HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-08-30 SB-min
Select Board Meeting
August 30, 2021
A remote participation meeting of the Lexington Select Board was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on
Monday, August 30, 2021 via Zoom meeting services. 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. Axtell, Deputy Town Manager; and Ms. Kosnoff, Assistant Town Manager for Finance.
Also present: Mr. Cronin, Director of Public Facilities.
Ms. Hai stated that the meeting was being conducted via Zoom as posted, with the agenda on the Town’s
website, noting that some members and staff were participating from the Select Board meeting room
using the Meeting Owl Pro device to test the technology for hybrid meeting participation.
Ms. Hai provided directions to members of the public, watching/listening via the Zoom application,
regarding the procedure for making a public comment. Mr. 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
Select Board Work Session
Police Station List of Suggestions from Community Feedback
Mr. Lucente and Mr. Pato provided the overview of a report (available in the meeting packet) which
outlines suggestions received from the public about how to proceed with the Lexington Police Station
construction project. This installment is part one of the two-part report and focuses solely on the
construction. Part two will focus on public comments specifically pertaining to policing.
These comments/suggestions were collected via small group discussions held mid-March through the end
of June 2021. Content is unattributed and comments included are not verbatim to preserve the
confidentiality that was promised to contributors.
Mr. Pato stated that the materials being presented tonight are essentially the same as a presentation given
to the Board in July, although he and Mr. Lucente have re-organized the content for the sake of clarity.
General findings:
Participants want a Police Station that serves both department needs and community needs and
one that will help forge bonds between the Police and residents to build a strong foundation in
advance of future societal difficulties.
The Commission on Disabilities should be a party to the design of the building.
“Flexibility” was emphasized so that the Headquarters can meet needs as they change.
Public Safety programs hosted by the Police should draw in a wide variety of community groups
and ethnicities.
Most comments were supportive of moving forward with the building project but there was some
concern expressed about timing in view of evolving thoughts about policing. Concerns were also
expressed that these evolving thoughts should ultimately be reflected in the building design.
Comments about functionality of the building seemed to mostly be included in the building’s
draft design. However, Mr. Pato and Mr. Lucente included them at the end of the report so that
nothing was omitted.
1
Mr. Cronin said the community input gathered from this outreach is extremely useful to the design
process. The design team will now review the feedback to determine which elements are already in the
draft design and which others will prompt reconsiderations. Changes will be made and a new draft will be
reviewed by the Select Board prior to advancing the project to Fall 2021 Special Town Meeting. The
desired timeline is to have the 100% design documents ready for Annual Town Meeting 2022 so that the
project can thereafter go out to bid.
Ms. Hai asked how this timeline matches up with the hiring of the new Police Chief. Mr. Malloy said that
by December 2021, the Town should be ready to make a hiring decision. M. Cronin confirmed that here is
flexibility already within the current design draft. The project should be in the construction document
phase by December which, though advanced, is not too late for changes to me be made although,
depending on the type of changes, they could carry additional costs. It takes roughly three months for the
design team to create design documents and then start to turn those into construction documents.
Ms. Barry and Mr. Sandeen want to be sure the new Police Chief has time to come up to speed on the
project before no more design changes can be made. Mr. Cronin stated that members of the Police
Department have been part of the process to date, including the Interim Chief. The architectural company
hired for the project is one that specializes in Police Headquarters design and construction.
Interim Chief Michael McLean confirmed that the current administration has been working with Mr.
Cronin’s office on this project. The advice from this report— as well as the findings of the audit from
Anderson Kreiger—have been taken into account.
Ms. Sandeen asked how and by whom these recommendations would be prioritized. Mr. Malloy said that
the Permanent Building Committee (PBC) will consider all input and the design will come back before
the Select Board before moving further forward. Mr. Cronin noted that the PBC meetings are open to the
public and feedback can always be relayed by attending or by submitting comments.
Ms. Barry noted that, pre-Covid, there had been a dedicated public listening session to provide feedback
about the the Fire Staton project. Ms. Barry asked if a dedicated webpage for the Police Station project
could be created, as one was for past building projects. She noted that LexMedia had also videotaped a
guided tour of the old Fire Station which provided helpful information.
