The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2016-12-12-CEC-min-AM Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting December 12, 2016 (Morning) Location and Time: Town Offices Building, Reed Room; 7:30 .. AM Members Present: Jill Hai, ChairDavid Kanter, Vice-Chair & Clerk; Rod Cole; ; Charles Lamb; Wendy Manz (arrived 7:37 ..) AM Members Absent: None Others Present: Bill Hurley, Chair, School Committee (SC); Elaine Ashton, Town Meeting Member; Sara Arnold, Recording Secretary Documents Presented :  Notice/Agenda of CEC Public Meeting, December 12, 2016 (Morning)  Draft #2 CEC Review of FY2018–FY2022 Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs) as of 5 Dec 2016, prepared by Mr. Kanter  Draft #2 Minutes of CEC meeting, December 5, 2016 Call to Order: At 7:32 .., Ms. Hai called the meeting to order. AM Review of FY2018–FY2022 CIPs: Ms. Hai noted that this Committee is meeting tomorrow with Carl Valente, Town Manager, and Rob Addelson, Assistant Town Manager for Finance, to report the Committee’s preliminary positions on those CIPs. Included within those with outstanding questions and concerns are the following school-related projects that the Committee wished to benefit from including Mr. Hurley in the discussion:  CIP #1022, Lexington Children’s Place (LCP): th Ms. Hai reported having attended the December 8 Appropriation Committee (AC) meeting, during which location options for the LCP were discussed. The SC endorses moving the LCP to the 20 Pelham Road property (Pelham), if the Town purchases that property. AC members did not assume, for the purpose of comparing to alternate locations, that the cost of purchasing Pelham should be added to the cost of the LCP project, as had been previously considered by this Committee. Ms. Hai advised the AC that, although this Committee has expressed support for addressing the LCP facility needs, it had not taken a position on location. The Committee’s discussion continued including, but not limited to, the following: There is conflicting information as to whether the $18.3 million estimate for  renovating the Pelham facility for the LCP brings it to “adequate” or “as new” condition. The current Pelham LCP estimates do not include funding for an additional  access road, which is thought to be required. Upgrading the gymnasium and cafeteria in the Pelham facility to code for use as  a municipal asset (e.g., by the Lexington Community Center) is not included in any estimates. It is critical that location options for the School Department’s Central Offices (CO)  be factored into the various scenarios for relieving pressure at the Harrington site—which currently accommodates the Harrington Elementary School, the LCP, and the CO. Page 1 of 3 Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting December 12, 2016 (Morning) One consideration is to preserve Pelham for currently emerging needs, noting  that it could eventually be used for senior housing if all other needs are addressed elsewhere. Mr. Hurley reported that the SC has selected Pelham as its first choice for the LCP, followed by keeping it at the Harrington site. Other locations were considered and rejected. There are efforts to reduce some of the estimated costs for the various options. He questions continued use of the Harrington site for the three functions that are now there. He supports finding a permanent location for the LCP. He noted that it would cost less to convert the Pelham facility for the LCP than for the CO. Modular units could be added to the Harrington site to serve the elementary and LCP students, but this would not address the need for additional core space. There was discussion about the timing for debt-exclusion referendums that would address one or more Capital Projects whose funding, most likely, would previously have been requested at a Town Meeting. It is currently anticipated that funding for a new Hastings Elementary School, replacing the Fire Department Headquarters, and purchase of 171 Bedford Street for Fire Department swing space would be in the fall of 2017. Other anticipated projects that could be presented in one or more debt−exclusion referendums include the purchasing cost of Pelham, the LCP Project, a new or renovated Police Department Headquarters, the Center Streetscape Project, and—almost assuredly—the High School replacement. It was agreed that the following concerns, along with others discussed by the Committee, would be reported at the special Summit being held that evening that was prompted the Committee’s concerns about the placement of the LCP: The location for the School Department’s CO needs to be included in the  discussion of what could relieve the circulation and parking issues at the Harrington site. The future funding and debt exclusion for replacing the High School needs to be  included in financing models even though the project would be pursued more than five years hence.  CIP #989, Lexington High School Security Evaluation and Upgrade: Mr. Hurley was asked for the SC’s position on this CIP. It is not clear to this Committee that this project provides a sufficient effort that addresses the security concerns. Mr. Hurley left the meeting. Because Mr. Cole was absent on December 5th when the Committee took preliminary positions on the FY2018–FY2022 CIPs, he added his preliminary position to the tallies on the review handout reflecting the Committee’s preliminary positions taken on that date. Ms. Hai then summarized those CIPs that were not unanimously supported in the preliminary positions in preparation for meeting the next day with Mr. Valente and Mr. Addelson. Mr. Kanter will prepare an updated review document for all the current CIPs and make distribution of it this afternoon to include Mr. Valente, Mr. Addelson, and the Committee members. Ms. Hai noted that the Town has traditionally used two guiding principles when issuing debt: Page 2 of 3 Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting December 12, 2016 (Morning)  No more than 20-year terms;  No more than a 5% annual increase in debt service for debt within the tax-levy limit of Proposition 2½. Recent financial modeling prepared by the Town has used 30-year terms and mitigation through the use of the Capital Stabilization Fund to moderate the tax increases on the Lexington home of median value. Considered was the average growth in the within-tax-levy component of the tax bill for that home and the impact on the tax bill of the growth of the debt service of selected projects if excluded from the Proposition 2½ tax-levy limit. The Committee discussed the pros and cons for 20-year versus 30-year debt. It was agreed that modeling should be done for both to understand the impacts of each. Approval of Minutes: A Motion was made and seconded to approve the Draft #2 Minutes of the CEC meeting, December 5, 2016. Vote: 5–0 Next Meeting: It was reaffirmed that the next meeting would be on January 10, 2017, and a primary agenda item will preparing for the Committee’s report of its preliminary positions th on the proposed FY2018 Capital Funding at the Budget Summit IV on January 12. It is anticipated that the FY2018 Town Manager’s Preliminary Budget & Financing Plan (“White Book”) will have been distributed before the 10th. Adjourn: A Motion was made and seconded at 9:04 .. to adjourn. Vote: 5–0 AM These Minutes were approved by the CEC at its meeting on January 10, 2017. Page 3 of 3