The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2017-10-16-CEC-STM2-STM3-rpt CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO OCTOBER 16, 2017, STMs 2017Ã2 & -3 C APITAL E XPENDITURES C OMMITTEE T OWN OF L EXINGTON REPORT TO THE October 16, 2017, SPECIAL TOWN MEETINGS (STMs) 2017-2 & -3 Released October 12, 2017 Submitted by: Jill I. Hai, Chair Charles Lamb, Vice-Chair David G. Kanter, Clerk Sandhya R. Beebee Rodney Cole Wendy Manz Frank Smith Starts on Reverse CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO SEPTEMBER 21, 2016, STM 2016Ã5 TABLE OF CONTENTS STM 2017-2 SchoolsÄOverview for Articles 2 and 3 .................................................................... 1 Article 2: Appropriate For Hastings School Construction ...................................... 3 Article 3: Appropriate Design Funds For Lexington ChildrenÈs Place/ 20 Pelham Road ......................................................................................... 4 Article 4: Appropriate Design Funds For Fire Headquarters ................................ 6 Article 5: Appropriate For Temporary Fire Station Construction ........................ 7 STM 2017-3 Article 6: Establish And Appropriate To And From Specified Stabilization Funds (Only Capital-Related Funds) ...................................................... 8 Article 7: Amend Revolving Fund Authorization ÄDPW Compost Revolving Fund ............................................................................................................ 8 Article 8: Appropriate Design Funds For Visitors Center ...................................... 9 Article 9: Appropriate For Solid Waste Collection Equipment ............................ 10 Article 11: Appropriate For Lexington High School Security System Design .... 11 Article 12: Appropriate Community Preservation Act Projects .......................... 12 (a) Supplemental Funding For Affordable Housing At 52 Lowell Street ...... 13 (b) Purchase of 44 Adams Street Property ....................................................... 13 Article 13: Appropriate For Authorized Capital Improvements ......................... 14 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO OCTOBER 16, 2017, STMs 2017Ã2 & -3 Warrant-Article Explanations and Recommendations Cites of the ÅTown WarrantÆ refer to the ÅTOWN WARRANT, Town of LexingtonÆ for that, Special Town Meeting on October 16, 2017. Special Town Meeting (STM) 2017-2 SchoolsÄOverview for Articles 2 and 3 Perhaps the most important capital issue facing Lexington Public Schools (LPS) is that enrollments have grown rapidly for several years at all grade levels resulting in overcrowded schools. The Town has been working to address this challenge. The Department of Public Facilities (DPF) and the Permanent Building Committee (PBC) recently finished adding six elementary-school modular classroomsÄtwo each at Bowman, Bridge and Fiske. They have nearly completed renovations and expansions at Diamond and Clarke middle schools. Each of these projects was sufficiently complete for full use at the start of the current school year. The Clarke project is nearly complete with only a few remaining minor punch list items to be completed. The primary remaining item for the Diamond project to be completed over the coming year is replacing the HVAC system. These Articles address capital building items for preschool and elementary levels. The Lexington ChildrenÈs Place (LCP) preschool long ago outgrew its space at Harrington, and is partially housed in the Central Office Building. This does not provide fully appropriate preschool space, therefore requiring children and staff to move between buildings, even in inclement weather. The elementary school system remains, in total, over capacity. Even with the six new modular classrooms, Bowman, Bridge, and Fiske each remains over right-sized capacity, as does Maria Hastings. This Committee commends the school administration for its strong efforts to use administrative methods to more evenly distribute students; currently Harrington and Estabrook are operating at full capacity and no schools have excess capacity. Even using increased administrative options, additional capacity is needed. 1 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO OCTOBER 16, 2017, STMs 2017Ã2 & -3 Right-Sized Classroom Counts & Resulting K-5 System Capacity vs. Projected Enrollments Without 2016-2017-2018-2019-2020-2021- modulars 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Bowman 22 22 24 24 24 24 24 Bridge 22 22 24 24 24 24 24 Estabrook 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 Fiske 20 20 22 22 22 22 22 Harrington 22 22 22 22 24 24 24 Hastings 21 21 21 21 21 30 30 Total gen-ed classroom 134 134 140 140 142 151 151 Capacity 2,881 2,881 3,010 3,010 3,053 3,247 3,247 Median projected students 3,066 3,066 3,153 3,232 3,279 3,372 3,417 Capacity shortfall 185 185 143 222 226 125 170 # projected per class 22.9 22.9 22.5 23.1 23.1 22.3 22.6 Low projection 3,066 3,153 3,095 3,111 3,141 3,155 High projection 3,066 3,153 3,369 3,447 3,603 3,679 Classroom counts and resulting system capacity vs. the median projection for future student population. Right-sized classroom counts as reported by the LPS administration to the School Committee on October 3, 2017. The 20162017 and 2017Ã2018 enrollments are the official October 1 enrollments reported to the State. Later years are from the LPS 2016 enrollment projections. The 2016 enrollment forecast can be found in the January 3, 2017, School Committee