Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-09-19 Financial Summit Finance Summit I Select Board, School Committee, Appropriation Committee, Capital Expenditures Committee, Recreation Committee, and School Building Committee September 19, 2024 The Finance Summit was called to order by Select Board Chair Doug Lucente at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 19, 2024, via remote meeting services. Present for the Select Board (SB): Mr. Lucente, Chair; Mr. Pato; Ms. Barry; and Mr. Sandeen as well as Mr. Malloy, Town Manager; Ms. Axtell, Deputy Town Manager and Ms. Katzenback, Executive Clerk Present for the School Committee (SC): Ms. Sawhney, Vice Chair; Ms. Cuthbertson, Ms. Lenihan; and Mr. Freeman Present for the Appropriation Committee (AC): Mr. Parker, Chair; Mr. Bartenstein; Mr. Levine; Mr. Michelson; Ms. Verma; Mr. Padaki; and Ms. Yan Present for the Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC): Mr. Lamb, Chair; Mr. Kanter, Clerk; Vice Chair; Ms. Beebee; Mr. Cole; Ms. Rhodes(7:10 arrival) Present for the School Building Committee (SBC): Ms. Lenihan, Chair; Mr. Cronin, Director of Public Facilities; Ms. Kosnoff, Assistant Town Manager for Finance; Mr. Malloy; Mr. Pato; Dr. Hackett, Superintendent of Schools; Mr. Himmel; Mr. Barrett; Mr. Baker; Mr. Favazzo; Ms. Slavsky; Mr. Voss and Mr. Min Sha(7:28pm arrival) Present for the Recreation Committee (RC): Mr. Boutwell, Vice Chair; Ms. Sheth; and Ms. Li and Mr. Fantasia All boards and committee called their groups to order with a roll call of attendance. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 1. Discussion: Potential Field House and Swimming Pool Projects Mr. Lucente (SB) explained that this item was to hear a summary from each board or committee regarding the discussion they had on this topic. th Mr. Boutwell (RC) stated that the Recreation Committee met on September 4 and evaluated this topic. The RC unanimously concluded that the construction of an indoor pool as part of the School project was not supported. The general sense was, while an indoor pool would be great, there were concerns regarding the location and the siting, access for the community at large, and value to the community at large relative to other potential projects. Regarding the field house, the RC was unanimous in supporting either the renovation or the renovation expansion options of the existing field house, as the field house currently provides value to the community as a whole. The RC did not support the construction of any of the three freestanding track and field house facilities, as presented at the prior Summit meeting. th Mr. Parker (AC) stated that the Appropriations Committee met on August 29 and there was consensus that a pool should not be included in the current LHS project. The AC recognized that the pool spec’d out in the proposal was too small to satisfy a Town wide need. There was consensus that the project should include a field house that supports existing after school sports programs. No consensus was reached on whether this should include major renovations or replacement the field house with a larger building. Many of the members felt that any new construction should be placed in the Town's five year capital plan, rather than trying to squeeze it into the high school project. Regarding the site selection, and whether the school should be built on the existing site in a stage form, or built on the playing fields, there was no consensus. The AC expressed a great deal of concern regarding the short timeframe that the SBC has to make a decision following the receipt of more detailed costing information. Mr. Lamb (CEC) stated that there was consensus regarding not including the pool in this project as it appears to be a want versus a need and would expand the existing program. Regarding the field house, this is an integral part of the LHS culture and the existing program. Maintaining it at the current level is a need, not a want. The safety issues in the current field house are legitimate and should be addressed. The CEC learned that it is not true that anything beyond a renovation of the existing field house would require an additional debt exclusion ballot question. An ad/reno project would also not require an additional ballot question. The CEC believes that anything more than a renovation would be for program enhancement, and therefore would need to be on a long term capital plan. Renovation of the existing field house would be appropriate. Mr. Lucente (SB) stated that the Select Board also identified the proposed pool as more of a want than a need. None of the SB members felt that it was appropriate to go forward with the pool project. Regarding the field house project, there were similar sentiments that the current field house should be renovated at a minimum. But there was some