Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-04-BOS-min Selectmen’s Meeting April 7, 2004 A regular meeting of the Board of Selectmen was held on Monday, April 7, 2004 at the Clarke Middle School Cafeteria at 6:00 p.m. Chairman McKenna, Mrs. Krieger, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Pagett; Mr. White, Town Manager; and Ms. Pease, Executive Clerk were present. Selectmen Concerns and Liaison Reports Mr. Kelley said the Tax Deferral and Exemption Study Committee has scheduled a meeting for Thursday, April 8, 2004 at 9:00 a.m. at the Senior Center. The public is welcome to attend and hear options the committee is considering. Mrs. McKenna said the Board had received a copy of a letter from the Lexington Youth Lacrosse Face-off Festival that was held on Lincoln Park. The event was a huge success and the Youth Lacrosse thanked the Recreation Department by sending a check for $1,000. Lawn Signs Jackie Davison and Beverly Kelley came to the meeting to discuss lawn signs. The sign by-law states signs have to be 10 feet from the roadway and they need to be removed 7 days after the event. Ms. Davison and Ms. Kelley would like the Board to support a non-binding, voluntary agreement to retrain from using lawn signs prior to 30 days before an election, an override, debt exclusion or any other campaign in the Town of Lexington. Mrs. Krieger is not in support. Signs were very important to her campaign. Mr. Pagett feels signs generate discussion and dialogue and that they are not offensive. Mrs. McKenna asked people to focus on Patriot’s Day and refrain from putting signs up until after. Mr. Kelley is in favor, but not just for political campaigns. Signs diminish neighborhoods. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 2-3 (Krieger, Kennedy, Pagett) to not support a non-binding, voluntary agreement to refrain from using law signs prior to 30 days before an election, an override, debt exclusion, or any other campaign in the Town of Lexington. Comment Period – Override Structure There are five override options: one single bundled question, one municipal and one school questions, three or four tiers of balanced services, separate questions for each department, and value-driven. The School Committee will be discussing the options and will be prepared to discuss at the Summit meeting, but they know it is Selectmen decision. Selectmen’s Meeting – April 7, 2004 Several residents commented on their preferences for an override. Several wanted choice, but for the questions to be simple. Many wanted a singled bundled override. The residents understand the difficult decision the Selectmen have to make and appreciate its hard work. Some residents concerned about pitting different groups against each other. All felt education was the key to getting any override passed. Cathy Gill, Precinct 7 and Yes Campaign, shared information she received from the Massachusetts Municipal Association on the structure of overrides; tiered not widely used. Results of survey confirm that voters want choice. It is important for Selectmen to be responsive to request for choice and the schools need to support the override structure because of the 75-25 split. Mrs. McKenna thanked everyone for the comments. Article Assignments Article 38, Fire Department Under Civil Service Law Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to not support Article 38. Article 41, Long Range Planning Committee Eph Weiss modified the motion to be more specific. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 1-4 (McKenna) to not support Article 41. Article 32, Increased Tax Exemptions for Seniors on Limited Income Mr. Mehr wants to broaden the eligibility for seniors by lowering the age to 65 in Article 31 to see how many people are eligible. Then would consider indefinite postponement of Article 32. Upon motion duly made and seconded it was voted to indefinitely postpone Article 32. Article 31, Senior Tax Relief The Committee voted to support COLA and would like to know whether there is support from the Board to include an amount on the override to cover better exemptions. There is sentiment among the Committee members that it would be nice to do more for the seniors, but essentially it feels deferrals are the best thing that can be done. Mrs. Krieger would be in favor of encouraging the Committee to go forward with making a recommendation and would like to be able to improve the qualifications for the severely modest amounts. She would like the opportunity to understand the assumptions of the estimates. Selectmen’s Meeting – April 7, 2004 The Committee is challenged with how it can accommodate a suggestion for a tax exemption increase for certain seniors that are in need and the consequences it might have on the budget. Difficult to identify how many people might take advantage of an exemption because the only way to fund the exemption is through the tax overlay account. Could find several thousand dollars in any particular year be claimed for an exemption and not be able to adjust for that in the budget because it would be money lost. With respect to deferrals, there has been a variety of effort on the state level to address the number of home rule petitions that the Committee is looking to advance. Deferrals are a different thing, the town has not lost that money indefinitely; it can be reclaimed and it can have options of short-term borrowing to keep that amount from being lost in operating budgets year to year. Mrs. Blier has been in touch with Mr. Kaufman and he feels it is possible to attach to attach a bill that could get passed sooner rather than later. There are also state laws coming that are much better exemption laws that the Committee highly supports, but we do not know when it will come through. Mr. Kennedy does not object to the committee looking into possibilities of exemptions, but personally prefers the deferral concept. If Mr. Mehr plans to offer a different motion under Article 31 he should get a copy to the Selectmen in order to include it in the weekend packet for review. If the Committee is interested in including a budget item in the override either come present at the Summit meeting tomorrow or get the information to the staff for the Board to review. Article 33, Removal and Installation of Utility Poles Paul Chernick discussed the Bedford litigation. Judge denied NStar junction against Bedford. Mrs. Krieger asked if we were embarking on litigation and if we should wait. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 0-5 to not support Article 33. Article 26, Municipal Electric Utility Plant Paul Hamburger suggested the Town bond in FY05 for the necessary funds. Repayment would not be until FY07. The money would sit until Town ready to use and it would not be on this or next year’s budget. Mr. Kennedy does not support; feels should wait to see what happens. Mr. Kelley is in support, but location needs to be discussed. He has lots of questions that need to be answered before he would be ready to use the money. Also would need to talk to Capital Expenditures and Appropriations. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 1-4 (Krieger) not to support Article 26. Selectmen’s Meeting – April 7, 2004 Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 5-0 to support reaffirming the work of Electric Utility Ad Hoc Committee. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 1-4 (McKenna) not to indefinitely postpone Article 33. Article 27, Engineering, Economic and Legal Feasibility Studies for a Lexington Municipal Electric Utility Article will be discussed at the next meeting of the Selectmen. Lexington Bicycle Advisory Committee Grant Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to grant permission to the Lexington Bicycle Advisory Committee to submit a grant application to the Department of Environmental Management for the Dunback Meadow Lexington Conservation Area Trail Improvements Project and to have the Chairman sign a cover letter. Mrs. Krieger wanted to recognize and comment on the enthusiasm of the Lexington Bicycle Advisory Committee and the excellent work they do for the community. