Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-11-14 SB-min Select Board Meeting November 14, 2022 A remote participation meeting of the Lexington Select Board was called to order at 5:33 p.m. on Monday, November 14, 2022 hybrid 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. Axtell, Deputy Town Manager; and Ms. Katzenback, Executive Clerk. Ms. Hai stated that the workshop was being conducted via Zoom as posted, with the agenda on the Town’s website. Public comment will be taken on the two public hearing items on the agenda. She noted that the Battle Green flag was lowered at the request of the Board in recognition of the passing of Paul Mazerall, a longtime Lexington resident, a longtime Town Meeting Member, and the Town’s former Tree Warden. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 1. Presentation - Munroe Center for the Arts' Proposed Building Renovation Plans, 1403 Massachusetts Avenue Steve Poltorzycki, Co-Chair of Munroe Center for the Arts Board of Directors, explained that the Munroe Building is a Town-owned building that the Center operates under a long-term lease with the Town. The goal is to bring the building into full compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, allowing it to be inclusive and welcoming to all. He explained that the building has three floors. Arts instruction is offered on all three of those floors. The only way to reach the second and third floors is by stairs, which is not feasible for those in wheelchairs, and seniors who have difficulty climbing stairs. The second and third floor restrooms were designed for elementary school aged children and are not ADA compliant or suitable for adults. Access to the first floor for those in wheelchairs is via a wheelchair lift, which is helpful, but has its limitations. The first-floor restroom is not fully ADA compliant. The heating for the building relies on an over 60-year-old fossil fuel boiler. He explained that the plans have been shared with and input has been solicited from the Commission on Disability, the Historic Districts Commission, the Recreation Committee, the Community Preservation Committee, the Design Review team, the Town Manager and staff, and the Police Department. Community meetings have been held on site. Endorsements have been received from the Commission on Disability and the Recreation Committee. The group will be seeking CPA funding for the project. Brian Healy, Brian Healy Architects, explained that the Center wanted the plans to represent the fiscal, environmental, and social agendas outlined in the comprehensive plan that reflects the values of the Town. He explained that an interior elevation was explored as an option, but this was found to be cost ineffective. It would destroy a lot of the historic fabric on both the outside and inside of the building, and on the front face of Massachusetts Ave. A determination was made that the best approach would be to create a new addition on the back which would feature an elevator core, new gender-neutral bathrooms, and units on the roof to upgrade the air quality, and heating and cooling for the existing building. The existing parking on site has an east-west orientation and this plan proposes to switch it to a north-south orientation. This will create a safer parking and drop off area. The intention will be to create a new primary entry into the building, with a better drop off access area. Due to existing elevations, the entryway will need to be slightly recessed, allowing for a small amphitheater for outdoor performances and a general gathering area. There is also an intention to consider solar as part of this project. In response to a question from Ms. Hai, Mr. Poltorzycki stated that the overall project cost is just under $3.6M. Munroe is committed to fund all of the architectural and design fees associated with the project, approximately $315,000. Thus, the actual request to CPC was $3.267M. In response to a question from Mr. Lucente, Mr. Healy explained that it will not be practical to connect the nearby bike path to the Minuteman Bikeway. There is a potential amenity to include a pedestrian walkway back toward Munroe Park. In response to a question from Ms. Barry, Mr. Poltorzycki explained that part of the proposal will include upgrading the drainage and unevenness of the site at Munroe Park. He noted that this is a Recreation Committee space. This will remain in Recreation’s portfolio to program. In response to a question from Ms. Hai, Mr. Healy explained that the addition will be separate from the main building and so its restrooms could be used off-hours as long as there is adequate supervision and cleaning services available. Melissa Battite, Director of Recreation and Community Programs, noted that the area will not be available for t-ball anymore and a swing set removal/replacement will need to be included in the budget for the project. The Recreation Committee is reviewing the new space for active recreation potentials. She stated that the project responds to some of the outcomes and findings of the Community Needs Assessment such as having a common gathering space for community events, and access to public restrooms, especially close to the center of Town. Ms. Hai stated that there seems to be uniform agreement that the Board is interested in the accessible upgrades to the building. There are some questions regarding the workings of the programmatic parts, and maintenance/landscaping of the new space. Generally speaking, the Board does not take advanced positions on CPC individual requests, until it sees the entirety of what is presented to the CPC, the CPC’s recommendations. DOCUMENTS: Munroe Center for the Arts Cover Memo, Munroe Design Plans, MunroeVisual1, MunroeVisual2 2. Update on Participatory Budgeting Mr. Malloy explained that a total of 136 original submissions have been received and reviewed by staff. These were cut down to 97 items which meet the program criteria. 