Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-10-21 SB-min SELECT BOARD MEETING October 21, 2024 A work session of the Lexington Select Board was called to order at 6:30p.m. on Monday, October 21, 2024, via a hybrid meeting platform. Mr. Lucente, Chair; Mr. Pato, Ms. Barry, Ms. Hai, and Mr. Sandeen, were present, as well as Ms. Axtell, Interim Town Manager; and Ms. Katzenback, Executive Clerk. Chair Lucente called the work session to order at 6:30pm. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 1. Public Hearing - FY2025 Water and Sewer Rates Chair Lucente opened the public hearing at 6:32pm. Carolyn Kosnoff, Assistant Town Manager for Finance, reviewed the proposed Water and Wastewater rates for Fiscal Year 2025. Overall, the Water Enterprise had a good year. For FY24, it ended in am operating surplus of $1M which was made up of approximately $220,000 of surplus user charges, and $750,000 of non-rate revenue. Last year's retained earnings were certified by the Department of Revenue at just over $3.2M. This year’s retained earnings have not yet been certified but are estimated at $2.88M. For FY25, the water rates are proposed to go down approximately 2.2% and the wastewater rates are proposed to go up by approximately 5.5%. For the average household in Lexington, or a user with 70 hundred cubic feet, these proposed increases and decreases would translate to an increase of approximately $30.10 on the annual bill, which is a 2.9% increase over last year. The second alternative would be to not decrease the water rates and leave them at the same rate at this year, but the wastewater rates still have to increase in order to cover the budget. In this case, the average user would have an increase of approximately $7.70 more than if water rates are decreased. This would generate a bit of surplus retained earnings for the year and stabilize the rates a bit. Ricki Pappo, 16 Blossomcrest Road, stated that the Town is about to launch into the high school project and ask people to vote on a debt exclusion. It would be nice to be transparent and say that a particular rate has gone down, thereby the Town is going to pass the rate decrease onto the public. The Board agreed to allow additional time for public comment and as such will reopen a hearing at the November 8, 2024 Select Board meeting. DOCUMENTS: FY2025WaterandSewerRateMemo&Analysis, FY2025 Water and Sewer Rate Presentation 2. Discussion on the Police Solar Canopy Project - Federal Funding Potential Mike Cronin, Director of Facilities, explained that in 2023, Article 16 I at Town Meeting appropriated $3.4M to construct and install a solar canopy system. The project was approved by the HDC. As part of the scope of work Fletcher Field work has been completed. There was $376,000 allocated to that work, leaving a balance of approximately $33,023,000. After discussing the project with the GC, the balance of the work came out to approximately $4.2M, putting the entire project over budget by approximately $1.2M. A couple of opportunities to simplify the design are being considered. The considerations are regarding making the connection points much simpler. This will lead to a reduction in hundreds of man hour of welding. This may lead to approximately $800,000 in a reduction of cost and it reduces the tonnage of steel needed. Also, instead of pricing the project into three separate components - solar panels, battery, and the structure, the Town is going to offer this entire project out to bid as one package. There will be a significant efficiency to have one vendor do the entire project. A request was sent to the State for some additional congressionally directed funding in the amount $1.24M which was accepted. The award is being postponed until after the Presidential election. In case this does not go through, staff decided to put the exact same amount on the Special Town Meeting Warrant for this fall. This project is also subject to the IRA Direct Pay, with a potential for 30%-40% of the project having a refund at the end. In response to a question from Ms. Barry, Ms. Kosnoff explained that for Town Meeting, the request will be for a debt appropriation. If the Town finds out before the construction starts that it was awarded the congressional funding, it will rescind that bond authorization. Otherwise, it will borrow for this. Mr. Pato noted that the Town completes solar canopies in a lot of places, but this is an exceptional one, due to its location in an historic district with the design leading to a much more expensive project than the Town normally would consider. However, it will pay for itself in a short number of years and then generate revenue for the Town. DOCUMENTS: Article 5 Presentation 3. Update on the Lexington High School Project Julie Hackett, Superintendent of Schools, explained that the issue is that the High School was built nearly 75 years ago. It is an outdated building and is deteriorating. It lacks full ADA compliance. It does not have enough space for students with disabilities to be educated properly. The school is at risk of system failure. It is increasingly more costly to operate. It is not energy efficient. The air quality is substandard. There are leaks in the roof, HVAC, and boiler systems yearly. There is no natural light in the classrooms. Some of the classrooms are 26% smaller than the recommended sizes from the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA). There