Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-11-29 SB-min Select Board Meeting November 29, 2021 A remote participation meeting of the Lexington Select Board was called to order at 6:01 p.m. on Monday, November 29, 2021 via Zoom remote meeting services. Ms. Hai, Chair; Mr. Lucente; Vice Chair, Mr. Pato, Ms. Barry, and Mr. Sandeen were present, as well as Mr. Malloy, Town Manager; Ms. Katzenback, Executive Clerk; Ms. Kosnoff, Assistant Town Manager – Finance; Ms. de Alderete, Town Clerk; and Mr. Makarious, Town Counsel. Ms. Hai stated that the meeting was being conducted via Zoom as posted, with the agenda on the Town’s website. 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. Discussion and Vote on Townwide Referendum Regarding Special Town Meeting 2021-1 Article 10: Reducing Noise from Landscape Maintenance Equipment Ms. Hai explained that a petition was recently filed for a town-wide referendum regarding Article 10: Reducing Noise from Landscape Maintenance Equipment. This triggers a town-wide vote. The Board will call the vote and must decide when to do so. The Board can choose to hold this as a special standalone election or partner it with the Town Election in March. The Board has until December 3, 2021, to decide when this vote will be held. She noted that the impact from redistricting is not yet known. Mr. Makarious stated that a warrant needs to be issued at least 35 days prior to the election. Ms. de Alderete explained that the target date for finalization of redistricting is mid-December. This would put the earliest date for a special vote in late January or early February. Mr. Lucente noted that there are very few referendums in the history of the Town. Those that have been previously held have usually had quick turnarounds, for example a two-week turnaround in 1955, and a two-week turnaround in 1968. A more recent referendum in 2002 had a slightly longer turnaround. He noted that, if coupled with the March election, this item will be a heavy topic of conversation for the public. Mr. Makarious stated that he is unaware of any changes to State law that may have caused the longer, more recent, turnaround time. Referendums are mostly triggered by funding authorizations on a potentially controversial project in a town. Mr. Pato shared Mr. Lucente’s concerns with wrapping this item up quickly. However, he noted that, due to the rezoning not yet being finalized, it may be best to couple this vote with the March election. Ms. Barry stated that a case could be made for either a special vote or coupling this with the March election. Mr. Sandeen noted that the cost to the Town could be approximately $70,000 to hold a special vote outside of the March election. Ms. Hai stated that, due to the uncertainty of when this special election could be held and the potential cost to hold a special vote, it would seem more responsible to couple this with the March election. In response to a question from Ms. Barry regarding how to make a future referendum date more definitive, Mr. Makarious explained that the Town could seek special legislation to amend the Town Meeting Act. Mr. Malloy stated that he is leaning toward recommending coupling this vote with the March election. He noted that there is already possibly a special election to be held in June 2022, and it would be a lot for staff to handle two special elections in one year. Ms. Hai stated that there will likely be a special election for the debt exclusion next year. The Board could consider coupling the vote with that special election instead. Ms. Barry stated that she is leaning towards supporting coupling this vote with the March election. She would also like the language for referendums to be clarified for the future. Ms. Hai noted that there seems to be a consensus with coupling this with the March election due to unknowns regarding redistricting and early voting status. Mr. Lucente noted that this vote will monopolize most of the attention of the public for the March election. The Board discussed redistricting plans. Ms. de Alderete explained that all voters will be notified if they are being moved to a new precinct. There can be a letter placed in with the warrant to this effect. The Town won’t know more about early voting until potentially December 15, 2021. In response to a question from Ms. Barry, Mr. Makarious explained that the special vote will appear on the back of the ballot at March elections. Mr. Pato noted that there is some precedent for other special elections in Town that if a special vote is to be held within 100 days of a general Town Election, that the two be coupled. The Town is currently 98 days from its March election. He noted the importance of making this vote as accessible as possible. Mr. Lucente stated that he has been swayed to agree to couple this vote with the March election. Upon