Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-11-08 SB-min SELECT BOARD MEETING November 8, 2024 A meeting of the Lexington Select Board was called to order at 9:00a.m. on Friday, November 8, 2024, via a remote meeting platform. Mr. Lucente, Chair; Mr. Pato, Ms. Barry, Ms. Hai, and Mr. Sandeen, were present, as well as Steve Bartha, Town Manager, Kelly Axtell, Deputy Town Manager; and Ms. Katzenback, Executive Clerk. PUBLIC COMMENT Peter Kelley, 24 Forest Street, confirmed that he would be able to speak on Article items #7 and #8 later in the meeting. SELECT BOARD MEMBER CONCERNS AND LIAISON REPORTS 1. Select Board Member Announcements and Liaison Reports Mr. Sandeen stated that yesterday at the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) meeting, Town Staff submitted a financial analysis showing that the projected CPA revenue for this year will be approximately $8.1M, including the State match. Staff also prepared a summary of this year's applications for CPA funding totaling approximately $13.1M. This is a difference of approximately $5M. The Capital Expenditures Committee also previously recommended that CPC avoid incurring debt to fund these projects. Mr. Sandeen stated that the Affordable Housing Trust met yesterday with Town Counsel in Executive Session to discuss parcel 68-44. The Affordable Housing Trust is expected to schedule additional executive sessions over the next two weeks on the same topic, prior to making a recommendation to the Select Board. Ms. Barry stated that the Recreation Committee met three times this week. At their third meeting, Wednesday night, they were unable to reach quorum and were planning to discuss the amendment proposed for Article Seven. This will instead be discussed on Tuesday. Ms. Barry congratulated Sal Frelick for successfully winning his first Golden Glove during his first full year in Major League Baseball for Milwaukee Brewers. Mr. Lucente noted that this is the Board’s first official meeting with Town Manager Bartha. The Board welcomed Mr. Bartha. TOWN MANAGER REPORT 1. Town Manager Weekly Update Mr. Bartha stated that he has met with a few Staff members and is excited to continue in the position and meet additional Staff members. DOCUMENTS: Weekly Update 11-1-24 CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve One-Day Liquor License – First Parish in Lexington, 7 Harrington Road  Voices on the Green Event: Friday, November 22, 2024, from 6:00pm - 9:30pm. To approve a One-Day Liquor License for the First Parish in Lexington to serve beer and wine at7 Harrington Road on November 22, 2024, from 6:00 pm - 9:30 pm. 2. Accept Select Board Committee Resignations  Greenways Corridor Committee - Yifang Gong  Town Celebrations Committee - Yifang Gong To accept the resignation of Yifang Gong from the Greenways Corridor Committee & the Town Celebrations Committee, effective immediately. DOCUMENTS: 2024 Resignation - Greenways Corridor & Town Celebrations Committee From Y. Gong_Redacted 3. Approve and Sign Proclamation – Employee Recognition Day  Employee Recognition Day- Tuesday, November 26, 2024. To approve and sign a proclamation for Employee Recognition Day to honor all Town employees and to recognize those employees with 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and 40 years of service. DOCUMENTS: Employee Recognition Day VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted by roll call 5-0 to approve the Consent Agenda. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 1. Update on Lead and Copper Replacement Program Dave Pavlik, Superintendent of Water and Sewer, and Tyler Schmidt, Environmental Partners, updated the Board on the steps Staff is taking to stay in compliance with DEP on Lead and Copper. Specifically, there was discussion regarding the material survey of the Town’s water services, and the requirements for residential notification and other regulations that the Town is required to meet. The EPA’s new Lead and Copper Rule revisions took effect on October 16, 2024. Among those new rules was a requirement to submit an initial inventory of all of the materials of the water services to buildings to Mass DEP by that same date. The survey was submitted on behalf of the Town and Lexington is compliant with the Lead and Copper Rule revisions. Mr. Schmidt reviewed the public materials associated with this project, including an interactive map. DOCUMENTS: LCRR GR Letter Template, LCRR RR Letter Template, LCRR unknown Letter template, Lexington LSLR project memo 2. Update on Stone Building and Next Steps Mike Cronin, Director of Facilities, explained that, at Annual Town Meeting 2023, $400,000 was appointed through Article 10a for the hiring of an architect to help identify uses for the Stone Building. In the fall of 2023, Spencer Preservation Group was hired and has been working on this project. Lynne Stanley and Doug Manly, Spencer Preservation Group, presented an update to the Board. There have been several ideas submitted for this building. The second floor could be restored for community/lyceum space, with the building updated to meet code requirements. There is concern for creating a sustainable operating system for the building. A catering kitchen on the second floor would help to support functions in the space. The project could be divided into three phases: The first phase would address the structural and