Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-01-09-AC-min 1/9/2025 AC Minutes 1 Minutes Town of Lexington Appropriation Committee (AC) January 9, 2025 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); Vineeta Kumar; Dawn McKenna; Taylor Singh; Brielle Meade; Michaela Barnes; Lisah Rhodes (CEC) At 7:33 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 None. Review Committee Memorandum The committee reviewed a memorandum drafted by Mr. Levine with help from Mr. Michelson and Mr. Padaki. The memorandum addressed the potential economic impact of new residential develop- ment under the MBTA Communities zoning bylaw. Several members had not yet read the memo- randum and had no comments to offer. Mr. Parker suggested that the section on the economics of development could be condensed to a sin- gle paragraph. He objected to the assertion that the projected development in Lexington would be insufficient to satisfy the housing deficit in the region, since no single community was expected to solve a regional crisis on its own. Instead, he noted that if every community provided the same op- portunities for new development that Lexington already had, that would make a notable difference in the regional housing deficit. Mr. Parker asserted that neighboring communities were not providing the same level of opportunity for new developments. Mr. Bartenstein referred to a list of letters from the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) informing towns and cities that they are in compli- ance with the MBTA Communities Act, and commented that most communities are either certified as being in compliance with the Act or have interim compliance pending certification by the state. He also referred to a table of compliance status on the EOHLC web site1. Mr. Parker acknowledged the point, while observing that of Lexington’s seven abutting communities, only Arlington and Lin- coln were listed as being in full compliance as of October 1, 2024. Mr. Bartenstein suggested that the memorandum should include further discussion of this point. 1 https://www.mass.gov/info-details/multi-family-zoning-requirement-for-mbta-communities#com- plying-with-section-3a- 1/9/2025 AC Minutes 2 Mr. Michelson noted that the Lexington Center overlay district, which specifically requires mixed uses, is not compliant with the EOHLC guidelines even though the guidelines have been revised to count mixed use districts under certain conditions. The Lexington Center overlay district may not satisfy a condition on parking requirements. Mr. Parker suggested that the memorandum could recognize the impact of greater economic activity resulting from denser population in retail districts when evaluating the overall financial impact. One response was that this did not seem pertinent to the question of tax revenue and budgetary expenses. The discussion covered the impact of residential development on parcels that were previously zoned for commercial development only, noting that the property tax shift means residential properties generate roughly half the tax revenue based on assessed value. Mr. Parker suggested that the memorandum’s modeling for the tax revenue and expenses should be based on more fine-grained data about the size and type of apartment dwellings that are expected, rather than broad assumptions about the ratio of apartments to condominiums. Mr. Bartenstein reminded the Committee that the Select Board has also contracted for a consultant to do a study on the impact to the Town, which should be available around the end of February to mid-March. He hopes the memorandum will be consistent with the findings of the study; any differ- ences will require further discussion. In any case, the memorandum should reference the study. Mr. Parker suggested that the memorandum should avoid speculation in situations where there is insufficient data available. For example, the memorandum states that budget gaps could lead to re- duced spending per-student and other reductions in municipal services, but this assertion does not consider various options for closing a budget gap that would avoid spending reductions in some or all of these areas. Mr. Parker noted that the memorandum is somewhat ambivalent in its projections, stating that it is impossible to predict how development will proceed, while also providing highly detailed numerical projections. Mr. Michelson expressed concern about the differences in property tax revenue from apartments versus condominiums. He also observed that future development could require the Town to invest in a third fire station. Mr. Lamb noted that the Fire Chief only has plans to add a third ladder truck at this time, which would not require another station. Ms. Kosnoff noted that the state Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) reports an- nually on the cost-per-student for every city and town, and their number for Lexington, that may be around $24,000, is almost 20% lower than the amount currently used in the memorandum ($29,600). The DESE number for LPS does not include the costs from Minuteman Regional HS, but there is a separate DESE number for MRHS that could be proportionally averaged to get an overall number. Mr. Levine asked Mr. Parker to work on an update for the memorandum, and for Committee mem- bers to share any other comments directly with him. The timing of publishing this memo was discussed with respect to the timing of the Committee re- port to the special town meeting, and whether it should be part of that report. A number of members thought the memo should be published when it is completed and reference it in the report to the spe- cial town meeting. 