Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-10-27-CPC-min 1 Minutes for the Community Preservation Committee 10/27/22 Remote Zoom meeting Meeting ID: #891 3308 5976 Committee Members Present: Marilyn Fenollosa (Chair), Jeanne Krieger (Vice Chair), Kevin Beuttell, Bob Creech, David Horton, Lisa O’Brien, Bob Pressman, Mark Sandeen, Melinda Walker Other Attendees: Melissa Battite (Director of Recreation and Community Programs), Christopher Filadoro (Public Grounds Superintendent), Peter Coleman (Assistant Director of Recreation), David Pinsonneault (Director of Public Works), Christine Dean (Community Center Director), Christian Boutwell (Vice Chair Recreation Committee), Sandhya Beebee (Capital Expenditures Committee Liaison). Administrative Assistant: Christopher Tierney Ms. Fenollosa called the meeting to order at 4:02. Park and Playground Improvements-Justin Park: Melissa Battite and Peter Coleman of the Recreation Department presented their proposal for the replacement of playground equipment at Justin Park. Mr. Coleman explained that playground equipment has a life cycle of 15 to 20 years and that the equipment at Justin Park was at the end of its life cycle, having been first installed in 2003. Mr. Coleman explained what exactly is entailed with this renovation and that the Department would be implementing the recommendations from a 2017 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) study. Ms. Battite also stated that the Recreation Committee had revamped its methods of community engagement in proposing park and playground improvements based on their previous experience with Sutherland Park prior to appropriation. Ms. Battite then stated that the first of these sessions with neighbors and other residents would take place on November 9th. Ms. Fenollosa asked if there are any plans for pour- in- place surfaces at the renovated park. Mr. Coleman said that there are some plans for a small amount of pour- in- place surfaces but that discussions with the playground designer were still ongoing and subject to change. Ms. Fenollosa asked what the balance of the material would be; Mr. Coleman stated that the non- pour- in- place surfaces would be made of engineered wood fiber as in other Lexington parks. Ms. Fenollosa then asked if these engineered wood fiber surfaces were just as safe as the pour - in- place surfaces; Mr. Coleman answered that they were. Ms. Fenollosa then asked about the multiple age ranges that were represented in the request (both 2-5 and 5-12 year-olds) -- whether these age ranges would be determined at the community hearing and whether both age ranges could be accommodated. Mr. Coleman replied that the age range will be 2 determined by the design team and that community feedback will be critical. Mr. Coleman said that the community hearing will also be used to get an idea of the ages of those living nearest the park and whether there are still those in the 2-5-year-old range or are there more grade school children that would benefit from a more mature structure. Mr. Pressman asked about the contingency amount for the project. Mr. Coleman stated that there is $10,000 in contingency funds. Mr. Pressman then suggested that if the stakeholders indicated that the higher age range of 5-12 was more appropriate, then the contingency might not be sufficient. Mr. Coleman stated that after preliminary talks with the playground designer, there are options for the construction with the upper age range and that he was confident that both of these options could be obtained with the funding being requested. Mr. Horton brought up the need for a third-party post-construction assessment and stated that someone with those qualifications should have some role in the design process. Mr. Creech asked if the neighbors have had any input to this point; Mr. Coleman again stated that the first public meeting regarding this project would be held on November 9th. Mr. Creech then asked that since the park was so close to wetlands, whether the presence of mosquitos would adversely affect people’s desire to use the park. Mr. Coleman said that he did not know. Ms. O’Brien stated that she and her family used Justin Park and noted the importance of a pocket park on that side of town. Ms. O’Brien also commented on the benefits of these community engagement events. Ms. Fenollosa then asked that if the plans for the park were significantly changed as a result of the neighborhood meeting, would the applicants come back and update the Committee. Mr. Sandeen asked if the park had a sandy surface; Mr. Coleman stated that the safety surface was made with engineered wood fiber and not sand. Mr. Sandeen also asked if there was any plan to expand the footprint of the park and Mr. Coleman replied that there are currently no plans to expand the footprint. After a motion was duly made and seconded the Committee voted by roll call vote (9-0) in a straw poll to support the application, though Mr. Sandeen said that he would like to hear input from the neighbors but that he is leaning yes. Park Improvements- Athletic Fields/Bridge School: Melissa Battite and Chris Filadoro of the Recreation Committee and DPW presented their proposal for updated athletic fields at the Bridge School. Mr. Filadoro stated that the request was in the amount of $285,000 in FY 24. Mr. Filadoro stated that the changes to the Bridge School fields would include laser grading the fields, installation of a new drainage system, new