Summary of Management Needs

Sustaining Level of Service

Currently, the Lexington Conservation Office employs three year-round staff (a full-time director, a full-time coordinator, and a part-time ranger). To manage the 1,400+ acres of town-owned conservation land and easements, approximately 1,000 volunteer hours are used annually. According to the Value of Volunteer Time produced by Independent Sector, 1,000 volunteer hours equate to approximately $36,380 in donated time. Given the reliance on volunteerism, a volatile workforce, several potential actions can be taken based on public feedback to continue improving and enhancing Lexington’s conservation areas: • Increase volunteerism • Pursue shared services agreements with other departments and organizations • Hire more dedicated staff • Pursue contracted maintenance services when appropriate • Increase dedicated funding for staff training, conservation management, and tools and supplies At a minimum, more resources are necessary to maintain the existing and future conservation land system. Enhancements are desired today, and any future system expansion will immediately affect level of service if commensurate resources are not provided simultaneously with the acquisition of new spaces. Additionally, a performance measure should be created that identifies the desired number of full-time equivalents (FTE) per maintained acre of open space. If including average number of volunteer hours donated annually, there are approximately 2.7 FTE maintaining the system. A closer examination is warranted to understand the number of actively maintained acres (acres that require/necessitate active resource management or maintenance activities) and the FTE level that is required to effectively maintain those acres to meet both resource goals and community expectations. Establishing a metric based on required maintenance activities will provide the Town of Lexington with a guide for staff development. Two of the five recommended potential actions from above are explained further in the following sections.

Contracted Services Considerations

Many agencies utilize third-party, or contractors, for maintenance services. Typically applied to more “active” recreation areas, the same ideology can be applied to conservation lands. For Lexington, this notion is relevant because of the reliance on volunteer services and the need to create flexibility in the way it manages and oversees conservation lands. The Town of Lexington should adopt and implement a contracted services matrix/guide to assist with decision-making if (and when) contracted services are a potential appropriate source of assistance (Figure 7). Each criterion in the matrix/guide addresses a different facet of contracting maintenance services that allow for a data-driven decision to occur. Once each criterion is vetted and the score calculated, contracted services receiving a twelve (12) or above should be considered for an agreement. After the review and scoring process, the Town of Lexington should then identify the type and length of the ideal maintenance/service agreement/contract (such as fixed/variable cost or annual).

Contracted Services Matrix/Guide Criterion Score Consideration Response

A Yes = 2 Some = 1 No = 0 Will this allow us to direct (or redirect) resources and attention to our core competencies?

B Yes = 2 Some = 1 No = 0 Does contracting this service address an operational issue(s)?

C Yes = 2 Some = 1 No = 0 Does contracting this service increase the ability to stay current with technology and maintenance practices?

D More = 2 Same = 1 Less = 0 What is our unit cost compared to a contracted cost?

E Yes = 2 Some = 1 No = 0 Do we have the capacity (or can create it) for contract administration, oversight, and management?

F Yes = 2 Some = 1 No = 0 Will contracting this service increase the lifespan and/or performance of an asset?

G Yes = 2 Some = 1 No = 0 Will contracting this service increase (or at least maintain) our desired level of standard/care?

H Yes = 2 Some = 1 No = 0 Is this contracted service something that we cannot do ourselves for whatever reason(s)?* *If yes, mandated contracted service

Score (12 or above should contract)

Figure 7: Contracted Services Matrix/Guide

Funding Identification

Based on public engagement, the top three improvements residents would be most willing to support with their tax dollars include: 1) Enhancing existing conservation areas 2) Acquiring land for conservation 3) Increasing maintenance of trails and boardwalks Given this information, a funding source matrix should be created to help identify federal, state, and local funding sources along with potential project(s) that would most align with the funding source’s goals. Additionally, funds should be identified that can assist with staff training, development, and tools and materials acquisitions as appropriate. The following funding sources and funding methods should be included (at a minimum) in a funding matrix: • Land and Water Conservation Fund • Parkland Acquisitions and Renovations for Communities (PARC) Grant Program • Local Acquisitions for National Diversity (LAND) Grant Program • Gateway City Parks Grant Program • Landscape Partnership Grant Program • Conservation Partnership Grant Program • Drinking Water Supply Protection (DWSP) Grant Program • Conservation Land Tax Credit Program (private donations) • Enterprise Fund • Cash capital • Community Preservation Act (CPA)

Open Space and Recreation Facility Management Plans

As a result of the previous OSRP, Lexington has created Open Space and Recreation Facility Management Plans for many areas. The intent of these plans is to outline how to best utilize the existing Town management structures and resources, determine short- and long-term site goals, and create a schedule of maintenance activity. To continue meeting community expectations, it is necessary to continue increasing efforts to combat invasive species, enhance native habitats and wetlands, prevent encroachments, and schedule appropriate maintenance activities. As identified by the statistically-valid community survey, residents believe maintenance of open spaces should receive the most emphasis from the Town of Lexington over the next five years. Land management plans should be created for those properties that do not have one developed. Additionally, existing land management plans should be reviewed regularly for implementation status and should be placed on a review and update schedule to keep the information responsive to site challenges, best practices, and community expectations.

112 TOWN OF LEXINGTON | OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PLAN 7 YEAR UPDATE