interest in perhaps looking at other options as well. th Ms. Sawhney (SC) stated that the School Committee met on September 10. There was consensus that the SC could not support the cost of a pool at this time. There was consensus on the need for a field house and to either preserve or have a new field house for students. There was discussion regarding what a renovation of a field house could mean. Two members were in favor of a renovation of the current existing field house, and two members expressed support for a small new field house. Ms. Lenihan (SBC) stated that it is the School Building Committee's role to choose the one preferred option. The SBC seeks input from other groups to inform this decision. The SBC heard from the School Department that, at a minimum, a renovated field house is needed to continue meeting the needs of students. It was also concluded that the swimming pool is not a need at this time. Mina Makarios, Town Counsel, explained that, as the school as a whole is funded in large part by MSBA and borrowing is involved, consultation with MSBA and bond council on whatever option the Town proceeds with is definitely necessary. There are two ways to present multiple options to the residents. The Town could present one option for vote and then supplement, as needed, with a second vote, if needed. The Town could also put multiple options on a ballot. This can be done using a menu option or a pyramid option. This is a way to gauge if there is support for multiple items at once. Mr. Pato (SB) stated that the MSBA project item for the school has to stand alone. The potential menu path for debt exclusion items should be considered later in the process, once other items have been confirmed. Lorrainne Finnegan, SMMA, explained that the debt exclusion vote is next year after the schematic th design has been completed. The SBC cote on November 12 is about the preferred schematic. This is when the Town will shorten from six options to one option. The MSBA would like to know if this will th include a new field house. The vote on the 12 is not tied to the debt exclusion vote. Ms. Slavsky (SBC) asked if anything needs to be done specifically regarding authorizing the design team to further develop the design of the field house. Ms. Finnegan explained that the scope of the study included looking at the existing conditions. The MSBA has noted that working on, renovating, or adding onto the existing field house would be assumed to be part of the original project. If a separate new field house building is chosen as an option, this would not be considered part of the project, and thus procurement, contracts, designs, fees, etc., would have to be separate. In response to a question from Dr. Hackett, Ms. Finnegan explained that the Town needs to have a design to have adequate pricing if the intention is to include a field house on the debt exclusion a year from now. If that option moves forward, SMMA would want to know that from a planning perspective, as it would not want to locate utilities, roadways, parking, etc., in that location. Keeping an option for a new field house would have to run in parallel through schematic design. SMMA does not want to place something on the site that would preclude this in the future. Mr. Levine (AC) asked about doing the minimal amount of work necessary to keep the existing field house functioning. Mike Cronin, Director of Public Works, stated that the main component is likely the HVAC system. Once the field house is disconnected from the main building, it will need its own HVAC system. This will likely be a multimillion dollar system. There are other typical maintenance issues that will also need to be addressed. Mr. Cole (CEC) stated that it appears the MSBA will participate in funding a gym up to 12,000 s.f., and, if justified, they will participate up to 18,000 s.f. He asked if a new field house would have an impact on this justification. Mike Burton, OPM, explained that if the Town decides to build a new 18,000 s.f. gym in the high school proper, MSBA will allow a renovation or an ad renovation, but they will not participate in that. The need is proven through the PSR submittal and, ultimately, the schematic design submittal. He stated that he believes, based on enrollment and programming, there is a need to justify the 18,000 s.f. Ms. Finnegan explained that it will be incumbent upon SMMA and Dr. Hackett to demonstrate to the MSBA that there is a need for an 18,000 s.f. gym, based on the programmatic needs for the physical education demand, even if the existing field house is renovated. Ms. Finnegan explained that this is a very tight site. Designing a building for the site only leaves a small amount of space left. It is unclear how the project can move forward with keeping the existing field house to renovate while also considering