Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-12-20-CEC-min Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting December 20, 2013 Town Office Building, Parker Room; 8:00 .. Location and Time: AM Jill Hai, Chair; David Kanter, Vice-Chair; Bill HurleyWendy Manz; Members Present: ; Beth Masterman None Members Absent: Chief Mark Corr, Police Department; Chief John Wilson, Fire Department; Others Present: Deb Mauger, Chair, Board of Selectmen (BoS); Carl Valente, Town Manager; Rob Addelson, Assistant Town Manager for Finance; Bob Pressman, Community Preservation Committee (CPC); Stew Kennedy, resident Documents Presented: Notice of Public Meeting/Agenda for December 20, 2013, Meeting Fire DepartmentÈs FY2015ÃFY2019 Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs) Final Report of the TownÈs Ad hoc Townwide Facilities Master Planning Committee, Draft #2 Minutes of the CEC Meeting, December 3, 2013 Draft #2 Minutes of the CEC Meeting (Open Session), December 9, 2013 Draft #2 Minutes of the CEC Meeting (Executive Session), December 9, 2013 Draft Minutes of the CEC Meeting, December 18, 2013 Ms. Hai called the meeting to order at 8:00 .. Call to Order: AM Chief Corr reviewed the CIPs, as follows: Police Department CIPs: Software (Police & Fire/Emergency Medical Service \[EMS\]) (#477): Chiefs Corr and Wilson presented the background on the need for this long-considered upgrade to their decade-old software system which would provide the modern, efficient, seamless, support to all aspects of their departmentsÄoperationally and for both the mandatory reporting to the State and the analysis important for management. They also presented the significant challenges that are faced in the acquisition and implementation of such department-wide software. First and foremost, their need is not unlike that of many public-safety departments throughout the State and multiple surveys of available systems done over many years, and the implementations by other public-safety departments in the State, have failed to suggest to them any vendor of a sufficiently robust and comprehensive system to meet the needs of our Town. Secondly, but very significantly, the training that will be needed to implement something that ÅtouchesÆ on just about all of their departmental operations represents a major burden which would be warranted only if the system does provide the across-the-board enhancements and efficiencies which would justify the impact such training will have on the day-to-day operations of their departments during the transition. Page 1 of 5 Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting December 20, 2013 It is those challenges, along with the pending priority of new facilities for both departments, which have led to the year-by-year slipping of the funding request for the new software system. Because of the complexity of the system requirements, the funding request does include an allocation for the hiring of a consultant to assist with a survey of the market and, if warranted, assistance with developing the bid specifications; and then there would be the on-going need in the Operating Budget for either contracted or in-house staff support following implementation. Mr. Hurley asked whether any of the post-911 Federal or State funding had been of any assistance for these department-wide problems and was told ÅnoÆ; that funding had been for equipment. Even if the cost werenÈt an issue, the proper solution would be a new software package with on-going maintenance of it and extensive training on itÄand thereÈs no indication such a package exists that is tailored both to the Massachusetts-specific requirements and is properly scaled to the need of towns such as Lexington versus those of cities such as Boston. Mr. Kanter questioned whether, as other towns such as ours face the same problem, would a collaborative effortÄperhaps with joint fundingÄhave value? As they currently do not know of any off-the-shelf solution and neither Chief has an assurance that the nation-wide/world-wide market doesnÈt offer such a solution, Mr. Kanter supports using modest funding for consultant services to collect and document our needs, and then do an in-depth survey of that market. Even if no solution is found at that time, he believes having a formal documentation of those needs and the snapshot of the current market would provide an important foundation upon which a later re-visit of the market could benefit. Mr. Valente responded that such consultant services place depends upon time being available by the Chiefs and they are heavily tasked with the day-to-day operation of their Departments and as attention focuses on the requirements of new facilities for their