Mr. Cronin said a page can be created but it might be somewhat early in the process for that, although
having a place to post public meeting info would be beneficial. Mr. Pato said that, in the case of this
particular project—now close to 20 years in the making—a webpage to house the many past reports might
provide context and a refresher course on the initiative over time. Current design iterations, when posted,
should be clearly labeled as conceptual so the public does not misconstrue the status of the project.
Ms. Hai stated that the Board will review the design and any changes made. Ms. Hai said that holding a
public meeting specifically for building projects has become standard practice and an important part of
the process.
Mr. Pato said the comments he heard in the community conversations mostly favored moving forward
and incorporating as much flexibility as possible. Flexible spaces in the current design iteration should be
analyzed in light of the public’s comments; Mr. Pato is not opposed to slightly overbuilding the new
station if it provides greater flexibility in the future but he believes the current design has quite a bit of
flexibility already.
Mr. Lucente said the public comments that most resonated for him expressed desire for welcoming,
2
community spaces. He also heard a lot of comments about flexibility but he wants to hear from the
experts about best practices and how the concept of flexibility can be accomplished by the design. Mr.
Lucente favors a community meeting but he is less supportive of waiting until the future chief has
personally vetted the designs, given that the current Police staff and administration have been included.
ACTION ITEMS: Ms. Hai and Mr. Malloy will schedule a review at an upcoming Board meeting of the
current design draft. The design tram will review the public comments to consider what changes to the
current draft should be proposed. Once hired, the new Police Chief will be included in building design
discussions.
DOCUMENTS: Part 1 Report—Community Feedback on Police Station Design
Fiscal Guideline Recommendations
Ms. Hai reported that a working group—composed of staff, representatives from the Select Board, School
Committee, and the two financial committees— was formed to develop fiscal guideline
recommendations. Staff is now looking for feedback from the Board on the attached framework which
has been reviewed by the working group.
Mr. Malloy noted that over the past couple of years, the Town has tapped into the Capital Stabilization
Fund to manage within-levy debt; shave off debt peaks as they occur; and maintain a 5% growth rate.
Now, with two big capital projects looming (the Police Station and especially the High School) Mr.
Malloy hopes to develop a long-term, sustainable Capital Stabilization funding mechanism to ensure that
the capital projects such as these do not create an undue tax burden.
Mr. Malloy said the framework for this new funding concept is built on two sources: revenues from
redevelopment on Hartwell Avenue and incremental taxes from new developments related to PSDUP
(Preliminary Site Development and Use Plan) projects. Mr. Malloy said there may not be enough
development over the course of the coming debt load to fully mitigate taxpayer impact but if at least 50%
could be set aside through these sources, the impact would at least be better managed. As Mr. Malloy
looks ahead at several projects now in the pipeline, he foresees significant dollars annually that could be
dedicated to the Capital Stabilization Fund, if the approach is adopted.
A separate subject for another discussion is whether or not to separate out a Stormwater Management
Enterprise Fund from the General Fund and if creating an associated dip in the budget would cause a
larger relative spike to the budget once the high school debt hits.
Ms. Kosnoff walked the meeting through several tables, outlining scenarios related to the proposal.
Keeping New Growth expectations at $2.75M for the next couple of years, the proposal would dedicate
anything greater that $2.75M toward the Capital Stabilization Fund rather than channeling any additional
New Growth into the General Fund/Operating Budget. It would also allocate PSDUP revenues into the
Capital Stabilization Fund. Ms. Kosnoff noted that adopting this proposal would necessitate calling for a
fall Special Town Meeting every year to approve transfer of the exact amount of funds.
Two additional key points Ms. Kosnoff made were 1) that the Town would have to keep close watch on
projected versus actual New Growth to ensure that the portion of New Growth retained is enough to
balance the budget; and 2) that the Operating Budget would not have capacity to grow by very much if t
additional New Growth is earmarked for the Capital Stabilization Fund.
Ms. Kosnoff explained how she had calculated the trajectory of debt for the Lexington High School
project, cautioning that firm figures are not yet available. Important points include: the “guestimated” 1)
$350M total cost of the high school project is on the low side; 2) the assumption of MSBA contribution of
3
30% was included in the calculations; 3) the construction bond would have a 30-year term while
preliminary feasibility and design phases would be 20-year bonds; and 4) the impact of the high school
project, taken as a whole, would at least double the current total exempt debt service, with the highest
impact hitting in 2028-2029, presuming the foreseen timeline comes to pass.
