Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-12-04-AC-min 12/04/2024 AC Minutes 1 Minutes Town of Lexington Appropriation Committee (AC) December 4, 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 (8:00 p.m.); Carolyn Kosnoff, Assistant Town Manager, Finance (non-voting, ex officio) Members Absent: none Other Attendees: Charles Lamb, Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC); Lisah Rhodes, CEC; Lisa N.; Kathleen Lenihan, School Committee; Tom Shiple; Roshan Padaki; Lana; Dawn McKenna; Taylor Singh; Vineeta Kumar; Brielle Kissel Meade; Lin Jensen; Mark; Stephen Wood At 7:34 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 forwarded a memorandum from the Recreation Department regarding its capital plan, and asked when the Recreation Department would reimburse the Town’s Reserve Fund for a $60,000 Reserve Fund transfer for emergency repairs at Pine Meadows Golf Course. Ms. Kosnoff replied that the reimbursement can be implemented as an adjustment to the current year’s budget at the 2025 Annual Town Meeting. Mr. Parker observed the department budget presentations earlier in the day. Review Lexington HS updates Mr. Levine reported that the School Building Committee voted to advance the “Bloom” option with an add/reno plan for the existing field house to the MSBA in the Preferred Schematic Report (PSR). They are in the process of choosing a construction manager. They hope to be on the agenda for the February meeting of the MSBA Board. Review FY2026 budget projections The November budget summit reviewed the FY2026 budget allocation calculations which established a 3.5% increase for municipal and School Department operating budgets. Ms. Kosnoff noted that the increase has since been adjusted to 3.6%, but the proposed budgets for both the School Department and the municipal departments request about 5.0% growth. The FY2026 municipal budget is currently short by $670,000 for funding a level-service budget that does not include any program improvements. At the moment, the FY2026 municipal budget relies on conservative assumptions for some revenues and expenses that will be better understood in mid-January. We are waiting for actual numbers on health insurance, state aid, and the assessment from the Minuteman Regional High School. The working assumption for health insurance is a 14% increase in premiums, based on guidance from the GIC. Every percentage point of the increase is equivalent to about $300,000. Ms. Kosnoff expressed hope that the increase will be lower than 14% before the budget is fixed. 12/04/2024 AC Minutes 2 There are large increases in two other items in the municipal budget. The first item is the compost collection program, which currently serves about 3,400 households and has been funded using ARPA funds for the last two years. The ARPA funding is expiring and if the Town wants to continue the program for up to 4,000 households, the cost of $396,000 would shift to the regular operating budget. The second item is Lexpress where the current contract expires at the end of the current fiscal year and bids are being sought for a new contract, which will be a 5-year contract with options for two 1-year extensions. The existing Lexpress buses are due for replacement, which will add significant cost in the new contract. The bids are due on December 12. The Town is hoping to find some grant funding to offset the increased expenses, and the Town may also tap the Transportation Demand Management Stabilization Fund. Mr. Bartenstein asked if we could have more detailed ridership data for Lexpress. Ms. Kosnoff said Susan Barrett, the Town’s Transportation Coordinator could provide the information, and recommended reviewing the report of the Ad Hoc Transportation Committee. Discussion of Financial Implications of MBTA Communities Zoning Mr. Parker suggested that the goal of the discussion should be to collect some good questions and some ways of framing the problem. He would like the Committee to discuss this issue with the new Town Manager. Mr. Levine noted that developers have already filed permits with the Planning Board for approximately 990 new dwelling units under the MBTA Community zoning. At the 2023 annual town meeting, the Planning Board had projected the Town could expect 400 to 800 new units developed over four to ten years. The Planning Board has approved plans for three developments, comprising 276 units. Mr. Levine cited comments from Mr. Patrick Mehr arguing that the Town will not collect enough property tax revenue from these new units to cover the additional expenses they will add to the Town’s capital and operating budgets. In addition, it is clear that somewhere in the neighborhood of another 9,000 units could be created under the MBTA Community zoning, although this number is an extremely rough estimate. In the most dire predictions, the Town would face a financial crisis. The zoning approved in response to the MBTA Communities Act places very few limits on the number or density of housing units, so for example, one proposed development requests approval of a density of 70 units per acre. The state’s goal for Lexington is a zoning allowance for 1,231 new dwelling units, but the zoning bylaws approved by the 2023 ATM appear to allow an order of magnitude higher number. The impacts to the Town potentially include crowded schools, increased traffic, and difficulty maintaining the necessary infrastructure for water and wastewater facilities. Mr. Michelson suggested that the Town should take steps to limit potential developments to some lower ceiling. He asked about the financial and legal consequences of changes to the zoning bylaws, and whether the Town could place a time limit on the opportunity to develop residential units under the current zoning bylaws, or whether the Town would be able to reduce the number of acres that could be developed. Mr. Levine responded that the Town can change its zoning bylaws, but anyone who applied for a site plan review in advance of the changes would likely be exempt from any newly imposed restrictions. Mr. Michelson commented that the discussion of escalating school enrollment costs that quotes average costs per student does not properly account for the marginal increase in expenses when enrollments increase. There is elasticity throughout the school system to accept new students with 12/04/2024 AC Minutes 3 minimal impact. While costs must increase after certain thresholds are crossed, a simple extrapolation is not a valid projection. Mr. Osborne spoke about the impact on water and wastewater infrastructure. He has spoken to the Town Engineer, who stated that the Town and a developer must engage a third-party review to consider the impact of a development on the need for new infrastructure. These costs are generally paid by the developer. Mr. Bartenstein questioned whether developers would have to cover any other infrastructure-related expenses, such as streetlights or road improvements. He also wondered if the Town had the capacity to build another school if enrollment grew to the point that the high school could not accommodate a 9-12 grade student body. Finally, he expressed concern about the transition of some commercially zoned land to residential use, which would result in lower property tax revenue per square foot. Mr. Osborne noted that developers may decide to reduce the size of a development in order to reduce the additional costs for infrastructure improvements they would otherwise be required to cover. Ms. Yan expressed concern about possible needs for new school buildings and about the impact on class size that could result from growing school enrollment. School teachers have gone on strike to demand lower class sizes in other communities. Mr. Parker suggested that the Appropriation Committee should draft a memorandum to the Select Board, Town Manager, and Planning Board summarizing our questions and concerns. Mr. Parker asked the Committee to consider the history of the Town’s population growth over the decades from 1950 onward, which included periods of rapid growth, stagnation, and even loss. From 2010 to 2020, the population increased by 10% and the Committee should examine how that growth spurt impacted the Town. Mr. Michelson commented that in previous decades the Town had more land available to increase school infrastructure, but almost all of the land is now either developed or protected by conservation restrictions. The only remaining land available to the Town is on Laconia Street, which would be a challenging site to develop. Mr. Levine commented that development in the 1950s and 1960s was primarily single-family homes, which, on a household basis, yield greater property tax revenue with lower impact on services. In addition, the demand for special education services has grown significantly since the 1950s. Mr. Parker returned to the topic of the Committee’s memorandum and suggested that Mr. Levine and Mr. Michelson should co-author the first draft, with Mr. Padaki acting as a reviewer. He suggested that the draft should be presented in the first or second week of January. Minutes of Prior Meetings No minutes were ready for approval. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 8:49 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Glenn P. Parker 12/04/2024 AC Minutes 4 Approved: December 18, 2024 Exhibits ● Agenda, posted by Mr. Parker