Departments, their inputs to that, instead, will be a higher priority. Ms. Hai asked about the inter-relationship between the physical plant and software upgrade. Mr. Valente and Chief Corr responded that as long as the building is wired for dataÄwhich it would be, in any caseÄand there is a secure space for the dispatch center, the software upgrade can follow the building. Mr. Kanter questioned the FY2017 timing in the CIP of both the consulting and purchasing funding. Mr. Valente said he will leave it, as is. Mr. Hurley asked whether the current software situation is just an efficiency issue or whether there is a public-safety impact. The ChiefsÈ responses indicated that while improved software would, first and foremost, provide greatly improved efficiencies, there are some aspects of their public-safety operations that would be enhanced with features that arenÈt currently provided; however, notwithstanding that, their Departments are providing excellent services in support of the full-range of their Page 2 of 5 Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting December 20, 2013 public-safety responsibilities. Mr. Valente added that Lexington benefits from being a stable community and that reduces the need for extra actions faced in high-risk communitiesÄwith which Chief Corr agreed. On the issue of the introduction of more-sophisticated software and the resultant need for on-going support following implementation, Mr. Valente said that a 2-year evaluation of the TownÈs Information Technology/Management Information Systems (IT/MIS) Department has concluded that while the IT/MIS staff is sufficient for the acquisition of the TownÈs hardware and software infrastructure, there is a need for additional staff to support the organizational software once installed. He said the Board of Selectmen should expect to see Program Improvement Requests as part of his proposed FY2015 Operating Budget to begin to address that need. Police Station; Renovation and Add-on Design and Engineering \[D&E\] (#692): The Committee asked about this CIP being strictly a placekeeper with no timing or dollar amounts. This led to an extended discussion of the Town-wide facilities master planning. Mr. Valente said the highest priorities are the Police Headquarters and the Central Fire Station. The siting of the latter is a critical factor because of the need to maintain the current excellent incident-response times and the Town has been examining sites in the same general area. Mr. Valente said they are no longer looking for a site for a joint facility as a site large enough for that is not readily apparent. He will be meeting with the owner of one property to see if there is potential to obtain it for the Central Fire Station and, if there is, there would be further discussion with this Committee. The need for swing space for Fire or Police operations is fully appreciated if a renovation of either current facility were to be considered. Mr. Kanter commented that he felt an eminent-domain taking, if need be, would be fully justifiable in order to maintain the TownÈs public-safety capabilities. Mr. Kanter asked whether the dispatch centerÈs functions could continue during any swing-space operation(s). Chief Wilson said that with proper planning it could. Chief Corr agreed and added that would be a good idea, in any case, to have an alternative site by including space for it in a new Central Fire Station. Ms. Mauger said the BoS has made clear that upgrading the TownÈs public-safety facilities is the first priority and while addressing the Fire DepartmentÈs needs is first in line, that should be viewed as just the first phase of a two-phase effort to address the needs of both Departments. Mr. Valente said he doesnÈt look at the Police Project being a very far second to the Fire Project as the Police Headquarters has serious structural issues, but the needs of the Fire Department and its swing-space demand makes putting Fire before Police the sensible order. Ms. Mauger said the siting of the new Central Fire Headquarters is the gating issue at this point. Whatever the timing that should evolve, once the siting is determined, that will drive a request for funding to determine the design. Mr. Valente said the request for $300,000 in FY2015 under the Headquarters Fire Station Replacement CIP (#738) is a placekeeper for such a D&E effort. Mr. Kanter referred to the Page 3 of 5 Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting December 20, 2013 previous feasibility study regarding upgrading of the Central Fire Station and that it recommended a complete rebuild. He asked whether that study remains relevant. Chief Wilson said the requirements captured in that study