Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-11-15 FY2025 Financial Summit II-min FY2025 Financial Summit II Select Board, School Committee, Appropriation Committee & Capital Expenditures Committee November 15, 2023 The Budget Summit II meeting was called to order by Select Board Chair Joe Pato at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 15, 2023 via hybrid meeting services. Present for the Select Board (SB): Mr. Pato, Chair; Ms. Barry, Vice Chair; Ms. Hai; Mr. Lucente; and Mr. Sandeen as well as Mr. Malloy, Town Manager; Ms. Axtell, Deputy Town Manager; Ms. Katzenback, Executive Clerk Present for the School Committee (SC): Ms. Sawhney, Vice Chair; Ms. Jay; Ms. Lenihan; Mr. Freeman (7:14pm arrival); Dr. Hackett, Superintendent of Schools; and Mr. Coelho, Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Operations. Present for the Appropriation Committee (AC): Mr. Parker, Chair; Mr. Ahuja; Mr. Bartenstein; Mr. Levine; Mr. Michelson; Mr. Osborne Present for the Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC): Mr. Lamb, Chair; Mr. Kanter, Vice Chair and Clerk; Mr. Cole; Ms. Rhodes; Ms. Beebee; Mr. Boudett. Present for the Recreation Committee (RC): Mr. DeAngelis, Mr. Boutwell, Mr. Fantasia, Mr. Bassik; Ms. Sheth; Mr. Li; Ms. O’Brien; Ms. Battite, Recreation Director; Ms. Dean, Community Center Director; Mr. Coleman, Assistant Director of Recreation Also present: Ms. Kosnoff, Assistant Town Manager for Finance ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 1. Update on Lexington High School Construction Project and Five-Year Capital Budget and Financing Plan Mike Cronin, Director of Public Facilities presented regarding the use of 173 Bedford Street as swing space as part of the high school project as it relates to recreational needs and the cost of renovating the current Central Office for the School Department. The Capital Plan has 173 Bedford Street up for next Town Meeting, in terms of an elevator, HVAC system, and sprinklers. The top floor of the building cannot be used at this time, due to lack of an elevator and an HVAC system. Regarding the Central Administration Building, Mr. Cronin explained that it is currently rated an F. The building needs approximately $15M worth of work at this time. This space is much larger than the School Department currently needs, per a recent space study. The two athletic fields proposed to be placed at Harrington are to replace the 5-6 lost fields at Center Recreation during the high school project. By the end of the project, the number of fields in place will be equal to or more than currently existing. During construction, the diamond fields will be lost. Mr. Malloy explained that, under Article 97, the same footprint of existing fields in size and quality must be replaced. Regardless of wetlands issues, the architects will need to lay out the project in a way for this to occur. There was discussion regarding the potential land swap that could occur and questions to be posed to Town Counsel. In response to a question from Mr. Cole (CEC), Mr. Cronin explained that some of the items up for discussion this evening are if the Harrington building should be torn down and, if it is not torn down and Central Office needs to be moved, where these offices will move into, such as into 173 Bedford Street. Ms. Kosnoff explained that there is a large amount of money in the FY25 Capital Plan which starts the domino effect for these buildings which is what needs to be discussed. Ms. Lenihan (SC) stated that she fully supports tearing down old Harrington and using that land for fields, as long as that land remain under the authority of the School Committee. Mr. DeAngelis (RC) stated that he does not want to lose sight of the fact that, on a temporary basis of approximately 4-5 years, the baseball field, the softball field, and the JV baseball field will be lost. Many of the sports played on those fields are played under the lights. There will need to be discussion regarding re-lamping another area on a temporary and permanent basis. He reminded everyone that the Town currently has a crown jewel of a recreation complex in the center of Town, and it needs to be replicated. There needs to be more creative discussion on how to replace the lost fields. Ms. Jay (SC) stated that it seems to be evident from the original building of the new Harrington School that the agreement was to build on the field that existed at that point, and that the old Harrington building would stay as school property. The School Committee’s job is to maintain control of land that may be needed for school uses in the future. New fields that are built could be for the benefit of both the Schools and the Recreation Department. Mr. Cronin explained that a solution is being sought for the Central Administration Building issues, which would require the building to be moved to a swing space for some time. Moving of this building will likely take approximately five years. The field construction at this location would