Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-06-07 SB-min Select Board Meeting June 7, 2021 A remote participation meeting of the Lexington Select Board was called to order at 7:00 PM. on Monday, June 7, 2021 via Zoom remote meeting services. Select Board Chair Ms. Hai; Vice Chair Mr. Lucente; and members Mr. Pato; Ms. Barry; and Mr. Sandeen were present, as well as Mr. Malloy, Town Manager; and Ms. Katzenback, Executive Clerk; Mr. Gibbons, Recording Secretary. Ms. Hai stated that the meeting was being held in accordance with Governor Baker’s March 12, 2020 Executive Order suspending certain provisions of the Open Meeting Law to allow remote participation during Massachusetts’ state of emergency due to the outbreak of Covid-19. Ms. Hai provided directions to members of the public, watching or listening via the Zoom application, regarding the procedure for making a public comment. Ms. Hai reminded Board members, staff, and members of the public about Lexington’s Standard of Conduct regarding civil discourse during Town Government meetings. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 1. Request to Include Pledge of License and Inventory for Liquor License Transfer of 131 Massachusetts Avenue—Samarah LLC d/b/a Vinebrook Bottle Shop Ms. Hai stated that this agenda item deals with an amendment to paperwork approved at the last Select Board meeting. The request for an amendment was made by the applicant through the applicant’s attorney, Alexander Furey. It was noted that Ms. Katzenback has received confirmation from the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission (ABCC) that this amendment request does not require posting a second Public Notice or re- opening the Public Hearing. Mr. Furey explained that the applicant’s lender, Eagle Bank, now requires a pledge of the liquor license and inventory as collateral to secure financing. Mr. Furey stated that such a request is standard practice which, in this case, was made late in the process. Ms. Barry noted that the addresses listed on the paperwork are not consistent. VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 5-0 by roll call to approve the inclusion of the Pledge of License and Inventory as part of the transfer of liquor license at 131 Massachusetts Avenue, Lexington, Massachusetts to Samarah, Samarah LLC, doing business as Vinebrook Bottle Shop. ACTION ITEMS: Mr. Furey will ensure that the addresses are correct. DOCUMENTS: Request to include pledge of license inventory—Samarah LLC; Copy of Liquor License Transfer application approved at 5.24.21 Select Board Meeting—Samarah LLC. 2. Request to Include Pledge of License and Inventory for Liquor License Transfer of 55 Bedford Street—55 Pearl Investment LLC d/b/a Busa Brothers Liquors Once again, this is an amendment to previously approved paperwork, requested by the applicant’s lender (Eagle Bank) to secure financing. As in agenda item # 1, this matter also does not require posting public notification or a re-opening of the Public Hearing. 1 VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 5-0 by roll call to approve the inclusion of the Pledge of License and Inventory as part of the transfer of liquor license at 55 Bedford Street to 55 Pearl Investment LLC, doing business as Busa Brothers Liquors. DOCUMENTS: Request to include pledge of license inventory—55 Pearl Investment LLC; Copy of Liquor License Transfer application approved at 5.24.21 meeting—55 Pearl Investment LLC. Ms. Katzenback reported that LexMedia is experiencing technical difficulties and has not been able to begin live broadcast of the meeting. LexMedia will accept the Select Board’s recording of the meeting and post it on the LexMedia website by tomorrow. Ms. Hai noted that the Zoom link to this meeting is listed on the meeting agenda, ensuring that the public is still able to view the meeting. 3. Select Board Work Session: Long Range (20 year) Municipal and School Capital Plan; Discuss Need for Board and Committee Training; Discuss Select Board Committee Appointment Process Presenters for the first part of this three-part agenda item—Long Range (20 year) Municipal and School Capital Plan—were Mike Cronin, Director of Public Facilities; Sean Newell, Assistant Director of Public Facilities, Chris Bouchard, Facilities Superintendent; and Ray Dufresne, Gordian Professional Services Group (formerly Accruent). Mr. Cronin and Mr. Dufresne reported that evaluations for 27 facilities had been conducted: 18 are School buildings (of which eight are buildings on the Lexington High School site); 9 are Municipal buildings. These evaluations include determinations of building condition and systems functionality; assessments of what is needed to protect/maintain these assets; cost estimates for maintenance; and; prioritization of funding needs during the upcoming 20-year timeframe. Mr. Cronin said these the purpose of these assessments is to provide better information about budgeting and when to schedule capital projects. He noted that the Town has recently been investing about $4M annually for capital asset maintenance but, as will be demonstrated in this presentation, the amount may need to be revisited. Mr. Dufresne explained how the assessments were conducted; what sort of data was collected; and how maintenance/upkeep costs were calculated. Mr. Dufresne stated that the information contained in the assessments conducted by Gordian Professional Service Group (GPSG) will be available through a VFA facilities management software program and can