and its recommendation are still relevant, but the specific design would need to be adjusted to the new site if that were to be the case. Review of FY2015ÃFY2019 CIP Submissions for Significant Issues as seen by the Committee Mr. Kanter discussed the need for that review by all Committee members in preparation for the discussion requested by Mr. ValenteÄwhich is on the Agenda for the CommitteeÈs meeting on January 7, 2014. The purpose is to identify our individual issues so Mr. Valente and his Senior Management Team can take them into consideration as they develop the FY2015 Preliminary Budget & Financing Plan for presentation to the BoS. Mr. Kanter suggested the primary focus of the review should be on the scope, dollar amounts, and phasing presented in the CIPs. Mr. Addelson said they want to know of issues so that, if practical, they can be addressed before they end up being disagreements during the deliberations at the 2014 Annual Town Meeting and the accompanying Special Town Meeting. Ms. Manz asked whether if the CPC has voted on the applications it has received and decided which to recommend to the Town Meeting, unless this Committee finds a recommended project is inappropriate, does this Committee feel compelled to support CPC recommendations? Mr. Kanter said that this Committee is explicitly required to state to Town Meeting whether it endorses each recommendation made by the CPC and, in doing so, this Committee applies our independent thinking; however, history shows that it has been rare that we donÈt fully endorse CPC recommendations. Ms. Hai added that there have been times this Committee had concerns about the ability of the Community Preservation Fund (CPF) to support a specific, proposed, expenditure or the nature of the debt proposed for it and, in the past, those concerns had been resolved. In any case, she said this Committee has always taken the opinions of the CPCÄthe initial trustees of that FundÄinto account when we deliberate on whether to endorse the CPCÈs recommendations. Mr. Kanter said this Committee will received a spreadsheet with a listing of all the current CIPs, by Department and then by CIP number. He asked each member to add their comments, if any, to each CIP entry and return the spreadsheet just to him. He will combine the responses and it will be available for discussion with Mr. Valente and Mr. Addelson at th the January 7 meeting. Approval of Minutes: A Motion was made and seconded to approve the Draft #2 Minutes of the CEC Meeting, December 3, 2013. Vote: 4Ã0Ã1 (Mr. Hurley abstained as he was not at that meeting.) A Motion was made and seconded to approve the Draft #2 Minutes of the CEC Meeting December 9, 2013, Open Session. Vote: 5Ã0 Page 4 of 5 Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting December 20, 2013 A Motion was made and seconded to approve the Draft #2 Minutes of the CEC Meeting December 9, 2013, Executive Session. Vote: 4Ã0Ã1 (Ms. Masterman abstained as she was not at that meeting.) A Motion was made and seconded to approve the Draft Minutes of the CEC Meeting December 18, 2013. Vote: 4Ã0Ã1 (Ms. Masterman abstained as she was not at that meeting.) Member Concerns and Liaison Reports: Mr. Kanter reported that the BoS at its meeting on December 16, 2013: (1) Heard, and unanimously accepted, the Ad hoc Cary Memorial Building Renovation Design CommitteeÈs latest scope of the upgrades and the associated budget estimate of $8,677,400 with the proposed sourcing of $8,241,350 from the CPF, $235,230 from the General Fund, and $200,820 from the PEG \[Public, Educational, & Government\] Access Revolving Fund; and (2) Heard the Ad hoc Community Center Advisory CommitteeÈs presentation which included tentative use of the space in the new Community Center at 39 Marrett Road under the Phase 1 (initial occupancy) for which funding had been appropriated at the November 4, 2013, Special Town Meeting, and the recommended scope of the Phase 2 (full build-out) with a Preliminary Concept Cost Estimate in the range of approximately $8.4 million to $9.1 million. The BoS asked that Committee to consider a change to the Phase 1 layoutÄwhich was understood to require additional structural work that had not been included in what was presented to that Special Town MeetingÄand made no decisions with regard to the scope recommended for Phase 2 or how and when it might be executed. The next scheduled meetings are on each Tuesday in January, 2014Äthe Next Meetings: ththstth 7, 14, 21, & 28Äat 8:00 .., in the Town Office Building, Parker Room (G15). AM A Motion was made and seconded at 09:41 .. to adjourn. Adjourn:Vote: 5Ã0 AM These Minutes were approved by the CEC at its meeting on January 14, 2014. Page 5 of 5