Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-02-04-CEC-min 4Y 0,3s pAgb7 q LL Minutes of the _ ) Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting February 4, 2014 A9flIL V$' Location and Time Town Office Building, Parker Room, 8.00 A.M Members Present Jill Hai, Chair, David Kanter, Vice-Chair, Bill Hurley (arrived at 8 55 A M ),Wendy Manz, Beth Masterman Members Absent None Others Present Deborah Brown, Town Moderator, George Burnell, Member of the Town Meeting Members Association (TMMA) Executive Committee, Sara Arnold, Recording Secretary Documents Presented • Notice of Public Meeting/Agenda for February 4, 2014 Meeting • Community Preservation Committee's 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 Call to Order Ms Hai called the meeting to order at 8.05 A.M Liaison Reports Regarding FY2015—FY2019 Capital Programs Mr Kanter reported on capital projects that were discussed at the Board of Selectmen's (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 Selectmen's 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 Fund's 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 • Visitors' Center Design According to the BoS, the Tourism Committee was tasked with resolving the scope issues associated with the project—relative to the Historical Society's concerns—and 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 Lexington's, by this March If the ranking indicates that Lexington's 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 funding— for example, in FY2017—and 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 FY2015—FY2019 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 the Community 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 DPW's FY2015—FY2019 CIP #672, Battle Green Master Plan—Phase 3, has been edited to respond to issues raised by this Committee It's 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 intersection—most extensively on the "jug handle" island The project is tied to the Town's economic-development efforts The welcoming signage for the Hartwell Avenue businesses will not be on any of those islands, it would be on the Town's 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 million—meaning 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 basis—which 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 language—which is required as funding under the CPA was used to purchase, and now renovate, that historic asset—has, to his knowledge, not even been completed, much less approved by the State Other discussions included the following • Deferred Projects The FY2015 Town Manager's Preliminary Budget & Financing Plan, January 13, 2014 ("White Book"), 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 ready for that parking lot from 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 Lexington's 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 "sanitary sewer" is the preferable term, rather than "wastewater", because wastewater is a term that also includes runoff water The Committee's 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 Committee's practice, he will copy/paste material from the FY2015 Recommended Budget & Financing Plan ("Brown Book") into the back section of the report for each article that is included in this Committee's report(s) The front section of the report is for providing background information and updates on previous aspects associated with a department's 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 Committee's 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 Town's finance committees (the Appropriation Committee and this Committee), reviewed the history for her supporting limitations on those committee members' 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 Committee's 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 Committee's 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 couldn't 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 "above the fray" • 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 5515 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 committee's 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 someone's spouse was not bound by the committee's 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 Committee's policy Approval of Minutes A motion was made and seconded to approve the January 28, 2014, Minutes Vote 5-0 Adjourn A Motion was made and seconded at 9 48 A M to adjourn Vote 5-0 These Minutes were approved by the CEC at its meeting on February 25, 2014 Page 5 of 5