be used to inform the Town’s budgeting and capital investment decisions. He and Mr. Cronin stated that these assessments can and should be updated regularly. The software can also project what the condition of these assets will be, based on various funding scenarios. Mr. Dufresne said that the GPSG assessment team(s) included an architect; a mechanical engineer; and an electrical engineer who were escorted through the buildings by a Town employee. Before the tours took place, the GPSG received and reviewed documentation about the buildings submitted by the Town staff who use and are responsible for the buildings. When adjustments to the data are made, the VFA software recalculates a building’s condition, its remaining useful life, and its in-kind asset replacement value (based on current technology). The software can be used to assess an entire building’s status as well as the status of each building element. Mr. Dufresne stated that the current replacement value of the 27 buildings and associated systems is $744M. The overall facility condition index (FCI) cost is $1.339M. All calculations are based on 2 RSMeans data, an industry standard. The average age of the assessed buildings is 49 years. The School Department building ranked in the worst condition (F rating) is the Central Administration building, followed by Lexington High School (an overall D rating). For the purposes of assessment, Lexington High School was broken into seven sections plus the site itself for a total of eight separate assessments. (Mr. Dufresne noted that some of the sections had higher ratings and some sections had lower ratings, but the cumulative rating was D.) The School Department buildings in the best condition are the newest buildings: Hastings Elementary School and Lexington Children’s Place (A ratings). The Municipal buildings in the worst condition are the East Lexington Fire Station and the Town Office Building (D ratings). The Municipal building in the best condition is the new main Fire Department Headquarters (A rating). Mr. Dufresne showed four different annual funding strategies that would address asset maintenance, noting that with a current backlog of maintenance, higher spending to catch up might be worth considering in the first years of using the program. He noted that if spending is maintained at the current $4M level, asset conditions will deteriorate, not improve, because a growing amount of maintenance/replacement would have to be deferred. Mr. Lucente asked how the average asset building age of 49 years was calculated. Mr. Dufresne said that the age was based on the original construction date and was not adjusted for updates that might have occurred over time. The FCI value is based purely on the level of deferred maintenance. Mr. Lucente said, regarding the letter grade rankings, he is surprised some buildings were as high as they were and that others were as low, particularly Cary Memorial Library with a C rating. Noting that Lexington as a community likes to excel, he asked how achievable a cumulative A rating would be, given that there will never be all new buildings. Mr. Dufresne recommended that goals be ambitious but achievable. Many towns he works with have worse scenarios than what he sees in Lexington. Mr. Lucente said that Town leaders, staff, and the public should be mindful of how long a capital project takes to complete so as to set expectations at a realistic level. Mr. Pato said his analysis of Cary Memorial Library’s C rating is that the heating/ventilation system is at the end of its life and needs replacement in the near term. Mr. Pato said the VFA software can help to analyze a building’s condition but it cannot assess whether a building is still appropriate for the function it performs. Ms. Barry said there appears to be ten or more buildings on the Municipal side that are not included in Gordian’s assessment. Notable are the Westview Cemetery building, various recreation buildings, the new Visitors Center, and the animal shelter, all which will require maintenance or replacement over time. She suggested that pump stations might also be added to the asset inventory. Mr. Cronin stated that staff made choices about which buildings to evaluate for this first-time, baseline analysis. Re-evaluation will recur every year and other buildings can be added, including pump stations. Ms. Barry noted that some of the seasonally-used buildings now requiring maintenance have carried surprisingly high price tags. She would like to the assessment to include as many assets as possible. Ms. Barry reported that the East Lexington Fire Station is a 70-year-old building that received a D rating and now houses 6 full-time firefighters, day and night, year-round. She urged the Board to begin to 3 consider how that building should be addressed. Ms. Barry hopes the VFA software will help the Town prioritize decisions. Mr. Sandeen asked by what method the Town had prioritized building maintenance without the aid of the GPSG assessment and VFA software. Mr. Cronin reported that staff and consultants had evaluated buildings and systems on their own, producing what he called a pecking order of projects, given the limits of the $4M capital maintenance budget. Mr. Sandeen asked if the VFA software is capable of including health, energy, emissions, and resilience factors. Mr. Cronin said that when buildings are maintained or replaced, efficiency standards are improved to achieve sustainability goals adopted by the Town. Mr. Dufresne said the software