information packet at https://lps.lexingtonma.org/Page/8658. The table above shows the right-sized capacity of each elementary school. The right-sized generaleducation classroom count is shown for the 2016Ã2017 school year. These values are updated for 2017Ã2018 to reflect the new modular classrooms. In 2019Ã2020 the new LCP is expected to open, freeing up two generaleducation classroom spaces at Harrington plus two additional classrooms needed for other purposes. It is assumed that in 2020Ã2021 the new Maria Hastings will come online with an additional nine classrooms. As can be seen in the table, the recent and current school building projects will help to reduce overcrowding, but will not eliminate the overcrowding. This same information, along with the low- and high-student-population projections are shown graphically in the following figure. 2 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO OCTOBER 16, 2017, STMs 2017Ã2 & -3 The elementary-school population projections are shown in the dashed lines. The total capacity is shown in the solid black, line. The increase in capacity in 2019Ã2020 requires that the new LCP be built. The increase in 2020Ã2021 requires that the new Maria Hastings be built at the currently envisioned 30- classroom size. Even with these measures, the school enrollments are expected to remain above capacity for the foreseeable future. Fund Article 2: APPROPRIATE Authorization Funding Source Committee Recommends FOR HASTINGS Requested SCHOOL $63,059,418 GF (Debt) Approval (7Ã0) CONSTRUCTION (Expected to be included in a subsequent Debt- Exclusion Referendum) ÅTo see if the Town will vote to appropriate, borrow or transfer from available funds, a sum of money, to be expended under the direction of the Permanent Building Committee, for the costs to demolish the existing Maria Hastings Elementary School and construct, originally equip and furnish a new Maria Hastings Elementary School to be located at 7 Crosby Road, in Lexington, which school facility shall have an anticipated useful life as an educational facility for the instruction of school children of at least 50 years and for which the Town may be eligible for a school construction grant from the Massachusetts School Building Authority (ÅMSBAÆ). The MSBAÈs grant program is a non- entitlement, discretionary program based on need, as determined by the MSBA, and any costs the Town incurs in connection with the Construction phase in excess of any grant approved by and received from the MSBA shall be the sole responsibility of the Town. Any grant that the Town may receive from the MSBA for the Project shall not exceed the lesser of (1) 35.79 percent (%) of eligible, approved project costs, as determined by the MSBA, or (2) the total maximum grant amount determined by the MSBA; or act in any other manner in relation thereto.Æ ÅDESCRIPTION: This funding will authorize additional funds to demolish the existing Hastings School and construct the new Hastings School, which will be partially reimbursed from the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA).Æ 3 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO OCTOBER 16, 2017, STMs 2017Ã2 & -3 (Town Warrant, 18 Sep 2017) Analysis A primary driver for replacing the 62-year old Maria Hastings building is its poor structural condition. Operating the building safely in the future will require an estimated $30M of renovations due to the need to replace the building systems, the modular-construction classrooms which are well beyond their useful life, and make structural repairs. There would also be a need for ÅswingÆ space, which the Town does not currently have, during such extensive renovations. Even with renovations, the resulting schoolÈs expected useful life will be approximately 20 years, far short of the useful life of a new building, and the resulting building would not fully meet the needs of the Lexington educational program. For less than twice the cost, a new Hastings will provide nine additional classrooms, a 50-year building, and larger, modern, classroom spaces. The Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) has agreed with the assessment that the building should be replaced and expects to provide substantial financial support (as shown in the following table), thus making this project particularly cost effective. A second driver is the critical need for additional elementary school capacity as discussed above. The additional nine classrooms will increase capacity by approximately 194 students. In addition, the building will meet LEED Silver certification energy efficiency and sustainability requirements, and is expected to be nearly 50% more efficient than the expected-to-be-adopted Lexington Stretch Goals for energy efficiency. The building is being designed to be solar-ready, and if in the future the solar-energy elements are added, then the building will approach a net-zero energy consumption. Hasting Replacement Total project cost $65,279,418 Expected MSBA funding -$16,513,723 Expected excluded debt $48,765,695 Previous appropriations STM February 2016 -$1,500,000 Annual TM April 2017 -$720,000 Conclusion Given the extreme need to address structural failures in the existing building, and the extreme need to build additional capacity, along with the significant amount of funding provided by MSBA, this Committee feels that building the new Maria Hastings Elementary School should go forward. It is in the TownÈs best interest to fund this project with excluded debt. Fund Article 3: APPROPRIATE