By Marya Dantzer
The Planning Board met with the Finance Committee on January 12 to request a FY2015 $176,798 budget, an increase of $11,500 beyond the committee’s guideline. The increase would allow the expansion of the Assistant Planner from 24 to 40 hours per week.
Jeff Cohen, Planning Board chair, said that since Bedford’s developable land is 95% built-out, the town faces “an era of redevelopment,” if it is to expand the value of the commercial tax base which has eroded relative to residential revenue in recent years
He pointed out that in contrast to Lexington’s investments in the Hanscom Road area, for example, Bedford’s commercial infrastructure in areas such as Crosby Drive, Wiggins Ave., and DeAngelo Drive is aging. Properties in these areas “don’t have the allure they did 50 years ago”—because they do not meet the needs of modern industries or employers—placing Bedford at a competitive disadvantage against surrounding communities in attracting developer proposals. Ameliorating this situation will require a thorough review and update of the industrial mixed-use zoning bylaw, which he called a top priority, and a time-consuming endeavor. “We can’t just borrow [some other] town’s bylaw and tweak it,” he said. The Planning Board considers these updates integral to “expanding the tax base to improve quality of life in the town.”
The Board’s budget request represents an increase of $11,500 over the guideline to allow the Assistant Planner Catherine Perry’s part-time position to increase to full-time. The $11,500 covers part of the associated salary increases while economies within the department cover the remainder. The cost of employee benefits would not increase. All five members of the Planning Board attended the Finance Committee meeting, underscoring their support of the increase above guideline.
Planning Board chair Jeffrey Cohen opened his presentation by commending the Planning Department’s work on the Town Comprehensive Plan released at the end of December (https://www.bedfordma.gov/planning/pages/comprehensive-plan ) noting that the Comprehensive Plan represented an extraordinary, largely in-house effort by Planning Department staff. In the context of that “mission accomplished,” he acknowledged, one might expect the Planning Department’s workload to decrease. But he pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan contains “dozens of action items that call for the Planning Board to take the lead.” To address them strategically, the Board believes that the Town must invest in research and regulatory changes, a conclusion the Board reached at its January 9 meeting, Planning Director Garber substantiated the budget proposal with documentation showing the Planning Department’s past, present, and projected workload. Perry’s work in the 18 months since she was hired, he said, enabled the department to develop across-the-board systems for electronic record-keeping and submission of development plans, more closely track developer compliance, and improve functionality of the department website, as well as to “minimize cost by doing as much as possible in-house,” for example, special studies and the extensive process of producing the Comprehensive Plan. He also wants to invest effort in pursuing state funding for the Great Road Master Plan.
Garber distributed materials to the Finance Committee that showed an array of future actions, more than a dozen of them tagged “critical priority,” in which the Planning Board will play a primary or secondary role. Responding to a question from Committee member Barbara Perry, Garber said, “Zoning from the 1960s doesn’t reflect today’s economy”; zoning revisions, which could take as much as two years to effect, are crucial to promote economic development and generate revenue.” Garber also advocated stepping up the data-driven approach the Planning Department has been using to address long-term concerns. For example, he said, “We want to better understand the strip commercial area [the complex that includes Stop & Shop], which needs more capacity. That site is screaming for area study.”
Given these needs and actions, “I don’t think the agenda will diminish at all,” he predicted, adding that the work level required to produce the Comprehensive Plan—“70 hours a week, holidays, no vacation” for well over a year—is unsustainable on an ongoing basis. Bedford’s Planning Department staffing is more limited than that of surrounding towns, he explained, despite Bedford’s less frequent resort to services from external consultants. Both Garber and Planning Board members referred to this approach in ways that indicated it is both a point of pride and a caution about not overstretching personnel.
The Board addressed three principal questions:
1) Why is increased staff expenditure necessary?
