Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-01-31-CEC-minMinutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting Date, Place, and Location: January 31, 2012 8:00 a.m., Cary Memorial Building, Ellen Stone Room Members Present: Charles Lamb, Chair; Ted Edson, Vice - Chair; Bill Hurley; Shirley Stolz; David Kanter Other Attendees: Carl Valente, Town Manager; John Livsey, Town Engineer; Pat Goddard, Director, Department of Public Facilities; Bill Hadley, Director, Department of Public Works; Rob Addelson, Assistant Town Manager for Finance; Glenn Parker, Chair, Appropriation Committee Documents Presented: 1. Town of Lexington Parking Technical Assistance Final Report Jul, 2010 Nelson) Nygaard 2. Extract from Lexington Battle Green Area Master Plan 3/1/2011, Past Designs LLC, pages 86 -90, "Recommendation #7: Parking, Traffic Calming and Safe Pedestrian Access" 3. Fiscal Year 2013 Town Manager's Preliminary Budget & Financin Plan January 9, 2012 (the "White Book "), Page XI -21, "White House Stabilization" Call to Order: Mr. Lamb called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. Battle Green Area Master Plan— Parking, Traffic Calming and Safe Pedestrian Access Study —Phase 1: Conceptual Plan (Proposed FY2013 funding of $60,000) Mr. Valente discussed the series of events that led to this request. Two years ago the Town received a "Downtown Initiative" competitive grant from the State of Massachusetts' Department of Housing and Community Development —which led to the NelsonlNygaard report on parking management in the central business district (CBD). There is an unspent $38,000 of an FY2012 appropriation in the Operating Budget for the Economic Development Office (Line 7300) to implement that parking - management study in the CBD, but the Battle Green area was excluded as its Master Plan was still in process. That Plan is now in the hands of the Board of Selectmen (BoS) and this request is to provide the funds so the follow -on work can now include the Battle Green area. Mr. Kanter asked whether there is an overlap between this proposed, now more - comprehensive, traffic - related study and the CBD Streetscape Engineering project (proposed FY2013 funding of $240,000) as he heard that one of the first things that engineering project would be doing is traffic- related studies? Mr. Valente said the engineering project will be looking at physical changes while the more - comprehensive traffic - related study will be focusing more on the management of parking —such as rate structure, short -term versus long -term parking, and private and public lots. Page 1 of 3 Estabrook School — Off -site Street Engineering, Improvements and Easements (Proposed FY2013 funding, dollar amount still to be determined) Mr. Livsey advised that the Estabrook School Access Ad Hoc Task Force's key concerns are that: (1) the queuing that occurs on Grove Street at morning drop -off and afternoon pick -up times is extremely dangerous for those driving, the pedestrians, and for emergency access, and (2) having only one good access road to the school is not acceptable. The Task Force is formulating its formal, interim, recommendations to the BoS and the School Committee with regard to the queuing and the secondary access road. The extent to which the school design and siting can accommodate queuing on the site is a major factor, and while Robinson Road appears to be the only practical secondary access, the extent to which it should be improved and what uses will be allowed (e.g., routine access for school events and deliveries of provisions) are still being discussed. Some of the things under consideration are signalization on Grove Street at the access driveway, widening of that driveway, straightening the intersection of Robinson Road with Grove Street, and improving the sight lines on Grove Street by adjusting the grade along that street. At this point, there is no estimated design cost as no scope has been agreed to. What is important is good scheduling so that work —which will require lots of permitting —can be done during the summer; therefore, they would like to get the design funding at this Annual Town Meeting and possibly ask for the construction funding at a 2012 fall Special Town Meeting. (At the moment, there is $1,654,000 of unallocated projected FY2013 revenue that is a possible partial source toward these needs.) Between now and that Town Meeting, the Task Force will finish their interim recommendations, then the architect (DiNisco Design Partnership Limited) will take those recommendations, the recommendations of the Recreation Committee (with regard to the fields), and the recommendations of the School Committee (with regard to the number of students) and they will see how much of the queue they can accommodate on the site, the planned access to the loading dock, etc. — with the result being known at the end of February. There's no significant cost related to implementing the agreed -to use of just the access driveway (Option 5a) during construction. Whatever costs there may be would be part of the primary Estabrook School project. Mr. Livsey said to encourage the use of busing by Estabrook students, at least during construction, it is being considered to cut the fee charged in half. That would cost about $150,000. He also said, that in any case, the width of Robinson Road needs to be brought up to the Town standard of 18 feet and it appears that can be done without any takings. (Narrowest point of the existing road paving is 12 feet.) If a sidewalk were to be added, that would involve some land taking. Discuss the Steps in the Planning, Estimating, Design, Engineering, and Construction of Capital Projects Mr. Goddard said the public process is typically done in three steps. First, determine the need (e.g., conceptual study). When there's concurrence on the scope to be addressed, next go to Design Development (DD)—which would include, at a 30% or so design, a Schematic Development stage and could continue all the way to construction documents. And finally, there's "construction ". Some times, it's necessary to come back for additional Page 2 of 3 DD. For example, with the Bridge & Bowman Schools Renovation, there had been a Master Plan to define the need, then a DD, and then it was decided to expand the scope so there was a request for additional funding to cover the expanded DD. The next step was to request the funding for the construction. In the case of the Cary Memorial Building Project, there had been the study that recommended the scope for a single -phase construction project. The pending $550,000 request was to get DD, including construction documents, for that entire scope (preliminary estimate is that would be about a $7,200,000 construction) so that they could come back next year and get construction money for entire scope. In the case of a school project with Massachusetts School Building Authority support, you go through robust schematics. Coming out of the Feasibility Study and Schematic Design, there would be an agreement on a scope. With regard to the work being proposed on the "White House ", from Mr. Goddard's perspective, it's all about addressing long- overdue maintenance on a Town asset. As the Historic Districts Commission (HDC) has said it will not consider a total tear down or movement of even the historic portion of the building (the "Hosmer House ") off its current site, he believes at least the historic portion must be preserved —even pending a proposed use for it. The proposed project is estimated at $381,000. Of that, $148,590 is for the demolition of the portions that have no reasonable need in a reuse (which was the case for the two earlier studies for potential use — school administration and senior center), which the HDC has agreed can be demolished, and thus which demolition would be done in any case. That leaves $232,410 as the stabilization investment. That's about $166/sq. ft. for stabilizing; it's anticipated there would still be about $300 + /sq. ft. needed to develop the building once a use is proposed. Mr. Goddard believes the Town will spend the stabilization money anyway in the process of putting a use into the building. Mr. Goddard expanded on just what constituted "stabilization ". It's to make sure the building envelope is at a standard so that the Town is no longer risking the structure or interior aspects from the effects of time & weather. That entails making the building tight and making the exterior to be at a maintained level. Included would be such as stripping siding; refinish /replace /repaint boards that need it; pointing a chimney; adding /repairing foundation; create a new exterior wall where parts were demolished; gutters; new shutters; and new storm windows. A Motion was made and seconded to support the $381,000 project. Vote: 4 -1 (Mr. Kanter opposed) Approve Meeting Minutes: A Motion was made and seconded to approve the Minutes from the January, 17, 2012, meeting as presented, but subject to the change requested by Mr. Hurley —which Mr. Kanter will add. Vote: 5 -0 Adjourn: A Motion was made and seconded at 9:55 a.m. to adjourn. Vote: 5 -0 These Minutes were approved by the CEC at its meeting on February 7, 2012. Page 3 of 3