Authorization Funding Source Committee Recommends DESIGN FUNDS FOR Requested LEXINGTON $2,500,000 GF (Debt) Approval (7Ã0) CHILDRENÈS (Expected to be PLACE/20 PELHAM included in a ROAD subsequent Debt- Exclusion Referendum) ÅTo see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate a sum of money for design, engineering and architectural services, including the production of construction documents, and for construction costs, including demolition of the existing building and site work for the Lexington ChildrenÈs Place to be located at 4 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO OCTOBER 16, 2017, STMs 2017Ã2 & -3 20 Pelham Road; determine whether the money will be provided by the tax levy, by transfer from available funds, by borrowing or by any combination of these methods; or act in any other manner in relation thereto.Æ ÅDESCRIPTION: Lexington ChildrenÈs Place (LCP), the legally-mandated pre-kindergarten program for Lexington Public Schools, outgrew its location in the Harrington School two years ago, and has been occupying additional space in the Central Administration building. This split program is educationally suboptimal, presents safety concerns, and will not satisfy long term space needs. With the TownÈs purchase of the 20 Pelham Road property, the School Committee has recommended the use of a portion of this property as a permanent location for the LCP. Moving LCP to Pelham Road will meet the needs of the LCP program for the foreseeable future and will make space available at Harrington to help alleviate overcrowding at the elementary level. The funds requested by this Article will be for completion of design funds through construction documents and early construction package.Æ (Town Warrant, 18 Sep 2017) Analysis The LPS desire is to build a new, free-standing, LCP on the Pelham Road site as that provides a better cost-benefit solution than renovating the existing 60-year old building. The replacement of LCP will increase the capacity to 187 slots. As of September 22, 2017, LCP has an enrollment need for 121 slots, though this is expected to increase as children age into the program throughout the year. In the 2017 Annual Town Meeting CEC Report, released April 24, 2017, the then-enrollment need was for 127 slots. Thus the new LCP provides for approximately a 50% growth in enrollment. Enrollment projections beyond more than a few years are imprecise, especially for younger students, so there is no projection for how long this capacity will be sufficient; however, this Committee expects the current excess capacity of 50% to be sufficient for the foreseeable future. Should that not be correct, the design for the new LCP would accommodate future additional classrooms. In addition, moving LCP out of Harrington will free up four classroom spaces that could accommodate any combination of general-education capacity, specialeducation capacity, art or music instruction, providing much needed additional elementary-school space. A new facility will provide a 50-year structural solution that will minimize maintenance versus renovation, as well as provide a more energy-efficient (LEED Silver) building, tailored to the LCP educational program. Shown in the next table are the full costs estimated for this project. LCP construction Total project cost $14,879,342 Article Request $2,500,000 Previous appropriation Annual TM April 2017 $581,500 LCP project costs as outlined in the September 13, 2017 Budget Summit information packet. See https://lexington.novusagenda.com/agendapublic/. Conclusion The Committee feels strongly that both for educational reasons and for the additional capacity this will provide that this project should go forward. 5 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO OCTOBER 16, 2017, STMs 2017Ã2 & -3 Funding Fund Article 4: APPROPRIATE Committee Recommends Authorization Source DESIGN FUNDS FOR Requested FIRE $676,300 GF (Debt) Approval (7Ã0) HEADQUARTERS (Expected to be included in a subsequent Debt- Exclusion Referendum) ÅTo see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate a sum of money for design, engineering and architectural services, including production of construction documents, for a new Fire Headquarters; determine whether the money will be provided by the tax levy, by transfer from available funds, by borrowing or by any combination of these methods; or act in any other manner in relation thereto.Æ ÅDESCRIPTION: These funds will permit the design work for the new fire station at the original Fire Headquarters site to proceed through the construction document development stage. Subsequent funding for construction will likely be requested at a Town Meeting in the Spring of 2018.Æ (Town Warrant, 18 Sep 2017) LexingtonÈs main Fire Station and Fire Department Headquarters (LFDHQ) opened in 1947, when the TownÈs population was approximately half what it is today, and the role and equipment of the fire department were quite different. LFDHQÈs shortcomings have been chronicled and evaluated in several 1 reports over the past decade. Town Meeting approved appropriations to study alternative locations and the facility requirements for a renovation or replacement. Based on those reports, Town Meeting approved the purchase of 171/173 Bedford Street (now identified as 173 Bedford Street.) for use as swing space during construction of a replacement facility at the current 45 Bedford Street facility (STM 2016-5). Subsequently, TM approved $450,000 to bring the replacement project through design development, with