Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-05-11-AC-min 05/11/2023 AC Minutes 1 Minutes Town of Lexington Appropriation Committee (AC) May 11, 2023 Place and Time: Remote participation 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; Eric Michelson; Sean Osborne; Lily Manhua Yan; Carolyn Kosnoff, Assistant Town Man- ager, Finance (non-voting, ex officio) Members Absent: John Bartenstein Other Attendees: John Livsey, Town Engineer; Emily Scerbo, Tighe & Bond; Christina Conchilla, Raftelis At 7:34 p.m. Mr. Parker called the meeting to order. Announcements and Liaison Reports Mr. Levine stated that a sub-committee of the School Building Committee recommended Dore and Whittier, out of Newburyport, MA, to serve as the Owners Project Manager. Assuming that the MSBA accepts this recommendation, the next task will be to select an architecture firm. Proposed Stormwater Utility Mr. Livsey gave a presentation about the proposed stormwater utility. Highlights from the presenta- tion follow. • Operation of the Town’s stormwater system is governed under a Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) permit issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which imposes requirements on the Town to control stormwater runoff. The permit includes sections on Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) and a Phosphorus Control Plan. • Stormwater runoff in Lexington enters three watersheds, i.e., for the Charles, Mystic, and Shawsheen Rivers. Over the next 20 years, the MS4 permit mandates large reductions in the amounts of phosphorus released into the Charles River watershed and also, to a lesser ex- tent, the Mystic River watershed. • Stormwater operating costs for FY2025 are projected at approximately $1.38 million, and capital costs are also projected at approximately $1.38 million. These amounts are expected to increase annually, particularly on the capital side as the Town works to alleviate flooding and adjust to the effects of climate change. • The additional cost of complying with EPA phosphorus reduction requirements through June 2039, which could require large capital investments, is currently estimated to be $20– $33 million. The cost could be lowered once the EPA reevaulates the effectiveness of phos- phorus reduction strategies that could grant larger credits for programs such as frequent street sweeping. • Stormwater operations and capital are currently funded from the tax levy. The proposed stormwater utility would take the form of a Stormwater Enterprise Fund and would be funded using fees collected from all property owners, including tax-exempt organizations, based on a database of the impervious area on each lot. The estiamtes of impervious area are 05/11/2023 AC Minutes 2 produced using aerial photography with manual tracing of areas deemed to be impervious. Impervious area is a proxy for the amount runoff generated by each property. • The database of impervious areas is complete and has been published. The median impervi- ous area for parcel with a single-family home is currently 3,290 sq. ft. This median area is designated as the Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU). Consultants recommend a baseline rate of $155 per ERU. • The Select Board favors a rate structure that assigns the majority of single-family residences to one of three tiers. o The lowest tier (25% of residences) includes those with impervious areas below 2,200 sq. ft., with a fee of $93, or 60% of the baseline. o The middle tier (50% of residences) includes those with impervious areas from 2,200 sq. ft. to 4,200 sq. ft., with a fee of $155, or 100% of the baseline. o The top tier (21% of residences) includes those at or above 4,200 sq. ft. in impervi- ous area but less than a cap of 7,000 sq. ft., with a fee of $248, or 160% of the base- line. o The fee for all non-residential properties, and for residences with impervious areas above the 7,000 sq. ft. cap, would be calculated as the number of the property's ERUs multiplied by baseline rate of $155. • All residences in one of the tiers would pay the same fixed fee. The escalating fee structure provides some equitability. • An important question for rate-setting is whether town-owned properties should be exempt from stormwater fees. If town-owned properties are not exempt, then the Town must bill it- self for stormwater fees using a transfer from the General Fund to the Stormwater Enterprise Fund. This shifts a portion of stormwater costs to the tax levy. Alternatively, if town-owned properties are exempt, then stormwater fees must be set higher to cover the full budget for the Stormwater Utility. • The Select Board has indicated that it prefers the former option, but we note that this goes against the recommendation of our consultants. The primary purpose of a Stormwater Enter- prise Fund is to allow fees to be set so as to cover actual costs without impinging on the Town’s main operating budget. • Mr. Livsey concluded that future expense projections vary dramatically due to uncertainty regarding the cost of phosphorus controls, and that the Town is waiting for a new MS4 per- mit from the EPA. Mr. Livsey suggested delaying adoption of a Stormwater Utility, possibly for a few years, until we have more clarity on the