natural grass, new backstops, new spectator and player benches, and new signage, and that the pathways from the playground to the softball field and from the school to the field would be upgraded in accordance with the 2017 ADA study to become fully accessible. Ms. Fenollosa asked when was the last time the Bridge School field was renovated. Mr. Filadoro stated that he had been with the Town of Lexington for 11 years and he had never renovated this space. Mr. Filadoro also stated that the last renovation which took place 13 or 14 years ago was only to improve the infield and that this would be a much more comprehensive renovation. Mr. Coleman also noted that the Bridge School was the first improvement under the annual Athletic Fields Improvements Program and 3 that the cycle has come around to where Bridge School athletic fields are ready for a new renovation. Mr. Pressman asked what types of fields are at Bridge School and who uses them. Mr. Filadoro stated that there is one baseball and one softball field. Mr. Coleman stated that Lexington High School uses the outfield space for their Ultimate Frisbee team and that the Bridge School uses the fields for PE classes and recess. Mr. Coleman added that Lexington Little League uses the fields for their youth baseball and softball programs. Ms. Fenollosa asked if Lexington Little league pays for the use of the field or if it falls under one of the Recreation Department’s recreation programs. Mr. Coleman explained that Lexington Little League qualifies as a "Tier 2” rental program and that for use of natural grass fields the organization pays a flat rate per participant for the season. Mr. Coleman also stated that there are other organizations that meet these criteria, including Lexington Babe Ruth (the next step in Youth Baseball after Little League), Lexington United Soccer Club and Lexington Youth Lacrosse. Mr. Pressman then asked if the money raised goes into the Enterprise Fund. Mr. Coleman stated that it does. Mr. Beuttell stated that in his professional capacity in the City of Cambridge he was aware that their policies are such that CPC funds are not put into projects on school property. Mr. Beuttell explained that the idea behind such a restriction is that when CPC funds are used to improve an area, it becomes “protected open space,” and that Cambridge, when attempting to move a school building and disturbing the footprint of a playground, was found to have violated Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution. Ms. Fenollosa shared what Lexington Town Counsel had opined on the matter: “Article 97 issues certainly come up when a town dedicates any property to park and arguably playground use. The CPA’s funding is not on its own what would create this concern; a property is more likely to have Article 97 protections because of its existing use as a field, not because of additional CPA funding. Mr. Beuttell also asked about the Weston & Simpson report and the number of hours that were used by the different types of fields-- specifically, whether or not due to the shift on what spring sports are being played there would be a reduction in diamond fields (baseball/softball) and expansion of the number of multi-use fields for sports such as soccer and lacrosse. Mr. Filadoro stated that they have previously worked with Lexington Little League to make some of their fields more multi use. Ms. Battite also added that the very reason for the Weston & Sampson report was to become more efficient in the use of existing fields for sports that go beyond the spring/fall model to a three- season or year-round model. Ms. Battite also stated that the current permitting system gives preference to those sports that are in their traditional season. Ms. Krieger asked about the source of water for the irrigation of the field. Mr. Filadoro then stated that the irrigation system would be tied into the Town’s water supply. Ms. Krieger then asked if there was any consideration to using well water at these sites instead of tying into the Town. Mr. Filadoro said that with the necessary infrastructure to create a well and to keep it running would not be worth it. Mr. Sandeen asked about the DPF plans and timing of Bridge School’s potential renovation. Ms. Battite stated that she did not know when exactly Bridge School would be completely rebuilt but most likely in 5 to 8 years , and after the completion of 4 the new Lexington High School. Mr. Sandeen also asked about ADA compliance and the status of Bridge School and where accessibility needs to be improved. Ms. Battite explained that there are insufficient pathways from one field to another and from the field diamond to the bench area and spectator spaces. After a motion was duly made and seconded the Committee cond ucted a roll call vote (8-0-1) in a straw poll to support the application. Lincoln Park Field Improvements: Ms. Battite explained that Lincoln Field 1 is coming towards the end of its life cycle and will need to be replaced. Ms. Battite also explained that this was included in the five-year plan and that there are additional plans, including adding athletic lighting to Lincoln Field 1 as well as Lincoln Field 3, which are the two synthetic multi-use fields of three at Lincoln Park that are without athletic lighting. This addition of lights will extend the number of hours when the fields can remain in operation and this has been discussed with the Department of Public Facilities. Ms. Battite