Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-09-27-CEC-minMinutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Date, Place and Location: September 27, 2011 8:00 a.m., Town Office Building, Room 111 Members Present: Charles Lamb, Chair; Ted Edson, Vice - Chair; Shirley Stolz; David Kanter Member Absent: Bill Hurley Other Attendees: Deb Mauger, Selectman; Glenn Parker, Chair, Appropriation Committee; George Burnell, Selectman; Carl Valente, Town Manager; Maryann McCall - Taylor, Planning Director; Bill Hadley, Director, Department of Public Works (DPW); John Livsey, Town Engineer; Fred Johnson, Lexington Center Committee; Mark Barrett, Project Manager, Department of Public Facilities (DPF) Documents Presented: 1. Town of Lexington Planning Department Memorandum to Board of Selectmen, September 23, 2011, Re: Center Streetscape 2. Lexington Center Streetscape Concept Plan, September 6, 2011, Project No. 10092.00 3. Presentation "Town of Lexington Preliminary Evaluation of Organic Waste Facility ", May 16, 2011, prepared by Bruce Haskell of Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (CDM) and Robert Beaudoin, Lexington's Superintendent of Environmental Services Mr. Lamb called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. Center Streetscape plan (Carl Valente and Maryann McCall - Taylor): A memo was distributed and a concept plan was placed on the table for viewing. (The concept plan is available on the Engineering and Planning website.) The memo summarizes the Center Streetscape plan reflecting input from the Selectmen, various boards and committees, and from meetings with the public. Mr. Valente gave an introduction to the Center Streetscape project and the original plan with respect to funding and safety issues that arose. Ms. McCall - Taylor explained the project was originally to widen sidewalks on the south side for benches, but the Fire and Police departments were not comfortable with the potential safety issues created from narrowing the roadway. The project was summarized and includes turning lanes, sidewalks, crosswalks, bump outs, bicycle boxes, roadway markings, flush medians, intersection redesign, bicycle paths, and parking lots. The next step is the selection of materials and to include a plan for lighting, benches, trash receptacles, planters, and pavement surface treatment. (For more information see the memo.) Mr. Kanter asked whether there would also be a separate budget line for connectivity projects and was told the DPW's operating budget has about $18,000 for connectivity. Page 1 of 6 There was a discussion of whether the proposed changes would affect the ability to handle the traffic volume through the area; however, it was said the focus of the plan is on safety for pedestrians and not on through- traffic capability. With regard to sidewalk design, Ms. McCall said the goal is a coherent plan. The issue of how funding is specifically designated and requested would be for future meetings. In response to a question about what design &evaluation (D &E) funds would be needed at this point in the planning process, the answer was it is currently thought to be about $250,000, but that will be determined before the 2012 Annual Town Meeting. Construction funding would be requested at a subsequent Town Meeting. The Committee discussed timelines and project scope, including the general feel for the current planning process. The project team is working to accommodate general issues and input. Ms. Stolz asked about danger areas and town population's experiencing accidents. Request for Proposal (RFP) for Anaerobic Digester (Deb Mauger): Ms. Mauger described the Town's Preliminary Evaluation of Organic Waste Facility proposed for location at the Hartwell Avenue site, which is a capped landfill already providing several municipal functions. The site can accommodate additional activities — although this is limited by constraints by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) —and has diverted yard waste from the waste stream, allows for hazardous waste disposal, recycling, and provides a shooting range for the Lexington Police Department. The Board of Selectmen (BoS) believes Lexington should have an anaerobic composting facility for organic waste and one is being proposed at this location. This type of processing of organic waste is being done in Europe. There is a site in Rutland, MA, which uses cow manure to generate electricity from the methane that is created, but the site in Lexington would, instead, use "green" waste (e.g., disposed food products) as the input. Ms. Mauger also mentioned a waste- reduction and compost project at the University of California (Davis). This Green Energy idea has been presented before the Town's Planning Board, the Conservation Commission, and the Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC) for issue resolution and is considered by the BoS to be a municipal need. Ms. Mauger mentioned some questions the EDAC is asking are related to smell, timing of RFP responses, enclosures, and vermin. The BoS does not consider this as an economic development project, but the leasing of the land would raise some revenue. However, DEP and Conservation would have to allow this type of activity and there would have to be community support. An important question the Town is trying to resolve is the best way to use this land as well as if it is an appropriate neighbor for the commercial development going on in that manufacturing zone. Lexington is moving forward with an RFP and is looking for feedback and questions. Mr. Kanter advised that he had attended the Planning Board meeting where this was presented and had presented a list of the questions he had—one of the most significant concerned that