phosphorus issue. After the slide presentation concluded, the Committee had a discussion with Mr. Livsey, Ms. Scerbo, and Ms. Conchilla. Mr. Michelson questioned the choice to exempt town-owned properties. Ms. Kosnoff stated that the Select Board was aware of the tradeoffs, but they remained strongly in favor of this option, which would lower stormwater fees by approximately 8%. Mr. Michelson noted this would mean that tax- exempt organizations would not contribute to the cost of stormwater fees for town-owned proper- ties. Ms. Kosnoff responded that reducing the impact of new stormwater fees on tax-exempt organi- zations was a concern for the Select Board. Mr. Padaki asked if there would be an appeals process to contest stormwater fees. Mr. Livsey re- plied that an abatement board would be set up. Ms. Kosnoff stated that there would also be a credit program where home owners could reduce their fee by making specific updates to their property. 05/11/2023 AC Minutes 3 Mr. Padaki asked if there would be a reduction in property taxes to account for the shift in payments for stormwater costs from the tax levy to stormwater fees. Ms. Kosnoff replied that the Select Board proposed an operating underride for fiscal year when the Stormwater Utility was launched. This would permanently reduce the tax levy by the amount of the fees used to cover operating expenses for the Stormwater Utility, but would not cover capital expenses. Mr. Levine asked where the phosphorus in stormwater runoff originates. Ms. Scerbo replied that phosphorus is present in all organic matter. Runoff sources include fertilizers, but also loose surface soil and decaying organic matter, especially pine needles and leaf litter on streets, as well as pet waste and illicit discharges of wastewater. In general, more urbanization results in more phosphorus runoff due to the tendency for water to leave the area rather than soaking into the ground. Mr. Levine asked what types of surfaces were counted as impervious areas. Ms. Conchilla replied that this includes rooftops, driveways, compacted gravel, and areas like swimming pools, but that loosely packed landscaping gravel and pervious stone decks are not included. Mr. Osborne stated that an important assumption in the rate and credits structure is that the fees should encourage property owners to make changes to reduce their runoff. Mr. Livsey agreed, but noted that the largest impact would likely follow from choices made during future construction. Mr. Osborne asked if the public would be encouraged to reduce their stormwater fee by adding “green infrastructure” to their property. Mr. Livsey replied that the credit system was still undetermined, but that credits were unlikely to justify major investments in controlling stormwater runoff for most homeowners, but it could be a factor for large commercial sites. Mr. Osborne asked about the benefit to taxpayers from shifting to a Stormwater Utility. Ms. Kos- noff replied that if the costs for stormwater grow faster than the tax levy, then stormwater expenses will crowd out other budget items. By imposing a fee based on actual costs using a Stormwater Util- ity, services funded in the operating budget will be protected. There is also an equity issue in that taxpayers currently pay for stormwater expenses without regard to the size of their own property, and tax-exempt organizations, some with large impervious areas, do not contribute to the tax levy. Mr. Ahuja asked how quickly the Town could detect defective wastewater pipes that create illicit discharges into the stormwater system. Mr. Livsey said it was a difficult question because they only know when defects are discovered, but not how long they existed prior to discovery. The Town rou- tinely tests stormwater outfalls, which can help detect upstream contamination, but this is not spe- cific to individual properties. The Town performs other inspections to find and repair leaks in major wastewater lines. Mr. Parker asked for an explanation of why a tiered fee structure was preferable to a simple per- ERU charge for all properties, noting that the size ranges of impervious areas in each tier were large enough that houses with fairly large differences would be paying the same fee. Ms. Kosnoff noted that measurements of impervious area on properties will vary over time, and the Town wanted to avoid the overhead of frequent updates to the database. Ms. Conchilla added that the impervious area measurements are not very precise, so using tiers allows the Town to avoid challenges to stormwater fees arising from minor discrepancies in the database. Mr. Parker asked how the Stormwater Utility would be able to collect sufficient revenue while of- fering rebates to owners. Ms. Conchilla replied that an estimate for rebates was built into the fee model, and could be adjusted from year to year. Mr. Parker asked about his personal experience building a large home where he faced a legal man- date to capture all stormwater runoff using dry wells. Mr. Livsey replied that this mandate only 05/11/2023 AC Minutes 4 applies to construction near wetlands that disturbs more than an acre of land, so it would not apply to most homes in Lexington. As to whether such mitigation would qualify for a rebate, Ms. Scerbo noted