Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-01-26-AC-min REINED 2022 07 IF o ua„9:28 a ii n 01/26/2022 AC Minutes TOWN CLERK Minutes LEXINGTON Town of Lexington Appropriation Committee (AC) January 26, 2022 Place and Time: Remote Participation: in accordance with Section 20 of Chapter 20 of the Acts of 2021 "An Act Relative to Extending Certain COVID-19 Measures Adopted During the State of Emergency", communication took place via a Zoom teleconferencing session that was open to the public; 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Glenn Parker, Chair; Sanjay Padaki, Vice-Chair; Alan Levine, Secretary; Anil Ahuja; John Bartenstein; Eric Michelson; Meg Muckenhoupt; Lily Manhua Yan; Carolyn Kosnoff, Assistant Town Manager, Finance (non-voting, ex officio) Member(s)Absent: None Other Attendees: Deepika Sawhney, School Committee; David Kanter, Capital Expenditures Committee liaison; Bob Cunha, Chair, Lexington Retirement Board; Suzie Barry, Select Board liaison to the Recreation Committee; Melissa Battite, Director of Recreation and Community Programs; Rick DeAngelis, Chair, Recreation Committee and Chair, Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC); Lisah Rhodes, Recreation Committee. Additionally, the proponents of Article 25: Appropriate for Worthen Road Recreation and Education District Land Use Concept Plan: Jon Himmel, Chair of Permanent Building Committee (PBC); Wendy Krum, PBC; Fred Merrill, PBC; Bridger McGaw, EDAC and Town Meeting member Mr. Parker called the meeting to order at 7:32 pm, reviewed the authorization for meeting remotely, and stated that the meeting was being recorded for the purpose of creating minutes. Announcements and Liaison Reports Mr. Michelson reported that the State had announced that the Community Preservation Act(CPA) State match would be 45.5%. Ms. Kosnoff reported that the Town issued a $16.5 million bond, which includes about$8 million for the Center streetscape project. The true interest cost is 1.5% over a term of 15 years. The Town usually issues one bond a year, although there will likely be a bond anticipation note issued in June. Additionally, the Town's Aaa bond rating was upheld during its recent update. Mr. Parker reminded members that he is available to respond to questions about WDesk. Article 25: Appropriate for Worthen Road Recreation and Education District Land Use Concept Plan (Citizen's Article) Representing the proponents of Article 25, Mr. McGaw presented slides comparable to those used at the Select Board meeting on January 18, explaining the logic for the article. He, Ms. Krum, Mr. Merrill, and Mr. Himmel stressed the following: • The Town is moving toward a complicated project to replace the current high school that could cost over $450 million and could involve four years of construction. Education and recreation programs will be impacted, as will students and neighbors. • This article supports a land use study rather than a school project. It is recommending a process that is a best practice in land use planning. • It is important to understand the options and complexities associated with the Worthen Road area and steps that need to be taken to optimize its use if that is where a new high school is to be located. 1 01/26/2022 AC Minutes • A transparent study with a consultant should help keep residents informed, incorporating their suggestions and responding to concerns throughout the process. • The land use issues should be identified sooner than later because some of them will take time to address. • This would be a public process with identified criteria. The consultant would work with and support the Town Manager's working group that was recently created to look into sites for a new high school. Additional comments made by the Article 25 proponents in response to questions and comments, included the following: • A consultant can compile a list of all the funding, including CPA funds, that has gone into projects in the identified area. • The Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA)requires communities seeking financial assistance for school projects, to consider renovating as well as rebuilding. Renovating tends to be inefficient, and to take more time than rebuilding. • The extent of the high school project won't be known until after the feasibility study required by the MSBA as part of its process. • The study proposed in this article is expected to be an eight-month process, with an interim report being brought to a fall 2022 town meeting. It would be groundwork for the feasibility study. • It is expected that the Department of Public Facilities would follow its standard process for issuing a request for proposals for hiring and overseeing a consultant. This has traditionally included oversight by the PBC. • As initially proposed, the