1/9/2025 AC Minutes 3 2025-1 Special Town Meeting Mr. Parker suggested that the Committee’s report to the 2025-1 STM should be published on Mon- day March 10, one week prior to the expected reconvening of the STM. The Committee should wait to see the Select Board study and the results of the Planning Board’s public hearing for Article 2 of the STM. Mr. Bartenstein reminded the Committee that he and Mr. Levine are working with the proponent of Article 2 for the STM. Mr. Bartenstein summarized the work of Carol Sacerdote to petition for a special town meeting. The draft motion would initiate a pause in development to absorb the currently planned construction, af- ter which the Town could decide how to adapt its MBTA Communities Zoning bylaws for the fu- ture. The motion must be considered by the Planning Board before town meeting can take it up. The motion was delivered to the Planning Board on January 6, and that board plans to initiate a public hearing during the second week of February. This led the Moderator to schedule town meeting’s de- bate on the motion on March 17. Mr. Michelson asked what options developers would have to file for building permits in advance of any changes to the zoning bylaws. Mr. Bartenstein stated that the situation was complicated, but there is a way for some property owners to file documentation prior to the date of the town meeting vote that would allow them to avoid being subject to any changes resulting from town meeting’s ac- tion. Mr. Parker stated that the Committee report would disclose Mr. Bartenstein’s and Mr. Levine’s sup- port for the proponent of the article. Mr. Parker confirmed that Mr. Bartenstein will be attending all the relevant Planning Board meetings. 2025 Annual Town Meeting Mr. Bartenstein asked if there were any special topics that would be discussed at the upcoming Jan- uary 30 budget summit with the publication of the White Book. Ms. Kosnoff stated that a few capi- tal projects would be deferred, which was a first during her tenure with the Town. The municipal side has been brought into balance while providing a level service budget. The school side still faces an unresolved budget gap of several million dollars. The Town will be working to resolve that, but Ms. Kosnoff does not expect any windfall Chapter 70 funding as occurred two years prior. Mr. Levine asked about progress on the Police Station solar canopy project. Ms. Kosnoff replied that bids had not been received yet, and there has been no further clarification on the anticipated federal funding. Mr. Padaki asked about the School Department’s FY2025 spending freeze. Ms. Kosnoff replied that the School Department expects it will be able to manage the current year’s operating budget with no additional funding. Ms. Verma presented the list of spending requests for the Community Preservation Committee (CPC). Mr. Parker asked about the project to build new fields at Harrington School. Ms. Kosnoff noted that the CPC request for this project was originally expected to provide $4 million along with a $2 million supplement from the General Fund. The CPC’s funding on this project is now far be- low $4 million, and the Town is not prepared to make up the total cost difference. The results of the design work for the new fields will influence whether this project can go forward in FY2026. Mr. Parker asked if this would impact the high school project. Ms. Kosnoff replied that the pro- posed siting of the new high school has been adjusted to preserve access to two fields, and the 1/9/2025 AC Minutes 4 Harrington fields were no longer deemed critical by the Recreation Committee. Ms. Kosnoff con- firmed that the appropriation for demolition of old Harrington would proceed, and the School Cen- tral Administration would relocate to 173 Bedford St even if the fields are not built this year. Ms. Kosnoff stated that the Article 97 land swap article would likely be deferred to a fall special town meeting. Status Update for the Lexington High School Project The last full School Building Committee meeting was held prior to the previous meeting of our committee and the next one will be held on Monday, January 13. There were no other updates. Minutes of Prior Meetings Minutes from the Committee meeting on November 6 were approved by a vote of 8-0. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned by roll call vote at 9:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Glenn P. Parker Approved: January 23, 2025 Exhibits ● Agenda, posted by Mr. Parker ● Draft memorandum to the Select Board