Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-05-22 Financial Summit Finance Summit - Lexington High School Building Project Select Board, School Committee, Appropriation Committee, Capital Expenditures Committee, School Building Committee and Recreation Committee May 22, 2024 The Finance Summit meeting was called to order by Select Board Chair Doug Lucente at 7:02 p.m. on Wednesday, May 22, 2024 via hybrid meeting service in Estabrook Hall 1605 Massachusetts Avenue. Present for the Select Board (SB): Mr. Lucente, Chair; Ms. Barry; Ms. Hai; Mr. Pato; 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. Cuthbertson, Chair; Ms. Sawhney; Ms. Lenihan; Mr. Freeman Present for the Appropriation Committee (AC): Mr. Parker, Chair; Mr. Ahuja; Mr. Bartenstein; Mr. Levine, Clerk; Mr. Michelson; Mr. Osborne; Ms. Verma. Present for the Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC): Mr. Lamb, Chair; Mr. Kanter, Clerk; Ms. Rhodes, Vice Chair; Ms. Beebee; Mr. Cole. Present for the School Building Committee (BC): Ms. Lenihan, Chair; Mr. Cronin; Ms. Kosnoff; Mr. Malloy; Mr. Pato; Ms. Hackett; Mr. Himmel Present for the Recreation Committee (RC): Mr. DeAngelis, Chair; Mr. Boutwell, Vice Chair; Mr. Fantasia; Ms. O’Brien, Ms. Battite Also present: Ms. Kosnoff, Assistant Town Manager for Finance; Ms. Impink, Town Budget Officer; and Director of Public Facilities Mr. Cronin; Dr. Hackett, Superintendent of Schools; and Mr. Coelho, Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Operations. Public comments were not taken during the meeting. All boards and committees called their groups to order with a roll call of attendance. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 1. Finance Summit - Lexington High School Building Project  Update on Timeline and Work of the School Building Committee (SBC) Ms. Kosnoff explained that this project in module three in the preliminary design phase. The Town has appropriated $11.825M so far toward feasibility and design of this project. The SBC has been working on a submission to the MSBA for options of preferred massing studies, which are conceptual only. The submission package includes an education plan, and various massing studies. The massing studies are not designs or finals in any form. The SBC narrowed the options to five, as a minimum of three needed to be submitted to MSBA. The studies needed to consider a renovation only, a renovation plus an addition, and a new construction. A renovation only option was not selected, as it does not meet the current educational program. The project is now moving into the preferred schematic report phase. Mr. Cronin explained that a schematic design needs to be completed by next August for a vote and submission to MSBA.  Estimated Project Cost and Financing Ms. Kosnoff explained that the total project costs for Scope A are just over $600M. As additional scopes are added into the project, the total project cost escalates. Project Scope I, which includes all of the extras that have been discussed or proposed, has an estimated the price tag of $783M. The MSBA grant is assumed to be $100M for all of the scope options. If the total project cost for Scope A is $600M, and there is a $100M grant from MSBA, the Town will need to finance $500M of the project. The estimated taxpayer impacts were depicted using a single-family home of median value. For FY24, the median single-family home in Lexington was assessed at $1,354,000. For that median household, the residential tax bill was $17,047. If the Town were to implement Scope A, the additional household costs to that bill this year, with else all being equal, would be $1,699. If Scope I was implemented, it would lead to a cost of $2,412, for household, or approximately a 14% increase in the current tax bill. Ms. Kosnoff stated that this project will be debt financed. These bonds will be sold on the open market, with a competitive sale. The timing of issuance of these bonds will be staggered, aligned with the cash flow of the project. The bond will likely have a term of 30 years. Bond counsel and an investment advisory will review all documents. She discussed the two concepts of level principle versus level payment financing for this project.  