building repairs in the main block, as well as building the “L” addition. This is estimated at just over $2M, with the assumption of construction in 2026 and 2027. The next phase would be the internal work in terms of infrastructure, an elevator, mechanical, electrical and fire protection, and utilities at just over $3.1M. Phase three would be the interior fit out and site work at $844,000. This results in a combined budget total of $6,060,100. If all done in a single project, the cost could be $5,471,233. Mr. Cronin provided a review of several options that the Town had considered a couple years ago. There were some original suggestions as to what next steps might be. One idea was to put out an RFP indicating what the use might be and how the user group would want the facility to look and operate. Another request was to determine whether the user group could contribute to the capital expenses needed to modify the floor plans for the proposed operation to happen. Another option to consider is whether there is a possibility that the Town wants to have the entire responsibility to staff this facility. Mr. Sandeen stated that the Select Board has been struggling with the chicken and egg nature of this request and that he has some concerns with appropriating funds prior to having a tenant identified. He discussed the option of issuing an RFP to select a tenant. He stated that the Town has a precedent and a successful model for addressing this type of situation from LexFarm10 years ago. We first selected a tenant for the property and then asked them to develop a business plan, so that we could understand whether we had a sustainable business model going forward. He has concerns with appropriating funds prior to having a tenant identified. His first concern is – He would like to see a sustainable financial business model for the facility. His second concern is – if we design the facility with the multiple options presented today without a tenant – we might pick the wrong option and then have to redo the facility or have the tenant move into a facility that they feel constrains their viability. Finally, one significant advantage of proceeding with an RFP to select a tenant before allocating funds – is that the tenant organization may be able to raise funds from private sources to cover some of the cost of the renovation and operation of the facility. He would strongly support doing an RFP to select a tenant, and then have that tenant guide us through the process. The Integrated Building Design and Construction Policy also requires that the building occupant participate as a stakeholder as the Town moves through the design phases of a building construction project. Ms. Barry and Ms. Hai echoed Mr. Sandeen’s comments and stated that the Town should look for an RFP, business plan, and a private entity with the ability to either contribute, raise, or garner funds in their own grant writing capacity. Mr. Pato agreed and stated that he does not believe the Town should proceed with a capital expense until there is a clear plan to move forward with a partner. The building will need to be stabilized until there is an agreed use for the facility. Mr. Lucente stated that he believes this is one of the rare historic assets of Lexington that needs to be preserved. He is concerned that if the building sits and continues to deteriorate, a user may not be found. Active preservation of this building could help find an individual group interested in it. There was discussion on the Board that this project should be pulled from the CPC for this spring prior to the RFP process. Ms. Hai stated that she does not support going forward with construction. However, part of a successful RFP can be having available plans that show a viable path forward. Ms. Barry noted that there is some Semiquincentennial money at the federal level for preservation grants and this building would qualify. The Town may want to look further into this. Dawn McKenna, 9 Hancock Street, stated that she believes the Town needs to make a commitment to pay for the building that it owns. The Town could apply for the CPA money, and in the meantime, put out an RFP explaining that it wants a lyceum use that will attract people for economic support of the Town. There are grants that could be sought for this work. Mark Manassas, President of the Lexington Lyceum, stated that his group has a long list of potential grants and would love to partner with the Town to bring this building back to life. It would be nice if the CPC could find money to defray potential costs that could arise from some of those grant applications. Christina Burwell, 6 Albemarle Avenue, stated that there is a wonderful fusion to be had in incorporating history and public engagement with this building. There could also be a great partnership for economic development, in doing some wonderful civic work in this building with a private partner. An RFP might not be the way to start, instead of first taking care of the building. Bridger McGaw, 89 Marion Street, Vice Chair of the Economic Development Advisory Committee and Chair of the Town Meeting Members Association, stated that he is skeptical that the Town has not started a grant writing process, and does not have a grant writing strategy drafted for this project yet. He does not believe the CPC money should be committed without understanding the long