Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-12-16-CEC-min Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting December 16, 2014 Town Office Building, Parker Room; 8:00 .. Location and Time: AM Jill Hai, Chair; David Kanter, Vice-Chair & Clerk; Elizabeth Barnett; Members Present: Wendy Manz Rod Cole Member Absent: Jeanne Kreiger, Friends of Minuteman National Park;Carl Valente, Others Present: Town Manager; Rob Addelson, Assistant Town Manager for Finance; Bill Hadley, Director, Department of Public Works (DPW); David Pinsonneault, Operations Manager, DPW; John Livsey, Town Engineer, DPW; Glenn Parker, Chair, Appropriation Committee; Hank Manz, resident; Sara Arnold, Recording Secretary Documents Presented: Notice of Public Meeting/Agenda for December 16, 2014 FY2016ÃFY2020 Capital Project Requests with Results of CEC Review; based on December 15, 2014, review; prepared for presentation to Mr. Valente and Mr. Addelson, December 16, 2014 CIP# ?? (in the form of a Program Improvement Request), Minuteman Bikeway Wayfinding (distributed by Mr. KanterÈs e-mail to the other CEC members and Ms. Arnold, December 4, 2014 10:08 ..) PM Application to the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) for ÅParkerÈs Revenge RestorationÆ, revised December 2, 2014 (distributed by Mr. KanterÈs e-mail to the other CEC members and Ms. Arnold, December 4, 2014 2:14 ..) PM Ms. Hai called the meeting to order at 8:02 .. Call to Order: AM Discussion of CECÈs Preliminary Positions on the FY2016Ã2020 Capital Improvement Ms. Hai described this CommitteeÈs CIP-review process and reported that Projects (CIPs): many Committee comments are included on the handout, which also records this CommitteeÈs preliminary positions taken at a prior meeting. She added that although all the positions were agreed upon by the committee, accompanying was a compilation of comments. She then opened the discussion for additional comments regarding the CIPs. Some projects were discussed out of order and some projects did not trigger discussion at the meeting. The projects specifically discussed during the meeting were as follows: Community Development Parker Meadow Accessible Trail Construction (#882): CEC The FY2017 ÅTo-Be-DeterminedÆ (TBD) funding request in Comments/Questions: the handout is a placeholder based on text in the CIP, which indicates there will be a FY2017 funding request. Conservation Meadows Preservation Program (#928): CEC TBDs have been added in FY2017ÃFY2020 as the CIP Comments/Questions: indicates this will be a 7-year program and this Committee anticipates those will be Community Preservation Act (CPA) funding requests. As with all projects that Page 1 of 9 Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting December 16, 2014 can be seen as contemplating out-year funding requests, the CEC is interested in getting further, specific, information on those requests as soon as practical. Lower Vine Brook Paved Recreation Path Reconstruction (#931): CEC Pleased to see this CPA-eligible project is now to be Comments/Questions: recommended to be fully funded in FY2016 from the Community Preservation Fund (CPF). It was clarified that indicating the Tax Levy as also a source was not correct. Economic Development Parking Meter Replacement (#962): This Committee CEC Comments/Questions: has not taken a preliminary position; more information is needed. There were many unclear details, including the cost of the meters, whether there will be an economic payback, and the logistics for installing them. It was also suggested thatphasing thefinancingofthe project seems to be consistent withthe planned phasing of the implementation and with the new parking policies. Mr. Valente responded as follows: The Metropolitan Area Planning Council is assisting the Town in identifying a preferred vendor, and costs will be known in the near future. The Center Committee did not recommend a parking rate increase in anticipation of a new parking program being implemented in the spring. Parking meter funds will be used to help fund this project. The Town has a parking management plan; it prioritizes the use of parking meters to manage parking rather than to increase revenue. This report should be read before making any final decisions regarding this project. Grain Mill Alley (#963): This Committee questioned CEC Comments/Questions: why this project didnÈt still contemplate addressing the alley on the opposite side of Massachusetts Avenue and, therefore, why this shouldnÈt, instead, be reported under the prior #857 (Lexington Center Pocket Park & Alley Design). Also noted were the lack of information about the economic benefits of creating this park and the projected expense to implement (on the order of $350,000). Perhaps it would be more beneficial if the focus were on ways to encourage more business diversity in the center. Mr. Valente responded as follows: It was determined that it was best to do one park and evaluate its effectiveness before proceeding with another one. The purpose of the park is to provide a pedestrian-friendly area for those visiting Lexington, comparable to using Depot Square as a transportation