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn at 7:55 p.m. A true record, Attest: Lynne A. Pease Executive Clerk Summit Meeting April 8, 2004 A joint meeting of the Board of Selectmen, School Committee and Finance Committees was held on Thursday, April 8, 2004 at 8:00 a.m. in the Lexington Senior Center. Chairman McKenna, Mrs. Krieger, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kelley and Mr. Pagett; Mr. White, Town Manager; and Ms. Pease, Executive Clerk were present. The Chairs of the School, Appropriations and Capital Expenditures Committees called their members to order. The purpose of the meeting was to tie up loose ends regarding health insurance and override options. Adjustment Discussion Boards discussed what to do with the revenue appropriation adjustment of $575,000. The Appropriations Committee is unanimously in favor of putting the money in the Stabilization Fund. Feels it would be unwise to earmark for FY05. The School Committee is unanimously in favor of putting the money in the Stabilization Fund. Town will have needs in FY05 and FY06. It would be most prudent and reasonable because it is a non-recurring item. The Capital Expenditures Committee unanimously supports putting money in stabilization fund. The Town Manager is concerned that the health insurance will be increasing 10-20 percent a year unless the state changes system. Four Selectmen are interested in reducing the total of the override. Suggest S1 (Revise School Curriculum Coordination Model), M1 (Community Development Regulatory Support Clerk - HDC/ZBA) and M2 (Cash Capital). Mrs. Krieger suggests putting the $575,000 in stabilization. The extra money should not be used for any recurring expense. The Selectmen will vote at the next meeting to take S1, M1 and M2 off the at-risk list and put the remaining money in the Stabilization Fund. The School Committee unanimously supports $250,000 capital amount for school technology for FY05. This is the proper number to maintain technology. Capital Expenditures will be reviewing the borrowing needed over the next 3 to 5 years. Selectmen are in support of including $250,000 for technology. Summit – April 8, 2004 At the next Selectmen’s meeting the Board will confirm override position, cleaning, unemployment, grant writer in manager office, and pilot question. Override Selectmen have strong feelings against the following options: single question, two questions, and tiered. Residents want simple choice. Some committee members regret that there was no support for a single bundled question. Need to present override to voters so all programs are important. Some feel it will be hard to education voters on the tiered option. All felt education was the key to getting the override passed. Ms. Brown concerned that the value-driven option does not communicate priorities. Separate questions would be very confusing. Leaning toward tiered. Feels can communicate priorities to voters. School Committee does not support the value-driven option. There will be open sessions planned for the community to attend to answer questions on the override. The Boards thanked Lauren McNeil and the Senior Center for their hospitality and the coffee and donuts. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn at 10:30 a.m. A true record, Attest: Lynne A. Pease Executive Clerk Selectmen’s Meeting April 12, 2004 A regular meeting of the Board of Selectmen was held on Monday, April 12, 2004, at the Clarke Middle School Cafeteria at 6:00 p.m. Chairman McKenna, Mrs. Krieger, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Pagett; Mr. White, Town Manager; and Ms. Pease, Executive Clerk were present. Selectmen Concerns and Liaison Reports Mr. Pagett is aware of changes to 2 articles that the Board has already taken a position on. On Article 40 the Board voted on 3/31 to not support. Proponent of the article, Mr. Bussgang, has indicated he will provide a substitute motion that includes forming a subcommittee. Handout will be available at town meeting. Mr. Pagett will be supporting. On Article 41 the Board voted on 4/7 to not support. Proponent Mr.Weiss will be revising motion to include a study committee. Mr. Pagett will be changing his position on the article. Mrs. McKenna mentioned that there are many wonderful events planned for Patriot’s Day and hopes all town residents will come. Also urge everyone to come to the morning ceremonies on the Battle Green. The Youth Parade is actually called the Youth Sunrise Parade and the reason for the parade is to honor the young people in the town. Mrs. McKenna reported that there is enough money in the Liberty Ride Selectmen’s Gift Account to cover the deficit and also the pilot program. This Friday is when the Concord/Lexington Liberty Ride pilot starts. This is the first public transportation link between the two communities. Urges everyone to take advantage. Public Safety Staffing Review Committee Mrs. McKenna introduced Mrs. Flynn, Chair of the Public Safety Staffing Review Committee, as a professor at Northeastern who is often featured on local television as the expert in criminal justice. The Selectmen take her comments with a great deal of heart and appreciate the work she has done. Mrs. Flynn also stated that she has worked over 30 years in criminal justice, has taught not only criminal justice but law enforcement corrections and is a court certified expert. She has also had the honor and pleasure to serve in the United Nations representing not only this nation, but also writing papers about personnel management issues and staffing. Mrs. Flynn sent her deepest sympathy to Leo McSweeney’s family on the loss of his mother. Our thoughts and prayers are very much with him. Mrs. Flynn expressed the committee’s appreciation to Richard Pagett the current Selectmen Liaison, as well as thanks to Kerry Evans from the Town Manager’s Office, and the efforts of Chief Casey and Chief Middlemiss. Selectmen’s Meeting – April 12, 2004 The Committee was appointed during the last week of December 2003. It is very diverse and represents many different viewpoints of Lexington citizens. Upon intensive analysis, which included interviews with management and staff, data collection, and the direct observations of police and fire activities, the Committee has identified critical needs for both departments. The Committee is still working on a final report; there are still more intensive meetings necessary to do the analysis of the staffing questionnaire. The final report will be submitted to the Board at the end of May. The comments tonight will consist of three different topics: a brief explanation for the FY05 budget request, a brief report on some key survey findings, and answering any questions the Board may have. The problems identified to date began long before the failure of last years override. We are talking about many years of sustained cuts for both departments. The Fire Department needs a full-time clerk. The Chief’s time is diverted from making decisions and handling personnel issues by all the required paperwork. There is no one that schedules appointments. A half-time person has been found, government funded, who will function as a half-time clerk and be dedicated to the Fire Station from March 15, 2004 to March 15, 2005. The Committee is requesting $3,510 to at least continue with the part-time clerk to cover from March 15, 2005 until the fiscal year ends (3.5 months). th Regarding the Police Department, the Committee has identified a critical need for an 8 dispatcher and one desk officer. Lexington used to have 9 dispatchers, lost one to the override. They currently operate with 7 dispatchers plus three part-timers and are doing much more than their contract requires. In 