term plan for CPC priorities. Janel Showalter, 46 Paul Revere Road and Vice President of the Lexington Lyceum Advocates, stated that she supports the idea that a future tenant of this building also help with its funding. However, it is hard to attract funding if the Town does not seem to be behind the project. She recommended moving forward with the CPC application in order to get others to commit to the building. Betsey Weiss, 8 Dover Lane and Housing Partnership Board, stated that the Stone Building is a worthy building. However, at the present time, there are pressing housing and recreation field needs. These need to be the priority. An RFP should find a tenant in order to pursue specific grants and plans for this building. A majority of the Board agreed that the project should be removed from the CPC applications. The majority would like to see an identified participant for the building through an RFP process before moving forward with funding. DOCUMENTS: Stone Building presentation 4. Public Hearing and Vote: FY2025 Water and Sewer Rates – The Board took up this agenda item at this time. Mr. Lucente opened the public hearing at 10:15am. Carolyn Kosnoff, Assistant Town Manager for Finance, stated that this is the second and final meeting on the proposed water and wastewater rates for FY2025. This item is for the purpose of setting FY2025 water and wastewater rates. Two alternatives of proposed rates in the presentation, along with the projected impact on rate payers based on levels of consumption. Alternative #1 represents rates calculated based on the Enterprise Fund budgets and projected usage/consumption for the current fiscal year. In FY2025 this calculation would result in a slight decrease in water rates and an increase in wastewater rates. Alternative #2 proposes to leave the FY2025 Water rates flat at the FY2024 rate, and the same increase in calculated Wastewater Rates as in Alternative #1. The proposed rates in each alternative remain the same as advertised and presented at the public hearing on October 21, 2024. There was no public comment at this time. Mr. Lucente closed the public hearing at 10:17pm. VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted by roll call 5-0 to the proposed FY2025 water and wastewater rates as shown on page 3 of the presentation as follows: Residential/ Water Sewer Commercial/Industrial Tier 1 $5.06 $10.27 Tier 2 $7.59 $16.78 Tier 3 $10.02 $26.69 Irrigation $10.02 N/A Municipal $3.92 $3.68 Hanscom/Lincoln Labs $7.46 N/A VA Hospital $8.92 N/A Bedford-water $3.77 N/A Flat Sewer Rate (Annual) N/A $470.03 DOCUMENTS: FY2025 Water and Sewer Rate Propsal 7. Follow-up Discussion from Lexington High School Project Summit and Potential Guidance to School Building Committee – The Board took up this agenda item at this time. The Board held a follow-up discussion from the Lexington High School Project Summit including a discussion regarding potential guidance on: 1) Field House Options 2) Bloom or Weave design 3) Request to Delay or not the SBC vote Mr. Pato explained that the SBC is currently proceeding on the assumption of an attached field house as part of the base plan and needs guidance for either a renovated existing field house or an expanded renovated field house. Ms. Barry asked if it was correct that the proposed location on the existing property for an all new field house would cause the building to not be open to the public during school hours. She stated that this would give her pause, as a larger field house would be a separate ballot question, and she believes the community will want access to this. She is leaning toward an ad/reno for the field house. Mr. Pato stated that any policy for use would have to be established moving forward. Mr. Sandeen stated that he is in favor of renovating, but not the expanded renovation on the site as is currently being presented. He would also like to preserve the option to bring to the Town an approval for a new small standalone field house, but only if the town vote on the fieldhouse was done concurrently with the high school approval vote. He would not be in favor of renovating the field house now and then tearing it down for a new structure in the future. Ms. Hai stated that she is not in favor of reserving space for a new build. She is in favor of a renovation but is opposed to reserving separate space on the plan for a future building. Mr. Lucente stated that he supports as ad/reno field house, and he does not support reserving room elsewhere on the property for a future field house. Mr. Pato stated that he is inclined toward a renovation of the existing field house as it stands and would be open to reserving a smaller/medium spot elsewhere on the field. The Board discussed the proposed design options. Ms. Barry stated that she is reserving her position on this item until information on the Article 97 land becomes clearer. Ms. Hai stated that she believes the Bloom option satisfies the combination of efficiency, cost, Article 97 land, and utility. Mr. Sandeen stated that he believes Bloom is the better option of the two. Mr. Lucente expressed a preference for the Weave option. Mr. Pato explained that the unanimous straw vote of the School Building Committee was to proceed with Bloom. th The Board discussed potentially pausing the vote to be taken on November 12. Dawn McKenna, 9 Hancock Street, stated that, in