HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-05-04-CEC-minMinutes of the
Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting
May 4, 2016
Location and Time: Town Office Building, Reed Room (but relocated to the same
building's Parker Room — having previously left a sign to that effect at the Reed Room),
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: Pat Goddard, Director, Department of Public Facilities; Joe Pato, Chair,
Board of Selectmen (BoS); Alessandro Alessandrini, School Committee (SC);
Glenn Parker, Chair, Appropriation Committee; Kate Colburn, Appropriation Committee;
Elaine Ashton, Town Meeting Member; Sara Arnold, Recording Secretary
Documents Presented:
• Notice /Agenda of CEC Public Meeting, May 4, 2016
• DRAFT – Pelham Road Purchase – Evaluation; undated; Prepared by Ms. Barnett
and Ms. Manz
• Draft Minutes of the CEC meeting, April 25, 2016
Call to Order: Ms. Hai called the meeting to order at 7:32 A.M.
Special Town Meeting (STM) 2016 -2, Article 2: Land Purchase -20 Pelham Road (the
"Site "): Ms. Hai reported that there is still considerable flux regarding this Article. The BoS
plans to discuss the article in Executive Session both tomorrow morning and again
tomorrow evening —at the latter, both finance committees will be invited to join. In order to
have more information from the BoS, it was agreed to cancel this Committee's meeting for
tomorrow morning and only meet on May 6th, which was recently posted. It was learned
that the SC would be meeting on Monday morning (the 9th), in Executive Session, to
discuss the Article.
Ms. Manz and Ms. Barnett reviewed with the Committee their effort to provide information
in the Committee's report to the STM on this Article. They considered a range of uses for
the Site, including a school - related facility, Community Center activities, 35 units of
clustered, senior /affordable housing (35 units being the threshold for State assistance), and
"banking" the Site for future use. They visited the site and compiled information about it,
and prepared a list of considerations for discussion. Financial impacts associated with
environmental issues, including previously identified asbestos and polychlorinated biphenyl
(PCB) in the Site's building, raised serious concerns for them about renovating the building
for alternative uses. Aging mechanical systems and developing appropriate road access for
most uses were also identified as being costly. The $8.0 million request in the Article was
seen as only the beginning of the need for financial resources.
Mr. Goddard clarified some of the costs associated with previously completed projects and
why those would not provide accurate or complete data for estimating costs associated with
work at the Site. He stressed that all PCBs would be removed from the building if the
building were to be re- purposed for municipal or school use rather than demolished.
Page 1 of 3
Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting
May 4, 2016
There was discussion of various approaches to addressing school overcrowding, and
associated order -of- magnitude costs, including among other matters:
• A new pre - kindergarten (pre -K) building for the State - mandated program (in
Lexington, it is the Lexington Children's Place (LCP)) adjacent to the Harrington
Elementary School and renovating what had been the LCP rooms in the new
Harrington into two, general- education, classrooms: approximately $10+ million.
• A new LCP building adjacent to the Harrington Elementary School and
renovating /expanding Harrington to add a total of four general- education classrooms
(2 converted from the LCP use; 2 from the expansion): approximately $30 million.
• Purchasing and renovating the building at the Site for short -term use: approximately
$6 -10 million.
• Purchasing and renovating the building at the Site for 20+ years of use:
approximately $9 -15 million.
• Demolition -only of the existing building at the Site (recognizing the existence of
hazardous materials): approximately $1.1 -1.3 million
• Building a new, 24- section school at the Site: approximately $48 million [later
correction to $53 million] (including demolition of the existing building and
recognizing existence of hazardous material, but not including any new access
road).
Ms. Colburn supported the last option citing the increase in school enrollment; the schools
having already exceeded the median projection for this year's enrollment that was created
just a few years ago.
Mr. Alessandrini noted that if students in the LCP have to be sent out -of- district because of
overcrowding, this becomes a major operating cost. It was also noted there would also be
added operating costs associated with the LCP being in a building at the Site and some
relatively small operating costs when holding the property in caretaker status.
Mr. Pato expressed support for purchasing the Site, and added that municipal uses are not
the driving force for doing so. When the Site initially became available, it appeared to be
ideal for addressing pressing school needs for additional space, but the SC's position on
this is not clear.
Mr. Alessandrini reported that although it may be possible to build a stand -alone LCP
facility on the Site, he supports locating such a facility close to an elementary school. It is
his personal desire to keep the LCP at Harrington; if it is moved to the Site as a short -term
solution, it means there may be another disruptive move in subsequent years. He noted
that the LCP needs 15,000 square feet of space and added that parents generally do not
want children in a school that has had PCBs, even if they have been removed.
It was noted that moving the Schools Central Offices to the Site could be pursued, but this
may be more expensive than locating them elsewhere. Mr. Alessandrini expressed
opposition to a move to the site.
Page 2 of 3
Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting
May 4, 2016
Ms. Hai expressed her desire to purchase the property to provide flexibility and time to think
through the issues more deliberately than can be done at this time. At the same time, she
feels constrained by the SC not having a clear position. Mr. Cole and Mr. Kanter expressed
general support for Ms. Hai's comments. Ms. Manz was not ready to take a position, but
understands Ms. Hai's position. Ms. Barnett believes that purchasing the property is
"opening Pandora's Box ", particularly given the Town's other Capital needs.
It was agreed that deliberations would continue on Friday morning (the 6th), and in the
meantime Committee members should review the list of considerations on the draft
evaluation handout to facilitate further discussion. Ms. Hai noted that as there may be
significant, public, information after the SC's meeting next Monday morning, it may be
necessary to outline the issues in this Committee's report and not take a vote until Town
Meeting resumes on that Monday evening.
Approval of Minutes: A Motion was made and seconded to approve the Draft Minutes of
the April 25, 2016, meeting and to approve them for public release. Vote: 5-0
Adjourn: A Motion was made and seconded at 9:03 A.M. to adjourn. Vote: 5-0
These Minutes were approved by the CEC at its meeting on May 9, 2016.
Page 3 of 3