building a new one in the future. Mr. Sandeen (SB) asked about the incremental cost between a base high school project with a renovated field house, and the incremental cost for a new field house. Ms. Finnegan stated that a renovated field house was estimated at $30M; an expanded ad/renovation field house was $51M; a small new field house was $41M; a medium option was $68M; and a large option was $79M. Mr. Sandeen stated that he believes there is a strong case to be made the $11M incremental cost for a new field house that will allow for 75 years of use, versus a renovated field house for $30M that gets 25-30 years of use. This is a viable option to bring to the public. Ms. Sheth (RC) stated that she does not believe the track needs to be a multipurpose, multi-functional space as it currently exists. The case for an expanded track with MSBA may be weakened if straightaways in the interior are proposed for the track, making it basically a track complex. It was noted that there did not seem to be anyone on these groups advocating for a medium or large new field house, though there have been other groups advocating for the larger options. Mr. Padaki (AC) stated that he would recommend choosing 1-2 options to move forward with instead of keeping multiple options open. While some in Town may be advocating for a larger field house and more programming, there is also a lot of advocation for balancing the costs. DOCUMENTS: 20240815_LHS_Project_Summit, Taxpayer Impact of Pool & Fieldhouse, CEC Position Regarding Field House and Pool, Recreation Committee Memo to SB; Regarding Pool and Field House, AC memorandum SBC 2024-09-19, Field House Information 2. Lexington High School Project Update Dr. Hackett presented an update on the High School project. She gave a brief history of the project and explained the process. The project is in the initial design phase in 2024 and 2025. There will be a Town Meeting and debt exclusion vote in November/December 2025. The design work will finish up in 2026- 2027. The construction phase will likely last from 2027-2031. She reviewed the six proposed options that are being considered, this includes two reno/addition, three new constructions on the field, and one construction phased in place. The building is being designed at 85% utilization. Currently the building is at about 98% utilization. Phased construction is more disruptive and time intensive than a new build. Structured parking would cost approximately $28M. The project is trying to stay away from the threshold that would trigger structured parking due to the cost and the fact that it would negatively impact solar generation opportunities. Mr. Michelson (AC) expressed concern regarding the accuracy of the cost estimates available. These are based on massing of the schools but there is a serious cost consideration when building on the fields. The fields are peat bogs, and this will require extensive site work. The cost estimate for this site work will significantly change the cost estimates, making these costs comparable to building on site. It will be very th difficult to thoroughly evaluate this when costs come in only weeks before the 12. Ms. Finnegan stated that geotechnical borings have been conducted across the site and additional borings were completed in December. The PDP are order of magnitude costs but do include for necessary ground improvements if the building was going to be on the field. The prices are not expected to change dramatically. DOCUMENTS: Town Summit_LHS Project Updates_09-19-2024 Final2.08pm At 8:44pm the Recreation Committee adjourned their Committee and exited the meeting. 3. Budget Summit I - FY2024 Projected Year-End Results Ms. Kosnoff reviewed the FY2024 projected year-end results. Regarding the FY24 revenues, there were estimated general fund total revenues of $281.5M and this actually came in around $289.7M. This leads to an uncollected amount of -1.8, which was the surplus revenue for the year. This was approximately 103% of what was projected. 99.7% of property taxes were collected. This was the strongest year for the motor vehicle excise tax, with approximately 112% of projections collections. The Town has approximately $7M that will be turned back in total for FY24. DOCUMENTS: FY2026 Summit I Presentation 4. Budget Summit I - Fiscal Indicators Ms. Kosnoff reviewed the fiscal indicators. DOCUMENTS: Fiscal Indicators Review_FY2026 ADJOURN The boards and committees recognized Mr. Malloy’s last fiscal summit meeting and extended thanks for his work and dedication. Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 3-0 by roll call to adjourn the meeting at 9:18p.m. The Appropriation Committee, Capital Expenditures Committee, School Committee and School Building Committee, followed suit. A true record; Attest: Kristan Patenaude Recording Secretary