Ms. Kosnoff said, going forward, she recommends that a portion of available Free Cash also go toward
the Capital Stabilization Fund, in addition to allocations already earmarked for such a purpose.
Ms. Kosnoff said, after gathering the Select Board’s feedback and having another review session for the
working group, she hopes to bring this presentation to the first Financial Summit in September,
Mr. Lucente reacted positively toward the proposal but asked what downsides might occur from a
taxpayer’s point of view, particularly those taxpayers who would feel the impact in the present but not see
the benefits until further down the road. Mr. Malloy said that if nothing is done to mitigate the tax
burden— and the money goes instead into Operating— the impact of the cost of the high school on
taxpayers would be far worse.
Mr. Lucente noted that the policy would also have the additional effect of making residents more open to
commercial development and it would encourage that additional care is taken to maintain a Triple A bond
rating. Mr. Malloy affirmed that setting up this sort of funding mechanism will meet with approval in the
bond rating agencies.
Mr. Pato, who served on the working group, said that the policy in essence tells a story of budget
discipline. It also has the effect of making the high school project somewhat less daunting in terms of how
to manage the cost although it necessitates tightening the Operating Budget “belt” sooner than later. He
noted that the cost of the project and borrowing interest rates used in the calculations are both lower than
they are likely to be, which makes the actual impact even higher than these models show.
Ms. Barry asked, in future, that all commercial properties be referred to by their street addresses instead
of the names of the former owners. She asked for clarification on whether all commercial development
revenues would go into the Capital Stabilization Fund.
Mr. Malloy said that it would only be the revenue from developments that fall under the PSDUP category
and from the projects under rezoning that was approved by 2020 Annual Town Meeting. He added that
the flexibility not to divert 100% of the revenue to Capital Stabilization would provide the Town with
some budget breathing room.
Ms. Barry asked when the next full property re-evaluation would take place. These full evaluations in the
past have had the effect of causing tax bills to rise even without the influence of additional capital debt.
Ms. Kosnoff said full re-evaluations occur every five years; the next one will be in a couple of years.
Ms. Barry said that if adopting this policy meant that fall Special Town Meetings would be necessary
every year, and if so, the Town should openly plan two meetings instead of hedging the question.
Mr. Sandeen asked for clarification about the nature of the proposal. Mr. Malloy called it a “guideline” or
“budget framework” but not a mandate.
Mr. Sandeen applauded the collaboration between the School and Municipal administrations, saying this
would be ever more important moving forward through the high school project. He confirmed that if more
commercial projects came on line than now projected, there would be additional funds set aside in Capital
Stabilization to offset the debt impact. He also applauded anything that would maintain the Town’s Triple
A bond rating, noting that paying off the high school debt faster due to having more funds available
would substantially lower the cost of the project.
4
ACTION ITEMS: The Board’s feedback will go back to the working group and the resulting adjusted
model will be presented for additional feedback to the first Financial Summit in September. A discussion
will be scheduled about creating a Stormwater Management Enterprise Fund.
DOCUMENTS: Capital Stabilization Framework
Discuss Goal Setting Meeting Objectives Review and Budgeting
A proposal from Julia Novak, Facilitator, has been received and the Board is being asked for feedback.
The cost of the facilitation would be paid from the remaining gift funds and additional funding from the
Select Board and/or Town Manager's budgets. October 27, 2021 is currently being held as the date for
the goal setting meeting.
Ms. Hai asked members to comment on what they hope to achieve from the goal setting exercise and
what the expectations are. If the Board finds this exercise to be beneficial, Ms. Hai recommended that
funding should be budgeted yearly going forward.
Mr. Lucente said he supports permanent funding because hiring a facilitator is a necessity. He believes
that the strategic plan that arises from the session is valuable. Mr. Lucente supports being more
purposeful and transparent with committee chairs about how to engage in the process so that their
participation is more successful and meaningful. He also believes the Board needs to create an
opportunity to reflect on priorities and how events, like the pandemic, have shaped what the Board has
dealt with and what is has been able to accomplish.
