Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-ATM-CEC-rpt2CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE TOWN OF LEXINGTON O 14 RN ��G 'A o = m o Q x a 3 v r APRIL I9 TN LE xING , t o � REPORT #2 TO THE 2007 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING Released 22 April 2007 Submitted by: Charles Lamb, Chairman Ted Edson, Vice - Chairman Roger Borghesani William Hurley Shirley Stolz CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT #2, 22 APRIL 2007, TO 2007 ATM Article 35: Appropriate For Senior Center Design /Conceptual Study The 2000 Annual Town Meeting (FY 2001), Article 8(a)(ii), appropriated $50,000 to fund a feasibility study for a Senior Center, and $35,000 of those funds are unspent. These remaining funds would be used to fund a study which would examine a two - campus approach to the senior center with one of the campuses being at the "White House" and the other being at the existing Muzzey Senior Center. The Committee supports this request with the recommendation that the COA • Meet with the Historic District Commission prior to spending any of the funds, • Understand the pros and cons of a two- campus solution, and • Explore the School Committee's intentions with respect to the Old Harrington School. The Committee refers the reader to page 14 of the CEC report to Town Meeting dated 3 April 2007 for background information on the COA. The Capital Expenditures Committee unanimously recommends APPROVAL of transferring $35,000 from 2000 /08(a)(ii) under Article 35. Article 36: Appropriate For Public Works Facility The CEC has carefully vetted the Board of Selectmen's request for a new DPW Facility to be located at 201 Bedford Street, the site of the existing DPW Facility. Background information follows: Existing Situation The existing DPW facility at 201 Bedford Street consists of vehicle storage and maintenance space, administration space, sand and salt storage, a fuel facility (used by all Town -owned vehicles), and miscellaneous storage areas. The vehicle storage area, which dates back to the late 1800s, is now used for parking DPW equipment and trucks "bumper to bumper" with little space between columns of vehicles or structural building columns. The storage area lacks mechanical ventilation and sprinklers. The remainder of the main building was constructed in the 1960s, with a masonry fagade. This area houses the administrative personnel and spaces, and the mechanical shops. The spaces are dark, poorly ventilated, and poorly laid out for their intended use. The poor CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT #2, 22 APRIL 2007, TO 2007 ATM condition of the roof allows leaks in several places. Further, the area is not compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and none of the buildings comply with current building codes. Currently the Public Works Operations Group is the sole occupant of the 201 Bedford Street site. The Director and the DPW Engineering staff are located in Town Hall, the Building Maintenance unit is located in the Cary Memorial Building, and the Environmental staff is located at Hartwell Avenue. The need to replace this facility in a timely manner has been discussed for at least 20 years. Questions and Answers Q -- Why is a new facility required, where should it be located and why now? A The DPW has a direct interface with every town resident every day of the year by providing us with water and sewer, snow removal, and road maintenance often under emergency conditions. In addition, DPW reconstructs our streets, oversees trash collection and recycling programs, maintains and cleans storm drainage systems, maintains Town buildings, cemeteries and street lights, along with a myriad of other service functions. In order to best serve the residents of Lexington, the DPW needs a facility which will allow it to respond quickly to emergencies, and allow efficient vehicle dispatch. The existing facility is long past its useful life from a structural point of view, lacks adequate space for efficient vehicle operations, and lacks the space necessary to accommodate a consolidated DPW. From a vehicles - operations perspective, the building is grossly inefficient because of the time it takes to get vehicles into the garage; the need to move one or more vehicles during an emergency in order to access the correct vehicle; and the situation is exacerbated if any of those in -the -way vehicles are inoperative. Crowding prevents quick repair of inoperative vehicles and the staging of equipment for different assignments. The lack of mechanical ventilation requires the opening of the garage doors to dissipate engine exhaust fumes. From an administrative perspective, the employee productivity is severely impacted by the outdated conditions cited earlier. On February 15, 2005, the Board of Selectmen, after reviewing a site study done by Camp Dresser McKee, holding several public meetings, and listening to the adjoining property owners, made a decision that any new DPW facility would be located at 201 Bedford Street. Town Meeting should authorize a referendum for the project because the need will neither go away nor be reduced if we wish to adequately address the DPW's requirements, and the cost of the facility will only continue to increase. Construction -cost CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT #2, 22 APRIL 2007, TO 2007 ATM indices are far out stripping other cost indices (e.g., the cost of copper for wiring and plumbing has doubled in the past three years). Q -- What is the program for the new facility? A — The program given to the architects is to retain all the existing DPW functions at 201 Bedford Street and to provide space for the Director, the Engineering group, and Building Maintenance group. In addition, the new facility is to be capable of accommodating a Polling station and an Emergency Operations Center, but not in dedicated space. The program also provides space for the Schools' building maintenance functions. Neighbors' interest in reducing light and noise pollution was considered and to enhance energy efficiency and other "green building" attributes, the facility has been designed to LEEDS Silver standards. The program is tailored to the current number of DPW positions. Space vacated at Town Hall will be bacldilled by Municipal functions which have been excessively cramped to date and allow consolidation of some currently located outside Town Hall (e.g., Social Services currently located at Muzzey). Q -- What is current status of the project for a new DPW facility? A -- The 2005 Annual Town Meeting (ATM) appropriated $720,000 to initiate design of a new facility, with the expectation that adequate progress would be made to allow the 2006 ATM to consider a Warrant Article authorizing a referendum for the project. To this