committee's report. It also can be argued that the citizens should be allowed to vote on such projects in an override for excluded debt. 2. Draft Report for the Selectmen and Next Meeting: It was agreed that Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kanter, Mr. Buckland and Mr. Goddard will work on editing the draft report. This Committee will meet on July 9 at 8:30 a.m. for further review of the report. 3. Minutes: There was a motion to accept the June 5, 2013 Minutes. It passed. VOTE: 6 -0 There was a motion to accept the June 10, 2013 Minutes. It passed. VOTE: 6 -0 4. Adjourn: The meeting was adjourned at 10:02 a.m. Materials used at the meeting: ➢ Agenda for June 18, 2013 ➢ Lexington Townwide Facilities Master Plan: Working Draft: prepared by The Cecil Group ➢ FINANCIAL SCENARIO A: All Projects; June 17, 2013, draft spreadsheet with Bond and Phasing Calculations prepared by The Cecil Group ➢ FINANCIAL SCENARIO B: Priority Projects; June 17, 2013, draft spreadsheet with Bond and Phasing Calculations prepared by The Cecil Group ➢ FINANCIAL SCENARIO C: CPA Commitment; June 17, 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 Planning Phased Projects Option FINANCIAL SCENARIO C: CPA COMMITMENT Source: Excluded Debt Service Difference: Approved Debt Service Capacity - Source: Community Preservation Act Total Currently Committed Excluded Debt $ 8,324,279 $ 8,087,794 $ 7,478,076 $ 7,241,378 $ 6,925,740 $ 6,672,747 $ 6,407,653 $ 6,209,578 $ 5,985,562 $ 4,472,974 $ 4,332,629 $ 4,202,198 Difference from Approved lndebtednessi $ 236,485 $ 846,204 $ 1,082,902 $ 1,398,540 $ 1,651,533 $ 1,916,626 $ 2,114,702 $ 2,338,717 $ 3,851,305 $ 3,991,651 $ 4,122,081 Project Costs Ava ila ble 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 Designated CPA Project Costs $0 $1,479,147 $5,602,874 $3,850,483 $2,237,166 $2,167,775 $2,183,497 $3,335,989 $3,229,186 Difference: CPA Available- CPA Project Costs $1,302,443 $4,043,103 $85,079 $1,132,884 $2,099,641 $1,421,236 $906,159 ($493,026) ($375,890) Non - Excluded Debt Service 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 Current Paymentsto 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 M Re maining 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 Assumptions: Notes: Yearly Growth in Levy 3.5% Project Costs are rounded figures Yearly Reduction in Excluded Debt 3.5% Debt and Levy Figures to FY18 taken from Town Budget Report 2013TM -------------------- Bond Interest Rate 4.0% Total Excluded Debt FY14 reduced by $1.6 Million at 2013 TM Design as %of Project Costs 6.50% MSBA reimbursement is included in net bonded debt 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 -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- - ®-- ®- ®®-- - - - - -- noff NOR-= M., �®' 'r Source: Excluded Debt Service Difference: Approved Debt Service Capacity - Source: Community Preservation Act Total Currently Committed Excluded Debt $ 8,324,279 $ 8,087,794 $ 7,478,076 $ 7,241,378 $ 6,925,740 $ 6,672,747 $ 6,407,653 $ 6,209,578 $ 5,985,562 $ 4,472,974 $ 4,332,629 $ 4,202,198 Difference from Approved lndebtednessi $ 236,485 $ 846,204 $ 1,082,902 $ 1,398,540 $ 1,651,533 $ 1,916,626 $ 2,114,702 $ 2,338,717 $ 