The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2025-05-15-AC-min5/15/2025 AC Minutes Minutes Town of Lexington Appropriation Committee (AC) May 15, 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; Alan Levine, Secretary; Anil Ahuja; John Bartenstein; Eric Michelson; Vinita Verma; Carolyn Kosnoff, Assistant Town Manager, Finance (non-voting, ex officio) Members Absent: Sean Osborne; Sanjay Padaki, Vice -Chair; Lily Yan Other Attendees: Lisah Rhodes, Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC); Mark Sandeen, Select Board 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 Mr. Levine gave a brief report about the School Building Committee meeting on May 12. The top- ics discussed included recommendations regarding HVAC systems, vehicular circulation around the building, exterior finishes, and the exterior appearance. Ms. Kosnoff added that, at a recent meeting, the Select Board discussed expectations regarding the cost of the project and possible value engi- neering efforts. Alternatives for the HVAC System in a New Lexington High School Mr. Sandeen presented a set of slides and led a discussion of four alternative concepts for the heat- ing, ventilating, and cooling (HVAC) system in the proposed new Lexington High School. There are major differences in the financial aspects of the four system options. For a full analysis, it is es- sential to look at the integrated life cycle costs which include both up -front (construction) costs as well as the net operational costs and revenues over many years. The four options all yield high posi- tive cash flows over 30 years relative to the hypothetical baseline system consisting of a gas-fired boiler for heating and an air chiller for air conditioning. Mr. Sandeen briefly described the four options. Option 3 is recommended by the design team, Sus- tainable Lexington, Public Facilities staff, and the Permanent Building Committee. The annual -av- erage cooling load is expected to be about twice as high as the heating load. Option 3 includes ground -source heat pumps sized to address the heating load and about half of the cooling load. Air source heat pumps would address the remainder of the cooling load. The performance of each option was modelled using a variety of assumptions. The major assump- tions involved the availability of Inflation Reduction Act subsidies, the level of energy use in the building, and the size of the solar panel array. Two levels of energy use were modelled because, as Mr. Sandeen noted, the actual energy use in the new Hastings School is 32% higher than projected by the team that designed it. The performance of the solar panels has been assumed to degrade by 0.5% per year. Option 2, air source heat pumps, and Option 3, a hybrid combination of ground -and air -source heat pumps, came out significantly better than the other options in terms of cash flow over 30 years. The 5/15/2025 AC Minutes differences in the projected cash flows are small compared to the overall assumption -related uncer- tainty in each of those cash flows. Most pieces of air -source and ground -source heat pump equipment have expected lives of 15 and 20 years, respectively. Mr. Bartenstein asked about net present values instead of cash flows. Mr. Sandeen said the models yield net present values but that he did not have them with him. In response to a question, Mr. Sandeen stated that the models included inflation factors for the cost of electricity. Mr. Sandeen emphasized that the up -front costs of each of the four (all -electric) options is signifi- cantly lower than the up -front cost of a conventional gas boiler/air chiller system. Discussion of Draft Consultants' Report on MBTA Housing Impacts The Committee discussed the Fougere Report and the draft Committee commentary on that report. Mr. Parker mentioned that he had received a message from Tom Shiple which encouraged this Committee to note agreement with much of the content of the Fougere Report in terms of the im- pacts of the first 1,100 or so units. Mr. Parker emphasized that the scope of the Fougere Report is limited to the first 1,100 units while this Committee's reports consider the impacts of housing de- velopment beyond that number, i.e., potentially up to 3 or 4 times more than the first 1,100 units. Mr. Levine said that he doesn't fully agree with Mr. Shiple's conclusion, i.e., this Committee and the Fougere Report do agree in terms of the student enrollment increase per new dwelling unit and on the new tax revenue that may be expected per unit but do not agree on the marginal cost of each additional student. Mr. Michelson said that the description of the major shortcomings of the Fougere Report could be more clear, particularly in the executive summary and conclusions sections. Ms. Verma appreciated the inclusion in the draft commentary that a new high school could attract additional students, particularly since no similar cautionary statement may be found in the Fougere Report. Mr. Bartenstein pointed out that the Fougere Report does not discuss whether the Town may face significant costs for municipal capital needs such as sidewalk, road, or traffic signal work related to the impacts of new developments. Larchmont Lane is an example of a small street that is the sole access to a large property that is the subject of a zoning freeze. He is unsure whether the developers would be responsible for the cost of any required improvements. Both Mr. Bartenstein and Ms. Kosnoff suggested that the scope of the responsibility of developers for infrastructure improvements needs to be clarified. Mr. Bartenstein asked about the goals of issuing comments on the Fougere Report, and would like to see a statement about the Committee goals in the document. He would also like an opportunity to discuss a revised version of this Committee's commentary in a future meeting before the June sum- mit. Ms. Kosnoff said that in the last five years the enrollment in the public schools declined by about 400 students while the number of school employees rose by 200 persons. This sets up expectations for future school budget growth that are not acknowledged in the Fougere Report. There was discussion of the per -student marginal cost figures in the Fougere Report and whether they are reasonable or too low. Mr. Parker looked at spending numbers for Lexington on the DESE 5/15/2025 AC Minutes web site and, on that basis, thinks the Fougere Report numbers may be reasonable. Mr. Levine countered by saying that the per -student marginal cost will increase if the enrollment increases by many more than 500 students. Mr. Parker emphasized that the increase in enrollment will not hap- pen all at once but rather will occur over five to ten years. Committee Liaisons Mr. Parker presented a list of Committee liaison assignments. Mr. Bartenstein added that he would monitor the upcoming water/sewer rate study. Future Meetings Meetings were planned for May 29, June 12, and June 26. End of the fiscal year business will be conducted at the meeting on June 26. Minutes No minutes were ready to be approved. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned by roll call vote at 9:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Alan M. Levine Approved: June 12, 2025 Exhibits • Agenda, posted by Mr. Parker • Presentation on LHS HVAC choices from Mr. Sandeen • Draft Committee commentary on the Fougere Report