the expectation that this STM would be asked to approve funding through Construction Documents, with a debt-exclusion referendum to follow, for construction funding approval. ATM 2014, Article 14K Design Study IP HQ Requirements STM 2015-2, Article 6 Study $20,000 Potential Site Evaluation STM 2016-5, Article 2 Land Acquisition and $4,443,000 Swing Space Designer/Traffic Study STM 2017-1, Article 2 Design Development $450,000 45 Bedford Street STM 2017-1, Article 3 Design Development $50,000 Swing Space For analysis on the decision to replace the current LFDHQ, please see CEC report to STM 2016-5 released September 14 2016 (and the Errata, released October 26, 2016), and the AC report to that same Special Town Meeting released September 14 2016. The appropriation requested in this article will provide funds to bring the current design through construction documents. It is anticipated that there will be a debt exclusion referendum in November or December, 2017, for the project, including the associated swing-space costs covered under Article 5. The design, by Tecton Architects, is for a 26,000 square foot facility (the current facility is 11,800 square feet) on the site of the current LFDHQ and providing: 1 See: Donham & Sweeney Public Safety Building Feasibility Study July 9, 2010 (Donham Sweeney Report) Cecil Group Final Report of the Lexington Ad Hoc Townwide Facilities Master Planning Committee August 30, 2013 (Cecil Group Report); Final Report Town of Lexington Fire Dept. Staffing Study June 2012 (Municipal Resources Report). 6 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO OCTOBER 16, 2017, STMs 2017Ã2 & -3 Four bays, with indoor space for all equipment, (current facility has only 3 bays) prolonging lifespan of equipment and decreasing response time, as well as providing possible expansion; Larger apron in front of the new facility allowing all vehicles to exit the building fully before entering traffic and pull completely out of traffic before re-entering the building; Second access/egress route for vehicles; Programmatic needs (some of which are currently housed in a temporary trailer) including public reception area; and Adequate facilities and training apparatus for all on-duty staff. In addition to the upgrades to the Fire Department necessitated by the increased scope of public safety st work in the 21 century and modern communication and firefighting equipment, the proposed facility is also anticipated to become a back-up Emergency Operations Center (EOC) for the Town. The current estimated cost for the new facility is $19,915,000 and this includes full hazardous waste abatement, based on current soil testing, and factors prior uses at the site, as well as demolition and removal of the current facility. The estimate also includes the traffic improvement work to upgrade the signal light at the intersection of Worthen Road and Bedford Street with necessary additional DPW staff. This Committee believes this project and its cost estimates are comprehensive, conservative and appropriate to the needs of the Town. While the Committee is impressed with the detail presented to date, it is likely that the costs will shift some with each stage of refinement, as the project comes closer to completion. Funding Fund Article 5: APPROPRIATE Authorization Committee Recommends Source FOR TEMPORARY Requested FIRE STATION $2,140,000 GF (Debt) Approval (7Ã0) CONSTRUCTION (potentially for inclusion in a subsequent Debt- Exclusion Referendum) ÅTo see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate a sum of money for design, engineering and architectural services, including production of construction documents, and for the construction phase of the temporary Fire Station located at 173 Bedford Street, including signalization and access improvement; determine whether the money will be provided by the tax levy, by transfer from available funds, by borrowing or by any combination of these methods; or act in any other manner in relation thereto.Æ ÅDESCRIPTION: The Town has acquired 173 Bedford Street, to use as a temporary location for the main Fire Station while this facility is replaced. These funds will allow the 173 Bedford Street property to be renovated to meet the needs of the Fire Department so that they can occupy this temporary facility.Æ (Town Warrant, 18 Sep 2017) The size of the lot at the current Lexington Fire Department Headquarters (LFDHQ) at 45 Bedford Street does not allow for both temporary siting of the Fire Department and construction at the new LFDHQ. Consequently, STM 2016-5 appropriated the funds to purchase 173 Bedford Street to provide for swing space during reconstruction of the LFDHQ. The estimated cost to renovate 173 Bedford Street into an appropriate interim Fire Station is currently estimated at $2,191,000. That includes the $50,000 for design funds appropriated at STM 2017-1, hence the request to this STM is $2,141,000 to complete Construction Documents, bid documents, and construction. Assuming that the appropriation under the prior Article and 7 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO OCTOBER 16, 2017, STMs 2017Ã2 & -3 the debt-exclusion referendum to fund both this Article and Article 4 all pass, the construction process would begin during the winter 2017Ã18 with a target occupation in summer 2018. As the burdened costs to rent or purchase the temporary structure in which to house the apparatus are almost the same, and that structure may be repurposed for subsequent uses at the site, this Committee