are inadequate science labs, performing arts spaces, and spaces for large core areas such as the cafeteria, gymnasium, etc. The school is significantly overcrowded. The core spaces were built for 1,850 students, and the school has reached peak enrollment this year at 2,420 students, which exceeds the planned operating capacity by about 600 students. In March 2022, the MSBA invited the Town into its capital pipeline. The three statements of interest, or essentially grant applications, were submitted. Regarding the funding for this pipeline, one penny on every dollar of the State’s 6.25% sales tax goes to school construction projects. There are nine MSBA modules to follow and the charge of the School Building Committee (SBC) is to shepherd the process and deliver a cost efficient and educationally appropriate project to the MSBA, which they will make a final decision on. Modules 1 and 2 have been completed. Module 3 is the feasibility study phase. This is approximately a 13-month process prescribed by the MSBA. It was entered into in November 2023 and th will finish around December 2024 in collaboration with the project team. On November 12, the SBC will vote for the preferred schematic design to recommend to the MSBA. Recent developments include narrowing the design options from six to one. Outside experts are analyzing the costs for the project and the third round of this will occur in August 2025 for a final cost. From the first round to the second round of cost estimates, they decreased a little. There are three different types of construction being considered, a renovation/addition (ad/reno), new construction on the fields, and new constructions phased in place. The total project cost includes the base project. The base project is the school itself at 440,000 s.f., the central office/extra student space at 20,000 s.f., and the renovated field house at 34,000 s.f. The total cost with grants and rebates reflects backing out the $100M from the MSBA and around $40M from grants and rebates. This does not include the Capital Stabilization Fund, around $40M, or other sources of potential revenue. Bloom, which is the new construction on fields option, is one of the two options that the SBC voted on today. It is one of the least expensive new construction options out of the six on the table. It has the shortest construction duration at four and a half years. It stays off Center track, Center playground, and C1, C2, and C7 playing fields. This option was formally endorsed by the Recreation Committee. There are no modular units required with this option, and it reconstructs and improves playing fields. It has level one program adjacencies, flexibility of program organization, a good civic presence, and visibility of the main entry from Worthen Road. Cons for this type of option include that part of the building is on undeveloped land, construction is close to the existing school, and there are a large number of photovoltaic canopies between the building and Worthen road. Weave is new construction phased in place. This would mean taking one existing wing of the High School, knocking it down, building a new wing, and then repeating the process until the entire High School is replaced. This option reduces the impact on fields versus the other new construction alternatives. It has flexibility of program organization, maintains the current civic presence and relationship to Muzzy Street, and has potential for outdoor classrooms. Cons include that it is the most expensive option. There are 48 modular units required at a cost of $19M. It has the longest construction duration of six and a half years. Phased construction is more disruptive and time intensive than the new construction. The plans in place would allow for over 3,600 students to fit in the High School. The SBC voted th unanimously to support moving forward with the Bloom and Weave options. On November 4, there will be an SBC and Recreation retreat from 12pm-3pm. This is an open meeting, and participants will be able to engage with members of the project team and one another as the two design options are narrowed to th one. On the 12, the SBC will formally vote on the preferred schematic design option, which the MSBA th will then review. On November 13, the Town will hear a citizen’s petition on the High School project at Special Fall Town Meeting. Christian Boutwell, Vice Chair of the Recreation Committee, explained that the Committee has had the High School project as a standing agenda item for several months now. The Committee has come to realize that, although its preference would be to maintain the recreation complex intact and contiguous as it is, a project of this nature requires compromise throughout the community. The Committee felt that SMMA and the SBC were working in good faith with the Committee to address some of the concerns and arrive at a compromise solution, which is the revised Bloom plan. This shifts the structure to roughly south of the existing utility path, and thus off C1, C2 and the overlay field (C7). The committee has expressed continuing concerns about the bifurcation of the complex, which does detract from the current state of a large community park. The Committee’s fear is that this will come to feel like parks on a high school campus. The Committee urges the SBC to continue to investigate all possible options to maximize connectivity