Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-02-23-CEC-minMinutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting February 23, 2016 Location and Time: Town Office Building, Reed Room (111); 7:30 A.M. Members Present: Jill Hai, Chair; David Kanter, Vice -Chair & Clerk; Elizabeth Barnett; Rod Cole; Wendy Manz Members Absent: None Others Present: Jon Himmel, Chair, Permanent Building Committee; Melisa Tintocalis, Economic Development Director; Sara Arnold, Recording Secretary Documents Presented: • Notice of Public Meeting for CEC Meeting, Agenda, February 23, 2016 • Table of Contents from Pending Draft #2 Capital Expenditures Committee Report to 2016 Annual Town Meeting (ATM) & 2016 Special Town Meeting (STM) 2016 -3, extracted on February 21, 2016 • Streetscape Estimate, Pie Chart, February 23, 2016, prepared and presented by Mr. Himmel • Grain Mill Alley Concept Plan: Massachusetts Avenue & Alternative Transportation Node; February 16, 2016; presented by Ms. Tintocalis • Grain Mill Alley— Anticipated Project Costs (2/16/16); presented by Ms. Tintocalis • Grain Mill Alley photo; Sidewalk Checker Board Game; Summer 2015; presented by Ms. Tintocalis • Draft CEC Minutes, January 19, 2016 • Draft #3 CEC Minutes, January 29, 2016 • Draft #3 CEC Minutes, February 2, 2016 • Draft #3 CEC Minutes, February 9, 2016 • Draft CEC Minutes, February 10, 2016 • Draft CEC Minutes, February 22, 2016 Call to Order: Ms. Hai called the meeting to order at 7:32 A.M. Member Concerns and Liaison Reports: Ms. Hai reported that Dawn McKenna, Chair, Tourism Committee, has requested to meet with this Committee to discuss ATM Article 8(h): Antony Park Construction Funds. She has been invited to attend this Committee's meeting on March 1St Ms. Hai announced that a March 15th meeting, 7:00 P.M., in the Depot building, is being held to "kick -off" a campaign for the debt - exclusion referendum that is being scheduled for late spring. Those interested are invited to attend. Mr. Kanter reported that at the previous- evening's meeting of the Board of Selectmen (BoS), it had discussed staff - prepared options for what could be questions presented in a potential debt - exclusion referendum later this year if the BoS should decide to call one —at which point the BoS would determine what question(s) to include. These options were based on the presumption that there would be three project scopes included in such a referendum: master — planning, design, and renovation of middle - school facilities; master - planning & design of elementary - school facilities including the acquisition and installation of modular classrooms; and the purchase of the property at 20 Pelham Road Page 1 of 4 Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting February 23, 2016 and design & engineering costs related to use of the property for municipal or school purposes. Those options were: • Option 1: One question that includes all three project scopes. • Option 2: Two questions. One addressing both the elementary- and middle - school project scopes and another for the Pelham Road property. • Option 3: Three questions; One for each project scope. After a discussion of the perceived merits and disadvantages of each of those options, a Motion was made and seconded that, if it were to be just those three options, this Committee would endorse Option 2. Vote: 5 -0 Ms. Barnett noted that she continues to believe the Center Streetscape project should be included on a debt - exclusion referendum. Mr. Kanter also reported that at that same BoS meeting, Rob Addelson, Assistant Town Manager for Finance, advised that the winning bids for debt issued by Lexington for various projects on February 17th resulted in the true interest costs to the Town of 1.05% for the bonds and 0.47% for the bond - anticipation notes. Approval of Minutes: Mr. Kanter presented the six sets of Minutes for approval and described any revisions since the earlier distribution. The following votes followed each presentation and discussion: • A Motion was made and seconded to approve the Draft Minutes for the January 19, 2016, meeting as revised. Vote: 5-0 • A Motion was made and seconded to approve the Draft #3 Minutes for the January 29, 2016, meeting as revised. Vote: 3-0-2 (Ms. Manz abstained as she had not attended that meeting; Ms. Barnett abstained as she had remotely participated for only a part of that meeting.) • A Motion was made and seconded to approve the Draft #3 CEC Minutes for the February 2, 2016, meeting as previously distributed. Vote: 4 -0 -1 (Mr. Cole abstained as he had not attended that meeting.) • A Motion was made and seconded to approve the Draft #3 CEC Minutes for the February 9, 2016, meeting as previously distributed. Vote: 5 -0 • A Motion was made and seconded to approve the Draft CEC Minutes for the February 10, 2016, meeting at the Summit as previously distributed. Vote: 3 -0 -2 (Ms. Barnett and Mr. Cole abstained as they had not attended that meeting.) • A Motion was made and seconded to approve, including for public release, the Draft CEC Minutes for the February 22, 2016, meeting as previously distributed. Vote: 4 -0 -1 (Ms. Barnett abstained as she had not attended that meeting.) Projects for the 2016 ATM: Two projects were identified as needing further discussion beyond that which had taken place at previous CEC meetings. • Center Streetscape Improvements, Phase 1: It was noted that Ms. Barnett had prepared draft material on this project for this Committee's report to the 2016 ATM. This material generated general comments, including: ➢ This is not a new project; it has been discussed for several years. Page 2 of 4 Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting February 