Future Capital Planning Ms. Kosnoff reviewed the potential future capital planning, the levy limit and debt capacity, and how these items fit with the High School project. Mr. Kanter (CEC) asked if there could be multiple debt exclusions. Ms. Kosnoff noted that there could be, but MSBA will likely require one ballot question for this project. For items identified as not part of the scope, there could likely be additional ballot questions. Mr. Levine (AC) stated that the numbers as shown make it evident that the policy that Staff proposed, regarding reserving money under a guideline from planned developments that come to Town Meeting in the Hartwell District and putting those monies into the Capital Stabilization Fund and reserving part of the tax levy for future use, is a smart thing to do. There was discussion regarding level payment versus level principal. Dr. Hackett noted that the Central Office building at 146 Maple Street was rated an F building with costs approximately $15M-$19M to renovate for construction costs only. The land at 146 Maple Street presents an opportunity to create new athletic fields for students and members of the community. One of the ways there can potentially be a Plan B for overcrowding is by including a Central Administration area in the new High School, which could be repurposed later. The approximately 17,000 s.f. of Central Office space in the building could become somewhere between 15-20 additional classroom spaces, if needed down the road. Mr. Osborne (AC) stated that it will be important when considering the long-term impacts and affordability from a capital standpoint to discuss the projections for the ability of the Town to take on more debt due to the expected increases in future tax revenue from new residential and commercial construction. Ms. Kosnoff discussed ways to mitigate the impact of this project to taxpayers. She explained that, in 2022, the Town Manager proposed a fiscal guideline that could potentially be bended, if needed. It stated that revenue generated by new growth from commercial developments due to the Hartwell Ave rezoning or due to preliminary site development and use plans (PSDUPs), would be placed into the Capital Stabilization Fund, as opposed to letting it go into the operating budget. In subsequent years, that revenue would continue to flow into the Capital Stabilization Fund. The revenue being placed into the Capital Stabilization Fund can be redirected into the operating budget once the project comes online, where it could be used to pay debt service. This strategy offers the ability to partly finance this project within the tax levy. In addition, prior to the start of this project, the Capital Stabilization fund has already accumulated approximately $32M. This gives some flexibility on how to further mitigate the impacts to taxpayers. By the time these projects start coming online, there will likely be more than $40M in the account. Ms. Kosnoff explained that the $40M could be used to pay down the first $40M of this project and reduce the overall amount of debt required, thereby reducing the total interest cost of the bonds. Another option would be to use it to cap the annual growth of tax bills to a fixed percentage during the first few years. Another option would be to draw down the balance by an even amount each year. Finally, the Town could use the Capital Stabilization bonds to pay down the early years, save interest costs over the long run, and bring the taxpayer impact down. Ms. Kosnoff reviewed other general capital fund projects that the Town also has to consider. Mr. Lamb (CEC) suggested that the Capital Stabilization Fund could also be used to fund many of the other capital projects in order to get those debt exclusions out of the way and give a nice assurance to the taxpayer that there will be no debt exclusions for the next ten years. Mr. Pato (SB) stated that he prefers option 2, as presented, but with the consideration to look at the capital projects coming up to discuss potentially allocating some of the Capital Stabilization Funds for those. It was asked if there has been any factoring in of the progressive costs of keeping the existing building up and running and solving the space issues, if the new High School project Warrant Article does not pass. Mr. Cronin stated that significant money will need to be put into that building, no matter what. Ms. Kosnoff noted that all of the taxpayer impacts discussed this evening are only for the project and do not include any other increases for Proposition 2½ or new growth for changes in property value. Also, it is intended that the Town’s pension fund will be fully funded around the year 2030, after which additional tax revenue will become available for other needs. Mr. Sandeen (SB) stated that he also prefers option 2, but is intrigued by Mr. Lamb’s suggested option 5. He would also like to consider other costs besides debt service including the total lifecycle cost of the new building, which will be a substantially larger building which could lead to changes in taxpayer burden down the line. DOCUMENTS: Lexington High School Building Project- Finance Update, AppendixA, AppendixB, AppendixC ADJOURN Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 5-0 by roll call to adjourn the meeting at 9:15p.m. The Appropriation Committee, Capital Expenditures Committee, School Committee, School Building Committee, and Recreation Committee followed suit. A true record; Attest: Kristan Patenaude Recording Secretary