between the existing fields and new fields, and between existing facilities and new facilities. Mr. Lucente stated that he does not want a High School of 3,600 students. He believes this is too large for a community of this size. He is concerned that moving forward with this premise ignores the issue it may create. The community needs to decide what other options there may be for the High School. Mr. Pato agreed that he does not want a High School with 3,600 students in it, but the proposal is for a project that would be flexible and could accommodate extraordinary growth but is designed for 2,400 students. The School Master Planning Committee will be reviewing system-wide issues, such as allowing the space to be flexible. DOCUMENTS: summaryofJune17SBconcerns, Memo J. Hackett to Select Board re: LHS Project 10-21- 2024 4. Special Town Meeting - 2024-1 - Article 7: Appropriate Design Funds - Harrington Athletic Fields Christian Boutwell explained that Article 7 is a funding request for $100,000. This request is to appropriate funds for the design and engineering services for the construction of athletic fields at 146 Maple Street, currently the site of the Lexington Public Schools Central Offices, adjacent to the Harrington Elementary School. These requested design funds will be used to produce a final project design and project cost estimate in preparation for an appropriation request for construction funds at the 2025 Annual Town Meeting. In 2022, the Recreation Committee completed a comprehensive study of athletic and outdoor recreation fields, in response to a request to quantify the athletic field needs in Lexington. That study documented insufficient athletic fields in Town and provided general recommendations, site by site analyses, and recommendations for future development, including an action plan. The development of athletic fields at Harrington was identified as the project with the greatest potential to increase the field inventory. The Recreation Committee put a Harrington athletic fields project on its FY25-FY29 Capital Plan with an FY28 target date. The acceptance of the High School project led the Committee to speed up to target date for this project to FY26, in the hope that the project could be completed prior to loss of Center rec fields, and thus ameliorate some of those losses. If the design funds request is approved, the plan is then to request an appropriation for construction funds at the 2025 Annual Town Meeting. This project is contingent on approval and timing of demolition of the Central Office building. Mr. Sandeen stated that he would support this as long as the scope of the project includes developing options for natural grass fields as well. Mr. Boutwell explained that this request does not identify the field surface. This will be part of the process in engaging the community, user groups, and the Field Surface Working Group. He noted that there is no intention to disrupt the solar canopies as part of this project. Mr. Lucente asked about the contingency plan if this is not approved. Mr. Boutwell explained that this will not solve the field crisis, at even at the current rate of usage. This project would bring the Town up to meeting the existing community needs. Taking any fields offline means that the Town will still be in a deficit. This project will help to reduce that impact a bit. In response to a question from Mr. Sandeen, Melissa Battite explained that this project is not being designed in response to the loss of fields at the High School. This is in response to the community-wide deficit of fields. When the study was done, the Town is in excess of diamond fields and approximately 14 rectangle fields short. In addition to the three diamonds that the Town is losing at Center during the construction, it is also losing four multi-use fields. DOCUMENTS: Art 7 Harrington Presentation 5. Special Town Meeting - 2024-1 - Article 8: Delay Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) Filing Resolution (Citizen Petition) Peter Kelley, citizen petitioner, explained that his suggestion was to look at the existing challenge and try to deal with it in a short-term accommodation for the space and other issues presently at the High School, while giving some breathing room to understand the consequences from the MBTA rezonings. He stated that he does not believe the High School project should be built on the fields. The fields do not belong to the schools; they belong to Recreation for the benefit of all citizens. The site has many complicated wetland and storm water management issues, both costly in time and money. The site contains a 50’ deep peat bog, unwise and expensive to build on. The project would destroy Lexington’s unique open space/recreation complex by splitting it in half. This is likely the most valuable open space in the Town outside of the Battle Green. Building a phased project is a much better choice. The first phase could create a large, 172,000 s.f. building. This could be started in one year and completed by fall 2027. This building would cost approximately $200M, less than a third of what is currently being proposed. This will allow for an opportunity to step back and consider a new field house and additional academic space for the future. This also gives more time to consider how many new students the revised MBTA zoning may bring. Ms. Hai exited the meeting at 8:22pm. thth Ms. Barry