14 additional submissions were removed for being duplicative. Thus, there are 83 submissions which could be potential projects. Each Select Board member was asked to rank their top 25 submissions, to be presented to the Board on th November 28. Staff with expertise will be asked to confirm that the cost estimates are reasonable, resident voting will take place, and the final projects selected will be presented to the Board for final approval before implementation by staff. Mr. Malloy reviewed the top 25 projects: disability safety work at the Community Center, benches and picnic tables in every park and green space, a smart traffic light at Clarke School, commuter-friendly bus shelters and age-friendly benches across Lexington, a dog park, furniture for the Lexington pool, Mill Brook game park, flashing lights at bike crossing intersections, Town Center storefront improvements, Bow Street community pavilion, Aquatics Center shade and Town pool amenities expansion, support for bike parking at the Lexington Community Farm, East Lexington/Mass Ave revitalization project, self service repair stand and air pump for bikes, safe entrance to Sutherland Park from Tarbel Ave., permanent pickleball courts, safer crosswalks for schools, Lexington Community Orchard, Stone building landscaping, Sutherland Park seating improvements, inclusive multigenerational public space upgrades, find money for work on conservation land, Bowman Park beautification and an outdoor stage. Mr. Pato noted that he believes the self-service repair stand and air pump for bikes should be removed from the list, as something similar was recently installed in the Center parking area. Mr. Malloy stated that it will be removed and replaced with item #26 on the list, crosswalks for ACROSS Lexington routes, and N & P. Ms. Hai expressed concern regarding the dog park item. This could open the Town to additional litigation and community discord. She would like projected capital costs and ancillary costs for each item. In response to a question from Mr. Sandeen regarding funds previously set aside for East Lexington and Bow Street revitalization projects, Mr. Malloy noted that funds from ARPA have already been allocated for the East Lexington revitalization, but it is unclear yet if this funding will be adequate. Mr. Sandeen noted that it may be helpful to note which items have already been funded and which ones need incremental adjustments. He also noted that some of these items may be too expensive, over $500,000, to be included in participatory budgeting discussions. Ms. Hai explained that she would also like to know the bandwidth Town staff has to complete some of these projects, as part of the later discussion. Mr. Pato noted that it may be difficult for the public to vote on 25 items and may be easier if the number if reduced. Mr. Malloy agreed that ten might be a better number to present to the public. Mr. Lucente noted that some of these items could potentially be combined. Mr. Sandeen requested that the discussion include looking at additional sources of funding for any items not chosen to include as part of this process. DOCUMENTS: Detailed Rankings Participatory Budgeting, Top 25 Rankings - Participatory Budgeting 3. Public Hearing: Tax Classification Presentation The hearing was opened at 6:31pm. Carolyn Kosnoff, Assistant Town Manager for Finance, explained that the tax rate is a prescribed formula set by the Department of Revenue. It is based off of two numbers, the tax levy and assessed value. The Town’s tax levy is approximately $231M, and the Town’s total assessed values this year are approximately $15.7B. Thus, the Town's flat tax rate, to be paid by all ratepayers, would be $14.70. The trend for tax levy growth over the last ten years shows this year as the highest, at 6.6%. Greg Johnson, BOA Chair, explained that the assessed value for Residential has increased 10.24%, when not including new growth. The assessed Commercial value has taken the biggest hit this year. Last year the value was $884M, but has been reduced this year to $821M, for a loss of $63M, and a decrease of 7.17%. The assessed industrial value has increased significantly from last year. Last year the value was $637.8M, and this year the assessed value of those buildings has increased to $943.8M. A percentage increase of approximately 40%. This is mostly driven by the lab office spaces. He noted that residential growth remains strong and residential assessed values continue to increase due to increased sale prices. Industrial values have increased significantly due to market appreciation and lab office buildings. Commercial values have decreased, mostly due to the post pandemic