supports the purchase rather than rental even if there were a small increase to the project cost. Special Town Meeting (STM) 2017-3 Funding Fund Article 6: ESTABLISH Authorization Committee Recommends Source AND APPROPRIATE Requested TO AND FROM $200,000 to the King StreetApproval(7Ã0) SPECIFIED Traffic Mitigation Properties STABILIZATION Stabilization Fund FUNDS (Only Capital- Related Funds) ÅTo see if the Town will vote to create, amend, rename and/or appropriate sums of money to and from Stabilization Funds in accordance with Section 5B of Chapter 40 of the Massachusetts General Laws for the purposes of: (a) Section 135 Zoning By-Law, (b) Traffic Mitigation, (c) Transportation Demand Management/Public Transportation, (d) Special Education, (e) Center Improvement District, (f) Debt Service, (g) Transportation Management Overlay District, (h) Capital, and (i) Payment in Lieu of Parking, and determine whether the money shall be provided by the tax levy, by transfer from available funds, or by any combination of these methods; or act in any other manner in relation thereto.Æ ÅDESCRIPTION: This article proposes to establish and/or fund Stabilization Funds for specific purposes and to appropriate funds therefrom. Money in those funds may be invested and the interest may then become a part of the particular fund. These funds may later be appropriated for the specific designated purpose, by a two-thirds vote of an Annual or Special Town Meeting, for any lawful purpose.Æ (Town Warrant, 18 Sep 2017) Of the two actions expected under this Article, only the above-cited transferÄwhich is part of the mitigation payment by that company for Hayden Avenue alterationsÄis capital-related. Funding Fund Article 7: AMEND Authorization Committee Recommends Source REVOLVING FUND Requested AUTHORIZATIONÄ Increase of Not Applicable Approval (7Ã0) DPW Compost $142,000 Revolving Fund ÅTo see if the Town will vote to make supplementary authorizations of revolving funds, to be used in conjunction with money authorized under Article 9 of the warrant for the 2017 Annual Town Meeting, to be used during the current fiscal year, or make any other adjustments to the current fiscal year authorizations that may be necessary; or act in any other manner in relation thereto.Æ ÅDESCRIPTION: This article allows for adjustments to current fiscal year (FY2018) revolving fund authorizations, as approved at the 2017 Annual Town Meeting.Æ (Town Warrant, 18 Sep 2017) The scope of the Solar-Installation project at the Hartwell Avenue Compost Facility included providing a series of storage bins; however, after negotiations with the ProjectÈs contractor, these bins were removed 8 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO OCTOBER 16, 2017, STMs 2017Ã2 & -3 from the scope and the Town will independently contract for them. The project funding has, therefore, been reduced by the same request amount as the increase in the authorization for the Revolving Fund as that Fund will now pay for those bins. Funding Fund Article 8: APPROPRIATE Authorization Committee Recommends Source DESIGN FUNDS FOR Requested VISITORS CENTER $150,000 GF Approval (5Ã2) ÅTo see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate a sum of money for design, engineering and architectural services for the Visitors Center, including production of design development and construction documents; determine whether the money shall be provided by the tax levy, by transfer from available funds, by borrowing, or by any combination of these methods; or act in any other manner in relation thereto.Æ ÅDESCRIPTION: The Visitors Center was built over 50 years ago for the Battle of Lexington Bicentennial. It is the information gateway for tourists, residents, newcomers, and corporations considering locating in Lexington. Prior Town Meetings approved funds to develop a design for an updated Visitors Center. The additional funds will conclude the design work at the VisitorÈs Center and produce construction documents. Funds for construction are anticipated to be requested at Annual Town Meeting in Spring 2018.Æ (Town Warrant, 18 Sep 2017) Analysis The 2014 Annual Town Meeting appropriated $220,608 to develop a design for renovation of the Visitors Center through construction documents. Input was received from the Tourism Committee, Historical Society, Historic Districts Commission, Lexington Center merchants, and others. In order to accommodate the design and programmatic requirements of the stakeholders, the preferred option was to replace the existing building with a new building on the same site, even though, as a replacement rather than a renovation, the project would no longer be eligible for CPA funds. At the 2017 ATM, a request was submitted for an additional $118,500 to be added to the $131,496 remaining from the 2014 appropriation, in order to complete a schematic design and provide construction documentsÄeach with the associated cost estimatesÄfor an approximately 8,000 square-foot building. At that time the estimated total cost of the new building, including design/engineering, construction, soft costs and a contingency, was $3,933,500. This Committee concluded that the cost was too high, and that additional "value engineering" was required to reduce costs and should be done before proceeding past schematic design. This Committee was prepared to support such schematic-design work if covered by the balance available in the previously appropriated funds with just a $21,000 supplement. This CommitteeÈs amendment to that supplement