node for the Town. Consensus has not been reached on how the park should look. Fire Department Headquarters Fire Station Replacement (#738): This CEC Comments/Questions: Committee has not taken a preliminary position as the project isnÈt defined. Although the project will be for the Fire Department, it will be executed by the Department of Public Facilities (DPF) on behalf of a ÅclientÆ; therefore this project should be presented among the DPF projects. Page 2 of 9 Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting December 16, 2014 Portable Radio Replacement (#741): This project CEC Comments/Questions: has been withdrawn because it does not need to be pursued until after 2020, which is beyond the five-year scope of the CIPs and this CommitteeÈs five-year Capital Plan. This Committee had concerns about the division of responsibility between the Fire Department and Information Technology Department. Mr. Addelson suggested that the two departments are working collaboratively on the issues. Fire Pumper (#964): Will any settlement money CEC Comments/Questions: received from the lawsuit associated with a previously purchased pumper truck be used to fund the new pumper and is the settlement amount expected to be sufficient to cover the new purchase? Mr. Valente said that any settlement money will go to the General Fund and a year later it is possible to use this money. The request to Town Meeting is expected to cover the purchase and, therefore, that purchase can proceed even if the final settlement amount is for less. Cary Memorial Library Cary Library Internal Reconfiguration (#927): As this CEC Comments/Questions: request is for funding to supplement any shortfall in the private funding which is planned to fully fund this project and any such supplement is understood to be requested in FY2017 (rather than FY2016), this Committee is awaiting more information from Library staff regarding any FY2016 request. Information Services Replace Town Wide Phone Systems-Phase IV (#553): CEC Although this Committee supports this project, it noted the Comments/Questions: large amount of unspent prior-year funding. A general question was how are project managers addressing committed and uncommitted prior funding when reporting how much is unspent. Network Redundancy & Improvement PlanÄPhase III (#855): CEC Although this Committee supports this program, it was Comments/Questions: suggested that the $57,000 for Wi-Fi service in the Cary Memorial Building be included in a separate CIP. Mr. Addelson responded as follows: There are two components to this program: Wi-Fi service for the public and Wi-Fi service for staff. Having two Wi-Fi services provides redundancy, which enhances security. The $57,000 is for public access, and this can be included as a separate project. Police Department Software (Police & Fire/EMS): (#477): Although this CEC Comments/Questions: Committee supports this project, it isnÈt clear whether labor costs associated with training for a new software system should be included as capital costs. Mr. Addelson said that including them is appropriate. Police Station; Renovation and Add-on Design and Engineering (#692): CEC This Committee has not taken a preliminary position as Comments/Questions: this project hasnÈt been defined. And as noted earlier with regard to the Page 3 of 9 Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting December 16, 2014 Headquarters Fire Station Replacement, this should be a DPF projectÄthe Police Department is the ÅclientÆ. Design/EngineeringÄFiring Range at Hartwell Ave. Compost Site (number not known): A welcomed first step toward understanding CEC Comments/Questions: what would constitute the project to meet the demonstrated need for a modern capability for the Police Department. Again, this should be considered a DPF project. Public Facilities School Building Envelope and Systems Program (#562): CEC This Committee supports this project, but Mr. Kanter Comments/Questions: wants a better distinction made regarding what ÅsystemsÆ are included in the scope of this on-going project versus what ÅsystemsÆ will be in stand-alone CIPs. Municipal Building Envelope and Systems(#647): As CEC Comments/Questions: noted for the comparable Schools program (#562), Mr. Kanter wants the same distinction to be made with regard to ÅsystemsÆ. Interior Painting Program (#699): This Committee CEC Comments/Questions: supports the plan to shift interior painting into the Operating Budget, as is planned for FY2018. LHS Heating Systems Upgrade Phases 2 & 3 (#564): CEC This Committee supports this project, but more Comments/Questions: information is needed about the projected construction costs for FY2017-2019. Diamond Energy Improvements (#754): This CEC Comments/Questions: Committee supports this project, but noted the CIPÈs Description, next-to-last line, has ÅFY2016Æ, but believe ÅFY2017Æ is intended to match the funding table. However, if the School Master Plan is, indeed, finished in February 2015 and it and/or DPF capabilities donÈt suggest otherwise, this Committee sees merit in moving the funding into FY2016. Visitors Center (#835): This Committee has not CEC