3,851,305 $ 3,991,651 $ 4,122,081 Project Costs Ava ila ble 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 Designated CPA Project Costs $0 $1,479,147 $5,602,874 $3,850,483 $2,237,166 $2,167,775 $2,183,497 $3,335,989 $3,229,186 Difference: CPA Available- CPA Project Costs $1,302,443 $4,043,103 $85,079 $1,132,884 $2,099,641 $1,421,236 $906,159 ($493,026) ($375,890) Non - Excluded Debt Service 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 Current Paymentsto 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 M Re maining 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 Assumptions: Notes: Yearly Growth in Levy 3.5% Project Costs are rounded figures Yearly Reduction in Excluded Debt 3.5% Debt and Levy Figures to FY18 taken from Town Budget Report 2013TM Bond Interest Rate 4.0% Total Excluded Debt FY14 reduced by $1.6 Million at 2013 TM Design as %of Project Costs 6.50% MSBA reimbursement is included in net bonded debt 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 $3,125,177 $3,663,283 $3,122,383 $3,015,580 $2,908,778 $2,794 $647,703 ($2,908,778) $9,930,910 $10,278,492 $10,638,239 $2,721,092 $2,625,854 $2,533,949 $7,209,818 $7,652,638 $8,104,290 Prepared by The Cecil Group, Inc. June 17, 2012 Lexington Facilities Master Planning Phased Projects Option FINANCIAL SCENARIO C: CPA COMMITMENT Totals FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33 FY34 FY35 FY36 FY37 FY38 FY39 FY40 FY41 ---------------- $1,082,522 $1,045,110 $1,007,698 $909,491 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($1,119,934) ---------------- ($1,045,110) ($1,007,698) ($909,491) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,010,578 $11,395,948 ---------------- $12,207,624 $12,634,891 $13,077,113 $13,534,811 $14,008,530 $14,498,828 $15,006,287 $15,531,507 $16,075,110 $16,637,739 $17,220,060 $17,822,762 $2,445,261 $2,359,677 $2,277,088 $2,197,390 $2,120,481 $2,046,264 $1,974,645 $1,905,533 $1,838,839 $1,774,480 $1,712,373 $1,652,440 $1,594,604 $1,538,793 $1,484,935 $8,565,317 $9,036,271 $9,517,718 $10,010,234 $10,514,410 - ' ��®' $12,659,989 $13,231,808 $13,819,135 $14,422,670 $15,043,135 $15,681,267 - - - - -- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ®' rr mmffmmmmmwwm, ®' 'r ���gmar-m-m- Nomm" ®' ''r mmm r®' rr ®'' r r ---------------- ---------------- 515,117,613 514,675,281 514,344,554 514,013,827 512,855,955 511,670,179 511,393,894 511,117,609 510,841,324 510,406,764 58,913,736 56,445,200 56,284,070 56,122,940 55,961,810 5288,872,574 $ 3,987,545 $ 3,798,120 $ 1,496,583 $ 188,107 $ 181,837 $ 175,567 $ 169,297 $ 163,026 $157,320 $151,814 $146,501 $141,373 $136,425 $131,650 $127,043 $ 4,336,735 $ 4,526,159 $ 6,827,696 $ 8,136,172 $ 8,142,442 $ 8,148,712 $ 8,154,983 $ 8,161,253 $8,166,959 $8,172,465 $8,177,779 $8,182,906 $8,187,854 $8,192,629 $8,197,237 $13,997,679 $13,592,759 $13,299,444 $13,006,129 $11,946,464 $11,670,179 $11,393,894 $11,117,609 $10,841,324 $10,406,764 $8,913,736 $6,445,200 $6,284,070 $6,122,940 $5,961,810 $5,800,680 ($9,660,944) ($9,066,600) ($6,471,748) ($4,869,957) ($3,804,022) ($3,521,467) ($3,238,911) ($2,956,356) ($2,674,365) ($2,234,299) ($735,957) $1,737,706 $1,903,784 $2,069,689 $2,235,427 $1,119,934 $1,082,522 $1,045,110 $1,007,698 $909,491 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($1,119,934) ($1,082,522) ($1,045,110) ($1,007,698) ($909,491) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,010,578 $11,395,948 $11,794,806 $12,207,624 $12,634,891 $13,077,113 $13,534,811 $14,008,530 $14,498,828 $15,006,287 $15,531,507 $16,075,110 $16,637,739 $17,220,060 $17,822,762 $2,445,261 $2,359,677 $2,277,088 $2,197,390 $2,120,481 $2,046,264 $1,974,645 $1,905,533 $1,838,839 $1,774,480 $1,712,373 $1,652,440 $1,594,604 $1,538,793 $1,484,935 $8,565,317 $9,036,271 $9,517,718 $10,010,234 $10,514,410 $11,030,848 $11,560,166 $12,102,997 $12,659,989 $13,231,808 $13,819,135 $14,422,670 $15,043,135 $15,681,267 $16,337,827 Prepared by The Cecil Group, Inc. June 17, 2012 Lexington Facilities Master Planning Phased Projects Option FINANCIAL SCENARIO B: PRIORITY PROJECTS Source: Excluded Debt Service Total Currently Committed Excluded Debt $ 8,324,279 $ 8,087,794 $ 7,478,076 $ 7,241,378 $ 6,925,740 $ 6,672,747 $ 6,407,653 $ 6,209,578 $ 5,985,562 $ 4,472,974 $ 4,332,629 $ 4,202,198 Difference from Approved l ndebted ness $ 236,485 $ 846,204 $ 1,082,902 $ 1,398,540 $ 1,651,533 $ 1,916,626 $ 2,114,702 $ 2,338,717 $ 3,851,305 $ 3,991,651 $ 4,122,081 <n <n cn noa <�ocnn» <c aa�aon <c �m onn <c non nac <c aa�ca� <c �a��oa <�cnca acn <�c �n��cn <�n ann cac <�n coo nna Difference: Approved Debt Service Capacity- Bonded Project Costs Source: Community Preservation Act Designated CPA Project Costs Difference: CPA Available - CPA Project Costs Non - Excluded Debt Service Available for Appropriation tothe Projects) $ $1,302,443 $ $5,522,250 $ Debt Payments $4,336,807 $ $3,589,011 $ $3,089,657 $ $2,842,963 $ $2,853,296 $ $3,125,177 $ $3,663,283 $0 $ $85,942 $ $2,459,285 $ $2,387,290 $ $2,315,295 $ $2,243,300 $ $2,256,418 $ $3,406,305 $ $3,296,898 $ $3,187,491 $ $3,078,084 $1,302,443 $ $5,436,308 $ $3,228,668 $ $2,596,077 $ $2,021,512 $ $1,345,711 $ $833,239 ( ($563,342) ( ($443,602) ( ($62,314) $ $585,200 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 Current Paymentsto 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 -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- - ®-- ®- ®®-- - - - - -- noff NOR-= M., �®' 'r Source: Excluded Debt Service Total Currently Committed Excluded Debt $ 8,324,279 $ 8,087,794 $ 7,478,076 $ 7,241,378 $ 6,925,740 $ 6,672,747 $ 6,407,653 $ 6,209,578 $ 5,985,562 $ 4,472,974 $ 4,332,629 $ 4,202,198 Difference from Approved l ndebted ness $ 236,485 $ 846,204 $ 1,082,902 $ 1,398,540 $ 1,651,533 $ 1,916,626 $ 2,114,702 $ 2,338,717 $ 3,851,305 $ 3,991,651 $ 4,122,081 <n <n cn noa <�ocnn» <c aa�aon <c �m onn <c non nac <c aa�ca� <c �a��oa <�cnca acn <�c �n��cn <�n ann cac <�n coo nna Difference: Approved Debt Service Capacity- Bonded Project Costs Source: Community Preservation Act Designated CPA Project Costs Difference: CPA Available - CPA Project Costs Non - Excluded Debt Service Available for Appropriation tothe 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 $0 $ $85,942 $ $2,459,285 $ $2,387,290 $ $2,315,295 $ $2,243,300 $ $2,256,418 $ $3,406,305 $ $3,296,898 $ $3,187,491 $ $3,078,084 $1,302,443 $ $5,436,308 $ $3,228,668 $ $2,596,077 $ $2,021,512 $ $1,345,711 $ $833,239 ( ($563,342) ( ($443,602) ( ($62,314) $ $585,200 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 Current Paymentsto 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 11111 g P g P Y Y , Assumptions: Yearly Growth in Levy 3.5% Yearly Reduction in Excluded Debt 3.5% Bond Interest Rate 4.0% Design as % of Project Costs 6.5% Notes: Project Costs are rounded figures Debt and Levy Figures to FY18 taken from Town Budget Report 2013TM Total Excluded Debt FY14 reduced by $1.6 Million at 2013 TM MSBA reimbursement is included in net bonded debt 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 $10,638,239 $2,533,949 $8,104,290 Prepared by The Cecil Group, Inc. June 17, 2012 Lexington Facilities Master Planning Phased Projects Option FINANCIAL SCENARIO B: PRIORITY PROJECTS Totals FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33 FY34 FY35 FY36 FY37 FY38 FY39 FY40 FY41 ---------------- $1,082,522 $1,045,110 $1,007,698 $909,491 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($1,119,934) ---------------- ($1,045,110) ($1,007,698) ($909,491) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,010,578 $11,395,948 ---------------- $12,207,624 $12,634,891 $13,077,113 $13,534,811 $14,008,530 $14,498,828 $15,006,287 $15,531,507 $16,075,110 $16,637,739 $17,220,060 $17,822,762 $2,445,261 $2,359,677 $2,277,088 $2,197,390 $2,120,481 $2,046,264 $1,974,645 $1,905,533 $1,838,839 $1,774,480 $1,712,373 $1,652,440 $1,594,604 $1,538,793 $1,484,935 $8,565,317 $9,036,271 $9,517,718 $10,010,234 $10,514,410 - ' ��®' $12,659,989 $13,231,808 $13,819,135 $14,422,670 $15,043,135 $15,681,267 - - - - -- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ®' rr mmffmmmmmwwm, ®' 'r ���gmar-m-m- Nomm" ®' ''r mmm r®' rr ®'' r r ---------------- ---------------- 515,117,613 514,675,281 514,344,554 514,013,827 512,855,955 511,670,179 511,393,894 511,117,609 510,841,324 510,406,764 58,913,736 56,445,200 56,284,070 56,122,940 55,961,810 5283,387,856 $ 3,987,545 $ 3,798,120 $ 1,496,583 $ 188,107 $ 181,837 $ 175,567 $ 169,297 $ 163,026 $157,320 $151,814 $146,501 $141,373 $136,425 $131,650 $127,043 $ 4,336,735 $ 4,526,159 $ 6,827,696 $ 8,136,172 $ 8,142,442 $ 8,148,712 $ 8,154,983 $ 8,161,253 $8,166,959 $8,172,465 $8,177,779 $8,182,906 $8,187,854 $8,192,629 $8,197,237 $13,997,679 $13,592,759 $13,299,444 $13,006,129 $11,946,464 $11,670,179 $11,393,894 $11,117,609 $10,841,324 $10,406,764 $8,913,736 $6,445,200 $6,284,070 $6,122,940 $5,961,810 $5,800,680 ($9,660,944) ($9,066,600) ($6,471,748) ($4,869,957) ($3,804,022) ($3,521,467) ($3,238,911) ($2,956,356) ($2,674,365) ($2,234,299) ($735,957) $1,737,706 $1,903,784 $2,069,689 $2,235,427 $1,119,934 $1,082,522 $1,045,110 $1,007,698 $909,491 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($1,119,934) ($1,082,522) ($1,045,110) ($1,007,698) ($909,491) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,010,578 $11,395,948 $11,794,806 $12,207,624 $12,634,891 $13,077,113 $13,534,811 $14,008,530 $14,498,828 $15,006,287 $15,531,507 $16,075,110 $16,637,739 $17,220,060 $17,822,762 $2,445,261 $2,359,677 $2,277,088 $2,197,390 $2,120,481 $2,046,264 $1,974,645 $1,905,533 $1,838,839 $1,774,480 $1,712,373 $1,652,440 $1,594,604 $1,538,793 $1,484,935 $8,565,317 $9,036,271 $9,517,718 $10,010,234 $10,514,410 $11,030,848 $11,560,166 $12,102,997 $12,659,989 $13,231,808 $13,819,135 $14,422,670 $15,043,135 $15,681,267 $16,337,827 Prepared by The Cecil Group, Inc. June 17, 2012 Lexington Facilities Master Planning Phased Projects Option FINANCIAL SCENARIO A: ALL PROJECTS Source: Excluded Debt Service Difference: Approved Debt Service Capacity - Source: Community Preservation Act I Total Currently Com mitted Excluded De bt $ 8,324,279 $ 8,087,794 $ 7,478,076 $ 7,241,378 $ 6,925,740 $ 6,672,747 $ 6,407,653 $ 6,209,578 $ 5,985,562 $ 4,472,974 $ 4,332,629 $ 4,202,198 Difference to Approved l ndebted ness l $ 236,485 $ 846,204 $ 1,082,902 $ 1,398,540 $ 1,651,533 $ 1,916,626 $ 2,114,702 $ 2,338,717 $ 3,851,305 $ 3,991,651 $ 4,122,081 Project Costs Ava ila ble for Appropriation to the Projects $1,302,443 $5,522,250 $5,687,953 $4,983,367 $4,336,807 Debt Payments $2,842,963 $2,853,296 Designated CPA Project Costs $0 $85,942 $2,459,285 $3,004,534 $3,136,179 $3,040,533 $3,029,999 $4,156,235 $4,023,177 Difference: CPA Available- CPA Project Costs $1,302,443 $5,436,308 $3,228,668 $1,978,833 $1,200,628 $548,478 $59,658 ($1,313,272) ($1,169,880) Non - Excluded Debt Service T _ 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 Current Paymentsto 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 M Re maining 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 Assumptions: Notes: Yearly Growth in Levy 3.5% Project Costs are rounded figures Yearly Reduction in Excluded Debt 3.5% Debt and Levy Figures to FY18 taken from Town Budget Report 2013TM -------------------- Bond Interest Rate 4.0% Total Excluded Debt FY14 reduced by $1.6 Million at 2013 TM Design as %of Project Costs 6.50% MSBA reimbursement is included in net bonded debt 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 -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- - ®-- ®- ®®-- - - - - -- noff NOR-= M., �®' 'r Source: Excluded Debt Service Difference: Approved Debt Service Capacity - Source: Community Preservation Act I Total Currently Com mitted Excluded De bt $ 8,324,279 $ 8,087,794 $ 7,478,076 $ 7,241,378 $ 6,925,740 $ 6,672,747 $ 6,407,653 $ 6,209,578 $ 5,985,562 $ 4,472,974 $ 4,332,629 $ 4,202,198 Difference to Approved l ndebted ness l $ 236,485 $ 846,204 $ 1,082,902 $ 1,398,540 $ 1,651,533 $ 1,916,626 $ 2,114,702 $ 2,338,717 $ 3,851,305 $ 3,991,651 $ 4,122,081 Project Costs Ava ila ble 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 Designated CPA Project Costs $0 $85,942 $2,459,285 $3,004,534 $3,136,179 $3,040,533 $3,029,999 $4,156,235 $4,023,177 Difference: CPA Available- CPA Project Costs $1,302,443 $5,436,308 $3,228,668 $1,978,833 $1,200,628 $548,478 $59,658 ($1,313,272) ($1,169,880) Non - Excluded Debt Service T _ 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 Current Paymentsto 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 M Re maining 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 Assumptions: Notes: Yearly Growth in Levy 3.5% Project Costs are rounded figures Yearly Reduction in Excluded Debt 3.5% Debt and Levy Figures to FY18 taken from Town Budget Report 