has the capacity to calculate a variety of different maintenance or replacement scenarios. Mr. Sandeen said he hopes that Total Life Cycle costs are the basis for making maintenance or replacement decisions. He asked whether the VFA software can be used to match investment with program goals. Mr. Dufresne said that the core functionality of the software does not take into account things like adaptability for impacts like extreme weather events, such as the high heat today that caused school to be cancelled, but the software can be customized to include such factors. Mr. Newell noted that the VFA software is but one tool to assist the Town in making important decisions. Ms. Hai said she believes critical elements to consider— such as life cycles and reliability— can be added to the “Requirement” category in the software but that total replacement of a building is not something the software can determine. She hopes that the VFA program will help the Town work toward improving overall building conditions by setting a benchmark, just as switching to the PCI paving index standard has helped improve road conditions. On the subject of School building funding, Ms. Hai noted that there are other sources besides the Town such as the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) replacement and repair programs. Given that funding may come from these and other sources for capital projects, Ms. Hai asked how easy it is for staff to use the software to model different funding strategies. Mr. Cronin cautioned that MSBA funding is not guaranteed and noted that Lexington chose in at least one scenario (Bridge School) to press ahead with a project without State assistance. Mr. Dufresne stated that a filter using outside funding as a component of overall funding can be added that would show how a certain level of investment would affect building or element conditions over the 20-year timeframe. Vis-à-vis staff time commitment to use the software program, Mr. Cronin said that Gordian would conduct training sessions for staff in the near term and provide support annually as needed. Mr. Pato said that even though the report is based on a subset of buildings, the prediction that far more than the current $4M will be required for maintenance seems to indicate a big departure from the current maintenance investment strategy. While acknowledging that thus presentation is only a preliminary look into what the VFA software program can do, Mr. Pato said he is concerned about the direction maintenance costs appear to be headed. Mr. Cronin agreed that the scenario of investing $18M annually would be a significant departure from the current $4M. He said the data needs to be analyzed more closely but it is no doubt that community conversations will need to be conducted about priorities and expectations. 4 Ms. Hai asked if this presentation has been given to the Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC). Mr. Cronin said the Select Board is the first group to see the information but CEC will also hear the presentation this Wednesday, June 9, 2021 at 8 a.m. Following that, Mr. Cronin said the plan is to present to the Appropriation Committee, the School Committee and to be on the agenda at an upcoming budget Summit meeting. Ms. Hai noted that the issue will be addressed repeatedly over time and the public will have ample opportunity to ask questions and provide input as the discussions unfold. Ms. Barry asked how this assessment information meshes with the School Department’s recently completed Master Plan. Mr. Cronin said that the VFA software program focuses in capital investment but the information it provides dovetails with the School Department’s Master Plan. Ms. Barry said she see the VFA and the School Department’s Master Plan as close cousins that are not independent of one another. Mr. Sandeen asked how the current unpredictability/variability of construction costs affects cost projections in the models. Mr. Dufresne said this variability is something Gordian looked at closely. It is unknown how long the uncertainty will last. Using the industry standard RSMeans will keep cost projections current and reliable. Actual costs of current projects can be used to extrapolate future project costs. The more real-time data is put into the program, the more accurate the projections will be. Mr. Sandeen said he hoped that a High-Performance Index or Health-Performance Index can be part of the software’s analysis. ACTION ITEMS: The presentation will also be given to CEC, Appropriation, School Committee. Mr. Cronin will run copies of the five-year capital plan to inform conversations about how to approach the capital list using the VFA software as a tool. The issue will come back before the Select Board at a later date. Discuss Need for Board and Committee Training: A communication from State Attorney General’s Office of Open Government (in the Meeting Packet) lists several different training opportunities for boards and committees. Open Meeting Law training has been offered yearly by Lexington’s Town Counsel. Ms. Hai posed several questions: What training should be required at minimum? What would be considered the “gold standard”? How often should training be offered? Should training focus on new members or be for all members? How will training be tracked? Noting that all new and re-appointed committee and board members are required to fulfill the baseline of ethics training, Mr. Pato said question is: what beyond that baseline should be offered and/or