Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-01-20-CEC-min Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting January 20, 2015 Town Office Building, Reed Room; 8:00 .. Location and Time: AM Jill Hai, Chair; David Kanter, Vice-Chair & Clerk; Elizabeth Barnett; Members Present: Rod Cole; Wendy Manz (arrived 8:55 ..) AM None Members Absent: Sara Arnold, Recording Secretary Others Present: Documents Presented: Notice of Public Meeting/Agenda for January 20, 2015 Mr.Kanter Update on his Preliminary Positions of the CEC on the FY2016ÃFY2020 Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs) & Non-Town Applications to the Community Preservation Committee \[CPC\], January 19, 2015 Ms. Hai called the meeting to order at 8:00 .. Call to Order: AM Review of the Fiscal Year 2016 Town ManagerÈs Preliminary Budget and Financing Mr. Kanter and Ms. Barnett reported on the Plan, January 12, 2015 (White Book): th January 15 Budget Collaboration/Summit 4. They included the following points: There was a straight-forward presentation of the White Book. The GIC insurance premiums may be greater than the 5% currently being carried in the FY2016 budget. The advance suggestion is that it may increase to 9%, but the Town Manager expects it may end up being about 7.5%Äwhich would add about $500,000 to the operating budget. There is a proposal to add almost $10.0 million into the capital-related stabilization fund. Financing plans for a new fire headquarters, police headquarters, and large school capital projects were not presented. Ms. Barnett noted that although there are hiring freezes at the State level and in Boston, Lexington is planning to add 11 new staff positions on the Town side. Member Concerns and Liaison Updates: th Mr. Cole reported on the January 15 Ad hoc School Department Expansion Projects: School Master Planning Committee (AhSMPC) meeting. He included the following points: There was less convergence on a defined plan than he had anticipated. Some AhSMPC members have suggested that the School Committee ask for a Special Town Meeting to request design funds, but it isnÈt clear what should be designed. A complicating factor is that the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) did not advance LexingtonÈs Statement of Interest (SOI) for State financial assistance in rebuilding/renovating the Maria Hastings Elementary School (Hastings). There are differing opinions as to whether the Town should rebuild the Page 1 of 6 Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting January 20, 2015 school without the subsidy or continue to submit SOIs with the hope that the project will eventually be approved. Hastings can be built with or without a pre-kindergarten center. If it includes pre-kindergarten, that would free up additional space at the Harrington Elementary School. Hastings can be built to accommodate the current Hastings enrollment or with six additional classrooms or 12 additional classroomsÄdepending on decisions made regarding expansions/additions at the other elementary schools. Mr. Goddard, Director of Public Facilities, suggested that the AhSMPC has fulfilled it charge and future decisions are required of the policy makers. The School Committee plans to vote tonight on an approach for moving forward. This Committee discussed the issues. Ms. Hai reported on her visit to Hastings, noting that some of the conditions are sub-optimal,but she felt education standards were adequateon an immediate basis. Additional comments included the following: MSBA requires that a school building be LEED (Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design) certified for projects that it supports and the Lexington Board of Selectmen has a policy that new Town construction strive to meet the LEED Silver requirements; this has costly ramifications. Energy Star standards are less costly and still address the important environmental considerations. The Town needs to replace the Lexington High School (LHS) in approximately 10 years. If MSBA contributes to a new Hastings, it may not be willing to support the high-school project a relatively few years later. Because MSBA provides a percentage of a projectÈs costs and because the LHS is a much-more-expensive project, it is better to receive MSBA funding for the LHS than for Hastings, if a choice could be made. Hastings accommodates the after-school extended-day program for the Bridge Elementary School and Hastings students, and currently the demand is such that students are being turned away. Although this program may not be considered an educational necessity, it is offered at the other elementary schools, and families throughout the Town should have equivalent access to such programs. There isnÈt enough information to determine what is needed to retain the schoolsÈ current level of service. One School Committee goal is to find mechanisms for reaching parity among the schools. The School Committee needs a vision about how to proceed, but it isnÈt yet clear what will facilitate its establishing that vision. This Committee should be comfortable that all non-capital alternatives for achieving the School DepartmentÈs goals have been explored and pursued, as appropriate, before supporting large capital projects for school expansions/renovations and/or rebuilding. Page 2 of 6 Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting January 20, 2015 This Committee should have a statement regarding its position on the school issues nd for the January 22 Budget Summit 5. There was discussion about the need tounderstand how all the pieces fit together