2013TM Bond Interest Rate 4.0% Total Excluded Debt FY14 reduced by $1.6 Million at 2013 TM Design as %of Project Costs 6.50% MSBA reimbursement is included in net bonded debt 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 $3,125,177 $3,663,283 $3,890,118 $3,757,059 $3,564,102 ($764,941) ($93,776) ($3,564,102) $9,930,910 $10,278,492 $10,638,239 $2,721,092 $2,625,854 $2,533,949 $7,209,818 $7,652,638 $8,104,290 Prepared by The Cecil Group, Inc. June 17, 2012 Lexington Facilities Master Planning Phased Projects Option FINANCIAL SCENARIO A: ALL PROJECTS Totals FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33 FY34 FY35 FY36 FY37 FY38 FY39 FY40 FY41 ---------------- $1,399,895 $1,045,110 $1,007,698 $909,491 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($1,751,607) ---------------- ($1,045,110) ($1,007,698) ($909,491) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,010,578 $11,395,948 ---------------- $12,207,624 $12,634,891 $13,077,113 $13,534,811 $14,008,530 $14,498,828 $15,006,287 $15,531,507 $16,075,110 $16,637,739 $17,220,060 $17,822,762 $2,445,261 $2,359,677 $2,277,088 $2,197,390 $2,120,481 $2,046,264 $1,974,645 $1,905,533 $1,838,839 $1,774,480 $1,712,373 $1,652,440 $1,594,604 $1,538,793 $1,484,935 $8,565,317 $9,036,271 $9,517,718 $10,010,234 $10,514,410 - ' ��®' $12,659,989 $13,231,808 $13,819,135 $14,422,670 $15,043,135 $15,681,267 - - - - -- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ®' rr mmffmmmmmwwm, ®' 'r ���gmar-m-m- Nomm" ®' ''r mmm r®' rr ®'' r r ---------------- ---------------- 515,861,927 514,992,653 514,344,554 514,013,827 512,855,955 511,670,179 511,393,894 511,117,609 510,841,324 510,406,764 58,913,736 56,445,200 56,284,070 56,122,940 55,961,810 5292,180,347 $ 3,987,545 $ 3,798,120 $ 1,496,583 $ 188,107 $ 181,837 $ 175,567 $ 169,297 $ 163,026 $157,320 $151,814 $146,501 $141,373 $136,425 $131,650 $127,043 $ 4,336,735 $ 4,526,159 $ 6,827,696 $ 8,136,172 $ 8,142,442 $ 8,148,712 $ 8,154,983 $ 8,161,253 $8,166,959 $8,172,465 $8,177,779 $8,182,906 $8,187,854 $8,192,629 $8,197,237 $14,110,320 $13,592,759 $13,299,444 $13,006,129 $11,946,464 $11,670,179 $11,393,894 $11,117,609 $10,841,324 $10,406,764 $8,913,736 $6,445,200 $6,284,070 $6,122,940 $5,961,810 $5,800,680 ($9,773,586) ($9,066,600) ($6,471,748) ($4,869,957) ($3,804,022) ($3,521,467) ($3,238,911) ($2,956,356) ($2,674,365) ($2,234,299) ($735,957) $1,737,706 $1,903,784 $2,069,689 $2,235,427 $1,751,607 $1,399,895 $1,045,110 $1,007,698 $909,491 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($1,751,607) ($1,399,895) ($1,045,110) ($1,007,698) ($909,491) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,010,578 $11,395,948 $11,794,806 $12,207,624 $12,634,891 $13,077,113 $13,534,811 $14,008,530 $14,498,828 $15,006,287 $15,531,507 $16,075,110 $16,637,739 $17,220,060 $17,822,762 $2,445,261 $2,359,677 $2,277,088 $2,197,390 $2,120,481 $2,046,264 $1,974,645 $1,905,533 $1,838,839 $1,774,480 $1,712,373 $1,652,440 $1,594,604 $1,538,793 $1,484,935 $8,565,317 $9,036,271 $9,517,718 $10,010,234 $10,514,410 $11,030,848 $11,560,166 $12,102,997 $12,659,989 $13,231,808 $13,819,135 $14,422,670 $15,043,135 $15,681,267 $16,337,827 Prepared by The Cecil Group, Inc. June 17, 2012