trends. Ms. Kosnoff reviewed the options in setting the tax rate. The first is the selection of a shift factor. This can be from 1-1.75%. This option would move some of the tax levy from residential payers to the commercial, industrial, and personal property taxpayers. A shift of more than one would decrease the residential tax rate and increase the CIP rate. Since 2015, Lexington has been at the max shift, 1.75. Another option is an open space discount, though Lexington does not have any property that is classified as open space, leaving this option not applicable. A third option is a residential exemption, of up to 35% for owner-occupied residences. Finally, a small commercial property exemption of up to 10%. Mr. Johnson stated that there are 9,058 residential parcels in Town. Last year, FY 2022, the average single-family dwelling had an assessed value of $1.192 M; this year, that has increased to $1.334M. He reviewed the potential changes a 1.75 or 1.65 shift would have on tax rates for various building classifications. Ms. Barry exited the meeting a t 7:00pm. Ms. Kosnoff explained that the Board could elect a residential exemption of up to 35% for every residential owner-occupied home. This would essentially exempt the first 35% of a property’s value. This shifts the tax levy between the residential class, shifting the burden from lower valued homes to higher valued homes. It does not have an impact on the CIP class. She noted that, in 2018, the Board appointed a Residential Exemption Policy Study Committee. This group reviewed what the impact of adopting a residential exemption would be in Lexington and published a final report advising against the Town adopting the State's standard residential exemption. The last option is to adopt a small commercial exemption. This would exempt 10% of the value of small commercial properties. These are defined as properties that have under $1M in value of the parcel and employ ten or less employees. This exemption would not reduce the tax levy; it would shift the burden to other ratepayers in the commercial and industrial class. Town staff has only identified approximately 60 parcels under $1M that could potentially qualify for this exemption. Applying this would not have a major impact on the Town's businesses; it would likely impact ten or fewer small commercial properties. Mr. Lucente noted that he believes the Town would like to have a vibrant retail sector in Lexington. He questioned how much the current tax policy is impacting that vibrancy. He stated that he would be in favor of the 1.75 shift this year. He is not in favor of adopting any of the other exemptions at this time. Mr. Pato agreed with preserving the 1.75 shift. He noted that, with the exception of approximately 20 large industrial properties, all other commercial and industrial properties are going to have a smaller increase or a decrease, relative to the what the single-family dwellings will receive. He agreed with not adopting any of the other exemptions at this time. Ms. Hai and Mr. Sandeen concurred with their colleagues. There was no public comment at this time. Ms. Hai closed the hearing at 7:11pm. The Board will plan to vote on the rate at its November 28, 2022 meeting. DOCUMENTS: FY2023 TaxClassification Packet_v2, Presentation 4. FY2023 Water and Sewer Rates - Continuation of Hearing Ms. Hai opened the hearing at 7:12pm. Ms. Kosnoff presented updated consumption estimates from Hanscom Air Force Base and Lincoln Labs. She noted that, in reviewing Hanscom’s data, it appears that the Town was missing some water data from FY 21 and FY 22. These modified number have helped staff obtain a more accurate picture of the 3-, 5-, and 10-year average trends and usage will be at Hanscom and Lincoln Labs. The base also noted there were some leaks at their steam plant, which have since been corrected. Overall, their estimate was not going to drop down more than 10%-15% of historic rates moving forward. There will be discussion and negotiations regarding recouping the lost water from FY 22. The result is a reduction in the originally proposed rates. Revised rates are proposed to increase 4.2% on a combined basis, reflecting a 0.8% increase in water rates and a 6.0% increase in wastewater rates. This rate increase will translate to approximately $39.90 for the average household (70HCF) in FY2023. Proposed rates are based on budgeted expenses and the Town’s estimated water consumption and wastewater flow for Fiscal Year 2023. In response to a question from Mr. Lucente regarding the back payment from Hanscom, Ms. Kosnoff stated that this will be received in the current fiscal year and become part of the funds retained earnings. Usually, the Town uses retained earnings balances for capital, but retained earnings can also be used to modify rates. This back payment is approximately $800,000. There was no public comment at this time. Ms. Hai closed the hearing at 7:25pm. The Board will vote on this item at its November 28, 2022 meeting. DOCUMENTS: Water and Sewer Rate Calculation Memo, Water and Sewer Rate Presentation1 1.14.22 5. Review of FY2024 Capital Plan Ms. Kosnoff explained that the Capital Expenditures Committee has had this list since mid-October and has begun to meet with Department Heads regarding capital requests. The FY 24 request is $13,275,080. She