amount was approved by that ATM. The Town now has a schematic design for a two-story building with additional space in the basement for public bathrooms and storage, with a total 6,693 square feet. The Town acknowledges that the architect was instructed to proceed based on the agreed-to-programmatic stakeholder requests, but was not given a suggested budget for the project. The current estimated total cost to complete the design through construction documents, construction, and with ancillary costs, is $4,315,000Äwhich reflects $202,000 in reductions reviewed with the Permanent Building Committee. The funding request before this STM is $150,000 of the $4,315,000 to accomplish the Design Development. Because of concerns about the increasing cost, this Committee has reservations about the size of the current building design and the efficient use of space to meet programmatic needs. The Historic Districts Commission (HDC)Äwhich must make a judgment on the massing and exterior appearance of the building in the context of its placementÄhas not yet taken a formal position to support the proposed building, but has acknowledged reservations about the buildingÈs size and bulk. 9 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO OCTOBER 16, 2017, STMs 2017Ã2 & -3 This Committee recognizes the important function of the Visitors Center in welcoming thousands of people each year, introducing them to Lexington and encouraging them to spend time and money here. The Committee strongly supports the renovation or replacement of the current Visitors Center, which is inadequate to accommodate large numbers of visitors, and provide them with necessary services. This Committee remains disappointed that despite earlier discussions of changes that could be made to the conceptual design to significantly reduce the remaining costs of the project, such a reduction was not achieved. However, the Committee recognizes that the stakeholders believe this is the right project for their programmatic needs Conclusion A majority of this Committee supports the full Design Development funding with the expectation that a reduction in total project cost and the support of the Historic Districts Commission are to be achieved. The minority holds that this Town Meeting should only appropriate the further-design funding neededÄ thereby supplementing the approximately $38,000 thatÈs availableÄto achieve those same two objectives. In any case, this Committee is unanimous in opposing funding at this STM anything past Design DevelopmentÄfor example, for Construction Documents (estimated at $200,000). Funding Fund Article 9: APPROPRIATE Committee Recommends Authorization Source FOR SOLID WASTE Requested COLLECTION Not Applicable Not Applicable Indefinite Postponement EQUIPMENT (7Ã0) ÅTo see if the Town will vote to appropriate a sum of money for recycling and solid waste collection equipment; determine whether the money shall be provided by the tax levy, by transfer from available funds, by borrowing, or by any combination of these methods; or act in any other manner in relation thereto.Æ ÅDESCRIPTION: The funds will allow the Town to explore equipment options for its Recycling and Solid Waste Collection program. The current contract expires on June 30, 2018, and the Town is reviewing proposals to replace it.Æ (Town Warrant, 18 Sep 2017) In conjunction with developing the replacement contract, the Town is evaluating a change to its trash and recycling methods to provide for automated collection of either or both of those waste streams whereby residents would be given larger, closed containers, and the trucks would have a system to grab and empty the containers as they drove the route. While the contractor would likely have an added expense for the trucks with automation, there would be savings in personnel costs. If the Town decides to automate collection of either or both waste streams, it will also have to decide whether to purchase the containers itself or to include those costs in the collection contract. If the decision is for the Town to make the purchase, this Article would have provided the opportunity to appropriate those funds. As the Town is not prepared to make either decision before this Town Meeting is otherwise ready for dissolution, this Article will be Indefinitely Postponed. 10 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO OCTOBER 16, 2017, STMs 2017Ã2 & -3 Funding Fund Article 11: APPROPRIATE Authorization Committee Recommends Source FOR LEXINGTON Requested HIGH SCHOOL $31,000 GF Approval (7Ã0) SECURITY SYSTEM DESIGN ÅTo see if the Town will vote to appropriate a sum of money for design, engineering and architectural services, including production of construction documents for the Lexington High School security system, and determine whether the money shall be provided by the tax levy, by transfer from available funds, by borrowing, or by any combination of these methods; or act in any other manner in relation thereto.Æ ÅDESCRIPTION: This article allows for enhancements to the current security system at the Lexington High School.