terms of the field house, the only question is whether to leave the option open during the schematic design phase for a new building. If Board members change their mind between now and next fall, they do not have to continue with that idea. But if they say no now, they have foreclosed any opportunity for that discussion. She urged the Board to support the ad/reno, leave space for the 72,000 s.f. and allow for time for additional discussions in the coming weeks. Peter Kelly stated that moving forward at this time is a terrible mistake for the community. The Town is too divided in what seems to be an appropriate path to renew the school. He stated that he believes the project should stay on the campus. He noted that placing any part of the project on the fields would require a unanimous vote of the Select Board. Taylor Singh, Hancock Street, stated that, in terms of fluidity of this process, the SBC, formed by the Select Board over two years ago, has gone through a steady, transparent process to get to where the project is today. The group meets almost every Monday at noon and information can be obtained through those meetings. It is unclear what other information could be gleaned through a delay of this process at this time. Ms. Barry exited the meeting at 10:47am. 3. Public Hearing: Tax Classification Presentation Mr. Lucente opened the public hearing at 11:11am. Ms. Kosnoff presented the FY2025 tax classification options and preliminary tax rates for the Board's consideration. It is proposed that the Board vote on the FY2025 tax classification options at an upcoming meeting scheduled for November 18, 2024. At that time, the Board will take four votes, which are described in the memorandum in the attached Fiscal Year 2025 Tax Classification Packet. The votes are to:  Establish a residential factor;  Determine whether to adopt the Open Space Discount;  Determine whether to adopt the Residential Exemption and, if so, the percentage (up to 35%);  Determine whether to adopt the Small Commercial Exemption The Town’s levy limit for FY25 is approximately $256,398,000. For FY25, the total assessed value is approximately $18,487,000,000. FY25 was a recertification year with the Department of Revenue. If all of the options were left the same as they were in prior years, for FY25 a flat tax rate would calculate to $13.87 per $1,000, compared to $13.83 per $1,000 from last year. In order to finalize the tax rate, which deals with who in Town is carrying the load for the tax levy, there are four options the Board has in shifting the rate. The first is a selection of a shift factor, the second is a selection of open space, the third is a residential exemption of up to 35% of value for the residential owner occupied properties in Town, and an option to exempt up to 10% of small commercial properties. Regarding the shift factor, a maximum shift would increase the amount of the levy born by the CIP class and reduce the amount borne by the residential class. At a full 1.75 shift, the CIP tax rate would be $24.27 per $1,000, and the residential would reduce to $12.23 per $1,000. The Town has been following a 1.75 shift for several years. The second option regarding open space is not truly applicable in Town. For the third option, the Board has the choice to exempt up to 35% of a home value on the residential class. This only applies to owner-occupied residences and would shift the burden to the non-owner occupied homes. A previous committee published a report on this option in 2019. The fourth option in setting the tax rate is whether to adopt a small commercial exemption. This deals with exempting up to 10% of small commercial properties. The value of those parcels has to be less than $1M and the business operating out of that parcel would have to have ten or less employees. This would shift the tax levy to other rate payers in the ommercial industrial classes. Ms. Hai stated that, regarding reexamining the residential exemption, the Board should acknowledge that the Town is facing a lot of new development, and that the size and average price point may be changing as more multifamily units come online. She suggested that the Board reexamine the residential exemption at a point in the future. She stated that she would not look to adopt any of the three optional criteria listed and would support the continuing 1.75 shift. Howard Cloth, 19 Sherman Street and member of the former Ad Hoc Residential Property Tax Exemption Study Committee, stated that it has been over six years since the Committee presented the report to the Board. The rationale for the recommendation not to adopt the residential exemption still remains. He noted that he was not aware of any progress having occurred on two of the remaining eight amelioration recommendations that the report also included, specifically a solution to the obstacle otherwise qualified senior residents face when they are blocked from obtaining a tax deferral by a company holding either their mortgage or an equity loan. Also, the recommendation for an age based property tax freeze for seniors. Jay Luker, 26 Rindge Avenue, stated that he is against the residential exemption. This will inevitably be subsidizing relatively wealthy homeowners on the backs of renters. Mr. Lucente closed the public hearing at 11:45am. DOCUMENTS: FY2025 TaxRate Classification Presentation, FY2025TaxRateClassificationOptions The Board took a five minute recess. 