Ms. Barry agreed that goal setting should be facilitated as it is too difficult for the Board chair to both
facilitate and fully participate. She suggested that part of the process could be a listening session in which
the Select Board listens to the facilitator’s session with the committee and board chairs. Ms. Barry noted
that Ms. Novak’s current proposal is identical to her proposal from the last session a couple of years ago
but without the itemization that reveals what is included in the $22,000 fee. Finally, the suggestion that
the facilitation costs be covered by “gift funds” does not specify which gift funds nor what the balances of
those funds are.
Ms. Barry said what she is looking for is a list of actionable—but realistic— goals. She believes the
Board needs to understand the limits of its capacity and guard its members’ mental health, as well as that
of the Town staff and not take on more than can be reasonably handled.
Mr. Sandeen said that although he has only been through one goal setting exercise, he finished the
experience believing the Board could have done better themselves. He would rather spend the $22,000 on
something else. He believes that the off-site venue— and the length of the session— were valuable. He
noted the various considerations for action and policy (i.e. sustainability; diversity, equity, and inclusion;
and disability) raised in the past two years and asked that a process be identified for how to ensure that
these elements are part of the way the Town conducts itself.
Mr. Pato said he believes someone other than the Board chair should facilitate the sessions, but not
necessarily a consultant. He noted that, in the past, staff have facilitated. He would prefer that the work be
done internally and suggested that the money would be better spent providing staff with training in
facilitation, if those skills are not already in-house. Mr. Pato approves of figuring out what sort of
facilitation is needed and then budgeting for it. He approves also of blocking off a day for the process and
identifying an off-site location.
Ms. Hai agreed that the session(s) need to be facilitated. Ms. Hai was impressed by the effectiveness of
the last session two years ago versus the prior processes, although the results might have been better if the
5
Board had pinpointed for the facilitator what it wanted to achieve. She noted that the Board members and
Mr. Malloy were less well-acquainted with one another at the time. Ms. Hai would love to put the money
into professional development for staff rather than pay an outside consultant. She feels that some
questions need to be answered by the Board prior to the next goal setting session.
Ms. Barry noted that this year, the timeline for the sessions falls just prior to Special Town Meeting so
asking staff to facilitate does not appear to be a viable option.
Mr. Malloy said the feedback after the goal setting sessions two iterations ago was that the Board had
been unhappy with that process because the report took too long to generate, the action items were too
numerous and, ultimately, the goals were too similar to past goals, some of which were never actually
achieved. For the following session that was facilitated by Ms. Novak, the goals were paired down and
rated near-, medium-, and long-term in clear, actionable form. Mr. Malloy reported that Ms. Novak is an
expert in facilitation and that she is familiar with the town.
Mr. Lucente said, in this case, he supports paying for outside expertise because someone in this role needs
to be separate enough to ask difficult questions.
Ms. Hai said that a long-term discussion should be scheduled to discuss how future goal setting should
take place but time to change direction, at this point, is in short supply.
Ms. Barry asked if an agenda item dealing with Ms. Novak’s answers to the Board’s questions can be
added to the upcoming Financial Summit agenda. Ms. Hai asked members to submit suggestions and
expectations for goal setting to Ms. Katzenback.
Ms. Hai, in response to a query from Mr. Sandeen, acknowledged that how to achieve the community’s
expectations re: sustainability; diversity, equity and inclusion; accessibility should be a subject for future
Board discussion. Mr. Malloy noted that the Town has hired a Sustainability Director and a Chief Equity
Officer who will monitor and put together programs to further the goals in these areas adopted by Town
Meeting.
ACTION ITEM: Mr. Malloy will ask for a bill itemization from Ms. Novak and for answers to these
questions: Should the Board meet with committee chairs prior to their facilitation sessions; If the sessions
have to be virtual instead of in-person, does the price change? Ms. Hai and Mr. Malloy will discuss
adding an agenda item to the Summit meeting. Mr. Malloy will consult with Ms. Novak how to ascertain
deciding about in-person versus virtual meetings. Members should submit suggestions and expectations
for goal setting to Ms. Katzenback.
ADJOURN
Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 5-0 by roll call to adjourn the meeting at
9:11 p.m.
A true record; Attest:
Kim Siebert, Recording Secretary
6