Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-02-04-CEC-min Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting February 4, 2014 Town Office Building, Parker Room; 8:00 .. Location and Time: AM Jill Hai, Chair; David Kanter, Vice-Chair; Bill Hurley (arrived at Members Present: 8:55 ..)Wendy Manz; Beth Masterman AM ; None Members Absent: Deborah Brown, Town Moderator; George Burnell, Member of the Town Others Present: Meeting Members Association (TMMA) Executive Committee; Sara Arnold, Recording Secretary DocumentsPresented: Notice of Public Meeting/Agenda for February 4, 2014 Meeting Community Preservation CommitteeÈs FY2015 Project List, January 27, 2014, with Final Votes to that Date Excerpt from Massachusetts General Laws (MGL), 55:15 Draft Minutes of the CEC Meeting, January 28, 2014 Ms. Hai called the meeting to order at 8:05 .. Call to Order: AM Liaison Reports Regarding FY2015ÃFY2019 Capital Programs: Mr. Kanter reported on capital projects that were discussed at the Board of SelectmenÈs (BoS) February 3, 2014, meeting, and Ms. Hai added comments based on her meeting with Bill Hadley, Director, Department of Public Works (DPW), as follows: Cary Memorial Building: In response to concerns about the Recreation Department losing program and storage space while the Cary Memorial Building is closed for renovations, Selectman Joe Pato again raised the question he had posed at an earlier SelectmenÈs meeting as to whether those renovations should be delayed until after the Community Center is renovated and opened. When the question was raised about the Community Preservation FundÈs ability concurrently to support both projects, Town Manager Carl Valente said that a preliminary look suggested there would not be a funding issue. Selectmen Hank Manz and Norm Cohen said they wished to avoid a delay in the Cary Memorial Building renovations. VisitorsÈ Center Design: According to the BoS, the Tourism Committee was tasked with resolving the scope issues associated with the projectÄrelative to the Historical SocietyÈs concernsÄand to-date the Tourism Committee has not returned with that information. Center Streetscape Improvements: The $600,000 being sought is for the design of what is anticipated to be a $6.0 million project. This is a reason the Town is recommending that funds be added to the Capital-related Stabilization Fund. Massachusetts Avenue 3-Intersection Design: The State is expected to rank the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) applications, which includes LexingtonÈs, by this March. If the ranking indicates that LexingtonÈs project will not be approved Page 1 of 5 Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting February 4, 2014 for construction funding by the State by fiscal year (FY) 2020, the BoS can be expected to move to indefinitely postpone this Article. If approved for TIP fundingÄ for example, in FY2017Äand the $500,000 request for design funds is approved by Town Meeting, the BoS would not use those funds until after there is a public hearing, which is required as part of the State process. The Town already has a 25% design that would be presented at the public hearing. If approved as a TIP project, the State engineers would direct the construction phase and the State would assume responsibility for the construction costs. Battle Green Streetscape Improvements: This newly named project (now under the DPW FY2015ÃFY2019 Capital Improvement Project (CIP) #922) will include areas around the Battle Green and is an extension of what is being addressed under the Center Streetscape Improvement. Part of the project ($63,000) is eligible for funding under theCommunity Preservation Act (CPA); the balance ($27,000) would be from the General Fund. The FY2015 funding request is for a 25% design, which is needed for the public hearing. Additional funding would be needed for development of the full design after public input has been incorporated. (The DPWÈs FY2015ÃFY2019 CIP #672, Battle Green Master PlanÄPhase 3, has been edited to respond to issues raised by this Committee. ItÈs first funding is proposed for FY2017.) Hastings Park Gazebo: The $120,000 being requested will be used to address Americans with Disabilities Act deficiencies (e.g., to create a pathway to the gazebo) and to renovate the gazebo. Traffic Island\[s\] Renovation: The $83,000 being requested will be used for landscaping the islands at the Hartwell Avenue/Bedford Street intersectionÄmost extensively on the Åjug handleÆ island. The project is tied to the TownÈs economic-development efforts. The welcoming signage for the Hartwell Avenue businesses will not be on any of those islands; it would be on the TownÈs right-of- way on Hartwell Avenue. Mr. Valente is seeking contributions from the Hartwell businesses for the signage. Mr. Kanter noted that the islands project includes DPW staff time, which is not reflected in the $83,000 funding request. He estimates the project actually costs closer to $100,000, which he considers to be too much. He had suggested to the BoS that the Hartwell businesses should contribute to the islands upgrade as well as to the signage. Community Center Renovations: Phase 1 was funded at $3.169 million during the November 4, 2013, Special Town Meeting (STM) based on early-stage design documents and cost estimate. At that time, the concept was for robust renovations to support moving into the building as soon as practical, and it was assumed that there would be a Phase 2 project to complete the needed build-out. The latest design documents and cost estimate indicate that project would likely cost about $4.9 millionÄmeaning an additional approximately $1.7 million would be needed. Because it was recently decided that Phase 2 would not be pursued in the near term, Phase 1 is being re-visited to better meet the building needs on a longer-term basisÄwhich primarily warrants further, significant, heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) improvements. Several more weeks are required to determine the extent and cost of those further improvements. An impact analysis is being developed to identify the pros and cons for including those upgrades as part of the Phase 1 construction or to address them after the building is opened. This Page 2 of 5 Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting February 4, 2014 information is to be presented to the BoS at its meeting on March 10, 2014. As the additional funding is expected to be requested from the Community Preservation Fund, the Community Preservation Committee must approve whatever will be requested at upcoming STM. Mr. Kanter expressed his continuing concern that the historic-preservation restriction languageÄwhich is required as funding under the CPA was used to purchase, and now renovate, that historic assetÄhas, to his knowledge, not even been completed, much less approved by the State. Other discussions included the following: Deferred Projects: The FY2015 Town ManagerÈs Preliminary Budget & Financing Plan, January 13, 2014 (ÅWhite BookÆ), proposes deferring funding requests for burying