end, the Permanent Building Committee (PBC) interviewed a number of design firms and selected HKT Architects. HKT engaged several engineering firms to provide advice on specific DPW requirements and for mechanical- and - electrical design services. At the Fall 2006 Special Town Meeting (STM), Town Meeting voted to appropriate an additional $1,600,000 to continue the design effort through the 2007 ATM. After a preliminary cost estimate of $30.5 million was presented at the 2006 STM, the Board of Selectmen formed a small committee with members from all concerned boards and committees to review the then - existing design to assure that the design going forward was responding only to the essential needs of the DPW and reflected a cost - effective approach to both construction and future operating costs. The result of this review is a reduction in the size of the main building of 10,456 gross square feet, or about 12% along with a reduction in the mezzanine and cold storage of 2,915 square feet, or about 23 %. And with the reduced size, the placement of the building on the site could be changed to provide other cost savings in site preparation and outlying structures. At this ATM, a presentation of 50% construction drawings will be presented along with a new cost estimate based on those drawings. Q -- Is it necessary to house the vehicles in a minimally heated garage? A — Yes. There has been a detailed analysis of the cost of inside - versus - outside storage. The analysis considered the cost in then -year and 2007 dollars. The savings in 2007 dollars, with inside storage, amounted to $19.6 million and the costs of construction amounted to $8.7 million (a two -to -one benefit). Non - monetary advantages include: the CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT #2, 22 APRIL 2007, TO 2007 ATM ability to use the garage as an operations staging area; better security of the trucks and their contents; less time to park and move vehicle; ability to dispatch a vehicle independent of any other vehicle; ability to attach and detach snow plows; repairs to trucks can be made without moving vehicles; and many more operational advantages. Q — What will differentiate this project from recent Town construction projects? A — First, this project has been subjected to greater scrutiny and analysis than any prior construction project. This process has been successful in reducing the size of main building by about 12% and, at the same time, validated that DPW's most important needs are still served. This reduction from what would have been an ideal building should meet the needs of the DPW for 50 years or more as it's likely to need to do. While much as been said about problems with heating, ventilating, and air - condition (HVAC) issues with recent school construction and those impacts on operating costs primarily focusing on the heat -pump systems and the energy controls, the DPW design does not involve heat pumps, because even though geothermal heat pumps may be a better choice where there are large cooling demands (even in our climate), only the administration building will be mechanically cooled ( "air conditioned "). Thus, more conventional HVAC systems are used and great emphasis has been placed on the most flexible and effective energy controls throughout the facility. Most importantly, the PBC has engaged a "Commissioning Agent" who is responsible for reviewing the proposed design for its reasonableness as regards function, cost effectiveness; construct ability, energy conservation, etc. The Commissioning Agent is totally independent of the design team and reports directly to the PBC and will remain "on Board" until construction is complete and all systems have been thoroughly checked out and are operating as designed. The Capital Expenditures Committee unanimously recommends approval of Article 36. Article 38: Rescind Prior Borrowing Authorizations This article seeks to rescind a $3 million bond authorization made by the 1999 Annual Town Meeting. The intent of the original motion was to provide an open -ended bond authorization for conservation land purchases. While this authorization, which would require authorization by Town Meeting in order to actually purchase conservation land it has been used by the Conservation Commission as a show of good -faith when negotiating with land owners for potential land purchases. In March 2006, the town passed the Community Preservation Act, thereby providing an alternative funding mechanism for land purchases. The Town Manager seeks to rescind the unused 1999 authorization due to potential conflicts with the CPA, which specifies that you can not state an intention to issue a bond for land purchase under the tax levy and then change the bonding to CPA. While the existing bond authorization is not for a specific parcel, therein is the problem. Bond Counsel can interpret the open -ended bond authorization as an intent to purchase a specific parcel of land. If CPA funds are then used for debt service on a bond for an CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT #2, 22 APRIL 2007, TO 2007 ATM actual parcel, these two bond authorizations might be in conflict, depending on the opinion of Bond Counsel. While the Committee commends the Town Manager for keeping Lexington's "financial house" in order, and we support the direction suggested by Town Manager for this article, we believe this bond authorization has deeper symbolic meaning to the town with respect to the priority placed on open space, and therefore on the work of the Conservation Commission. Therefore, we feel this article should have been given more time to be vetted by the committees, commissions, and boards, as well as Town Meeting. We hope that in the future articles of this nature will be brought up well before Town Meeting so that discussion will appear in the finance committee reports, and TMMA Warrant Information Book. The Capital Expenditures Committee unanimously recommends Approval of Article 38. Article 43: Appropriate For Authorized Capital Improvements This article seeks to transfer $15,000 appropriated under Article 4(d) of the 2006 Special Town Meeting for shelving in the Town Vault at Cary Hall, to Article 28(i) of the 2006 Annual Town Meeting, an appropriation for climate control in the same vault. The reason for this transfer is because the estimate for the shelving was $44,000 ($60,000 appropriated), and the estimate for the climate control was higher than the appropriation by $15,000. Both of these articles are funded through CPA so this is, in effect, a transfer of CPA funds only. The second part of this article seeks an additional about $200,000 for the Fiske /Harrington elementary school projects. This would be excluded debt. The exact nature and amount of this portion of the article is not known at press time.