23, 2016 ➢ JJ jodrvef t ! t pn f ! cbtjd! t bji z! boe! jogbt Ls✓duisc ! of f et ! u bt.1 t i pure! cf ! bees` t t f e/! ➢ Ef tjho!gioejoh!x bt !qs` v■pvt rn!bggq:mf e/! ➢ Ui f ! gspl# dt.ljt ! bt.! 36& ! of tjhoa u f s` !jt ! sppn ! g)s! dpotjef thcrfi! di bohf !jo! u f ! of tjho /! ➢ This Committee needs to evaluate the expenditure, not the design. Ms. Barnett expressed her opposition to the project, noting: ➢ Considering the other major capital Town building projects, such as the schools, that need to be undertaken and the impacts of increased tax rates to homeowners, that this is not the time to be spending this amount of money on the Center; particularly on elective amenities. ➢ One of the reasons given for the project is that the "sidewalks on the north side of Massachusetts Avenue look tired." She had learned that one of the reasons the sidewalks look "tired" in this area is that despite regular Town cleaning; there has been an ongoing problem with sidewalk cleanliness where businesses are serving food. ➢ She reported that according to the Department of Public Works, the south -side sidewalk is Americans with Disability (ADA) compliant. It is not clear that this needs to be re -done. ➢ She also expressed concerns that the 20% contingency for the streetscape project was not adequate. As this is a rehabilitation project and as is the case with this type of project, the complete work scope would not be clear until construction commenced. Mr. Himmel commented that road costs are erratic because they reflect the fluctuations in oil prices. He distributed a pie chart that parses the project's expenses based on data provided by the Department of Public Works. He added that the Center roadway is in poor condition; there are traffic and signalization issues; the crosswalks are not providing adequate protection; and cement sidewalks are ADA compliant and durable —the most durable as compared to other materials generally used for sidewalks. It was generally agreed that more clarity is needed to understand what elements /precedents in Phase 1 of the project will impact future phases. This is necessary to understand what is being endorsed if Phase 1 is approved. • Grain Mill Alley Improvements: Ms. Tintocalis explained the reason for recently made changes to the proposed project. The alley, itself, is owned by the abutters, not the Town. One of the abutters is considering re- developing his building and is not prepared to support a project that could impact those plans. If the private -owner redevelopment goes forward, it may be possible to incorporate an agreement for improving the alley. At this time, the project, approved unanimously by the Community Preservation Committee and to be presented to the ATM, only includes components at the ends of the alley —on Massachusetts Avenue and adjacent to the Page 3 of 4 Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting February 23, 2016 Njovtf n bo! Dpn n vLf s! Cjl f x bz4 ti f ! Bari sobtf ! Uthot gpstbt.po! Opef ! )dprriidL.$ on! dbrrile!ri f !<cppl f oet » * /!Ui pt f !dpn qpof ott !bsf !po!Upx o.px of e!gspgf s.z /!! N t /!Ujotpdbrlh ! gspvjef e! i boepvtt -! f yqrbjojoh! ti bU ti f ! tx p! dpn qpof ott ! gspvjef ! b! vtjt vbrhipoof dtjpo!gpn !ti f !cjl f x bz!boe!gbd joh!bsf b!tp!N bt t bdi vt f ut !Bvvf ovf !ti bU xjrrhesbx ! of pgrfi! tp! ti f ! df otf s/! Ui f ! hpbrti! bsf ! tp! jn gspvvf ! of of t ujbo! t bg u' -! bddon1n1oebLt' oidydrigt ,' &ndoubbbt' ots in& ' activity,' bne' pmvie &' 'a' &n &' or' place ". Ms. Barnett asked Ms. Tintocalis if the Bank of American was going to continue to use its parking lot behind the building, off Grain Mill Alley, for vehicle traffic. Ms. Tintocalis said the vehicles would continue to exit the parking lot through Grain Mill Alley. Ms. Barnett expressed concern that both design and construction were proposed to be done out of sequence with the proposed streetscape project. She also noted that, from her experience, bicycling groups do not generate a lot of business. Other Committee members expressed general support for the goals, but were concerned about the timing of the project. The back parking area around the proposed component adjacent to the Bikeway needs to be resurfaced in the near future and, if approved, the Center Streetscape project includes elements that would surround the proposed component on Massachusetts Avenue. It seems likely that those projects could negatively impact the proposed components of the Grain Mill Alley project. There was some support for pursuing the component adjacent to the Bikeway, despite the need to resurface the whole area, because that component includes safety elements. Ms. Tintocalis agreed to provide information on the rationale for pursuing both components of the Grain Mill Alley project at this time and to what extent each might be impacted by the other two projects. CEC Report to the 2016 ATM: Using the draft Table of Contents, the Committee reached agreement on the member assignments for each section of the report. Future Meeting Dates: The Committee agreed on: • March 1St, 8:00 -9:00 A.M.: Take straw votes on positions, prepare recommendations to the Town Moderator on candidates for an ATM Consent Agenda, and hear from Ms. McKenna. • March 2nd from 6:00 -8:00 P.M.: Continue, if needed, with taking of straw -vote positions and determining candidates for the ATM. Review the draft report for the ATM and STM, and identify necessary edits and additional work to be done. (The goal is to be able to publish the report not later than March 14th.) Adjourn: A Motion was made and seconded at 9:25 A.M. to adjourn. Vote: 5 -0 These Minutes were approved by the CEC at its meeting on March 1, 2016. Page 4 of 4