Consensus among the Planning Board members after meeting with Garber on January 9 was that the work of planning has become increasingly complex, requiring both greater expertise and greater investment of time. Board member Sandra Hackman endorsed Garber’s assertion that rezoning is “urgent,” and that current staffing is inadequate to planned initiatives. She emphasized, too, the importance of planning staff investing time in coordinating with other town departments, including a part-time economic development coordinator the Town is currently seeking to hire, as another argument for increasing Assistant Planner Catherine Perry’s hours. “They [planning staff] do high-level analysis,” she said. “I’m concerned about burnout.” Planning Board member Amy Lloyd stressed that absent increased attention to data collection and zoning “we’re going to miss out” when Bedford is in competition with other towns.
Finance Committee member Richard Bowen supported the Planning Department conducting studies in-house as much as possible, calling this “a major investment for the Town.” For example, with respect to the Comprehensive Plan, he told Garber, “Because you gathered the data it’s in your head, not a consultant’s.” Nevertheless, he noted that the budget proposal did not include funds for external consultant services: “What if you need more expertise, then what?” Garber said that increasing Catherine Perry’s hours is a measure designed to add expert capacity, noting that she already holds an English planning certification and is now working toward a U.S. certificate. Hackman added that the PLANNING BOARD planned to seek Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (MAPC) targeted local funding next year for technical assistance.
2) Would increasing the Planning Board budget above guideline negatively impact other Town departments?
The Finance Committee’s recommended budget increment for all Town departments is three percent. Thanks to earlier-than-normal receipt of state aid figures for the next fiscal year, the Town’s projected revenue can be estimated with some confidence. This means that the proportion of revenue allocated to each Town department, as represented in the Finance Committee guidelines, has already been weighed and balanced; raising any department’s budget beyond the guideline amount would disrupt that balance, Finance Committee member Robert Kenney observed.
Moreover, Finance Committee member Thomas Busa argued, development can incur costs as well as revenue, such as increases in use of Town services and in the school population; Steele seconded this concern, pointing to the 2005 Avalon Drive development, which drew more families with children than anticipated. Recognizing that multifamily development (and moderate-income units within them) had become controversial for some citizens, Hackman and Finance Committee member Barbara Perry noted that some of this concern is moot given that the percentage of moderate-income units in Town is now comfortably above the state mandate. Cohen suggested that a more significant contributor to student enrollment between 2000 and 2014 had been construction of 299 new single-family residences, and 122 residential teardowns and their replacement by larger homes. Yet Hackman pointed out that large employers “do ask for housing.” Speaking to concerns about outcomes, she said the PLANNING BOARD conducts fiscal impact studies; the 2008 Taylor Pond Village, for example, contributes positively to revenue.
3) How would increased Planning Department endeavor affect the life of the Town, fiscally, environmentally, and socially?
This question, more than any other, addresses the role and contribution of planning with respect to town as a whole; and ultimately, it became the fulcrum of the Planning Board’s decision to advocate for higher spending. Echoing the title of the Comprehensive Plan, “The Bedford We Want,” Planning Board member Amy Lloyd summarized this issue as “the difference between being reactive and being proactive—achieving the development we want.” She cited study of traffic congestion, patterns, and alternatives as an example of a planning activity that holds potential benefits for everyone in town and all who travel to or through Bedford. Finance Committee member Stephen Steele spoke to this broader issue, as he asked, “What if we don’t change the zoning laws?” Responded Cohen, “The structures and facilities we have now are restrictive; businesses say there are more attractive places to relocate.” Several Finance Committee members appeared to find this argument compelling. Finance Committee member Stephen Carluccio said, “I would have a hard time not supporting this. Let’s put it in perspective: it’s $11,000 out of an $80 million budget. Planning is a priority of the Town.” Finance Committee member Bowen agreed, “I don’t like 5% tax increases, and changing that is in your hands.”
No decision will be forthcoming on the Planning Board’s budget proposal until the Finance Committee has reviewed requests from all departments in Town, something that will take place during the next several weeks.
Loading ...