both in terms of financing the projects as well as in terms of the optimum plan that does not overbuild or underbuild. It was agreed that that this Committee should develop a statement that reflects this CommitteeÈs concerns. At the same time, this Committee understands the need for additional capacity at the schools. It was agreed that Ms. Hai will develop such a statement for this CommitteeÈs review. A motion was made and seconded to create a statement that demonstrates this CommitteeÈs understanding of the schoolsÈ critical near-term need for major capital investments that cannot be obviated by administrative actions (e.g., redistricting), but also identifies the TownÈs need for a strategic plan for capital and non-capital mechanisms that will lead the Town towards educational parity as the schools meet the demands of enrollment growth. Vote: 4Ã0 Mr. Kanter Wright Farm Purchase using Community Preservation Act (CPA) Funds: reported that the CPC will be meeting tomorrow to discuss this purchase. The Town purchased a large portion of Wright Farm \[12.60¯-acre ÅParcel 1Æ\] several years ago \[at the 2012 Annual Town Meeting\] with a first-right-of-refusal to purchase the balance \[1.00¯ Parcel 2\] for $500,000 plus cost of living increases when it became available. Ms. Barnett reported having attended a Minuteman Bikeway Way-Finding Signage: Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination (MAGIC) meeting where there was discussion about plans to develop consistent signage for path and bikeways. She reported that this is in its initial stages, it isnÈt clear whether the use of these signs would be mandatory, and the timeframe for finalizing a program was not identified. MAGIC is a subsidiary of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, which receives Federal transportation funds. Ms. Barnett suggested that, because of the economies of scale, it may be that purchasing signage based on these new standards might be less expensive than purchasing signs that are designed by, and produced just for, Lexington. Ms. Manz arrived. Mr. KanterÈs Preparations for the January 22, 2015, Budget Collaboration/Summit 5: spreadsheet listing the capital projects under consideration and their preliminary standing with this Committee was used to discuss those projects for which this Committee had initially abstained or voted against the project and to learn which members wanted to change their preliminary votes. The focus was on identifying projects with FY2016 funding requests that currently do not have this CommitteeÈs support. The following projects were identified as such or triggered comments, as follows: Economic Development Parking Meter Replacement (CIP #962): There still isnÈt enough information available at this time, thus the preliminary position on this project remains to abstain. Grain Mill Alley (CIP #963): The current 1Ã4Ã0 opposition to this project relates to concerns about the use of this space by abutters, potential legal fees associated with abutters, and a general feeling that this should be part of the center Page 3 of 6 Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting January 20, 2015 streetscape plans. Ms. Manz, the sole supporter, noted that the project will encourage connectivity between the back area parking and the stores, plus the funding request is small. Information Services Network Redundancy & Improvement PlanÄPhase III (CIP #855): Although there is currently unanimous support for the project, Mr. Kanter reiterated his position that WiFi services do not create the redundancy contemplated in this multi-year program and, asindicated in the CIP, Phase III has been deferred a year. Department of Public Facilities (DPF) LHS Heating Systems Upgrade Phases 2 & 3 (CIP #564): Currently, there is unanimous support for this project despite its overall cost being estimated at $10 million. It is work that is critical notwithstanding that it is anticipated the LHS will need a major renovation/rebuildÄlikely in the mid 2020sÄand this CommitteeÈs support for this Upgrade program should be reported at the Budget Summit. Diamond Energy Improvements (CIP #754): There isnÈt a FY2016 funding request. Currently, boiler-plate language is being used to describe the project, but this project may be changed as plans for large school projects begin to be more clearly identified. Visitors Center (CIP #835): There has been some recent progress on resolving some of the issues associated with this project, but abstaining still seems appropriate, particularly because there isnÈt a FY2016 funding request. Middle School Science and Performing Arts (CIP #838): Currently, this Committee is unanimously supporting the FY2016 funding for this project, provided it isnÈt obviated by other projects in support of the School Master Plan. In any case, it isnÈt clear whether the funding will be needed in future years. Hastings School Renovation/Replacement (CIP #870): There isnÈt enough information to support this project at this time, but there is agreement that Hastings needs to be replaced. Clarke Middle School Circulation and Parking Improvements (CIP #934): Because the various plans being discussed for renovations at Clarke would not impact this project, this Committee currently unanimously supports this project. Diamond Gym Motors for Backboards (CIP #936): Although this CommitteeÈs original preliminary position on this project was unanimous in support of it, Mr. Kanter reported that he has decided to abstain because this Committee has not heard whether other schools have the same need for the gym