likely take place in 2025-2026. Ms. Kosnoff reviewed the five-year Capital Plan. Mr. Sandeen (SB) stated that he would like to consider moving the Central office out of the current building and into a commercial office space. One of the best options the Town has for affordable housing is 173 Bedford Street and the current plan would delay that for around ten years. Mr. Lamb (CEC) noted that the FY26 park improvements/athletic fields probably has approximately $4M of Community Preservation Act (CPA) funding. He asked if this has been broached with the Community Preservation Committee (CPC). Ms. Kosnoff stated that some of the project will likely be funded with CPA money. The breakout for the project will be determined approximately one year from now. Mr. Boutwell (RC) asked if a recreation field project belongs in the five-year Capital Plan, if the land at Harrington lies in the responsibility of the School Committee. Mr. Lucente (SB) asked about the reliability of the $6M proposed for the 173 Bedford Street project. Mr. Cronin stated that he believes the project can be done for less than $6M. In response to a question from Mr. Sandeen (SB), Mr. Cronin explained that the minimum amount of space the Central Office would need at the new at 173 Bedford Street location is approximately 17,000 s.f. Placing the same needs at the new High School would require approximately 10,000 s.f. Keeping the Central Office at 173 Bedford Street location could lead to a reconfiguration of the building for a permanent stay, potentially resulting in a more expensive project than $6M. Mr. Sandeen stated that it appears to be beneficial to move these offices into the new High School for a number of reasons. Ms. Sheth (RC) explained that the parking that supports existing staff at the High School should be considered. She asked if the site could sustain additional parking from Central Office staff being moved there. Mr. Cronin stated that this has been examined with the architects. There are many current inefficiencies that can be improved upon. Parking can likely be expanded out by approximately 600 additional vehicles on site, which is about 50% more than the current amount. The groups discussed the question of whether the Central Administration building should be demolished to allow the site to be used for fields and moving the Central Office into the 173 Bedford Street location at least temporarily. Mr. Pato (SB) summarized the consensus that we should move forward with plans for both items. He noted that more work was needed on the issues raised regarding long-term control of the recreation fields, funding sources, timing, and the potential for multiples structures and uses at 173 Bedford Street beyond just the use of the existing building for swing space. Nonetheless, the consensus direction is to move forward. DOCUMENTS: Building Project Update_11.14.2023 2. FY2025 Financial Summit II  Review of FY2025 Revenue Projections  FY2025 Revenue Allocation Model  Establish Future Summit Dates Ms. Kosnoff presented the FY25 projected revenue. The total property tax levy is projected to increase 3.82%. The total general fund operating revenues are projected to increase 3.3%. The total general fund operating revenues for FY25 is approximately $289M, which is a 3.3% increase, and what is proposed to be allocated. This budget sets aside approximately $1M in Free Cash. There is currently $12.85M in Free Cash that can be dedicated to the capital program. This is money that does not have to be bonded and allows for ongoing programs to continue. Out of the $289M projected for new revenue, $282M is being used to maintain level service operations. This leaves $6.7M of new revenue to be used for the municipal and school departments to maintain operations and potentially implement program improvements. This $6.7M is split up between the Town and School budgets, with the municipal departments receiving approximately 26% or $1.76M, and the School Department receiving 74%, or approximately $5M. This comes out to a 3.72% increase in municipal and school department operating budgets compared to last year. There was discussion regarding the 30 new families staying in Town and projected costs. Mr. Boudett (CEC) asked if funding should continue to be placed into programs that are two or more years behind, such as certain street improvements. Ms. Kosnoff explained that she and the Town Manager feel comfortable that the funding requests made by departments are for projects that are truly proposed to be used. Sometimes timing and scheduling items delay certain projects. Ms. Kosnoff noted that the White Book is planned to be presented on January 25, 2024. DOCUMENTS: Revenue Allocation Model. FY2025 Revenue Projections_11.15.2023 ADJOURN Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 5-0 by roll call to adjourn the meeting at 9:40p.m. The Appropriation Committee, Capital Expenditures Committee and School Committee followed suit. A true record; Attest: Kristan Patenaude Recording Secretary