Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-03-11-CPC-min Minutes of the Community Preservation Committee Thursday, March 11, 2010 2:00 pm Room 207 Town Offices Present: Betsey Weiss, Chair; Joel Adler, Norman Cohen, Marilyn Fenollosa, Vice Chair; Jeanne Krieger, Leo McSweeney, Nathalie Rice, Admin. Asst; and Dick Wolk. Present from the Capital Expenditures Committee were Charles Lamb; Chair, Ted Edson, Bill Hurley and David Kanter. Absent: Ms. Manz and Ms. Shaw Ms. Weiss called the meeting to order at 2:05 pm. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss various projects which were still being finalized by applicants and to conduct other matters of CPC business. 1.Battle Green Master Plan Study – Mr. Kanter of the Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) explained that the CEC will not support the preparation of bid documents as part of the proposal for the Battle Green Master Plan Study. He cited the Committee’s concern with appropriating monies for a consultant to prepare bids, when Town staff could do the work. Further, he explained that the Battle Green Master Plan Committee would need considerable public input and would need to reach a consensus before defining a job to go out to bid. In light of these factors, the CEC had decided they would likely amend the requested appropriation downward on the floor of Town Meeting. Ms. Weiss asked the members of the CPC if they also wished to amend their support for the project. There was discussion on this matter, and the Committee decided to vote to clarify the issue. A vote of 6-1 was made to leave the proposal as submitted. 2.CPC Business/Updates - Ms. Weiss updated the Committee on the TMMA information Session the previous night. She also asked if any members wished to give minority reports on any of the 20 applications pending before the CPC. Ms. Krieger noted that she discouraged minority reports. Ms. Weiss reviewed the votes on the various projects, but there were no members who wished to give minority reports. Ms. Weiss also updated the Committee on the progress of SB 90, An Act to Sustain Community Preservation. She said the bill is presently in the House Ways and Means Committee and has the support of 61 co-sponsors. She said the CPC will be called on to write letters to our representatives, and Mr. Adler suggested it might be helpful if the Selectmen did the same. 1 3. Executive Session – (for the purposes of discussing land acquisition) – Mr. Cohen moved to enter into Executive Session for the purposes of discussing matters relative to land acquisition. Members were polled and unanimously voted to enter Executive Session at 2:30 pm. They returned to open session after a unanimous vote to end Executive Session at 3:02 pm. The CPC then returned to its regular meeting. 4.Town Offices Building Renovation – The following proponents were in attendance to present new information on the Town Offices Building Project: Mr. Mark Barrett, Project Manger, Mr. Pat Goddard, Director of Facilities, Mr. Carl Valente, Town Manager, and Ms. Linda Vine, Assistant Town Manager. Mr. Barrett distributed a 7-page document outlining the costs of the project. Mr. Valente commenced the discussion, noting that there had been a small change in the cost of the project since the CPC had received the previous breakdown on March 9, 2010. He said the cost estimate was now $1,823,881, (up from $1,821,509). The cost estimate represented a 75% design figure, with 65% of the work representing code and ADA upgrades and 35% representing office th reorganization – a breakdown which the CPC had requested at their February 4 meeting. Mr. Valente then spoke to the issue of the project’s development, stating that a process had been followed similar to the process followed for capital projects. There were a number of questions regarding the 65%/35% split, with members questioning how the project would change if the 35% were not funded. Mr. Barrett responded to these questions, explaining that the two aspects of the project were inseparable, and that the cost division did not represent two separate scopes of work. There was a discussion of the fire suppression system, which Mr. Barrett said was non-existent in the 1971 portion of the building. Ms. Fenollosa asked if employees were at risk in that section of the building, to which Mr. Barrett responded that they were not. Mr. Barrett then explained the code and ADA upgrades, and how they are specifically triggered by the overall cost of the project. The project cost, he said, exceeds one third of the value of the building, and therefore triggers the legal requirement for code and ADA upgrades. All the code and ADA work in the project description, he noted, was legally required. Ms. Weiss tried to separate certain project costs, and asked Mr. Barrett about the cost of one bathroom and one counter, to which he responded that these costs would be difficult to extrapolate. In response to a question from Mr. Kanter, Mr. Barrett explained that the present estimate is not quite at 75% design state. Mr. Kanter asked if there would be a need for an additional appropriation in order to get the project to bid, to which Mr. Barrett replied that there would not. 2 Discussion then turned to the need for replacement offices for Town employees. Mr. Kanter asked where employees would be relocated, and Mr. Barrett replied that Cary Hall would be used for “swing” space and that $75,000 had been reserved for this purpose. The budget also included two trailers, and monies for computer relocation. The construction time frame, he said, would be 10-12 months in three phases. There were questions about the phasing plan from CPC members and those attending the meeting. In response to a question from CPC members, Mr. Barrett said that the symphony would still be held in Cary Hall, and that only the Robbins, Legion and Bird Rooms and Estabrook Hall were anticipated to be used in the relocation. He said the cost of the trailers that would be used in conjunction the rooms in the Cary Memorial Building was estimated at $35,000. Mr. Goddard then explained the importance of the Town Office Building Project relative to renovations of other Town facilities. He said that it is his job to oversee the condition and maintenance of the twenty Town-owned buildings in Lexington, and that upkeep on many of the buildings, particularly school buildings, has been deferred for years. He said it is not the job of the Facilities Department to prioritize the Town projects from a programming standpoint, since certain projects may be opportune to complete at certain times. He said the Town Offices Project may be opportune to do at this time, but may not necessarily be a priority. In response to a question from Ms. Fenollosa, Mr. Goddard responded that the Selectmen are in charge of prioritizing projects. Ms. Fenollosa then asked Mr. Cohen if the Board had prioritized the Town Office Building Project relative to the many renovation projects anticipated for Town buildings. He responded that the Board had not taken a formal position on such priorities, but felt that the Town Office Project was an important project to do at this time due to expected cost savings. Ms. Fenollosa stated that the Selectmen’s priority plan should be integrated with the CPC’s priorities, and that it is hard for the CPC to operate in a “vacuum”. Mr. Valente responded to this comment, stating that he did not feel the CPC should be setting priorities, and that the CPA was simply a funding source. Mr. Kanter asked Mr. Valente if the Board of Selectmen would take the Town Offices Project to Town Meeting, (if the CPC did not fund the project), to which Mr. Valente responded that he did not know. He said the Board was new, and that they had not yet had a chance to discuss the matter. He said what was most important was to follow the path that Town Meeting has approved for such expenditures, adding that any alternatives were premature at this point. Mr. Hurley, of the Appropriation Committee, spoke to the need for CPC priorities. Mr. Valente responded that there is a Town priority list – one which is based upon what the Town can afford at a particular time. The minutes from 12/14/09 were approved. nd The date of the next meeting was set for March 22. 3 The meeting was adjourned at 4:25 pm. Respectfully submitted, Nathalie Rice Administrative Assistant Community Preservation Committee 4