Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-10-24-AC-min 10/24/2024 AC Minutes 1 Minutes Town of Lexington Appropriation Committee (AC) October 24, 2024 Place and Time: Remote participation via a Zoom teleconferencing session that was open to the public; 7:30 p.m.–9:30 p.m. Members Present: Glenn Parker, Chair; Sanjay Padaki, Vice-Chair; Alan Levine, Secretary; Anil Ahuja; John Bartenstein; Eric Michelson; Sean Osborne; Vinita Verma; Lily Yan; Carolyn Kosnoff, Assistant Town Manager, Finance (non-voting, ex officio) Members Absent: none Other Attendees: Charles Lamb, Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC); David Kanter, CEC; Lisah Rhodes, CEC; Kathleen Lenihan, School Committee (SC); Vineeta Kumar, SC; Mike Cronin, Director of Public Facilities; Matthew Rice, SMMA; Lorraine Finnegan, SMMA; Chistina Del An- gelo, Dore + Whittier (D+W); Mike Burton, D+W; Dawn McKenna; Jacob Greco (D+W); At 7:32 p.m. Mr. Parker called the meeting to order and took attendance by roll call. All votes recorded below were conducted by roll call. Announcements and Liaison Reports Mr. Padaki stated that he had forwarded a Recreation Committee statement of position on the LHS building project to the members. Lexington High School Project Mr. Parker invited Ms. Finnegan and Mr. Rice to open the discussion. Ms. Finnegan stated that the process has narrowed the choices down to two schemes, one of which will be selected by the School Building Committee (SBC) on November 12. Mr. Padaki had submitted two questions in advance of the meeting. The first was about the school sports teams that would be displaced during construction, and the costs for providing alternate facil- ities. Ms. Finnegan stated that they had developed a complete list of activities with time periods and athletic fields they currently use, identifying which time periods will be impacted during construc- tion. They have not done any budgeting for alternate facilities. Mr. Cronin stated that a committee is preparing to support the teams that must be relocated during construction, but he stated that it was too soon to produce a budget. Ms. Lenihan suggested contacting Belmont and other neighboring towns that had to deal with similar issues during school construction. This would impact the FY2027 operating budget, which will be presented in March 2026. The second question was in regard to the lower price per square foot for the Arlington high school compared to Lexington. Ms. Finnegan stated that there were many significant project-level differ- ences in the Arlington project that resulted in a lower total project cost, which, in turn, reduced the cost per square foot. This included a lack of ground improvements, an older energy code that did not require triple-glazed windows or the same level of insulation, and lower costs for removal of hazardous materials. Since Arlington’s project was completed, there has been significant escalation in the costs of construction and furniture. It is impossible to provide an exact comparison because we don’t have access to the complete set of construction costs incurred by Arlington. Instead, we must work with the limited data that Arlington made available publicly. Arlington also has fewer athletic fields and did not replace their track or football fields. 10/24/2024 AC Minutes 2 Mr. Burton stated that a better comparison could be made with Waltham’s high school, both be- cause Ms. Finnegan had worked directly on the project, and the pricing was post-pandemic. He noted that Lexington’s cost has been lowered slightly to $1,353 per square foot, and this number is based on work by two independent estimators (not SMMA and not D+W) who use a database of all high school construction in the Commonwealth over the last 20 years. Mr. Padaki responded that he was still wondering if there was anything so fundamentally different about Arlington that could account for a difference in cost of $200 per square foot. Mr. Parker com- mented that the cost per square foot could be calculated based purely on construction costs, or it could be based on the total overall cost of the project. A large part of the difference arises because Lexington’s total project cost includes more features and has greater complexity than Arlington’s. Mr. Levine commented that the committee should also be considering the projected operating costs of the proposed design. By building to a higher energy standard, the Town will reap significant sav- ings over the expected 75-year life span of the building, compared to Arlington. Ms. Finnegan agreed with this point, then she noted that, unlike Lexington, Arlington did not include any solar power in its initial project costs. However, almost every school eventually ends up installing photo- voltaic panels as an add-on project. Mr. Finnegan continued that, based on Lexington’s desires, the current designs are expected to pro- duce a building with a lifespan of 75 years, as opposed to the 50 years that many similar projects demand, and this would ultimately reduce the operating costs of the building. Mr. Burton stated that the Town currently spends $1.1 to $1.5 million annually to heat and light the high school. The new net-zero design will largely eliminate those expenses over the next 75 years. Mr. Parker agreed but noted that even solar power has an annual maintenance cost, so the equation is not that simple. Mr. Michelson asked about how the site preparation for the Waltham high school affected the total project