the Hastings Park Overhead Wires and for Municipal Parking Lot Improvements. The DPW would like to have a design readyfor thatparking lotfrom Fletcher Avenue to behind the Hosmer House once decisions are made regarding future use of that area. Hartwell Avenue Bridge over Kiln Brook: As that elevated structure is considered deficient, at the direction of the State, the Town will be posting weight limitations until that section of the roadway is repaired/replaced. Design for this project has already been funding, but has not been completed. Minuteman Technical High School: Mr. Hurley will be attending a meeting regarding the proposed amendments to the Minuteman Regional Vocational School District agreement between the member towns. It was noted that although the Article (#23 for the 2014 Annual Town Meeting) is not, per se, a capital project, the amendments do address the way capital expenses for the school would be paid and could impact LexingtonÈs ability to fund its own capital program. It has not been determined yet whether this Committee will include this article in its report to that Town Meeting. Street Improvements and Bikeway Pavement Management: Starting next year, DPW is looking to combine its funding requests for street and adjacent bikeway improvements. This will allow a more holistic approach to pavement projects. Mr. Kanter commented that this should not be done in an effort to include small projects in the capital budget. Sanitary Sewer vs. Wastewater: The DPW has stated the term Åsanitary sewerÆ is the preferable term, rather than ÅwastewaterÆ, because wastewater is a term that also includes runoff water. The CommitteeÈs Report(s) to the 2014 Annual Town Meeting and Accompanying : March 24, 2014, STM Mr. Kanter reported having received draft material for the report(s) from some members of this Committee. He reminded members that as has been this CommitteeÈs practice, he will copy/paste material from the FY2015 Recommended Budget & Financing Plan (ÅBrown BookÆ) into the back section of the report for each article that is included in this CommitteeÈs report(s). The front section of the report is for providing background information and updates on previous aspects associated with a departmentÈs program. While that language should include a forward reference to the applicable Articles in the back section, it should not include text that will be in the Brown Book as it would be redundant in this CommitteeÈs report(s). Page 3 of 5 Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting February 4, 2014 CEC Member Involvement in the Campaigns of those Running for Town-wide : Elections Ms. Brown, who appoints members to the TownÈs finance committees (the Appropriation Committee and this Committee), reviewed the history for her supporting limitations on those committee membersÈ involvement in such campaigns. In 2004, she was an Appropriation Committee member and in that role encouraged her fellow committee members to adopt a well-defined position on neutrality in Town-wide candidate elections. This position was supported by the then Town Moderator, and worked well in practice. As a side note, she added that as the Town Moderator, who is elected annually, her role is to conduct the Meeting as a non-partisan, neutral parliamentarian. She commented that it is possible that if members of the finance committees publicly support candidates, this could suggest partisanship on the part of the Moderator. In response to this CommitteeÈs member concerns about giving up free-speech rights, she commented that there are often occasions where groups or individuals willingly curtail certain rights for a greater good. It was noted that this Committee adopted a policy several years ago that limited involvement in election campaigns for Town-wide office. It was based on the Appropriation CommitteeÈs policy. There were three basic elements of the limitations: not participating in campaign management, modest financial contributions (recommended a limit of $100) and no public support (e.g., endorsements and hosting events). Ms. Brown apologized for unintentionally failing to apprise some of the more-recent Committee members of the Committee restrictions in advance of their appointments, and Ms. Hai noted that this Committee had not discussed its existing policy with members who had joined this Committee in the last two years. The following comments were added to the discussion: Mr. Hurley acknowledged that during a previous meeting when this issue was discussed, he questioned why a committee member couldnÈt openly support a candidate, but he has changed his position. He is concerned about perception: If it can be perceived that a finance-committee member has a personal agenda, it is best to avoid the action, and it is best to stay Åabove the frayÆ. Ms. Masterman reported that she does not want to be constrained in participating in Town-wide election activities and does not believe there are legal reasons she cannot actively participate as long as she does not identify herself as a member of this Committee. She cited MGL 55:15. Ms. Brown agreed to discuss with Town Counsel to what extent, if any, that MGL applies to, or places restrictions on, finance-committee members. Ms. Manz supported the previous policy, commenting that she does not want the effective functioning of this Committee to be compromised. Mr. Kanter also supported the previous policy; he does not object to the restrictions as he is also concerned about perception. He believes that the two finance committees have achieved a credible standing that should be protected. He suggested that the threshold for the acceptable amount of a contribution should consider what others would consider to be an influencing amount. Ms. Hai commented that it serves the community well for this Committee to remain neutral and that she will support renewing the policy of neutrality previously adopted. Page 4 of 5 Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting February 4, 2014 She will be meeting with Glenn Parker, Chair of the Appropriation Committee, regarding that committeeÈs current position and plans, and will report back to this Committee after that meeting. Mr. Burnell remembered the person who had been the Moderator during his tenure on a finance committee advising the finance committees to remain neutral. He added that someoneÈs spouse was not bound by the committeeÈs policy and could make a contribution. It was agreed to defer further discussion until Ms. Brown consults with Town Counsel and then provides additional information to this Committee. In the meantime, it was agreed that new members would consider the discussion so far, but could pursue their personal beliefs as if there were no policy as they accepted membership without having known of the CommitteeÈs policy. Approval of Minutes: A motion was made and seconded to approve the January 28, 2014, Minutes. Vote: 5Ã0 Adjourn: A Motion was made and seconded at 9:48 .. to adjourn. Vote: 5Ã0 AM These Minutes were approved by the CEC at its meeting on February 25, 2014. Page 5 of 5