also stated that community engagement meetings will begin over the next few months. Mr. Coleman stated that currently there is a 6100 -hour deficit between desired field usage and field availability and that new lights would close the gap to about 1600 hours. Mr. Coleman also stated that this is year one of a three -year process in terms of resurfacing the three fields. Ms. Fenollosa asked if Ms. Battite could confirm the amount requested; Ms. Battite stated that the request was for $2,475,000 , an amount that differed from the application submitted to the Committee. Ms. Fenollosa requested that Ms. Battite resend their request reflecting the correct amount. Mr. Coleman commented that the difference in presented costs was a result of incurring a cost of $970,000 per field and agreed that they would send a revised request to the Committee. Mr. Beuttell asked if the cost of $970,000 for lighting was a result of the footprint of the fields, and what type of lighting system was being used over at Lincoln Field. Ms. Battite stated that the size of the parcel does have an influence on the cost of the system, as does the installation of the lighting system being open to prevailing wages whereas previous lighting systems were donated. Mr. Horton commented on the impact of lighting on the neighbors and the amount of light spillage in that area. Mr. Horton also asked about the service road area and improvements for that area of the park as well. Ms. Battite mentioned that the area Mr. Horton is concerned with falls under the Lincoln Park subcommittee and that any re-developments of that area of the park will have community input and be addressed. Ms. Walker asked about the funding source for the project in respect to bonding, specifically if there is a combination of a desire for direct funding or if they wanted to bond the cost of the project. Ms. Battite specified that Recreation would be seeking $2,400,000 from CPA and the remaining project cost that was not covered by the CPA would be bonded. Ms. Walker then expressed a concern that the needs of the Recreation Department and the needs of the Lexington Public Schools were conflicting, noting the large funding requests and hoped that the two groups would work together. Ms. Battite mentioned that the Lexington Schools are the 5 biggest user of the fields and that the schools are given first priority on field use. Ms. Walker also asked if the Recreation Department charges Lexington Schools for the use of the fields. Ms. Battite stated that the schools only pay for the use of lighting the fields and overtime for the Department of Public Works. Ms. Battite also mentioned that Recreation and community programs are also allowed to use school facilities at no cost outside of incurred overtime. Mr. Pressman then asked about which part of Town government has the final decision on whether lighting on fields will be permitted. Ms. Battite responded that will be brought forward by public process before appropriation and once funds are appropriated , requests will be approved through Town Meeting. Mr. Pressman asked for Mr. Sandeen to comment if the Select Board has a right independent of Town Meeting requests to decide whether or not fields should be lit. Mr. Sandeen stated that he would have to look into that question. Mr. Pressman then commented about the potential site for the new Lexington High School and the associated loss of fields. Ms. Battite stated that no determination for a laydown site had been made and that taking resources offline while there is high field demand would exacerbate the existing problem. Ms. O’Brien commented that Lincoln Field 1 is reaching the end of its life span, having been installed nearly 10 years ago, and also commented that currently the demand for field use exceeds Lexington’s supply and that synthetic turf satisfies a de mand for playability and longevity. Ms. O’Brien went on to say that currently Lexington cannot build more fields at Lincoln Park so it is building lights instead. Ms. O’Brien also stated that it was the desire of the Recreation Committee to keep costs down by combining these projects as opposed to requesting funding individually. Mr. Sandeen commented that he believes that the Committee should look at these projects holistically and that the Committee could potentially run out of money by funding projects that come in piecemeal. Mr. Sandeen also asked for a complete breakdown of the $2,475,000 request -- whether all of this amount was going directly into the cost of construction. Ms. Battite explained that there were a variety of other costs besides construction including conservation and permitting fees but the department would provide a more through breakdown of the associated costs. Mr. Sandeen also asked about the lifespan of a synthetic field and the effect of “stretching” the field’s lifespan. Mr. Pinsonneault explained that Lexington’s synthetic fields have 10-year warranties (8 years are included, and the Town purchases 2 additional years). Mr. Pinsonneault commented that 10 years, with the amount of use the fields incur, represent about the lifespan of one of these fields and that if turf is stretched too far it will start to breakdown and could compromise safety. Mr. Sandeen then brought up concerns about synthetic fields being constructed using PFAS and other “forever chemicals” that have been shown to have adverse health effects and what the process of disposing these surfaces is