the sequencing of events in the Town's process with those the State had to Page 2of6 do so that the Town would be ready to issue a meaningful RFP. Ms. Mauger acknowledged that all of those questions from Mr. Kanter were being considered. The Committee discussed this process and Ms. Mauger assured there is a demand for this type of facility from the State and a task force is currently in the process of addressing pertinent regulations. For example, burning trash is not allowed, but in the process of composting the byproduct methane is burned to create energy. DEP is very interested in getting these facilities online and wants to divert green waste from waste stream. The BoS will be ask to vote to authorize the Town Manager to issue the RFP and hopes to get this on the agenda for their next meeting. A draft RFP would be available for review in about 3 months. Mr. Kanter suggested the BoS and Town Manager include adequate time, before release of the RFP, for review of the draft so that feedback and advice from this Committee and other committees, boards, and the public can be properly considered before producing the final RFP. Mr. Lamb asked whether the facility being proposed would impact being able to expand the firing range. Ms. Mauger said this proposal does not include the firing range and the proposed facility would be placed behind the range, at the back of the site (refer to the map in the Preliminary Evaluation), and would leave plenty of space to expand the firing range at a future date. Mr. Lamb asked for, and received from Ms. Mauger, confirmation that the RFP will request discussion of the financial arrangement, the timeline for response to the RFP, as well as require a business plan and proposed value of the facility. Ms. Mauger believed the electricity generated would be in the megawatt range but would be a function of the size of facility that would be proposed in response to the RFP. She will get back to the Committee regarding specific numbers, but —with regard to traffic impacts— estimates 40 truck trips a day to bring the input waste to the facility. Mr. Parker asked regarding funding. Ms. Mauger expects there will be grant funding available to the proposers to install the facility as a result of the incentive from the State to build one. Mr. Kanter, referring again to the questions he had raised at the Planning Board meeting, brought up the infrastructure improvements for roadways and staffing necessary for this facility to run effectively and would expect the RFP to be specific enough so the proposers will address such issues. Cary Hall Improvement project (Fred Johnson): The Cary Hall project was initiated by the DPF and Mr. Johnson's involvement today is one of advocacy. He has a long- standing seat on the Lexington Center Committee and believes Cary Hall would get more use if designed correctly. He was asked to be on a Committee to do a study of the site and the Committee recommended Mills Whitaker Architects LLC, Arlington, MA —which was hired and whose 306 -page report sets forth their view of what should be improved. A reasonable improvements- and - financing schedule was discussed with Pat Goddard, DPF Director. Mr. Johnson is here today to explore the Committee's perceptions of financing options and what might go to Town Meeting as a request. The preliminary budget (at this concept state) for the complete project is about $7.74 million, broken down into a number of subcategories. Not all of the improvements will need to be completed, but DPF is expecting Page 3of6 that at least $4 -5 million of improvements would be the most - essential work that's needed and hopes it will not be a phased project. (The preliminary budged fora 4 -phase execution of the complete project is about $9.42 million.) This project is necessary as Cary Hall houses a number of important town events such as Town Meeting, performances, graduations, as well as Town Offices and events. Mr. Johnson said the Chair of the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) believes this is an appropriate project. The financial impact of phasing and financing from debt was discussed. Payment for the current debt from recent land acquisition would be finished before any debt would be due on this project. Construction funds would be requested at 2013 Annual Town Meeting and construction would take place in Fiscal Year 2014 with the hope that the construction could be completed in one year to minimize unavailability of the building. This project may well be deemed 100% eligible for Community Preservation Act (CPA) funding. Mr. Lamb asked the Committee for their responses and reactions. Ms. Stolz said they will need a Plan B for phasing as it might be a lot of details for people to digest. Mr. Edson suggested phasing would be needed to handle the size of the debt. Mr. Kanter advised that it was his understanding that $550,000 would be needed for the D &E stage —which he heard would be requested at the 2012 Annual Town Meeting. Mr. Kanter said he felt that improvements to Cary Hall are needed, but there's still much to learn regarding how much of the outlined project is important to do and to confirm who is to benefit, whether the Town or primarily those who rent the space —and if the latter, to what extent there is any plan to have rents raised to help amortize the capital costs. As it wasn't known at this meeting, he requested it be determined what is the maximum dollar amount that would not go over the 30 % -of- building -value threshold that requires full code compliance and whether an initial phase could then confront the highest - priority parts of the project first —with full code compliance being addressed with the subsequent phases. The Committee discussed the scope of