a motion duly made and seconded, by roll call, the Select Board voted 5-0 to call for a referendum on Special Town Meeting 2021-1, Article 10, in accordance with Section 8 of the Town Meeting act to ask a question in substantially the form as follows: Shall the Town vote to approve the action of the representative town meeting under Article 10 of Special Town Meeting 2021-1, whereby it was voted to amend Chapter 80 of the code of Lexington, limiting the use of outdoor landscape maintenance equipment to specify days and hours and further to impose restrictions and eventual prohibitions on the use of gas-powered leaf blowers Subject to final revision by the Town Clerk and Town Counsel to coincide with 2022 annual Town Election in March 2022. Mr. Makarious explained that at least 20% of the registered voters need to attend the Town Election for this referendum vote to move forward, and further, at least 20% of all the registered voters must vote in favor of the referendum for the referendum to pass. Ms. Hai stated that the date of Town Election is likely to be March 7, 2022. DOCUMENTS: Town of Lexington – SPECIAL ACTS CHAPTER 215, ACTS OF 1929 Section 8, Petition Text, Scanned Copy of Text, Projected costs, Document-Q&ARegardingSTM2021- 1Article10ReferendumProcess 2. FY2022 Tax Classification Rate Setting Discussion Mr. Pato explained that the residential rate factor established a split rate between the commercial (non- residential property tax) and residential tax. Currently, the Town uses a 1.75% split factor and has done so since 2017. That is the maximum allowed by the State at this time. Reducing the factor imposes a burden on residential payers, their rates will go up at a faster rate if this factor increases. Residential payers for the past seven years have been seeing depreciation faster than commercial sector properties and have shouldered a larger burden as a result. Changing the factor would have a benefit on commercial payers, with the lion’s share going to lab/office properties, and with very little going to small businesses owners in Town. These types of changes have many unintended consequences and usually studies are involved. If the goal is to mitigate impacts from COVID-19, ARPA funds can be used to create economic development incentives for small businesses, instead of altering the residential rate factor. Ms. Kosnoff reviewed changes to this item that are included in the packet. Mr. Lucente explained that he believes residential taxpayers have seen increases beyond two and a half percent in their in their tax bill, but that this has not always been an even increase. He stated that a lot of small businesses reside in these large office buildings, and thus are maybe not being included in the analyses. He agrees that further analyses are needed on this topic. Ms. Kosnoff noted that the Town did a full revaluation in 2020 and that everyone’s valuations were posted online, and communications were sent out to the entire community to give the opportunity to comment back to the town. Another revaluation is scheduled for 2025. Ms. Hai stated that she is uncomfortable backing off the residential split in the same year as asking for a debt exclusion for the new Police Station. She stated that she believes it is important for analyses to be run on this item, as she wants to make sure the Town is not becoming an unattractive place to run a business. In response to a question from Mr. Sandeen regarding ARPA funds, Mr. Malloy explained that, if the Board chooses to move forward with the items he has previously suggested, there will still be approximately $2.7M in ARPA funds for the Board to use at its discretion. There is also $500,000 proposed from ARPA funds to be used for a participatory budgeting process if the Board chooses. He would like for the Board to begin to take action on some of his suggested items shortly. The Board discussed possibly holding a public meeting, or a survey for input into the use of ARPA funds. Bridger McGaw, Precinct 6 Town Meeting member, stated that he believes it may be important to lay out the entirety of the increases taxpayers might see over the coming years in terms of analyses of the tax rate and leveraging different funds. Dawn McKenna, 9 Hancock Street and representing the Tourism Committee, mentioned that the Tourism Committee and Center Committee plan to meet on December 9, 2021, to discuss ARPA funds. She believes many businesses in Town are hurting. She asked that the Board do what it can to lower the tax rate and discuss all ARPA funding in a public meeting. DOCUMENTS: TaxClassification Packet_FY2022_Updated, Memo - J. Pato to Board FY22 taxrate setting position ADJOURN Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 5-0 to adjourn the meeting at 7:28 p.m. A true record; Attest: Kristan Patenaude Recording Secretary