when they have reached the end of their life cycle. Mr. Pinsonneault stated that disposal is included in the project and that all disused turf must be safely disposed of. Mr. Pinsonneault also stated that the fields are regularly tested for health and safety. Mr. Pinsonneault then stated that the replacement of synthetic fields is staggered so as to not take all fields offline at any one time. Ms. Battite also commented that Lexington has an independent contractor come in and perform annual audits in the fields in addition to regular 6 maintenance. Both Mr. Sandeen and Mr. Creech thought that natural turf should be considered and priced out. Mr. Sandeen then asked if the Recreation Committee was asking for $1,300,000 each year for the next three years in order to replace the synthetic fields around town. Ms. Battite said that yes, that was the case. After a motion was duly made and seconded the Committee voted by roll call (6-0-3) in a straw poll to support the application, although Mr. Sandeen commented that he would be leaning no if there is a greater demand for synthetic turf . After the vote Ms. Fenollosa reminded the Committee that the CPA statute excludes synthetic turf from eligible costs under CPA. Public Grounds Irrigation Improvements: Mr. Pinsonneault explained to the Committee that with the exception of Hastings, all irrigation systems are at least 22 years old and need to be replaced. Mr. Pinsonneault explained that the $200,000 costs ($80,000 from CPA) would be used to install a smart irrigation system that would allow for watering based not on time but on environmental factors: the system will detect when it is raining and act accordingly so as not to waterlog the field, representing a massive savings in money but more importantly water. Mr. Pressman pointed out to Mr. Pinsonneault that the project application form indicated that funds allocated for irrigation in 2018 had not been used. Mr. Pinsonneault stated that there was a change in the vendor so that was why those funds were still there. Ms. Fenollosa asked if Mr. Pinsonneault could utilize those funds in order to pay for the irrigation upgrades. Mr. Pinsonneault answered that the Department was still planning to complete that project so it would not be possible. Mr. Horton asked Mr. Pinsonneault about letting some land become “pollinator fields” that do not require as much water as grass to further cut down on water usage. Mr. Pinsonneault stated that such transitions have been discussed and that a small portion of Hastings Park would be converted into a pollinator field. Mr. Sandeen asked if the automated metering system was being hooked up to the new irrigation system. Mr. Pinsonneault said that it was. After a motion was duly made and seconded the Committee voted by roll call (9-0) in a straw poll to support the application. Minutes: After a motion was duly made and seconded the Committee voted by roll call (9-0) to approve the minutes dated 9/15/2022. Committee Business: Ms. Fenollosa brought up funding for the Affordable Housing Trust and noted that after approval by Town Meeting there would be a delay until the Trust was fully established and ready to accept grants. Ms. Fenollosa then asked if the Select Board planned to request funds on behalf of the Trust and when they would be able to vote on such a motion. Mr. Sandeen replied that the Select Board chair had already scheduled a vote on Warrant Article 12, the establishment of an Affordable Housing Trust , for their meeting on November 7 2nd. Mr. Sandeen also stated that the Affordable Housing Trust Study Committee had made a request for funding, assuming that Town Meeting approved the formation, and that the Select Board would forward this request to the Committee. Ms. Fenollosa stated that she has already received a preliminary application for pre-funding of $1,500,000, the average cost of a one- family home in Lexington. Mr. Pressman asked if the Committee has received any applications for CPA funding from entities like LexHAB, Munroe Center for the Arts etc. Ms. Fenollosa and Mr. Tierney stated that as of the date and time of the meeting they h ad not but that the deadline for such requests is November 1st and that those requests were expected to arrive very soon. Ms. Fenollosa then discussed the Needs Assessment Report and when Committee members who were assigned sections of this report should have them turned in. The original date of November 1st is in the middle of a very busy time for the Committee so this date was pushed back one week. Ms. Walker commented on the current state of affordable housing and the need for more CPA funds to go into community housing especially in the midst of a housing crisis and contrasted this with requests for funding lights at Lincoln Field. Mr. Sandeen also commented that he heard a comment that 80% of Lexington’s teachers cannot afford to live in Lexington. The Committee will next meet over Zoom on Thursday November 3rd 2022 at 4:00 pm. After a motion was duly made and seconded the Committee voted by roll call (9-0) to adjourn the meeting at 6:10. Respectfully submitted, Christopher Tierney, Administrative Assistant Meeting Materials: CPA Capital Funding Request FY24-28 -Irrigation Project CPA Funding Request FY24-28 -Lincoln Field Improvements CPA Funding Request FY24-28 - Park Improvements/Justin Park CPA Funding Request FY24-28 -Athletic Field Improvements/Bridge School Minutes dated 9/15/2022 Approved 11/17/2022