the financial commitment and debt for this project, other projects impacted in the Town as a result, CPC prioritizing Town projects to include reuse of the "White House ", the Senior /Community Center, the West Lexington Greenway Corridor, the Police Station and land acquisitions, other sources of funding where CPA funds (Historic Preservation) cannot cover this project, and potential uses and functions of the building after the project is completed. Mr. Parker mentioned a debt project's impact on other uses of the CPA surcharge funding might be a hurdle and the Committee discussed their position on generally being averse to debt —or at least long -term debt —for CPA - funded projects. Mr. Johnson inquired as to what debt level would be comfortable in order to complete the project. The Committee discussed CPA funds, regular tax -levy funding, as well as grants available from the State. Bridge/Bowman Elementary Schools Project and Joseph Estabrook Elementary School Project (Mark Barrett): Bridge /Bowman: At the schematic - design stage, this was approved at $19.4 million, but the design - development estimate went to the School Committee a few weeks ago at a little over $22 million. Documents are at the estimator with construction drawings at 80% and completion of the estimate is expected October 4 -7. Bid alternates for portions of the Page 4of6 projects are also being considered and DPF and the Permanent Building Committee are waiting on information from the October 5 Financial Summit Meeting which will be briefed on the status and estimates for this project. Mr. Kanter asked about what guidance had been provided by the School Committee with regard to scope. There have been meetings regarding phasing and structuring alternates to bring the cost down by way of the alternates, but not to eliminate scope. The School Committee has commented on scope in terms of educational functions only and they voted to include all the scope items to fulfill those functions. They are proceeding with architects based on the $22 million estimate, but need to resolve what they will be bringing to the 2011 Special Town Meeting. Mr. Burnell said that Town Meeting is scheduled for Monday, November 14, 2011, with a Bridge /Bowman Motion being contingent upon the Bridge /Bowman information having been voted by the School Committee. The School Committee was invited to speak with the Selectmen this coming Monday evening, the 3 Town Meeting has been posted and the Warrant will be closed on the 3 rd at 4:30 p.m. This is also subject to the October 5th Financial Summit. The debt - exclusion referendum would be in January for the 3 schools. If that referendum passes, construction will impact Bridge /Bowman next summer. Estabrook: DiNisco Design Partnership has been hired and met with the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) last evening. A Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) project schedule has been developed and will be distributed at the Financial Summit on the S A subcommittee has been formed to work with all parties for design development. A task force has been put together for traffic assessments on Robinson Road. They are waiting for architects and traffic engineers to do on -site feasibility prior to making any conclusions. The Committee would like to have closure by the summer and for Mr. Goddard to confirm how the new - school area will be accessed —both during and following construction. The Committee discussed the outline of the compressed schedule with MSBA and it seems to be workable. Mr. Kanter asked about the PCB (polychlorinated biphenyls) levels at Estabrook and if the monitoring indicated they remain mitigated to an acceptable level. Mr. Barrett said there is an upcoming report, but the last report was favorable. Other Business: 2011 Special Town Meeting: Likely articles were discussed. Artificial Turfi The Committee also discussed the question of installing artificial turf on the centerfields in conjunction with the on -going project. It was reported that the underlying peat had been probed (a $12,000 effort using operating funds). Use of artificial turf is not being recommended as there is not an appropriate sub -base. Budgets: The Committee discussed the status of, and plans for improving, the Town's roadways — including the roadway- status information now available from the 2010 Payment Management Study, the on -going special tax -levy funding for streets based on the FY2001 Override Set - Aside), and the State's Chapter 90 funds. The Committee listened to Mr. Burnell's proposal that, in the future, all of the yearly new - growth funding authority be allocated to addressing the roadway deficiencies, but in the absence of hard numbers on Page 5of6 what that would mean — especially on the ability of the Town's operations to be adequately funded —the Committee doubted that would be a reasonable approach. Instead, the Committee continues to believe that it will take another infusion of significant funding through a debt - exclusion referendum to make any meaningful progress on the roadway deficiencies. CEC Report to 2011 Special Town Meeting: The Committee discussed the need to begin planning for its report, but decided to wait until after the Financial Summit next week and, hopefully at that time, more information on what Articles will be in the Warrant before defining assignments and a timeline for the report. Future Meetings: Starting Tuesday, October 18 through December 20 the CEC will meet at 8:00 am every week and possibly also on October 4th Adjourn: At 10:00 a.m., a Motion to Adjourn was made by Mr. Kanter and seconded by Mr. Lamb. Vote: Approved 4 -0. These Minutes were approved by the CEC at its meeting on October 28, 2011. Page 6of6