Comments/Questions: taken a preliminary position; the general scope of this project has not been determined by the Board of Selectmen (BoS). In any case, the projected, and now further delayed, construction funding amount needs to be revisited and adjusted, as appropriate. Hastings School Renovation/Replacement (#870): CEC Comments/Questions: This Committee has not taken a position because the scope of this project has not been determined. Renovation & Update of Diamond Kitchen and Cafeteria (#900): CEC This Committee has not taken a position as a revised Comments/Questions: CIPÄexpected to include work at the Clarke Middle SchoolÄis expected. Clarke Gymnasium Lockers (#905): Understand this CEC Comments/Questions: CIP has been withdrawn. Clarke Middle School Circulation and Parking Improvements (#934): CEC This Committee supports this project, but understands this Comments/Questions: is just one effort in what will be a continuing need to improve traffic safety at Page 4 of 9 Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting December 16, 2014 several schools based on the on-going analysis of all of the Schools in the District. This CIP should be revised to reflect that District-wide need by including out-year funding, at least as placekeepers. Diamond Gym Motors for Backboards (#936): Are CEC Comments/Questions: there other schools with comparable manually adjusted gym backboards? If so, they, too, should be included in this request to upgrade such equipment. Public Facilities Mechanical/Electrical System Replacements (#939): CEC Is there any redundancy in system replacements Comments/Questions: associated with this project and projects #562 and #647? Food Service LHS Dishwasher and Installation (#953): CEC The School Department is providing a revised CIP for Comments/Questions: project #668, and this may include integration with this project. Mr. Addelson agreed to pursue clarification of the funding issues. Elementary School Short Term Capacity Increase (#959): CEC This Committee has not taken a preliminary position; more Comments/Questions: information is needed. Pre-K Short Term Capacity Increase (#960): This CEC Comments/Questions: Committee has not taken a position; more information is needed. Lexington Public School Educational Capacity Increase (#961): CEC This Committee has not taken a position; more Comments/Questions: information is needed. Cary Memorial Building Sidewalk \[Enhancement\] (#965): CEC The Historic District CommissionÈs role in this project isnÈt Comments/Questions: yet clear but if it has jurisdiction, it could affect this effortÈs pricing as that is currently to implement the BoSÈ decision that the sidewalk have a concrete surface with brick borders. Community Center Sidewalk (number not known): CEC Comments/Questions: This Committee has not taken a position because the project scope has not been clearly defined. Mr. Valente reported that there will be a site visit on December thth 29 \[subsequently changed to the 30\] to review the project, and those interested may attend. Mr. Kanter said he would do so. Public Works Center Streetscape Improvements (#321): This CEC Comments/Questions: project has not been supported by the majority on this Committee. The CIP was presented as an aesthetic project, and the $8.0 million being requested seems exceptionally high with questionable benefits. There were also concerns about the impact on the businesses during construction, questions about doing it in stages to reduce the impact, and whether the outcome might work against the increase in diversity of businesses that is understood to be a Town objective. Mr. Valente reported the following: This is not an aesthetic project; it is for public safety because the brick sidewalks in the center create a hazard, the crosswalks are poorly located, and the Woburn Street/Massachusetts Avenue intersection needs a traffic Page 5 of 9 Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting December 16, 2014 light. Including the Åmovie-setÆ characterization in the CommitteeÈs comments is especially disturbing. (The Committee agreed to strike that adjective.) The proposed changes will benefit both the mobility challenged and the able bodied. It is not always practical to do a project in stages. Watching on cable television the last two BoS meetings, when this project was discussed, would provide this Committee with a better, more in-depth understanding of the project. Automatic Meter Reading System (#327): This CEC Comments/Questions: Committee has not taken a position; more information is neededÄincluding an economic analysis to justify this project. Street Improvements (#522): This Committee CEC Comments/Questions: repeatedly heard during DPWÈs CIP presentations that this project and several others were delayed because of the scarcity of police details. It was suggested that outside sources be used, especially on back streets. It was also noted that it had been this CommitteeÈs understanding that the cost to keep the street-condition model up to date would be included in the Operating Budget and, therefore, questioned the inclusion of $20,000 for that work as a Capital