cost. Ms. Finnegan responded that the total site preparation expense was $50 million, of which $30 million was blasting for rock removal. For their cost comparisons, SMMA adjusted for differences in site preparation expenses. Ms. Lenihan commented that the estimated cost of North Attleboro’s high school, based on the PSR recently submitted to the MSBA, is $1,279 per square foot. This demonstrates that Lexington’s costs are comparable to other current projects. Mr. Parker asked how much of the difference in Lexington was due to our updated building codes. Mr. Rice responded that the designs are compliant with the stretch code, and this does produce an incremental cost, but it’s hard to determine an exact dollar figure for the impact because the costs are distributed across a range of systems and design elements. Mr. Padaki reiterated his request to publish more detailed information about how and why Arling- ton’s price per square foot differs so much from Lexington’s. Mr. Burton agreed to take another look, but noted that they are dealing with limited information that is now five years old, with the added factor that the project is pre-pandemic. There is a lot of attention on Arlington because its low costs make it an outlier, but we should not overlook the figures from other projects like Revere and Waltham which support the estimates we have seen for Lexington. Mr. Parker suggested that there should be a comprehensive comparison of a set of buildings that considers size, timing, and features, but even then it may be hard to reconcile an escalation from $500 per square foot pre-pandemic to $1,300 per square foot today, almost tripling the cost in under six years, while overall inflation has not grown anywhere close to that rate. Mr. Burton agreed that 10/24/2024 AC Minutes 3 the higher costs were the result of price escalation combined with changes in scope. He noted that his original price comparison did not account for solar panels, which were installed later in Arling- ton, and that would account for another $30–40 per square foot. He suggested that he could revise the price comparison with that change and some other factors in mind, which he would share with our Committee and the SBC. Ms. Lenihan asked for some discussion about how quickly Lexington would see a payback on its investment in sustainable energy systems. Ms. Finnegan responded that Lexington would qualify for incentives and utility rebates that apply to any project in Massachusetts, and there are also fed- eral incentives especially in the Inflation Reduction Act. SMMA has analyzed the initial cost, oper- ational maintenance costs, and the estimated annual savings. Assuming the incentives and rebates are still available at project completion, she believes the payback period would be about one year, which is dramatically shorter than the typical 10–15 year payback. Mr. Michelson asked where in the cost estimates to find the pricing for site preparation that would be required for option C1 (aka “Bloom”). Mr. Burton directed Mr. Michelson to the line labeled “A1020 Special Foundations” on page 52 of the document titled, “Lexington High School PSR Esti- mate 10.7.24”, which provides $5.9 million for materials and labor. Ms. Finnegan mentioned that other phased-in-place options will require foundation improvements. Mr. Michelson then asked about the derivation of enrollment numbers used to support the capacity of the design, and whether they still reflect our expectations for future enrollment growth. Mr. Burton estimated the escalation in cost for delaying a year would be $15–$20 million. He was unaware of any project where the MSBA agreed to revise their previously determined enrollment numbers. He suggested that the Town needs to decide when a building is too big, and 3,000 students might be a reasonable limit after which the Town would want to consider alternatives besides fur- ther growing the capacity of LHS. Regarding future expansion, Mr. Burton said the current school design assumes 85% utilization, but it would be feasible to increase utilization up to 90% and class size could be increased from 23 stu- dents to 24 or 25. The Central Office space could be converted to classrooms, making way for an additional 250 students, and there will be space reserved for a future addition that would allow for another 250 students. Currently LHS is at 98% utilization, with some specialized classrooms such as science labs at 100% utilization. Mr. Cronin stated that the Master Planning Committee planned to discuss possible alternatives, such as building a third middle school, shifting 9th grade classes to the middle schools, and/or shifting other grades down to elementary schools. Mr. Michelson asked if the MSBA process needed to pause to reconsider the potential growth in en- rollment. Ms. Lenihan stated that only three high schools in the state have 3,000 or more students: Lawrence, Lowell, and Brockton, all of which are cities with much larger populations than Lexington. She added that, as a member of the School Committee, she would not advocate for a school with 3,500 students. The current high school designs can handle around 3,000 students, and there is no desire to expand the design for one high school past that ceiling. 