Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-05-17-CEC-minMinutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting May 17, 2023 Page 1 of 4 Location and Time: Remote Meeting; 8:00 A.M. Members Present: Charles Lamb, Chair; David Kanter, Vice-Chair & Clerk; Sandy Beebee (joined at 8:32 a.m.); Rod Cole; Michael Boudett; & Lisah Rhodes Members Absent: Sandy Beebee (until 8:32 a.m.) Others Present: John Livsey, Lexington Town Engineer; Emily Scerbo, Consultant, Tighe & Bond; Christina Conchilla, Consultant, Raftelis; and Carolyn Kosnoff, Assistant Town Manager for Finance Documents Presented: o Notice of CEC Meeting, May 17, 2023 o Presentation to CEC, “Town of Lexington, Stormwater Enterprise Fund, Raftelis and Tighe & Bond”, May 17, 2023 Call to Order Mr. Lamb called this Remote (Virtual) Meeting, which had been posted as such, to order at 8:04 A.M. As the Committee members and the others joining this meeting had been previously advised of the special conditions of this meeting, he passed on repeating them (i.e., the authority to not require a physical presence of a quorum and other selected terms under the Open Meeting Law had, by legislation Governor Maura Healey signed on March 30, 2023, their expiration extended to March 31, 2025 Mr. Lamb advised that materials provided electronically to the Committee or presented at the meeting, would be available upon request and are those listed in the Minutes as Documents Presented. Any votes during this meeting would be taken by a roll call. By individual conversations to them, Mr. Lamb had accomplished a roll-call attendance and determined that 5 members are present. Presentation and Question & Answer Session Regarding Lexington’s Current Stormwater Management and Plans for Further Compliance with the State’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) General Permit Mr. Lamb thanked Ms. Scerbo and Ms. Conchilla for joining us and turned over the session to Mr. Livsey for him and his consultants to make the presentation and respond to Committee questions throughout the session. Mr. Livsey started by advising they may use both Stormwater Enterprise or Stormwater Utility phrases for this matter, and, for us, they are the same thing. He advised that both Ms. Scerbo and Ms. Conchilla have been involved in several Stormwater Utilities throughout Massachusetts, so they are knowledgeable on this same matter. Their goal today is to provide an update on where we are to date and ensure this Committee has a strong understanding what is being proposed, to answer any questions it has, and to leave it with a strong understanding of the many proposed actions about the Utility. The Working Group includes 7-person Town of Lexington Staff—with Ms. Kosnoff having been involved for some time—and the 3-person Consultant Team. Work on the Utility began back in 2018 with some stakeholder discussions. There have been discussions with the Select Board in October 2018 Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting May 17, 2023 Page 2 of 4 (following completion of Tighe & Bond’s Stormwater Enterprise Fund Feasibility Report), September 2021, June 2022, and January 2023. Further outreach will be done. He said the Working Group’s Agenda for today’s presentation will include Background, Stormwater Enterprise Fund Overview, Customer Outreach Plan, Next Steps, and questions. The current Stormwater Program addresses both Operation & Maintenance as well as Capital elements. Every year the Town must report to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on its compliance with elements of the MS4 in both areas— including on our Nutrient Control Program (NCP) which is the biggest and most costly with reducing Phosphorus levels in two of our three Watersheds—Charles River & the Mystic River—are a primary matter for funding under the Stormwater Enterprise Fund. (Questions raised by the Committee members were answered thereafter during each page of the presentation.) He next addressed the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 Estimated Program Costs which, for both elements, totals $2,763,643.15. He identified many existing and planned Capital activities that have been yearly actions already being presented. He next addressed the Future Stormwater Program Needs. While the Large-Scale Capital efforts are expected to be of the nature and extent of that is currently done each year, as earlier said, the Phosphorus Reduction, which is reported as Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) establish what we, as a community, are allowed to put into those two watersheds. In the future years, lower TMDLs are now expected to reduce to 2005 base levels while the levels have increased greatly. The estimated costs for compliance range from about $20 to $33 millions through June 2039 for the Charles River watershed. He then provided more depth of the underlying factors affecting Phosphorus contributions and how we currently attend to removal, but those have much less capability than will ultimately be needed. The EPA is looking into the current science that offers potentially larger removals. Because we do not currently have means to reduce those such now projected costs, the Town Manager, at the request of Engineering Department, has asked the Select Board to delay the implementation of the Stormwater Program for a few years until the future costs are better understood. Ms. Kosnoff provided what was the earlier timeline for such implementation and how as the top-down tighter requirements are not yet in effect, she believes we can tolerate a delay. When asked if the Town’s current connection to the UMass Lowell might help with pursuing science matters that might enhance the removal of Phosphorus, Mr. Livsey said we have had, and will continue to maintain, a connection with the Umass Lowell and encouraging partnership with others also pursuing such matters. He next addressed the Benefits of a Stormwater Enterprise Fund and a Stormwater Fee. It provides a transparent accounting; similar to water, sewer, and electric utilities; equitable fee for managing cost of managing the stormwater management; and a credit policy where property owners may receive a fee reduction based on their contributions to stormwater improvements to their property. Further, already more than 22 municipalities in Massachusetts have adopted such Funds. He next turned it over to Ms. Conchilla to address the structure of the Stormwater financial structure. She advised that the size of the impervious property would be the basis for the Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting May 17, 2023 Page 3 of 4 measurement and that there would be two customer types (Single Family Residential [SFR] and a Non-Single family residential (NSFR; all commercial, industrial, institutional, and multi−family) and a single-family equivalent residential unit (ERU) of 3,290 sq ft. They then applied a 3-Tier, with Cap funding form. That resulted “Total SFR ERUs in the rate based under this scenario = 10,495” and “All SFR and Non-SFR ERUs = 19,656”. After applying factors for SFRs, the proposed FY2025 rates would range from $93 to $248 per SFR property and $155 per ERU for SFR CAP and NSFR. Ms. Conchilla next addressed the Municipally- Owned Properties in Lexington. The Town owns about 1,000 properties; 170 of those are developed with 4.3 million sq. ft.; 1,579 ERUs; which would equate to $244,745 in fees using FY2025 rates. The Select Board, in this previous January meeting, expressed preference for billing the Town the stormwater fee for municipal and school owned properties. This fee would be paid via the General Fund. She next reported that public outreach had begun— working with the Director of Communications and launched new Web page. Ms. Kosnoff said, as noted, they expect to go to the Select Board within a couple of weeks to recommend this program be deferred until later, but wanted first to present this to both Finance Committees for their feedback. In any case, it will require Town Meeting to support the new fund and also change the Stormwater By-Law. As noted, the Select Board had voted that the Town owned properties would be charged—not her personal recommendation— along with all the tax-exempt facilities. The latter will call for extended socialization before Town Meeting as some of these tax-exempt properties will incur a significant fee for Stormwater. Ms. Kosnoff also noted that billing municipal properties will result in additional staff burden. She was asked that if the program were to go into effect now as designed, what would be the annual budget total and it would be about the $2.76 million that would be raised for the current charges which do not include what the out-year mandates would then require. If the Enterprise Fund is approved, in the future we can raise fees to meet each annual need. As the presentation was at its ending Q&A slide, Mr. Livsey handled the remaining questions. As for what other towns have done, he reported on his attendance at a conference the last week that was also attended by just representatives of just about all the States towns, academia, consultants, guest speakers from municipalities that have dealt with the Phosphorus issue—and even including the Permit writer from the EPA—with all interested in solving that issue. While some municipalities have already started with actions considering the future, Mr. Livsey believes Lexington should hold off such fees until we have a better understanding of those future demands. He said the second biggest expense under the MS4 is the Illicit Discharge Detection & Elimination Program for which we have over 2,000 samples and mentioned earlier about our connection with UMass Lowell, its students work on that sampling at a maximum cost of $18/hour rather than contracts at $150/hour. He asked Ms. Scerbo for her experience with municipalities implementing Stormwater Fees. She said that none of the few who have implemented those fees addressed the likely later demands under Phosphorus Control Plan. Mr. Livsey added the actions being taken within Lexington to reduce Phosphorus release—including working with developers asking for new developments also for such reduced release. In response to a question about adequate staffing to execute the Stormwater Enterprise Fund, Mr. Livsey said that while he expects to continue some contracted support, he has Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting May 17, 2023 Page 4 of 4 proposed to the Town Manager that an additional one full-time equivalent (FTE) be added to the personal element in the Department of Engineering budget to adequately support such a Fund—especially with the even further burden by including the Fund billing of the Town’s facilities. He also expressed his Department’s appreciation of this Committee’s long-time support of his Department’s requests. A Committee discussion addressed how the Lexington citizens will accept the additional fee. It was suggested that if the fee remains as a rational and consistent manner—as it is now being described—most likely citizens would address it just as a new fee rather than how it’s calculated. Ms. Kosnoff introduced that there are two addition proposed factors that the Select Board has deemed important and that will need attention when introducing the fee to the citizens: (1) a Credit Policy for when a citizen takes action to mitigate the stormwater release on their property and thus get a credit on their fee and (2) an Abatement Process for when a citizen believes its impervious area calculation was in error and thus the fee should be recalculated. In response to the earlier mention of working with a developer to reduce the Phosphorus release, Mr. Livsey was asked what technology is there for a business to do that in order to gain an abatement and reduce Town action on that release. He said yes there are technologies (Infiltration Trench, Infiltration Basin, Biofiltration, Gravel Wetland, Porous Pavement, Wet Pond, Dry Pond and Grass Swale) and that since last June those technologies must be applied to any property greater than one acre of disturbance—that doesn’t fall under Conservation Commission—is under our Town’s Stormwater Permit is required to remove 60% of Phosphorus. At our discussion yesterday with the Development Departments was to potentially roll that into their regulations so we can get those credits— and I’m looking for improvements in technology so as to increase the credits on smaller footprints. We’ve also joined some grants that allow us to install some small-scale Phosphorus removal under our roadways. We had 30 installed over the last couple of years under our roadways. They get only one-third of a pound of Phosphorus. We’re picking away. In response to why the Shawsheen Watershed, our third, isn’t burdened with the same Phosphorus controls, Mr. Livsey asked Ms. Scerbo to respond, and she said it does not have this requirement yet. Every year the State, with the EPA, assesses each water body regarding safe water standards. Right now Shawsheen has a TMDL related to bacteria, not nutrients. That can change over time—both to remove and to apply others. Mr. Lamb thanked Mr. Livsey, Ms. Conchilla, and Ms. Scerbo for their presentation and, along with Ms. Kosnoff, their support. Adjourn A Motion was made and seconded at 9:01 A.M. to adjourn. Vote: 6–0. These Minutes were approved by the CEC at its meeting on August 2, 2023.