expense. Mr. Valente agreed that obtaining police details was a challenge in 2014 and noted the following: The Bedford Street sewer project this year created a high demand on available police details. Non-Lexington police officers donÈt know the Town. The shortage is a regional issue. More State Chapter 90 funds are available so there are more roadway projects in general. Hydrant Replacement Program (#528): This CEC Comments/Questions: Committee supports this project but is concerned that some hydrants may not be upgraded soon enough. It reiterated its earlier request for more information on the status of the TownÈs hydrants (e.g., deficiencies found during the flushing program and during fire-department responses; listing of off-line hydrants) to help gain confidence that the current program is sufficient. Battle Green Streetscape Improvements (#922): This CEC Comments/Questions: Committee has not taken a position; a justification is needed for continuing the design and engineering when those costs already appear to be exceptionally high as compared to the currently projected construction costs. In any case, this Committee does not consider the overall project is sufficiently high in priority in the light of the other designated-high-priority Capital projects the Town faces. The one exception could be completing the design and projecting construction costs for improving the Harrington Road/Bedford Street intersection (which has been estimated at 30% of the overall project) as this Committee views that as addressing a safety issue. Battle Green Master PlanÄPhase 3 (#672): The CEC Comments/Questions: majority of this Committee is currently opposed to the timing of this project Page 6 of 9 Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting December 16, 2014 because of the other major projects that need to be undertaken. There is also concern that several previously funded elements of this Plan are yet to be done so that further funding should be deferred until they have been completed. Hartwell Avenue Infrastructure Improvements (#850): CEC There is support for the project, particularly because of the Comments/Questions: safety component; however there were questions about whether the project should be phased, whether the estimate at this stage is sufficient to cover the bids to cover all the three elements in the scope (i.e., the bridge over Kiln Brook, the Maguire Road intersection, and the pedestrian crossing at Bedford Street). While the Committee recognizes that the bridge is the highest priority among those elements, it felt the pedestrian crossing was a higher priority than the intersection; however, the Committee appreciates that it may make financial and contracting sense to have the bridge and the intersection in the same bid scope. Sidewalk Improvement (#644): The Committee noted CEC Comments/Questions: that a recent report cited that it would take $600,000 to avoid having the TownÈs current Sidewalk Condition Index decrease over timeÄand that didnÈt account for where new sidewalks may be determined to be needed. The Committee was advised that an increase of the previously cited $400,000 for FY2016 to $600,000 was already being considered. Municipal Parking Lot improvements (#881): Two CEC Comments/Questions: Committee members (Mr. Kanter & Ms. Hai) do not believe this project should proceed until there is more information about the future of the Police Headquarters and the Hosmer House. The other three members abstained. Mr. Valente expressed an understanding of the concerns. Bikeway Bridge Renovations (#883): It was CEC Comments/Questions: recommended that CPA funding for this Grant-Street project be pursued as had such funding for the culvert rehabilitation north of Camellia Place under CIP #683. Hartwell Avenue Compost Site Improvements (#915): CEC The Committee wants more information about the scope Comments/Questions: of the building and how it will be usedÄincluding consideration of potential use by others working at the site (e.g., police personnel there to use the firing range). Hastings Park Undergrounding of Wires (#921): This CEC Comments/Questions: Committee does not currently support funding this project in the light of the other higher-priority capital projects facing the Town. If the $300,000 were still available, the Committee recommends it be added to the Capital Projects/Debt Service Reserve/Building Renewal Fund to help address those other higher- priority needs. Public Parking Lot Improvement Program (#941): CEC Comments/Questions: This Committee has not taken a position; more information is needed. Recreation Pine Meadows Improvements (#280): Although not CEC Comments/Questions: currently projected for funding until FY2018, this Committee recommended a determination be obtained much sooner than that as to whether the work would Page 7 of 9 Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting December 16, 2014 be eligible for funding under the CPA so the Recreation DepartmentÈs planning could take that under consideration in its long-term planning. Lincoln Park Field Improvements (#848): This CEC Comments/Questions: Committee supports the