again that the Town has not developed a credit system, but stated that a presumptive credit could be issued if there was sufficient documentation and routine testing of the mitigation system. There was also a concern that, in practice, such systems might still not do enough to limit the over- all environmental impact from a site, meaning that a rebate would be difficult to justify. Mr. Parker noted that it might be helpful to engage in public outreach to assure ratepayers that they would only be billed once for stormwater, even if they had a second irrigation-only water meter. Mr. Padaki asked whether public roads were included in stormwater fees. Ms. Conchilla replied that public roads and sidewalks are considered to be a part of the stormwater conveyance system, and are not subject to the fee. Mr. Padaki asked if that also applied to unaccepted roads. Ms. Conchilla replied that such roads often run through many properties, making it difficult to properly allocate an accurate fee to property holders, but that roads contained entirely within a property would be sub- ject to the fee. Mr. Padaki asked if the Town made payments to any federal entity related to storm- water. Mr. Livsey replied that the Town made no such payments, and noted that properties owned by the federal government would also be subject to the Town’s stormwater fee. Mr. Michelson asked about the proposed underride to shift operating costs out of the tax levy, and why it could not also include capital costs. Ms. Kosnoff replied that the Stormwater Utility would be able to issue debt and pay its debt service out of the enterprise fund, and that the underride would only be proposed for the first year of the Stormwater Utility, after which the stormwater fees would be set as needed. Mr. Michelson noted that the end result would be an increase in the total cost to ratepayers if stormwater fees rose faster than the tax levy, and that the underride would do little to counteract that trend. Mr. Levine suggested that the Town could offer an override that also included stormwater capital expenses because the Town has approved overrides for non-operating costs in the past, but Ms. Kosnoff replied that the situation here is different. Capital costs for stormwater projects have been funded out of Free Cash, not the tax levy, so it would be unsuitable to lower the tax levy in response to moving those costs to the Stormwater Utility. Mr. Levine asked how much of the total stormwater budget would be collected from tax-exempt or- ganizations. Ms. Kosnoff was unable to provide the amount, but Mr. Levine suggested it would be worth comparing that amount to the overhead for implementing the stormwater billing system. Mr. Levine asked how much a typical house of worship might have to pay. Ms. Kosnoff replied that it would typically be in the $5,000 to $10,000 range. A slide from the consultant’s report showed one example of a church at 19 ERUs with a fee of $3,097. The largest tax-exempt property was Lincoln Labs at 724 ERUs with a fee of $112,000. Mr. Osborne asked how often other communities with Stormwater Utilities adjusted their rates. Ms. Kosnoff replied that all enterprise funds must have an approved annual budget and the Town will set rates accordingly. Mr. Livsey stated that the goal was annual updates to the impervious area da- tabase, including mid-year adjustments for new construction. Mr. Osborne asked if there was a po- tential for large swings in stormwater rates resulting from capital spending. Mr. Livsey replied that future requirements regarding phosphorus control were a “wildcard” that could strongly affect rates, but the DPW focuses on routine inspections and maintenance to reduce sudden costs from unex- pected failures. Mr. Osborne asked how billing would be implemented. Ms. Kosnoff replied that it would be tied into the Town’s MUNIS system, with the stormwater fee included as an additional line item on 05/11/2023 AC Minutes 5 water and wastewater bills. One additional full-time staff person might be needed when/if billing for water and wastewater transitions to quarterly billing. The annual stormwater fee would be split up according to the annual billing cycle. Mr. Osborne agreed that it was wise to wait on implementing the Stormwater Utility until the impact of phosphorus requirements was better understood, thus minimizing volatility in stormwater rates. Mr. Padaki asked if the Town’s synthetic turf fields were marked as impervious area. Ms. Conchilla replied that turf fields were not flagged as impervious area, but tracks and walkways around such fields would be. Ms. Kosnoff noted that turf fields have extensive drainage systems. The discusson concluded. Minutes of Prior Meetings Minutes from the Committee meeting on March 16 and April 24 were approved by a vote of 7-0. No other minutes for Committee meetings are outstanding. Future Meetings Mr. Parker reminded the Committee that they would be participating in a joint meeting with the Se- lect Board, School Committee, and Capital Expenditures Committee on Monday, May 15, starting at 6:30 p.m. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 9:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Glenn P. Parker Approved: July 11, 2023 Exhibits ● Agenda, posted by Mr. Parker