10/24/2024 AC Minutes 4 Anticipated Warrant Articles for Special Town Meeting 2024-1 Ms. Kosnoff said she would provide more information about updates to the FY2025 operating budget by tomorrow. The Town’s new growth was certified yesterday, at about $6.9 million, and she will put forward three operating budget adjustments, with the remaining balance of new growth going to the CSF. Mr. Padaki asked if the Town was considering the impact on the operating budget for providing ser- vices to a growing number of new dwelling units resulting from the MBTA Communities zoning bylaw changes. Ms. Kosnoff agreed this was a matter of concern and she is beginning to work with some Town departments on preparing for increased demand and estimating future tax revenue from the projected new growth. The Fire Department may need another ambulance, and possibly another fire engine. This could affect the size of the renovation for the East Lexington Fire Station. Adding equipment to the Fire Department typically requires hiring additional staff to operate it. Other de- partments that will be impacted include the Police Department, Human Services, and the School Department. Additions to staff are expected, but they will be difficult to predict in advance. Ms. Kosnoff concluded that it would make sense to initiate a formal study of the anticipated impacts on the operating budget. The (outgoing) Town Manager has looked at how other towns have ap- proached this problem, but a study will require funding and a formal RFP. Mr. Bartenstein asked if state and federally funded immigrant housing programs were affecting the Town’s operating budget. Ms. Kosnoff was unsure, but she noted that there is now a 90-day limit on residency in local housing, and much of the cost is covered by state funding. Currently the school system has about 20 students from this housing. Mr. Michelson emphasized that the current surge in applications for new construction will be tem- pered over time, and that long-term growth will not follow a linear path. Mr. Levine suggested that a study of the unexpected growth from MBTA Communities zoning changes could use funding from the Reserve Fund. Ms. Kosnoff noted that impacts on the operating budget would begin around the same time as debt service for the high school project. Mr. Parker asked the Committee to consider a consent agenda for the upcoming special town meet- ing, which would include Articles 2, 3, and 6. Mr. Bartenstein objected to Article 3, the appropria- tion to the CSF, based on the size of the appropriation. The Committee agreed to recommend Arti- cles 2 and 6 for the consent agenda. The Committee discussed Article 5 Appropriate for Authorized Capital Improvements, which re- quests $1.24 million for the Police Headquarters solar canopy. Ms. Kosnoff explained that a funding authorization is needed to proceed with the bid process, but that the authorization would be re- scinded if/when an expected federal earmark is delivered. The earmark has been delayed until after the upcoming election, but Ms. Kosnoff hopes to know by December 2024. If the Town approves the request but does not receive confirmation of the earmark funding by May 2025, then a BAN will be required. If the project proceeds and the earmark is cancelled, the Town will issue a bond for the debt. Mr. Michelson is opposed to the proposed request under Article 5. The Committee discussed Article 7 Appropriate Design Funds - Harrington Athletic Fields. Mr. Pa- daki stated that there was some discussion about what type of surface the new fields should use, and whether the design should be required to cover two options, either artificial turf or natural grass. The typical process would be to choose a surface type, then create a design based on that choice. Mr. Padaki suggested that our Committee should recommend creating two designs. Mr. Parker re- sponded that the proponents control the motion, and he would prefer not to intercede. The motion is a simple request for funds, which already allows them a great deal of flexibility. 10/24/2024 AC Minutes 5 Mr. Parker stated that he and Mr. Levine would draft a response for Article 8 Delay Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) Filing Resolution. Mr. Padaki asked whether the Committee needs to further discuss Article 9 Resolution - Design Process of Crematory at Westview Cemetery. Mr. Parker noted that he had discussed the Commit- tee’s actions regarding Article 9 with Town Counsel. He was advised that there was no need for Mr. Ahuja or Mr. Padaki to recuse themselves, but the report should disclose that these members are proponents of Article 9. There was discussion of the motion under the article and the possible tim- ing of requests for funding of a crematory. Miscellaneous Mr. Parker confirmed that the Committee would vote on all articles at its next meeting on October 30, after which the Committee would finalize the report and approve it on November 6. The Com- mittee will schedule a brief meeting at 7:00 p.m. before the start of the Special Town Meeting on November 13. Mr. Ahuja reminded the Committee about the Calendar Keepers photo shoot on November 2 at 9:00 a.m. Ms. Kosnoff stated that a decline in the current year’s MWRA water assessment could yield a 2.2% decline in water rates. She is presenting the Select Board with two options, either to lower the rate or to hold it flat. The second option would produce some excess revenue, and it would reduce the size of an expected rebound in water rates the following year. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 9:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Glenn P. Parker Approved: December 12, 2024 Exhibits ● Agenda, posted by Mr. Parker