requested funding for Article 25 will be $175,000. The recommended budget does not include this funding. Ancillary costs should be included. Ms. Kosnoff added that there is $500,000 in unallocated free cash in the budget that could be used. • The Worthen Road area is about 54 acres; there doesn't appear to be another large enough area of Town-owned land that could accommodate a new high school. • This needs to be a collaborative effort with staff and relevant committees, which is consistent with the recent effort to reach out to stakeholders. • A committee to oversee the process could be established, although this is not included in the article. Committee members expressed concerns and comments that included the following: • The article should not restrict the study to the Worthen Road area. Other locations may be needed, particularly during construction. The wording of the article should not limit the scope of the project. • It isn't clear how the logistics would work since this is a citizen's article without the backing of the Town Manager and Select Board. • Hiring a consultant appears to overlap efforts of the working group that was recently established by the Town Manager to look at the issues. It is critical that the process be collaborative and not combative or competitive. • It isn't clear why a consultant should do this work rather than using Town staff. Why is one more efficient than the other? The concept must be justified if it is going to be supported by Town Meeting. 2 01/26/2022 AC Minutes • There are reasons this concept is good, but stakeholders need to be behind it for it to be approved. • This is a process issue more than a financial issue. A consultant may be valuable for parts of this process but perhaps not necessary for all. • Starting before the MSBA is involved is likely a good idea, but the political process needs to be addressed. • It may be appropriate to create a committee of stakeholders. • It is positive that this has been brought to the surface; maybe there are things that can be done before hearing from the MSBA. Mr. Himmel summarized the concerns of the proponents of this article. The process that has been used in the past for large construction projects in Lexington included the input of the PBC. He expects the process for locating a new high school to be a collaborative effort, and this starts with a discussion of the issues. He wants to facilitate that discussion and encourage the stakeholders to recognize the magnitude and complexities of the many variables. Bringing this forward was triggered by the lack, at least to-date, of an invitation by the MSBA for Lexington to participate in its process for providing grants. Lexington should move forward despite not having that invitation so that it can be prepared when decisions need to be made. Article 24: Adjust Retirement Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) Base for Retirees Mr. Cunha was invited to share background for Article 24. After reviewing the history of COLAs for retirees, Mr. Cunha explained that the COLA base for Lexington retirees is currently a maximum of$14,000. Article 24 is requesting that the maximum be raised to $15,000. The maximum allowed is $18,000. Most communities in the area are increasing their maximums. Mr. Cunha and Ms. Kosnoff explained that the recommended adjustment, based on current demographics of current and future retirees, would result approximately in a one million dollar increase in pension liability, which could be amortized by payments of approximately $200,000 per year until the Retirement Fund is fully funded in 2030. These costs have already been built into the current pension funding schedule. The FY2023 benefit payment increases by just under$10,000. Mr. Cunha noted that retirees are facing increases in insurance and Medicare premiums, as well as the effects of inflation. Minutes of Prior Meetings A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the January 19, 2022 meeting, as edited. The motion was approved by roll call vote. VOTE: 8-0 In response to questions, Mr. Parker reported that the next AC meeting is scheduled for February 2. He will invite representatives of the Community Preservation Committee. A motion was made and seconded to adjourn at 9:25 p.m. The motion was approved. VOTE: 8-0 Respectfully submitted, Sara Arnold Approved: February 2, 2022 3 01/26/2022 AC Minutes Exhibits • Agenda, posted by Mr. Parker • Annual Town Meeting 2022, Worthen Road Recreation and Education Land Use Concept Plan, Appropriation Committee presentation prepared by Article 25 proponents, January 26, 2022 • Town of Lexington Contributory Retirement System; Article 24: Increase in Retiree Cost- of-Living Adjustment Base Presentation to Town Meeting, present by Mr. Cunha, Retirement Board Chairman, 4