HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-05-06-CEC-minMinutes of the
Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting
May 6, 2016
Location and Time: Town Office Building, Reed Room (but relocated to the Cary Memorial
Building's Cotton 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: Dr. Mary Czajkowski, Superintendent, Lexington Public Schools;
Joe Pato, Chair, Board of Selectmen (BoS); Bill Hurley, Chair, School Committee (SC);
Jessie Steigerwald, SC; Eileen Jay, SC; Kate Colburn, Appropriation Committee;
Elaine Ashton, Town Meeting Member; Sara Arnold, Recording Secretary
Note: As a concurrent SC meeting had not been posted, Ms. Steigerwald and Ms. Jay
reported that they would only be observing this meeting and did not participate in any way
in it.
Documents Presented:
• Notice /Agenda of CEC Public Meeting, May 6, 2016
• Revised DRAFT – Pelham Road Purchase – Evaluation; undated; Prepared by
Ms. Barnett and Ms. Manz
• Appropriation Committee's Report to the Special Town Meeting (STM) 2016 -2 and
STM 2016 -4 (Part 2), Released May 6, 2016
• Pending Final Minutes of the CEC meeting, April 26, 2016
CaII to Order: Ms. Hai called the meeting to order at 7:30 A.M.
STM 2016 -2, Article 2: Land Purchase -20 Pelham Road (the "Site "): Ms. Hai observed
that when purchasing the Site was initially contemplated, it appeared to be ideal for
addressing pressing school needs for additional space. Currently, it appears to be
premature for the Town to make a commitment to a specific use for the Site, although the
support for purchasing it is generally based on school - related needs. Buying it would
provide flexibility in evaluating and addressing those needs over time. If it is ultimately
determined that the Site is not needed, the property would not have lost value, and it could
be sold. She suggested that enthusiastic support for the purchase by the SC is necessary if
the Article is to be supported by Town Meeting.
Dr. Czajkowski noted that the SC has supported the purchase of the property, but it is
premature to identify a defined plan for its use. Mr. Hurley commented that he does not
know of a better site in Town if a 7th elementary school is eventually needed. He added
that the campus with the old Harrington Elementary School (now being used as the Central
Offices with some of its space being used for special programs) and the new Harrington
Elementary School (collectively the Harrington campus) is the only currently owned site that
could conceivably accommodate a 7th elementary school, but this would create significant
challenges, including issues related to traffic and parking.
Subsequent discussion topics included:
• Use of the Harrington campus for various needs;
• Alternatives for accommodating the mandated Lexington pre - kindergarten program;
Page 1 of 2
Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting
May 6, 2016
• Alternative locations for the Schools' Central Offices;
• Changing the configuration of grades that are accommodated at each level;
• Short -term uses for the Site that would address current space limitations, although
most of these would be for programs that are not mandated.
Costs for various components were identified. It was noted that taxpayers recently
approved to exclude from the limits of Proposition 2'/2 most of the debt for much the
$71.0 million estimated to be needed to upgrade the middle schools and to add portable
classrooms at some of the elementary schools; it is anticipated that taxpayers will be asked
in the near future to approve another debt exclusion for rebuilding the Maria Hastings
Elementary School —a project estimated at approximately $40 million.
Because of continued school - enrollment increases and school - enrollment projections,
Ms. Colburn expressed support for purchasing the land. Mr. Pato added that he supports
the purchase because it provides flexibility, not because of an identified immediate use. He
added that the current owners of the Site have received alternative offers, and the Town
must make a decision in the near future; the Town could eventually sell the property if it
does not meet any needs.
This Committee agreed that its report to STM 2016 -2 would identify the top three -to -five
possible uses for the Site and list the pros and cons of each. It was noted that the building
requires remediation for asbestos and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB); additional road
accessibility would need to be addressed —some relatively minor; some major —for most of
the contemplated uses; and there are wetlands on the site.
A Motion was made and seconded to support STM 2016 -2, Article 2, and to write a report
as discussed. Ms. Barnett reported that she would oppose the Motion based on the liability
and risks associated with environmental issues and the fact that alternatives exist. She
added that the soil has not been tested, and soil removal may be necessary. Vote: 4 -1
Approval of Minutes: A Motion was made and seconded to approve the Pending Final
Minutes of the April 26, 2016 meeting. Vote: 5-0
Adjourn: A Motion was made and seconded at 8:43 A.M. to adjourn. Vote: 5-0
These Minutes were approved by the CEC at its meeting on May 25, 2016.
Page 2 of 2