1992 Lexington was called upon to create the dispatching center and an emergency response system that would serve as a model for the nation and ensure that what happened to Kathleen Dempsey would never happen again. Twelve years later and the Town has not met that goal. There are currently two shifts that are open and they have to be staffed with overtime and when th they can’t find anybody the dispatchers have to man that desk for 16 hours in a row. The 8 dispatcher would not give 2 dispatchers for each of the three shifts, but the Committee thinks the th 8 dispatcher would help in bridging a very bad situation. The Committee is willing to forego the restoration of one traffic clerk in spite of the fact that the it would probably be a money making proposition. The Committee requests one Dispatcher at $38,558 and one Desk Officer at $40,837. Total request is $82,905. Selectmen’s Meeting – April 12, 2004 Three points: 1) medical – with strokes and heart attacks time is of the essence; 2) fire fighting starts with prevention; and 3) local police are the work horses of law enforcement. Ninety percent of police work is spent on order maintenance, peace keeping, breaking up fights, controlling crowds, intervening in domestic disputes, and most of all crime prevention and service. Lexington is not where it should be or where it could be and that has had a very demoralizing effect on the police department and we are hoping and praying that you will be able to help bridge the needs. Mr. Kennedy thanks for committee for their work. Mrs. McKenna felt it was extremely helpful to learn about the personnel policies and practices in order to be able to analyze the information received tonight. The additional dispatcher requested is in addition to the current at-risk on the override. The Committee feels that the traffic clerk should be able to pay for itself by having the traffic clerk out there all-day rather than part-time in the office and then have someone else doing the office work. Regarding dispatchers answering town calls, Mr. White said there is an emergency line that goes directly to the police station for water/sewer breaks and other emergencies that have been managed by the dispatcher at the police station for years and that will continue to be managed by them. They do the first call out for supervisors, deployment of staff to respond to the emergency. Mrs. McKenna asked that as we start the new model for a customer service desk, can we look at the calls going to the Police Station and see if there is a way to address that problem. Mrs. McKenna stated this is a very important issue for the community and she thanked the Committee for all its work. Budget Items Unemployment Appropriations Committee feels uncomfortable with Unemployment Compensation at risk. There is sentiment that either we need that money or not. If we don’t need the money it should be cut. If we do need it should be found in the base. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to take the $20,000 for Unemployment Compensation off the at-risk list and put remaining amount (approximately $8,800) left from the base budget in the Unemployment Compensation for a total of approximately $58,800. Selectmen’s Meeting – April 12, 2004 Grant Writer Position Currently at-risk is item M5 (Superintendent of Environmental Services/Grant Writer - $61,612). When the grant writer was discussed at last year’s goal setting meeting the regarding a grant writer it was suggested that the position belonged in the Town Manager’s Office and that it should be an integral part of the staff there and not be combined in the DPW line item. Mr. Kelley is not convinced the Town needs a full-time position grant writer. He is uncomfortable with the grant writer looking for grants, or soliciting grants, that might put the Town in a position were we would have to be supportive because often times grants come with percentages of a need and to the degree that there are grants out there that could be searched out, I am not sure it is a position that would justify a full-time appropriation. Willing to accept that could be a valuable investment for community and willing to consider a part-time position or an opportunity to put seed money into the Town Manager’s budget to allow a chance to explore what grant possibilities are out there. Would be willing to see the grant writer position funded at $25,000 and let the balance of the presently at-risk position (approximately $36,000) go to reduce the override request, which would put a $25,000 line item for a grant writer either as a part-time position for a position that might be considered to be put into place somewhere in the latter part of the FY05.) Try to shrink municipal budget appropriation by $36,000 reduce at-risk. A motion was made to support $25,000 for a part-time grant writer in some form to be determined later in the Town Manager’s Office and a reduction of $36,000 to the override request. Mr. Pagett seconded motion. Mrs. Krieger is concerned about losing the half-time position for the Supervisor of Environmental Services. It is that role that does the brokering of the waste, which has been very successful in continually getting a very good price for GAP below the guaranteed annual tonnage and has been successful in bringing $100,000 a year minimum in terms of those costs. It is that position that is responsible for recycling education, coordination of the 4 CRT collections of the 8 hazardous waste collections, for managing the composting service that we have at Hartwell Avenue, and for developing recycling programs in the schools. Very concerned about having a continued waste management program without the personnel to be able to administer these programs. Mr. Kennedy feels the position has been providing a very important function in the DPW. The Board has been decimating the DPW budget last year and this year and to continue that process would make a totally ineffective organization. This particular position has been very effective in saving the town a lot of money and thinks it should stay where it is. Selectmen’s Meeting – April 12, 2004 Mrs. McKenna said at last year’s goal setting we heard a presentation from Elaine Sterzin and the Board was unanimous for wanting a grant writer. I have a concern of reducing the grant writer to a part-time position because I feel very strongly that the grant writer is the right way for the community to go. Mr. Kelly’s suggestion would give the Town some time to look at what the best model is and find a part-time or full-time or consulting out some of these services initially. So I could probably support this as an option to go forward. Mr. Hadley asks that the Board vote the motion down; it would be a disservice to community. The purpose was to have a grant writer and an Environmental Services person doing both jobs. He had letters from the Board of Health’s for the Towns of Arlington, Bedford, and Lincoln requesting that the Board of Selectmen keep the Superintendent Environmental Services in the budget as he is the mainstay for the household hazardous collection site, which is one of the only ones in the State of Massachusetts. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 3-2 (Krieger, Kennedy) to remove M5 (Superintendent of Environmental Services/Grant Writer - $61,612) from the override and add $25,000 for a part-time grant writer in some form to be determined later in the Town Manager’s Office, thus reducing the override by $36,612. Cleaning Mr. Kelley is looking for another $44,000 to reduce the override. Would like the Board to consider combining the $100,000 for outsourcing cleaning and the $25,000 for center cleaning and reduce total by $44,000. That would give $81,000 to the department of works so they can allocate as they see fit. He thinks $81,000 is a reasonable number that would give the DPW plenty of opportunity to streamline operations and utilize staff, in-house operations, and private resources to get the job done. Mr. White is not sure enough money to do the outsource cleaning. Mrs. McKenna is most concerned about the center cleaning piece. Mr. Hadley confirmed that the line item for center cleaning is $18,000. Mrs. McKenna would be happy to have $18,000 for center cleaning and the balance for library cleaning. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 3-2 (Krieger and Kennedy) to reduce the override request on the municipal side by $100,000 for the DPW to out source cleaning and $25,000 for center cleaning and put in the override request $63,000 for DPW general expenses and $18,000 for DPW personnel services, for a total of $81,000. Selectmen’s Meeting – April 12, 2004 Snow/Ice There was an appropriation of $497,045 for Snow/Ice Removal. The Town spent $722,479, which leaves a deficit of $225,435. With some unpaid expenses the total is $280,434. The Town is expecting a reimbursement from the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency of about $129,000. Therefore the projected deficit is $151,434, which the Town will be able to take care of at the time the tax rate is set. Pilot Question Mr. Kelley has been concerned about payments in lieu of taxes for many years. The practice of the Town has been to charge citizens on the water and sewer bill a fee of $750,000, which is judged to be a payment in lieu of taxes. He would like the citizens to have the opportunity to take their real estate tax costs and reduce their federal tax responsibility by the amount of the payment in lieu of taxes. He would like to include a question on the override and also have discussions and evaluate the practice and let the citizens have the opportunity to move this expenditure for this charge over to where it belongs on the real estate tax bill. Feels the community is well prepared to go into a discussion of the plusses and minus of the question and thinks this can be a simple question as has been drafted. This is an appropriate time and opportunity to have this debate and discussion and vote by the citizens. Mr. Pagett thinks the timing is not opportune because the Board appointed an Ad Hoc Water and Sewer Rate Study Committee to look at the pilot payments and come back to the board with recommendations if changes are to be suggested and until that committee has finished its work it would be premature for the Board to move to put this question before the voters. Also we are going to have an enormous education effort to sell the override and we should focus on that only. Mr. Kennedy supports concept, but feels the timing is bad; suggests letting the committee finish work and make recommendations. Mrs. McKenna is supportive but feels it is premature. The Finance Committees have not had time to think through. It has too many consequences to look at quickly. Mr. Kelley will look for opportunity in the future to get question to voters. Summit Votes When left the summit meeting the Selectmen indicated its intent to vote to remove M1 (Regulatory Support Clerk - $33,000) and M2 (Cash Capital - $224,546) from the municipal at- risk list and S1 (Revised Curriculum Model - $140,827) and that the balance ($176,627) of the money would then be used to go into the Stabilization Fund. Selectmen’s Meeting – April 12, 2004 Mr. Pagett felt that the suggestions the board made on Thursday would have gone a long way toward resolving some of the pressing issues on the priority list, but given the decided lack of enthusiasm on the part of everyone else he has reconsidered and suggests reducing the appropriation of the health care for the benefits by $575,000, that the $575,000 be appropriated entirely to the Stabilization Fund, and also to remove M2 (Cash Capital - $224,546) from the at- risk list. Mrs. Krieger is in favor of putting the $575,000 into the Stabilization Fund, but is opposed to taking the Cash Capital of the at-risk list because it is a recurring expenses and money should be appropriated on an annual basis and the way you get that revenue is by building it into the override. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 4-1 (Krieger) to reduce the appropriation of health care benefits by $575,000, that the $575,000 be appropriated entirely to the Stabilization Fund, and also to remove M2 (Cash Capital - $224,546) from the at-risk list. The Board still needs to address M1 (ZBA/HDC Clerk – $33,000). Mr. White provided a list of items that the Board has been working on since the start of the process that were either excluded from the override and now part of the base budget or have been eliminated. Mr. Kelley agrees that the ZBA/HD Clerk should be funded to accommodate the Town’s responsibilities with the Board of Appeals and the Historic Districts Commission. Suggests that the Community Development Office, through its current fee structure, brings in enough to support the needs of the department, including the regulatory clerk. Mr. Kelley suggests reducing the Stabilization Fund by $33,000 to make sure the position is not at risk and that the staff is there to do the statutory responsibilities of the two boards. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 3-2 (Krieger, Pagett) to reduce the Stabilization Fund by $33,000 for M1 (ZBA/HDC Clerk -$33,000) and remove M1 from the at- risk list. Override Figure The total override number is now $4,240,373. The School component is $3,271,485 and the Municipal component is $968,888. These numbers are based on the votes taken above. Selectmen’s Meeting – April 12, 2004 Consent Agenda Use of Battle Green – Tattoo and Fife and Drum Muster Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to approve the request of William Diamond Jr. Fife & Drum Corps to use the Battle Green for a Tattoo on Friday, April 30, 2004 from 7:00 to 8:00 p.m. and to parade from Munroe Tavern, along Massachusetts Avenue and Marrett Road to the National Heritage Museum on Saturday, May 1, 2004 from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. Override Structure The Board thanked the community for all their comments and appreciates the time they are taking to try to read and understand the override options. After hearing all the comments, what came through is that the School does not want their question to be broken up and people want simple choice. Mrs. McKenna proposes a single question that encompassed all the school items and most of the municipal items, but would leave out as a separate question curbside yard waste pickup ($70,000), library ($190,000) and Lexpress ($213,000). Mrs. Krieger feels the tiered option should be eliminated as an override option because it is too complex. It would not be a format that is easily explained to the voters. Mr. Pagett has always supported bundled overrides, but in this case he wants to go with whatever works to get what the Town needs. The community has asked for real choice. Concerned about a large bundled override. People who would support a large bundled question will support all of the unbundled questions and if we can mobilize a majority of the community to do that we can lay to rest the idea that this had to be divisive. Suspect we will not come to conclusion in the next five minutes. As of right now I prefer an override question that gives people real choices. The Board decided to continue discussion of the override structure after tonight’s Town Meeting ends. Article 41 – Long Range Planning Committee Mr. Weiss, Precinct 5, suggests an amendment to his article that would set up a committee to study whether the Town should have a Long Range Planning Committee and the Committee would make a report to the 2005 Town Meeting. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to support Article 41 as amended. Selectmen’s Meeting – April 12, 2004 Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to recess at 7:47 p.m. during town meeting and to resume public meeting after Town Meeting. The Board resumed their meeting at 9:30 p.m. to discuss the override structure. Board of Selectmen discussed override structure and went through the six options. In conclusion, only one option majority of board wanted to consider. Heard from several members of TAC that Lexpress should not be single item under Transportation. Heard from other audience members regarding override structure. Mr. Kelley asked to delay vote on structure for adequate time to think about. Mrs. McKenna glad to have time to think. The structure of the override goes against what she believes. Don’t see being able to support structure currently on table. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn at 10:15 p.m. A true record, Attest: Lynne A. Pease Executive Clerk Selectmen’s Meeting April 14, 2004 A regular meeting of the Board of Selectmen was held on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 at the Clarke Middle School Cafeteria at 6:00 p.m. Chairman McKenna, Mrs. Krieger, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Pagett; Mr. White, Town Manager; William Lahey, Town Counsel; and Ms. Pease, Executive Clerk were present. Executive Session Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted by roll call vote: Mr. Pagett, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. McKenna, Mrs. Krieger and Mr. Kelley to go into executive session to discuss a matter of litigation with the intent to resume open session at 6:30 p.m. Consent Agenda Arbor Day Proclamation Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to sign the proclamation proclaiming April 30, 2004 as Arbor Day. Minuteman Cane Award Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to sign the 2004 Minuteman Cane Award to be presented to Dorothy Boggia. Liberty Ride – Transfer Money Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to transfer $24,913.30 from the Liberty Ride Selectmen’s Gift Account to the General Fund to cover the deficit. Override Structure At the end of discussion on Monday the only option that was supported by a majority of the Board was an override with several questions. Mrs. McKenna asked each Selectmen to briefly state their position on the override. Mrs. Krieger has felt very strongly that citizens wanted choice and that the choice that they should be given is different levels of service. The override questions need to be simple so we can spend our time educating people on the substance of the override, rather than how to answer each question. Also support the School Committee’s request to maintain the prioritization of its at-risk items. She supports a departmental override, but would like Lexpress included with the DPW segment. Mr. Kelley agrees with Mrs. Krieger. Would like to see the following questions on the override: education, general government, public safety, DPW, transportation, and library. He has a commitment to be out in full force to help advocate for all questions and to answer any questions. Selectmen’s Meeting – April 14, 2004 Mr. Kennedy has been in favor of an unbundled departmental override from beginning because it is responsive and reactive to last years override failure. Mr. Pagett feels that the departmental option is the best way to go. Need to reach the swing voters to ensure that this override in successful. Prepared to work equally for every question. Hope that those that value this community will turn out in force and vote yes for all questions. Mrs. McKenna had hoped to create an entirely different way of thinking. Put forth the value choice because tired of people thinking in terms of bundled versus unbundled and trying to get people to think about what we value in the community. People would have had to really pay attention to the questions and that would have been good. Given the short time in which we will have to educate the public, it is clear that the value option is not a viable alternative. Would like to see one question with most of the municipal and school services and three separate items that we have heard from the community that they want to vote on separately. I cannot support an override with departmental questions. There is a powerful message that the Chairman sends when it does not want to support the override structure. The community is not going to have the benefit of all the debate and discussion and many hours that we put into this decision. If we have separate questions on the ballot that tells the voters that I believe we can pick and choice and I don’t believe that. There are certain services that can stand on their own or not. Hoping to hear some compelling argument tonight that might make me feel differently, but at the moment I am not prepared to vote for the same options as the majority of the Board. Victoria Buckley, Chair of the Commission on Disability, spoke about the need for Lexpress to the disabled and the difficult position it will be in if a separate question on the override. Susan Elberger, Precinct 9, talked about the serious risk of the library not being recertified. Library should not be put as a separate question. Worry that the Selectmen will not support each question equally. Cathy Gill, Precinct 7, asked the Selectmen to put the school question first. She asked the Selectmen to campaign and support all questions equally and ask the community to step up and support the Selectmen’s decision on the override. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 3-2 (McKenna, Krieger) to keep transportation and DPW as separate questions. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 4-1 (Krieger) to have the library items as a separate question. There will be six questions: 1) Education - $3,271,485; 2) Transportation - $213,028; 3) DPW - $194,693; 4) Public Safety - $173,443; 5) Library - $191,730; 6) Social Services and Town Administration - $195,994. Total override $4,240,373. Selectmen’s Meeting – April 14, 2004 The override questions will be drafted and the Selectmen will review and vote on by May 4, 2004. Article Positions Article 33 – Removal and Installation of Utility Poles Paul Chernick brought before the Board a different motion that is a non-binding resolution which expresses the intent to keep Verizon in compliance in regard to removing double poles, supports the Town of Bedford By-law, introduces and supports legislation, and will enact a By-law substantially similar to that of Bedford after resolution of Bedford litigation. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 4-1 (Kennedy) to support the resolution. Article 40 – Amend Section 80-4G, Stationary Engine Run-up (Noise Bylaw) Julian Bussgang stated that when Article 40 was first filed as a citizen article the idea was to simplify the noise by-law in regard to unwarranted noise from stationary engine run-up by making it identical to the language of the state law. Additional questions have arisen that concern not just noise but also air pollution due to fumes of the idling engines, particularly from school buses. The substitute motion would appoint an ad hoc committee to review Chapter 80 to suggest language with respect to stationary engine run-up provisions. Members would include at least one representative from the Selectmen, Board of Health, Noise Committee, School Committee, one businessman, and two concerned citizens. The Committee would receive staff support from the Health Department and the Police Department as needed and would make its recommendations to the Selectmen and to Town Meeting at the next annual meeting. The School Committee unanimously supports this article as amended. Mr. Kennedy supports article, but suggests the Committee look at the issues around the 5-minute rule because thinks it would not work for diesel engines. Mr. Bussgang sees the Committee contacting the Department of Environmental Protection and consulting with them, look at other towns and how they treat the problem, and have some discussion on what is needed to understand the exceptions and the interpretation of the law. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to support the revised motion for Article 40. Article 13 – Zoning Bylaw, RO to RD Metropolitan State Hospital Land, Concord Avenue DCAM asked for a meeting with all affected parties, including representatives of the Board of Selectmen, School Committee and Planning Board, Planning Staff, some of the attorneys involved and together we all sat in a room and laid on the table what the outstanding issues were. The first issue was how much we wanted this project to be successful. Mrs. Krieger has worked Selectmen’s Meeting – April 14, 2004 very hard for many years with the Metropolitan State Hospital Land Task Force trying to make the right development happen. There was a concern about the number of school children that will occupy the place and whether the numbers where accurate and could be guaranteeed. Another concern is whether there was an adequate level of support for the public transportation within the community. Received a letter detailing the latest proposal that addressed the concerns. Also received a letter from Tom Harden, Chair of the Planning Board informing the Board that the Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the article. Michael Roberts and Liz Smith from Avalon and Peter Nordstrom and Robert Cohen (a Lexington resident) from DCAM were present. Mr. Roberts updated the Board of Avalon Bay’s proposal. The biggest change is a reduction in density by 10 percent from 430 to 387 homes. As it relates to school age children, reduced the number of two- and three-bedroom homes, which would have generated more school age children. The number of two-bedroom homes have been reduced from 244 to 200; three- bedrooms have been reduced from 18 to 8; and the number of one-bedroom homes have been increased from 86 to 99. The Fiscal Impact Study resulted in adjustments: reduced some revenue assumptions as it relates to excise taxes and increased some of the expense assumptions, primarily in the form of doubling the projected expenses for non-education costs. Finally, the School Committee recommended an increase in ratios, particularly as it relates to two-bedroom units, and we have done that as part of the fiscal analysis and it shows that the fiscal impact would be a net positive $20,000 a year or essentially fiscally neutral. In addition, we were asked to take another look at the real estate taxes that were part of the assumption. If we assume a 5 percent premium in the assessed value, due to the fact that it is new construction, we come up with value per apartment of $185,000 per home. Using that assessment we come up with an assessed value of a little over $74 million, which at the current tax rate of 10.47 would generate real estate taxes of $775,000. Our fiscal impact assumptions are $765, slightly below what you get on the cost approach. The other factor that was used to backup that assessment value is sales comparables of similar communities in the area. A study was done of recent sales comps that have taken place over the last couple of years of newer apartment communities in 5 communities, 1000 apartment homes, located in Woburn, Tewksbury, Marlboro and Waltham. Those sales prices ranged between $165,000 and $240,000 per apartment home. Our assessed value on a cost basis is $185,000. We think that is within a reasonable range of what the market is for similar communities. Regarding the mitigation package, upfront contributions remain at $250,000 to provide traffic mitigation measures at the discretion of the Town and associated with the development. There will also be a $200,000 contribution for school transportation to help provide the transportation to Avalon Bay’s community. Of that $450,000, Avalon Bay is willing to listen regarding allocation of that money. There is a strong desire to provide Lexpress service at the site; they have committed to fund $35,000 per year with CPI adjustments in perpetuity to the site. One change with the current proposal is that funding will begin upon issuance of a building permit. Selectmen’s Meeting – April 14, 2004 In the event Lexpress seizes operation or seizes to provide service to site, they will continue to make payments with the conditions that the payments be used in some traffic or TDM measures that are within the general area related to the development. Another new item is the commitment for the first two years to purchase $10,000 per year of Lexpress passes. The hope is to provide the service free to the residents for the first two years, which will help create the demand for Lexpress at the site, which should benefit the Lexpress service for the years beyond the two years. In addition, committed to providing in perpetuity a shuttle service during peak hours from the site to Alewife. There are other TDM measures that were proposed before that remain, including constructing a bus stop on site to provide for shuttle service and Lexpress, providing transportation and shuttle services, transportation coordinator on site, ride sharing bicycle storage and similar type programs. In addition have committed to fund improvements on Concord Avenue, specifically on our intersections and also in connecting the sidewalk from the intersection to the existing sidewalk on Concord Avenue. Avalon Bay is committed to renovating 20,000 square feet of the building; Avalon Bay will use approximately 7,000 square feet for indoor amenities, leasing and management facilities. The remaining 13,000 square feet will be for the use by the Community for public functions. There is another 10,000 square feet that will have an environmental remediation done and will be provided as base shell space to be used by the community at a future date. Also agreed to form a non-profit entity through the Town to help administer and control the use of that space. In addition, as it relates to the fiscal impact neutrality in the discussions with DCAM they have agreed to fund $750,000, which would be used as a guarantee for a 5-year period. So to the extent with out recent school age children projection of 101 school age children, we exceed that by more than 10 percent, the Town of Lexington would be able to draw from that reserve fund at $7,100 per additional student, which would effectively cover the incremental cost for those additional students. Per the Planning Board’s recommendation, DCAM has removed its request to withdraw $7,100 per student if projections come in lower. In addition, the five-year period we originally had proposed to begin the initial occupancy has been changed to begin at 75 percent occupancy, which DCAM has also agreed to. DCAM is not prepared to remove the part of the proposal regarding payments to be made to the Town of Lexington subject to the condition that total school enrollment be above what it is today. The theory behind that condition has to do with the incremental costs. With regard to the school population, Mr. Kelley suggests that the $750,000 be available to support any added population for at least 10 years, because Lexington is going through a re- construction of its elementary schools and there are a lot of challenges to do that in the time line. Mrs. Krieger says the number of apartments the Town needs to be free from a 40B development is possibly as low as 331, which will last until 2008 and it may be as high as 370. Need to recognize that the requirements of the 40B inventory is dynamic and as we build more houses and some of our affordable housing stock becomes market value that the number is constantly changing. Selectmen’s Meeting – April 14, 2004 Mr. Kelley asked for a printout of the current 40B inventory, including Avalon Bay’s 387 units. Would like to see the square footage or floor plan of the units, particularly the 2-bedroom units. In the income analysis piece, what was used for the average rent? Concerned about the lack of parking facilities at