approach being recommended by the Recreation Department that, although the issuance of a Request for Bid (RFB) for the previously funded resurfacing of Field #2 has been delayed pending the now- resolved solution to the resurfacing of Field #1, Town Meeting should be asked to approve this request for the funding to resurface Field #3. The DepartmentÈs intent is to issue a single RFB for the resurfacing of both Fields #2 & #3 with the work to be done sequentially so as not to so severely reduce the available field capacity. Schools Food Service Equipment (#668): No position taken CEC Comments/Questions: by this Committee as this is a placekeeper for an expected submission. School Furniture, Equipment & Systems Program (#896): CEC A revised CIP (now with $317,500 being requested in Comments/Questions: FY2016) was received from the School Department. This Committee endorses that there is also a plan for a District-wide furniture inventory. School Traffic Mitigation for SafetyÄAnalysis (#898): CEC Comments/Questions: No position taken by this Committee as a revised CIP is expected. Town Clerk Archives & Records Management/Records Conservation & Preservation (#307): In response to discussions with the staff from the CEC Comments/Questions: Town ClerkÈs office, it is anticipated that this will be an on-going need rather than just for a remaining two years as originally identified in the CIP; therefore, this Committee added continued level funding in FY2019 & FY2020. Election System Upgrade (#851): In response to CEC Comments/Questions: discussions with the staff from the Town ClerkÈs office, this Committee shows this project beginning one year earlier (FY2017) than was identified in the CIP. The Committee was advised of three that FY2016-2020 Citizen-Initiated Capital Projects: had not previously been presented to the CEC and, therefore, on which the Committee has not taken preliminary positions.Those projects are: A Sidewalk on Prospect Hill Road to Marrett Road: It appears that this can be included in the annual budget for sidewalk projects. A Sidewalk on Pleasant Street: This requires a feasibility study, which will cost $20,000. It is anticipated that this can be included in the annual budget for sidewalk projects. Sewer Repairs on Gleason Road: Costs are unknown, but the work is necessary and urgent. Presentation of Additional, CPA-Eligible, FY2016Ã2020 Capital Projects: Minuteman Bikeway Wayfinding: Mr. Livsey discussed a study, which was funded by a grant, that identified recommended signage for the Minuteman Bikeway. The Page 8 of 9 Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting December 16, 2014 Lexington Bicycle Committee is supporting a request for $39,000 for design work needed to implement the recommendations. The signage would include etiquette signs, as well as directional signs, and graphics to improve understanding. Recommended locations for the signs include along the bikeway and on approaches to and from the bikeway to help facilitate use of the path. The bikeway extends into the Towns of Arlington and Bedford. Arlington has endorsed the study, but has not supported implementation of the recommendations. It isnÈt known if Bedford has taken any steps in this direction. In response to a question, Mr. Livsey said that signage enhances safety, particularly where the bikeway intersects streets. Such signage must be consistent, as regulated at the Federal level; however, further consistency between the Towns for other signage is not guaranteed. Currently, the hours when the bikeway is open are different in the three Towns. The following concerns were expressed: This should be done in conjunction with Arlington and Bedford. All three Towns should be contributing to the design funds. There should be a written Memorandum of Understanding signed by the three Towns. The Committee noted that funds will likely be requested in FY2017 to implement the signageÄwork currently estimated at about $200,000. A motion was made and seconded to take a preliminary position to support the Minuteman Bikeway Wayfinding project. (Mr. Kanter in opposition) Vote: 3Ã1 Parker's Revenge Restoration: Ms. Krieger reported that the CPA application for ParkerÈs Revenge was recently revised. The project includes archeological analyses, interpretive signs, and a minimal amount of restoration of the battle site; generally, the National Park Service does not like to re-create what does not now exist. The archeological testing and imaging is currently underway; military experts determine what has been found and what happened during the battle. There are some wetland issues to address. Approximately $100,000 of the funding for the project is coming from private donations; the CPC is being asked to support the use of $36,790 from the CPF for the balance. A motion was made and seconded to take a preliminary position to support the Parker's Revenge Restoration project. Vote: 4Ã0 None Member Concerns and Liaison Reports: None Approval of Minutes: A Motion was made and seconded at 9:52 .. to adjourn. Adjourn:Vote: 4Ã0 AM These Minutes were approved by the CEC at its meeting on January 13, 2015. Page 9 of 9