motors. It was noted that the only question is whether the request should be for more funding, not whether the project is worthy of support. Public Facilities Mechanical/Electrical System Replacements (CIP #939): While he supports this project, Mr. Kanter reiterated that there should be an explicit distinction made between these ÅsystemÆ efforts and those included within the two, annual, Åenvelope and systemsÆ projects. Lexington Public Schools Educational Capacity Increase (CIP #961): This replaces two other CIPs: Elementary School Short Term Capacity Increase (CIP #959) and Pre-K Short Term Capacity Increase (CIP #960). Currently, there isnÈt enough information to support this project, as discussed earlier in this meeting. Page 4 of 6 Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting January 20, 2015 Cary Memorial Building Sidewalk (CIP #965): Mr. Kanter noted that the project title needs to include the word ÅenhancementÆ as the on-going project to upgrade that building also includes some sidewalk work. This Committee has currently abstained because of questions about who has the authority to approve the designÄthe Board of Selectmen or the Historic Districts Commission, and, thus, whether the current budget request is adequate for accomplishing what needs to be done. Ms. Barnett asked if the current bricks could be sanded to make them level for less money than is required to replace them; the Commission on Disability is particularly interested in having a smooth sidewalk. Community Center Sidewalk (CIP #966): In its initial preliminary position, this Committee abstained. It was noted that the Town engineer has been unable to develop a sidewalk and landscaping design that is acceptable to all of the relevant parties, and funding is needed to hire a design engineer to work through the issues. Based on individual polling, the preliminary position was changed to 5Ã0Ã0 Department of Public Works Center Streetscape Improvements (CIP #321): Discussion focused on the safety elements associated with the intersection versus those parts of the project that are amenities or might have to be altered if the Police Headquarters and/or Hosmer House are renovated or rebuilt at their current locations. There was agreement that the project scope should include safety elements in a first phase (once they had been vetted), with additional work to be included in a second phase or when other projects are pursued. This was in contrast to this CommitteeÈs initial preliminary position, when this Committee did not support this project. Street Acceptance (CIP #554): This project does not currently include a FY2016 funding request. In its preliminary position, this Committee abstained. Mr. Kanter reported that he is changing his position and is opposing any such acceptance. Battle Green Master PlanÄPhase 3 (CIP #672): Although this Committee is currently split on its preliminary position, there was general agreement that this project was premature, but as there isnÈt a FY2016 funding request, there doesnÈt need to be further discussion at this point in time. Municipal Parking Lot Improvements (CIP #881): Although this Committee is currently split on its preliminary position, there was general agreement that as there isnÈt a FY2016 funding request, there doesnÈt need to be further discussion at this point in time. Bikeway Bridge Renovations (CIP #883): Although there is preliminary support for this project, Mr. Kanter and Ms. Barnett expressed the opinion that this should have been considered as a CPA projectÄeven for what is now an initial request just for design work. Hastings Park Underground\[ing\] Wires (CIP #921): This Committee maintained its unanimous preliminary position against this project. Battle Green Streetscape Improvements (CIP #922): Although this CommitteeÈs preliminary vote was unanimous to abstain, Mr. Kanter and Ms. Barnett asked to change their preliminary votes to opposition to the project; they only support efforts to address safety issues at Harrington Road (once vetted). Page 5 of 6 Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting January 20, 2015 Minuteman Bikeway Way-Finding (CIP #969): In light of the earlier discussion at this meeting regarding possible MAPC involvement in developing signage designs for paths and bikeways, polling of this Committee resulted in unanimous opposition to this project. School Department: Food Service Equipment (CIP #668): Although this Committee abstained in its preliminary position, as this project does not include a FY2016 funding request, there doesnÈt need to be further discussion at this time. Non-Town Applications to the CPC: Study for the Restoration of the First Parish Church: Because of changes in the funding request, polling of this Committee resulted in unanimous preliminary support for this project. ParkerÈs Revenge Restoration: Because of additional information received regarding this project, polling of this Committee resulted in unanimous preliminary support for the project. Ms. Hai agreed to develop a statement for the Budget Summit and distribute it for review. If there is agreement that what she has written reflects what was said at this meeting, and if School Committee positions that may be taken at tonightÈs School Committee meeting do not impact this CommitteeÈs positions, the currently posted meeting for January 22, 2015, at 6:30 .., will be cancelled. PM None Approval of Minutes: A Motion was made and seconded at 10:05 .. to adjourn. Adjourn:Vote: 5Ã0 AM These Minutes were approved by the CEC at its meeting on February 13, 2015. Page 6 of 6