5. Discussion on Housing Partnership Board Request to Send a Letter Regarding Bill H2740 & H2741 Wendy Manz, Chair of the Housing Partnership Board, stated that the Chair of the Lexington Affordable Housing Trust had suggested that the Housing Partnership Board send a letter to Speaker Mariano of the MA House of Representatives in support of the Affordable Housing Trusts' request that the House take up Lexington's two pending home rule petitions: H2740 and H2741, which authorize Lexington to impose certain surcharges on commercial and residential home sales, before the end of the current legislative term. The Housing Partnership Board has voted in favor of doing so, contingent on the authorization of the Select Board. VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted by roll call 4-0 to approve the Housing Partnership Board’s request to send a letter regarding Bills H2740 & H2741 to the Massachusetts House of Representatives and or the Massachusetts State Senate, with an endorsement of the contents from the Select board DOCUMENTS: Draft HPB letter to Speaker Mariano 6. Review Proposed Parking Fee Exemption Program for Public Lot Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Maggie Peard, Sustainability & Resilience Officer, explained that, through the Center Employee Parking Program, employees of businesses in the Town Center can opt-in for alternative parking payment options in the public lots. They can purchase a $250 annual parking sticker that allows for long term parking in the Depot Square Lot, the NStar Lot, or the metered spots on Waltham St designated for “all day” parking. Alternatively, Center employees can purchase a $15 annual Pay-As-You-Go parking sticker that provides a reduced rate of $1/day in the Depot Square Lot. Both of these options provide an option for greatly reduced parking fees compared to the $0.50/hour rates in most lots. Currently, employees enrolled in one of these program would still be charged the $0.50/hour rate if they drive an EV and are parked to charge at an EV charger. Town staff request approval from the Board to waive the parking fee at the EV chargers in the NStar and Depot Lot for Center employees who are enrolled in the Center Employee Parking Program. They would still be charged for electricity. If approved, staff will include instructions for how to receive waived parking at EV chargers on the parking program application and website. Proof of participation in the program would be required to receive the waived parking. VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted by roll call 4-0 to approve waiving the parking fee at the Electric Vehicle chargers in the NStar and Depot Lot for center employees enrolled in the Center Employee Parking Program. DOCUMENTS: 2024 Parking Program 8. SpecialTownMeeting2024-1  Select Board Report The Board reviewed the report and agreed that the report is written form was appropriate.  Select Board Article Discussion and Positions Article 3 - Establish, Dissolve and Appropriate To and From Specified Stabilization Funds: Mr. Lucente is a yes, Mr. Pato is a yes, Ms. Hai is a yes, Mr. Sandeen is a yes. Article 4 - Amend FY2025 Operating Enterprise and CPA Budgets: Mr. Lucente is a yes, Mr. Pato is a yes, Ms. Hai is a yes, Mr. Sandeen is a yes. Article 5 - Appropriate for Authorized Capital Improvements: Mr. Lucente is a yes, Mr. Pato is a yes, Ms. Hai is a yes, Mr. Sandeen is a yes. Article 7 - J. Krieger amendment: Mr. Lucente is a wait, Mr. Pato is a yes, Ms. Hai is a wait, Mr. Sandeen is yes. Regarding Article 7, Ms. Kreiger explained that her intention was very simple. It was to clarify that the Recreation Committee would come forward with both a design for a synthetic field as well as a grass field. She would like the Town to have time to evaluate both. Peter Kelly suggested that the Board and Town Meeting maintain the operation at the Harrington School such that it is. The Harrington site is the only reasonable site to accommodate anything that the School Department will need in order to address enrollment changes in the next 5-10 years. The Town should not spend any money on something that does not appropriately lend itself to the use suggested. Article 8 - Delay Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) Filing Resolution (Citizens’ Petition): Mr. Lucente is a wait, Mr. Pato is a no, Ms. Hai is a no, Mr. Sandeen is a no. The Board discussed this Article. Peter Kelly explained that this is a non-binding Article. He stated that he believes there should not be building on the fields. The project should be phased. There needs to be more time for discussion on this item. Article 9 - Resolution - Design Process of Crematory Westview Cemetery (Citizens’ Petition): Mr. Lucente is a wait, Mr. Pato is a yes, Ms. Hai is a wait, Mr. Sandeen is a wait. DOCUMENTS: Select Board Working Document - Positions STM 2024-1, DRAFT - STM 2024-1 Article 1 Select Board Report, Art 3 stabilization funds motion, Art 4 amend budgets motion, Art 5 authoirzed cap improvements motion, Art 7 harrington fields motion, Amendment Art 7. Krieger, Art 8 MSBA delay motion, Art 9 crematory motion updated 11.4 ADJOURN VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted by roll call 4-0 to adjourn at 12:48pm. A true record; Attest: Kristan Patenaude Recording Secretary