stated that the SBC is taking their vote on the 12. Town Meeting is on the 13. She asked why this is being brought to Town Meeting the day after the SBC takes its vote. Mr. Kelley asked why the vote is being taken the day before Town Meeting. The Board could respectfully ask the SBC to hold back on deciding at this time. He has been looking for ways to be heard on this issue, but it has not happened. He would like to see a successful project, but there is no way a $600M+ project on the fields will win a debt exclusion vote in this Town. Mr. Kelley stated that it is absolutely important that the School Department hold onto the Harrington site. It is yet unclear what the MBTA zoning will mean for this Town and there need to be options available. Mr. Sandeen stated that one of the proposals mentioned by Mr. Kelley dealt with adding a temporary addition to the School. He asked if MBTA would approve a two- phase process. Mr. Kelley stated that he is not proposing a temporary building but a permanent structure to serve the campus into the future. MSBA needs to understand there is an issue in the community which need to be taken into consideration. Mr. Lucente stated that it would be helpful to have data on what types of projects MSBA will and will not participate in, in order to evaluate this and other plans. DOCUMENTS: Article 8 MSBA delay Motion, Art 8 MSBA delay Presentation, Pictures 7. Vote on Affordable Housing Proposal from Causeway Development for Parcel 68- 44 Located on Lowell Street – This item was moved up on the agenda and addressed at this time. Mr. Lucente asked for public comment at this time. Mark Lang, 2 Opi Circle, stated that the Town recently made a catastrophic decision to zone 227 acres for dense housing. The result was proposed to be 400-800 new units over the next 4-10 years, but the Town now has applications for 1,100 units and counting in just one year. He recently learned of a developer preparing an application for a single development with 1,100 units on Hartwell Avenue. He asked why the Board is rushing to select a developer for a Town-sponsored, partially Town funded project, when the MBTA zoning will produce privately funded affordable housing several times the Town's needs. He asked the Board to acknowledge that the affordable housing situation has changed since the project for parcel 68-44 was first proposed, and the need for housing no longer outweighs the burden of this development on this neighborhood, the increase in traffic, the usage of Town services, and the destruction of three acres of woodland and wetland. He asked for the Board to put this project on pause until the MBTA zoning impact is more well understood, specifically the supply and demand of affordable housing units. Dawn McKenna, 9 Hancock Street, stated that she supports this project as it has been well thought out and there have been many conversations with the community. Most people think that allowing affordable housing in Lexington means that it is 100% affordable, which is not true. Most projects, and even many of the MBTA projects, are going to have only a small component of affordable housing. The fact that the Town is willing to provide this piece of land and make it 100% affordable housing, means that the Town can determine what to do with their own property for 100% affordable housing. Bob Pressman, member of the CPC and Housing Partnership Board, explained that this proposal is for an average of 60% of AMI, meaning that there will be people at 30% of AMI, which is the area of greatest need in Massachusetts. The MBTA housing is at 80% of AMI, only allowing for people of higher incomes. This is a wonderful proposal. It irks him when people object to housing but will never be able to see the housing from where they live. Mr. Pato stated that this project is 100% affordable and is targeting a lower AMI population. While he shares concerns about growth in Town, this particular project adds a valuable component to the community that the Town has been looking for, for a long time. Mr. Lucente agreed that this is a different type of affordable housing. This is not the same affordable housing that the Town will see from the MBTA zoning. VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted by roll call 4-0 to approve the Affordable Housing Trust, in consultation with Town Counsel, to commence negotiations with Causeway Development LLC on such agreements, including a land disposition agreement, as are necessary for the sale of Town-owned Parcel 68-44 located on Lowell Street to Causeway Development LLC for the purposes of developing 100% affordable housing pursuant to Article 33 of the 2024 Annual Town Meeting. 