Æ (Town Warrant, 18 Sep 2017) Background Maintaining security at Lexington High School (LHS) is challenging as it is an open campus, students often move between buildings when changing classes, and visitors have unrestricted access. There are 38 sets of doors that are unlocked throughout the day. The current situation requires several staff members to risk their safety to manually secure the campus in a lockdown situation. All other schools in the district have four concentric layers of security and intruder deterrence: 1) the ability to lock classroom doors, 2) Closed-Circuit TV (CCTV) footage, 3) building perimeter & door security, and 4) a strict visitor-management protocol. Currently, LHS only has classroom-door security and CCTV. At the 2016 ATM, $25,000 was appropriated to evaluate LHS security. TBA Architects and Jensen- Hughes (TA&JH) were contracted in Spring 2017. They presented their final recommendation in August 2017. Their conclusions were based on detailed reviews of the school facilities and conversations with key stakeholders. (At the 2017 ATM, $150,000 was appropriated to upgrade just the LHS CCTV system and TA&JH found that upgraded system to be sufficient.) Analysis TA&JH outlined three scenarios for security at LHS: ¥ Option 1 (not recommended) is the status quo, which would leave Lexington High SchoolÈs security well below district standard, and is not recommended by this Committee. ¥ Option 2 (recommended) is to install electronic-locking doors that could be programmed to allow access according to the school schedule and specific remote activation as needed. Under this plan, LHS external doors would remain locked except for the start and dismissal times, and during passing periods. Teachers and administrators would have programmed key cards that would give them access to part or all of the campus. This system would have several advantages. The locked doors would deter would-be intruders. All the doors could be locked instantaneously in event of a threat. Once the electronic door- locking system is in place, the LHS administration could create one visitor-access point and make other changes to the visitormanagement process. The total project cost for Option 2 is $369,600. Design costs for the security upgrade are projected at $31,000 and that amount is sought under this Article. It is expected that LPS will seek the balance of the funds ($338,600Ä$8,600 for management of the implementation & $330,000 for the implementation) at the 2018 ATM. ¥ Option 3 (not recommended) would build on Option 2 (at an additional cost) by adding perimeter fencing and gating, and installing a computerized visitor-management system. The estimated 11 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO OCTOBER 16, 2017, STMs 2017Ã2 & -3 total, additional, cost through implementation is $1,050,000. This does not offer sufficient value, especially as LHS is expected to be expanded or replaced within the next 5Ã10 years. This Committee feels that perimeter fencing and gating goes beyond the district standard on security and would dramatically change the open-campus culture at LHS. In addition, TA&JH recommended designating one parking lot for students and visitors on Waltham Street, and concentrating faculty parking at Worthen Road. This change would not affect the flow of traffic during student drop-off and pick-up. Note that Town Meeting has appropriated $48,000 to investigate traffic-flow improvements at LHS under 2016 ATM, Article 15J ($25,000), and 2017 ATM, Article 16d3 ($23,000). While this request is for an independent appropriation for the security-system upgrade, the insight from the TA&JH analysis will be incorporated into decisions about modifying traffic flow at LHS. The School Committee and the Board of Selectmen have voted unanimously for Option 2. Conclusion This Committee supports Option 2 and the request for $31,000 in design funds to pursue that effort. The electronic-locking doors and parking changes will enhance LHSÈ security with a moderate capital cost. Funding Fund Article 12: APPROPRIATE Committee Recommends Authorization Source COMMUNITY Requested PRESERVATION ACT None (Community Community See Below PROJECTS Housing) + Preservation Funds Unknown (Open (CPF) Space) ÅTo see if the Town will vote to act on the report of the Community Preservation Committee on the FY2018 Community Preservation budget and, pursuant to the recommendations of the Community Preservation Committee, to appropriate from the Community Preservation Fund, including to supplement the appropriation for Busa Property affordable housing previously authorized by Article 8(g) in the 2014 Annual Town Meeting, or to reserve amounts in the Community Preservation Fund for future appropriations; for the debt service on previously authorized financing; for administrative expenses of the Community Preservation Committee for FY2018; for the acquisition, creation, and preservation and, if acquired with Community Preservation Act funds, the rehabilitation or restoration of open space; for the acquisition, creation, preservation, and rehabilitation and restoration of recreational land; for the acquisition, preservation, rehabilitation and restoration of historic resources; and for the acquisition, creation, preservation and support and, if acquired with Community Preservation Act funds, the restoration or rehabilitation of community housing; including, in all cases, rehabilitation or restoration that constitutes capital improvements or extraordinary repairs to make assets functional for their intended use; and to determine whether the money shall be provided by the tax levy, or from estimated Community Preservation Act surcharges and the estimated State match and supplement for the upcoming fiscal year, by available funds in the Community Preservation Fund, by transfer from other available funds, including enterprise funds, by borrowing, or by any combination of these methods; or act in any other manner in relation theretoÆ ÅDESCRIPTION: This Article requests that Community Preservation funds and other funds, as necessary, be appropriated for the projects recommended by the Community Preservation Committee, the debt service on previously authorized projects, and for administrative costs. This article further would authorize supplementary funding for the Busa Property (Lowell St) affordable housing project and for the potential purchase of a parcel for open space.