2021-06-28 SB-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 1. Approve Amendment to the Regional Housing Services Office Agreement This amendment is being proposed due to a decrease in Lexington’s member cost, caused when Maynard joined the consortium. VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 5-0 by roll call to authorize the Town Manager to execute the amendment to the agreement between the Town of Lexington and the Regional Housing Services Office for FY22. DOCUMENTS PRESENTED: FY22 RHSO IMA Amendment 2. Review and Approve Amendment to Community Choice Aggregation A consensus of the Board is requested as to whether to move forward on a proposal to amend the current Community Choice Aggregation Plan. Stella Carr, Sustainability Director, offered two possible amendments: 1) Add a nominal operational “adder fee” (roughly 80 cents per household per month) 2) Authorize the town to provide low-income community solar through the aggregation. Mr. Lucente asked if other communities had already adopted these changes. Paul Gromer of Peregrine Energy Group, a consultant for the Town re Community Choice Aggregation, reported that the fee (expressed in Option #1) is not yet what he would call commonplace, however communities such as Cambridge, Worcester, Nantucket, and Grafton have instituted it. Option #2 (for low-income community solar) is a newer opportunity. Mr. Gromer believes there will be a lot of interest in it. Mr. Lucente said he wants to learn more about the low-income solar option but is not ready to move ahead at this time. About the adder fee, Mr. Lucente said he is uncomfortable adding another cost for residents, even though it is small, especially since it is unclear what the revenue would be used for. Mr. Pato said he is more familiar with the two proposals because he was in attendance at the Sustainable Lexington meeting when the same presentation was given. His priority is to make sure that the fee would not push the cost of 100% renewable, locally sourced energy higher than conventionally sourced energy. Mr. Pato said he nonetheless recognizes there is a cost to paying the staff to work on sustainability issues for the Town and he is not opposed to finding ways to offset those costs. He further noted that low- income households would benefit from the solar program and that competition for the funding will become fierce once the project is ready to launch and he would like Lexington to be ready to take action. Ms. Hai said she, too, is uncomfortable adding a fee without an identified purpose for the revenue, although if a proposal is made that includes a purpose, she is open to considering it. She also agreed it would be advantageous for Lexington to be poised to act on the low-income solar funding. Ms. Barry reported that she did not receive all the supporting detail for this item in a timely fashion. She suggested that when new information is introduced, members with deeper knowledge consider helping others on the Board via one-on-one meetings to shorten the Board’s learning curve. Ms. Barry asked whether the revenue from the fee had to be used for things related to electricity and solar. Ms. Carr said the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) requires the fee revenue to be dedicated to 3