8. Endorse Affordable Housing Trust Board of Trustees' Application to the Community Preservation Committee for Funding Elaine Tung, Chair the Affordable Housing Trust, explained that the Trust’s charge is for the preservation and creation of affordable housing for the benefit of low- and moderate-income households, and for the funding of community housing. This past year, the Affordable Housing Trust established a formal grant program for applicants for the purchase of affordable housing properties that would have affordable restrictions in perpetuity. As part of this, the Trust gave two grants to LexHAB to purchase a two family and a rare four-bedroom single family. It also worked towards the development of a 40-unit 100% affordable housing, family-oriented development, geared towards an average median income of 57%. In the future, the Trust will be establishing a formal grant program for applicants coming to the Affordable Housing Trust for the development of affordable housing. The Trust is anticipating requesting $3M this year from the Community Preservation Committee. Mr. Pato stated that he believes this should be supported as a combined request for this year. In future years, this will be increasingly challenging and will likely need to be reconsidered. The Board stated that affordable housing was its first priority for goals, and the Affordable Housing Trust is providing the vehicle to create and enable the lower end affordable housing. This survives as a top priority for the Board, which leads him to be willing to co-sponsor this. In revisiting the goals in future years, there may be competing needs with stressed budgets. Mr. Sandeen stated that there are significant needs being presented to the Affordable Housing Trust that will require this level of support. Thus, he is supportive of a combined request. Mr. Lucente stated that he believes should be an endorsement at best, or a review of all the projects that have been applied to from CPC, which is not yet known. The Board is not the receipts of the money, so it leading to concerns about applying jointly. Ms. Barry stated that she would prefer to see the entire portfolio of housing numbers, and she does not believe that speaks against the Board’s goal being for affordable housing. She does not want the community to believe that the Board will give all of the money to the Affordable Housing Trust each year. Mr. Pato stated that he would like to see the Affordable Housing Trust be the sole recipient of CPC funding, because the Trust can act throughout the year and be a timely respondent to requests. Ms. Tung stated that the Trust has met extensively with both LexHAB and the Lexington Housing Authority. They have indicated that they prefer all the funds come to the Affordable Housing Trust, as it is difficult for them to know at the beginning of each funding cycle how much they will need. In terms of CPA funds, Community Housing was significantly underfunded with respect to the other buckets. As housing was the Board’s top priority for the year, it may want to consider giving funds to this idea. Mr. Lucente stated that it is difficult to balance the needs and priorities of the Town without first knowing what will be applied for. He stated that he still believes the Board should put more money into the Affordable Housing Trust. However, he does not yet have the full depth or appreciation for all the projects that that may come forward, and thus be doing the Town a disservice. He is not comfortable with a joint application at this time. Mr. Lucente noted that the Board seems to be split on this item 2-2. He asked for public comment at this time. Dawn McKenna, 9 Hancock Street, stated that she is supportive of an application coming forward for any amount to CPC, but the State legislature set up a very specific process for deciding priorities. She stated that she is not comfortable with the notion of the Board commenting on every proposal that gets put forward, as this seems to thwart the purpose of the CPC. Jay Luker, Rindge Avenue, stated that he supports more funding from the CPC for affordable housing. It is the proper and appropriate way to fund affordable housing through public funding. Ms. Kowalski noted that any Affordable Housing Trust is a funding entity, essentially a bank. The Affordable Housing Trust Study Committee made clear in the FAQs and presentations that many communities use their CPA funds solely in the housing bucket to give to the Affordable Housing Trust so that the Housing Trust can make those decisions. In large part because many of these needs arise after the funding window has closed for CPA. It is very common for a Community Preservation Committee, if it sees fit, to direct the housing funds, or a large portion of the housing funds, to the Affordable Housing Trust. Mr. Sandeen stated that there is no intention on the CPC to change the policy regarding who can apply. The CPC is always going to accept valid proposals, as judged by Town Counsel. The entities that are requesting these funds are seeing significant advantages to being able to get that money through the Affordable Housing Trust, but there is no intention to eliminate the flexibility of being able to apply for multiple sources. DOCUMENTS: Afforadable Housing Trust financial summary 10.21.24 6. Special Town Meeting 2024-1 - Select Board Article Presenters and Positions The Board discussed its assignments for various Articles. The Board agreed to address this item in depth at its meeting on Friday morning. DOCUMENTS: Select Board Positions Working Document 2024 STM-1 9. Request for Special Permit to allow Gas Powered Leaf Blower Use at Fiske Common Condo Development - Note: Request Withdrawn on 10/21/2024 It was noted that this item was withdrawn. DOCUMENTS: 10-21-2024 Email - Withdrawal of Request, Fiske Special Permit Request Memo 10. Review Amendments to the Lexington Human Rights Committee Charge It was noted that this item was postponed to a later date. ADJOURN VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted by roll call 4-0 to adjourn at 9:11pm. A true record; Attest: Kristan Patenaude Recording Secretary