Æ (Town Warrant, 18 Sep 2017) 12 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO OCTOBER 16, 2017, STMs 2017Ã2 & -3 Project Description (CPA Category) Amount RequestedFunding SourceCommittee Recommends (a) Supplemental Funding for Indefinite Postponement Affordable Housing at 52 Lowell Not Applicable Not Applicable (7Ã0) Street (Community Housing) LexHAB plans to move this Article for Indefinite Postponement. An architect has been hired and it is anticipated that LexHAB will have firm estimates for the total cost for this 6-unit project after the completion of construction documents. At that time, an Article could be included in the 2018 Annual Town Meeting to request whatever supplemental funding is needed. Amount Funding Project Description (CPA Category) Committee Recommends Requested Source (b) Purchase of 44 Adams Street Pending CPF Unknown Property (Open Space) ANALYSIS At the time of this report, the CPC had not decided on its recommendation to this Special Town Meeting on the use of CPF. If a CPC recommendation is made, it would be that CPF be appropriated for the purchase of approximately 27,600 square feet of land abutting the Town-owned Chiesa Farm conservation land at 44 Adams Street with the dollar amount of any use of CPF for the purchase is capped by a formal assessmentÈs value. (The cap is by statute.) CPF could also be use for legal expenses, including those for the preparation of a conservation restriction; a land survey and plan; deed recording; and to pay a non- Town entity to hold, monitor, and enforce the conservation restriction on the land. The parcel of land to be acquired abuts the south edge of the Chiesa Farm, facing Adams Street, and is zoned RO (residential development). Until recently it contained a single family home. The lot and structure were purchased by a developer who took down the existing house in order to build a larger house in its place. In addition to the purchase price of $850,000, the developer expended money on site work and building design and on razing the previously existing structure. It is believed that the developer is willing to sell the parcel to the Town as long as he is compensated for his out-of-pocket expenditures and a reasonable portion of his expected profit. The Chiesa Farm meadow is owned by the Town as conservation land and is accessible to the public. It is one of the few remaining examples of Lexington's agrarian history, and one of the Town's most attractive vistas. It currently occupies approximately 23 acres, bordered on each side by twentieth century residences and a barn. Purchase of the additional parcel of land would expand the conservation land by approximately 0.69 acres and is supported by the Conservation Commission. As open space, the purchase is eligible for CPF, but only up to the appraised value of the land. Because of the investment already made by the developer, the purchase price to the Town may exceed the appraised value of the parcel by a considerable margin. Therefore, if the Town elects to make this purchase it would have to seek a portion of the funding from some source other than CPF. CONCLUSION Before recommending use of CPF, this Committee prefers to review the CPCÈs current finance-projection model showing existing and projected balances for each statutory funding reserve, unbudgeted reserve balances, and previously approved and projected debt-service obligations for each funding category over the near term. At the time of this report, an updated projection model was not available. Without it, the Committee cannot judge whether the proposed appropriation would be prudent at this time, particularly as it appears to require significant co-funding from sources other than the CPF. At the time of this report, this Committee was awaiting the CPCÈs decision with regard to this proposed request. 13 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO OCTOBER 16, 2017, STMs 2017Ã2 & -3 Funding Fund Article 13: APPROPRIATE Committee Recommends Authorization Source FOR AUTHORIZED Requested CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Not Applicable Not Applicable Indefinite Postponement (7Ã0) ÅTo see if the Town will vote to make supplementary appropriations to be used in conjunction with money appropriated in prior years for the installation or construction of water mains, sewers and sewerage systems, drains, streets, buildings, recreational facilities or other capital improvements and equipment that have heretofore been authorized; determine whether the money shall be provided by the tax levy, by transfer from the balances in other Articles, by transfer from available funds, including enterprise funds and the Community Preservation Fund, by borrowing, or by any combination of these methods; or act in any other manner in relation thereto.Æ ÅDESCRIPTION: This is an Article that requests funds to supplement existing appropriations for certain capital projects in light of revised cost estimates.Æ (Town Warrant, 18 Sep 2017) At the time of this report, there are no actions expected under this Article. 14