expected? Mr. Pato said the ethics training can be a befuddling experience. One committee with which he liaises has decided to assign mentors to new members and provide an orientation session, focusing on past accomplishments/endeavors and future direction. Mr. Pato believes there should be a general agreement about such things as a meeting minutes format. Ms. Barry suggested that there could be a session for committees and boards. Perhaps once a year, about successful meeting facilitation and how to deal with controversial issues or difficult individuals. The role of the Select Board liaison should be understood by the Select Board member and by boards/committees. Mr. Sandeen said topics such as authority jurisdictions; how the organizational flow chart works; and the timeline for a Town Meeting readiness would be useful as well. 5 Mr. Lucente said he would like to see a day or a half-day regularly devoted to these and other topics and that all committee and board members should be invited, not just chairs and co-chairs. He envisions the format as a mini-breakout into groups with different discussion themes. Ms. Hai agreed and added that other topics should be addressed, such as emailing and forming working groups and subcommittees. Ms. Barry suggested that some of these trainings might be done via video and kept in a reference archive. In-person trainings would also be offered but having the information on video would allow people to access the information as needed. Ms. Hai reported that Ms. Axtell has said that yearly Open Law sessions are very poorly attended. Mr. Lucente said one reason he sees for the low attendance is that only the chairs have been invited. ACTION ITEMS: Board members will work offline on a training proposal to be discussed in Open Session at a later date. Discuss Select Board Committee Appointment Process: Ms. Hai acknowledged the substantial yearly effort to keep track of and remind board/committee members to fulfill the State-mandated Conflict of Interest requirements. Ms. Hai recommended that compliance be a minimum requirement for re- appointment. Ms. Hai expressed gratitude to all Town volunteers, adding that appointing new and diverse voices is a goal to strive for. To that end, Ms. Hai asked what key elements should be considered in how volunteers are recruited. She would like a proposal to be developed and hopes a new process can be launched for the next round of committee appointments coming up in September. She asked if term limits should be considered for the boards and committees and/or for the role of chair and if there should be a specific recruiting and outreach protocol. She asked if current committee vacancies as well as seats becoming open due to term expirations should be listed on the Town website. Ms. Barry said accessing board and committee information is easier than in the past but could still be improved. A more user-friendly application form is needed. Ms. Barry believes the role of chair needs to rotate regularly. As for advertising committee vacancies, Ms. Barry said a comprehensive publicity plan should be developed that would include this outreach. Mr. Sandeen agreed that term limits for chairs and for committee members would be a positive change. He asked how long a time chairs would be required to step down from the role before they could assume it again. He believes the same effort should be exerted to diversify committees/boards and chairs as was used to diversify Town Meeting Member participation, which he deemed a success. Mr. Lucente believes the last round of appointments was more diverse than previous rounds, largely due to successful recruiting efforts, but he believes the recruiting process should be clarified to achieve consistency. He believes it is important to be transparent about how potential committee members are evaluated so people know what to expect. If an applicant is not selected to serve, the person should be informed forthrightly. Mr. Lucente said onboarding should be a clear process. He also believes it important not to lose years of institutional knowledge in favor of attracting new volunteers, particularly before new recruitment protocols have been adopted. Plus, once new people are appointed, there is always a learning curve. 6 Mr. Lucente sees value in rotating the role of chair. If changes are made in how recruitment and appointment are done, Mr. Lucente advocated for having a clear transition between phasing out the old process and starting the new process. Mr. Lucente said being flexible with the number of people on each board or committee and/or letting interest drive membership might be a positive change. He agrees with a recommendation made by Mr. Pato some time ago re: changing what constitutes a quorum so that a quorum represents a majority of appointed members instead a majority of the total number of seats. Ms. Barry believes there is need to clarify how input from the committees/boards influences the Select Board’s appointing process. She noted that the Select Board in at least one other town interviews applicants in its Open Meetings. Mr. Pato agrees with term limits for chairs for the sake of continuity, planning, and developing broader leadership capability. Mr. Pato does not agree with term limits for members of standing committees. Mr. Pato said evaluating committees and their charges is supposed to be done on a yearly basis. He believes if a committee has reached the end of its value or function, it should be disbanded to allow individuals