reviewed a couple of the requests with the Board. For the Department of Public Works, there is a request for new sidewalk installations at Cedar Street, for $1.6M. There is an additional request for a continuation of the redesign of the Bedford/Hartwell corridor for long range transportation improvements. This request is for $1.75M. The Department of Public Facilities has a list of a number of large projects, including the LHS School projects. There is also a request for FY24 funds to install solar on the new Police Station. There is a request for a design and study phase of the East Lexington Fire Station, which Facilities has determined is either due for renovation or a full reconstruction. All of these projects will be general fund items, and likely need to be debt funded. Some items are potential candidates for debt exclusion as well. Two projects proposed in the Recreation and Community Programs section are proposed to be funded from the tax levy, either through cash capital or bonding. These include the Pine Meadows clubhouse, and Lincoln Field improvements. Part of the Lincoln Field improvements item qualifies for CPA funds, but the turf does not. She noted that the Stone Building, listed under Department of Public Facilities, is an item that the Town has put in a request to the Community Preservation Committee to fund a renovation and addition to. This request is for initial design funds for $1M. There are two major projects proposed under the Water Enterprise Fund. These are the water tower replacements, and the lead/copper program. Ms. Hai stated that she believes the prefunding of the Affordable Housing Trust, as previously voted on by the Board, should be included under the LUHD CPA requests. Mr. Sandeen asked why the sidewalk installations are proposed to be funded in FY24, with a gap in funding of two years after that, as this appears to be an item highly wanted by residents. Ms. Kosnoff noted that there are two requests for sidewalks in the capital requests. One deals with new sidewalks to be installed on Cedar Street, and the other is a dedication of $800,000 per year for repairing and replacing existing sidewalks. The proposed gap in funding is for engineering to determine how to best move forward. In response to a question from Mr. Pato, Mr. Malloy stated that a feasibility study will likely be carried out regarding the proposed location for the East Lexington Fire Station. The funding requested is for a more detailed study, including this information. Mr. Pato expressed interest in carrying out some strategic planning, especially in regard to some of the larger requests. Ms. Hai agreed that there needs to be strategic conversations regarding specific items on the list. Mr. Lucente noted that there also have not been policy discussions regarding some of these items. DOCUMENTS: Summary of FY2024 Capital Improvement Requests 6. Discuss Delegating Routine Select Board Items to Town Manager Ms. Hai noted that, during agenda setting this past week, she requested that the Town Manager present a list of items the Board could consider delegating to the Town Manager. This has been one of the Board's goals for the past few years but has not yet been undertaken. A list of items, meant to free up time during Board meetings for items that are more administrative and not necessarily policy issues, was presented. This is not meant to abdicate any of the Board’s responsibilities. This list shouldn't be considered all- inclusive if there are other items the Board wishes to delegate. Mr. Sandeen noted that he believes it is a good idea in general to delegate routine decisions. He does have concerns regarding delegating certain public hearings, such as approving pole locations, as the Board has previously received substantial feedback from residents in some cases. Mr. Pato stated that, with the exception of the transfer of liquor license managers, he does not wish to transfer authority to the Town Manager for the other items in the proposal. He stated that most of the routine items can be placed on the consent agenda, allowing Board members to pull them off for additional discussion, if needed. Ms. Hai stated that she believes certain items such as designating polling sites in years where there is no change, designating election officials, change of liquor license managers and routine license renewals, could be appropriate for delegating to the Town Manager. She suggested that Board members consider this list and submit thoughts to Mr. Malloy for future discussions. Mr. Lucente agreed with Mr. Pato that, with the expanded use of the consent agenda, many of these items could fall under that part of the meeting. Mr. Malloy noted that the Board currently has 22 items on its November 28, 2022 agenda. If the proposed items were redelegated, it would remove six of those from the agenda. Ms. Hai suggested that Mr. Malloy could submit a list to the Board a week prior to a meeting of items he would be dealing with, so that Board members could ask items to be pulled and discussed directly at a meeting instead. DOCUMENTS: List of Potential items to delegate ADJOURN VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, by roll call, the Select Board voted 4-0 to adjourn the meeting at 8:02pm. A true record; Attest: Kristan Patenaude Recording Secretary