to find other ways to serve the Town. Mr. Pato said the last round of committee recruitment was successful, largely due to spreading the word through various cultural groups. He noted he has made it a practice to interview prospective candidates for committees and boards with some regulatory function and to ascertain from committees if certain skillsets are needed. Ms. Hai reported that the Select Board Office sends out a letter to every applicant who is not appointed. If applicants so choose, their applications can be kept on file for future consideration. Mr. Sandeen believes smaller committees are more effective and easier to chair. He asked if recruitment should be done for expired-term vacancies even if the incumbent wants to be re-appointed. Ms. Hai noted that the new Valente Scholar is working with the Town’s Management Fellow on committee reviews and charges. A report to the Select Board will follow. Mr. Malloy said that the Town of Bedford has recently gone on a “committee diet” to sunset committees no longer deemed necessary. Mr. Pato said he has called a number of other communities and conducted research on the Massachusetts Municipal Association (MMA) website to learn how other towns handle these questions. His analysis is that each town suits its own needs and customs. ACTION ITEMS: Ms. Hai and Ms. Barry to discuss offline the timeline for presenting a report to the Board re: how to advance the issue of committee/board management. The Board will receive a separate report from the Valente Scholar and the Management Fellow re: committee reviews and charges. DOCUMENTS: 20 Year Capital Planning Presentation; Open Meeting Law Legislative Update; Excerpt from Select Board Procedures Manual—RE: Advisory Committees. SELECT BOARD CONCERNS AND LIAISON REPORTS Mr. Lucente:  The Stone Building Feasibility Re-Use Committee has met every two weeks and is making 7 progress. A second community forum is planned next month.  The Board of Health is sending a letter to Lexington restaurants to encourage the use of reusable, customer-provided take-out containers, as allowed by State code.  The Monuments and Memorials Committee has met every other week to review proposals for a monument for Lafayette. The committee will report to the Select Board in the future.  LexHab has openings and asks for the Board’s help to fill them. Mr. Pato:  The Community Preservation Committee met last week to discuss whether to consider off-cycle applications for some Recreation and Conservation projects. If approved by CPC, these would be taken up at a Special Town Meeting in the fall, if one is convened. Ms. Hai:  Lexington’s State delegation has urged conference an extension to the Emergency Order for virtual Public Meetings. No definitive decision has been reached by the conference committee but the expectation is that at least a short-term extension will be granted.  Lexington may arrange to meet virtually with representative of Antony, its French sister city. Ms. Barry:  The Council on Aging extends its thanks to the Board for supporting the senior parking program. The Council also discussed how to address impressions they believe Lexingtonians have about the senior population and how residents might be educated about the senior population and what senior services are provided.  The Cary Library will enter its next phase of reopening on June 15, 2021. Staff was sent home early today due to the inability to keep the building cool in the extreme heat.  The Youth Commission’s Flamingo Flocking project and fundraising effort raised $4,000.  Ms. Barry asked for someone to cover the upcoming HATS meeting on June 17, 2021. She will attend the Colonel Stevens’ State of Hanscom address that evening.  A meeting will be scheduled later this month for the Lex250 Committee. The multi-town 250 th Committee met earlier today. Senator Barrett has filed legislation to expand the State’s 250 Committee so that it includes the towns that are actually on the Battle Road in addition to the City of Boston. th The 250 Stamp letter, which Lexington has signed, has been sent to the US Postal Commission. Mr. Sandeen:  The Noise Committee has completed two rounds of Public Information Sessions to get feedback from landscaping businesses. A “Contact Us” page has been established on the website to gather feedback from residents and businesses.  The Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee is soliciting feedback for the Lexington Next Comprehensive Plan. Small, one-on-one meetings with stakeholders are being scheduled; the next public meeting is scheduled for June 15, 2021. Town Manager Report Mr. Malloy reported that he testified online at the State hearing which was held on June 2, 2021 regarding a bill to extend remote meeting participation meetings. He reported that the overwhelming testimonies 8 provided was that virtual meetings should be allowed to continue as a right of State and local entities on a permanent basis. Mr. Malloy announced that Martha Duffield has accepted the offer to become Lexington’s first Chief Equity Officer. Ms. Duffield currently works for the Town of Danvers but will be starting in Lexington in mid-July. Ms. Hai reported that the interview process for this position included citizens, staff, and the input from the Citizen Advisory Council which helped to draft interview questions. ADJOURN Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 5-0 by roll call to adjourn the meeting at 9:42 p.m. A true record; Attest: Kim Siebert, Recording Secretary 9