Kline Hall. Asked about the possibility of the building being eliminated, and if the cost to bring the building back for some purpose could be committed to the Town toward a community facility that we would consider in the future. If Avalon does not have a powerful need and we consider putting the value into the community for our future needs I would like them to respond to that. Mrs. Krieger said speaking as the Chair of the Reuse Committee, when we were involved in the selection process through the RFP we selected Avalon not only because they met the criteria the best, but because they were a developer and had a team that could be worked with. They have done a commendable job in terms of meeting the needs of the community and they have admirably addressed revenue neutrality situation, and made significant concessions with TDM. In terms of community access, which was one of the criteria of the reuse plan, I believe that their offer for a portion of Kline Hall was in keeping with the needs of the community and will bring Lexington to the Avalon development and integrate it within the community. Michael Roberts stated that the square foot average is approximately net 1200 square feet per apartment and that is consistent with Lexington Ridge. The one-bedroom would be slightly smaller than 1200, the 2-bedrooms would be 1200 and the 3 bedrooms would be slightly larger, approximately 14-1500 square feet. Mrs. McKenna asked that the document be changed to refer to the Board of Selectmen as the decision makers instead of the Town of Lexington. Also ask that the language be broadened to include meeting space in the possible uses for Kline Hall. Sally Castleman, speaking on behalf of the Transportation Advisory Committee, said the committee met and is prepared to support the Lexpress portion of the DCAM proposal. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 4-1 (Kelley) to support Article 13. Article 12 will be discussed at the next meeting. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn at 8:00 p.m. A true record, Attest: Lynne A. Pease Executive Clerk Selectmen’s Meeting April 26, 2004 A regular meeting of the Board of Selectmen was held on Monday April 26, 2004 in the Clark Middle School Cafeteria at 6:30 p.m. Chairman McKenna, Mrs. Krieger, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Pagett; Mr. White, Town Manager; Mr. Lahey, Town Counsel and Ms. Manning, clerk were present. Selectmen’s Meeting Room Sound System Upgrade Lou Grondalski presented a proposal from Valley Communication Systems. The cost of the system will be $14.8k, with an additional cost of $981.88 for hallway speakers. Although they felt it to be a worthwhile project, several board members expressed concern regarding where the funding for this project would come from. Mr. Kelly suggested investigating the use of funds from the Cable Revolving Fund. The board had no objection to bringing the proposal back before the board once an up-to-date accounting of the Selectmen’s budget has been reviewed and Mr. Kelly’s suggestion researched. Mrs. McKenna thanked those who have been working on this project. Acceptance of Article 12-Zoning Bylaw, Amendments to Standards for RD Planned Residential Development Districts Michael Roberts from Avalon Communities discussed the Amendments to Standards for RD Planned Residential Development Districts. Mr. Pagett questioned whether this project will have any consequences on the Brookhaven Project, will that make the Brookhaven project easier to do? Mrs. Krieger feels it won’t make much difference; it may actually facilitate the Brookhaven project. Upon motion duly made and seconded it was voted (5-0) to support Article 12. While the Avalon representatives were still present Mrs. Krieger suggested that one action the board needs to take as part of the process in proceeding with this development is to sponsor the local initiative program. The program is essentially a permitting process through the Department of Highway and Community Development. Assuming that the rezoning is successful at Town Meeting, is the board committed to supporting the initiative program. Upon motion duly made and seconded it was voted (5-0) to approve the Board’s commitment to support the local initiative program, subject to Town Meeting approval. Selectmen’s Meeting – April 26, 2004 Article Positions Article 18a – Building Envelope The Board previously voted 5-0 to support $385k. The current motion includes $100k for the Visitors Center. Mr. Burnell from the Capital Expenditures Committee informed the board that the work at the Visitors Center could be completed for a couple thousand dollars, and the DPW budget could support those costs. Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted 0-5 to reject $100k allocation of funds for the visitor’s center. Mrs. Krieger had an issue to address with another item included in Article 18A, there are two Engineering studies the board previously did not support: $25k for the School Administration Building and $30k for the DPW facility. She recommends supporting the additional funds of $55k. Mr. Burnell gave a brief overview of the studies being done for both the School Administration building and the DPW facility. Mr. Burnell feels comfortable supporting the additional funds, knowing the projects will not be going forward without the full support of the Capital Expenditures Committee or the Building Finance Committee. But having the funds available to move forward is a good idea. Mrs. McKenna objected to spending money for the School Administration Building since we know it doesn’t serve the needs and the school administration needs alternate space. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the board voted 5-0 in favor to support the $30k for the DPW project. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted 4-1 (McKenna) to support the $25k funding for the School Administration Building Project. Article 24, Laconia Street Mr. Weiss’s motion for a 20’ roadway with no sidewalk does not reflect the board’s previous vote (5-0 supporting 20’ roadway, 4-1 supporting sidewalk). Mrs. Krieger stated that after hearing from residents of Laconia Street she is now prepared to change her position and approve the roadway with no sidewalk. Mr. Pagett questioned whether there was anyone in the audience from the Police or Fire Department who could comment on what kinds of problems arise if a narrower streets without sidewalks was approved. Bob Raposa, Police, responded by saying narrow streets present a problem with fire access, speed limits (depending on the length of the street) and access for other emergency vehicles. Mr. Kelley feels the neighbors have done tremendous work to improve the common good of those who travel the streets in that area. However, having a policy of supporting neighborhood foot traffic is an important piece of improving roadways in Lexington. He is very reluctant not to see the sidewalk built because of Selectmen’s Meeting – April 26, 2004 safety issues and the need to accommodate foot traffic in that area particularly because of the town-owned site that fronts on that location. He continues to support the project completely including supporting the sidewalk and seeing the town pay its fair share for the sidewalk. Mr. Friedlich asked that the board join Mrs. Krieger in approving a minimum width project without sidewalk. He stated that this is the desire of the residents on Laconia Street. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the board voted 2-3 (Pagett, Kennedy, Krieger) against making an amendment to include a sidewalk. Article 40 Amend section 80-8 Special Permits (Noise Bylaw) Mr. Bussgang discussed his substitute motion submitted requesting that the Board of Selectmen appoint an ad hoc committee to review Chapter 80 of the Code of Lexington for the purpose of language with respect to stationary engine run up provisions so as to minimize potential noise and air pollution. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the board voted to support the amended Article 40 motion 5-0. Budget Prior to the meeting Mrs. McKenna had conducted a poll of the board, with the exception of Mr. Kennedy. The members concurred that they would move $6k from line item 2410; this $6k represents the stipend for the Director of Battle Green Guides, and move it to line item 7300 so that all money related to tourism activities would be included in the same line item. Mrs. McKenna confirmed the poll vote and gave Mr. Kennedy the opportunity to weigh in on the vote. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the board voted 4-1 (Mr. Kennedy) to move 6k from line item 2410 to line item 7300. Library Mrs. McKenna informed the board that Mrs. Elberger, who was not present, is considering making an amendment to put the library at risk item into the base budget. Mrs. Elberger is not positive where the funding will be coming from, she indicated she will be meeting with the Board of Trustees on Tuesday morning to see if she would get any support to make this motion. If we get to that line item tonight would we move to table that discussion until Wednesday night? The Board deferred taking a position on this until the debate at Town Meeting. Selectmen’s Meeting – April 26, 2004 Reinstate Superintendent Of Environmental Services Mr. Hornig and Mr. Friedlich intend to bring forward a motion to reinstate a full time Superintendent of Environmental Services position. Bill Hadley, Public Works Director, gave a brief history of the name titles for this position. The current title for this position is Solid Waste Coordinator. Income earned from this position, through DEP Grants, during the three years it has been in place is $179k (YR 1-$124, YR 2-$50k and $4k in YR-3). During the same three- year period there has been $126k in compost products sold and the bulk of the money, $586k, was for the brokering of excess tonnage over those three years, that is a contract that will end in the fall of 05. Additionally there is a contract to bring in $350k over the next five years in compost product sales. Over the past few years the DPW administration budget has decreased, there is no current position that has the time to take on any additional responsibilities. Also the existing staff does not possess the special expertise in the environmental programs. That expertise and knowledge of federal and state regulations would bring value to the town. They propose to fund this position through the DPW revolving fund; this would fund the position from the revenue the position actually generates. Mr. Hadley informed the board that the revolving fund is for burial containers, biodegradable, composting and recycling products, in FY02 the fund generated $51.5k in revenue $11.8k was spent for burial container this left a balance of $39.7k which was returned to the general fund. None of the FY02 funds were from compost. In FY03 the fund generated $32.8k in revenue, of that $24k was generated from compost. Tonight’s motion will propose the remaining $18.6k be returned to the general fund. For FY04 revenue generated is $74.9k, $44.9k is from the Compost facility, and $29.9k generated from the sale of burial containers. Mr. Pagett believes the funding mechanism that has been presented is quite ingenious and worthy of serious consideration, however according to the memo as far as income sources are concerned we can’t really count on grant income in the future and the sales of excess tonnage will last only one year. So the board needs reassurance that through the sale of compost we will in fact generate the income to do this. Mrs. McKenna commented that we don’t really know whether we will have the ability to generate sufficient sales to add another $70k to this line item. Mr. Hadley stated that if they have enough personnel, can rent screeners and barter with some contractors he feels confident we will be able to generate sufficient revenue to support the salary and benefits of this position. Mrs. McKenna also asked what are the expenses associated with the composting operation. Mr. Hadley did not have that information available. Mrs. McKenna explained that this information is crucial in order for the Board to determine whether there is any net income to justify the position. Mrs. McKenna asked for additional information before the board takes a vote. Selectmen’s Meeting – April 26, 2004 Minutes Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to approve 4-0-1 (Mr. Pagett abstained) the minutes of the meetings of December 1, 2003, December 15, 2003 and January 12, 2004. Executive Session Upon motion duly made and seconded it was voted by roll call vote: Mrs. McKenna, Mrs. Krieger, Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Kelley and Mr. Pagett to go into executive session for discussion of collective bargaining and litigation issues, with the intent to resume open session, at the start of Town Meeting. A true record, Attest: Lori Manning Selectmen’s Meeting April 28, 2004 A regular meeting of the Board of Selectmen was held on April 28, 2004 in the Clark Middle School cafeteria at 7:00 pm. Mrs. McKenna, Mrs. Krieger, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Pagett; Mr. White, Town Manager; Mr. Lahey, Town Counsel and Ms. Manning, clerk were present. Hearing Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 5-0 to continue the hearing for the Wine and Malt Liquor License for Bollywood until May 12, 2004 at 7 pm. Meeting Schedule th The board reviewed their schedule of upcoming meetings. It was noted that the May 4 meeting was scheduled as a precaution that is the last date that the board can vote an override question and in the event that the override question is not ready by Monday, May 3, the board will need to thth meet on Tuesday, May 4. Also there will be no Town Meeting on May 10, nor is there is a Selectmen meeting scheduled for that night. Article Positions Article 18b - Public Works Equipment One outstanding item on this capital request is for a screener, the board previously passed on voting on this item, at the time the board was waiting to see a business plan for compost operations. Wayne Brooks informed the board that they are deferring the request to purchase the screener and withdraw their request for approval. Mrs. McKenna confirmed that the cost of the screener is not included in the Article’s total cost. Article 31 Senior Tax Relief Vicki Blier brought new information to the board about the expected new state law being developed. The law will provide locally adjustable interest rates on deferrals; increase house values on circuit breaker to $600k (possibly even as much as $750k) and will be adjusted annually using the housing index rather than the CPI and increase total on Tax Work Off from $750 to $1,000. Income eligibility will be improved by using the circuit breaker number which will be at least $40k; the law will also include a clarification that towns may finance exemptions outside of the 2 ½ spending limits. Any exemptions the town gives will come out of the overlay. Ms. Blier reviewed the four different Exemption Options, explaining the limitations and benefits of each option. Then she compared the top two options. The first option reviewed was the 41D COLA, this option lowers the eligibility age to 65 and increases the benefit to $750. The eligibility limit increases to approximately $24,200 single/$26,400 married and the asset limit Selectmen’s Meeting – April 28, 2004 increases to $30,635 single/$32,823 married. The advantages of this option are it focuses sharply on the most needy, and it is close enough to current exemptions making participation more predictable. The disadvantages are, it leaves $3,000 of state reimbursement untapped and adds only eight new beneficiaries. This is the option the committee recommends. The second option is the 2002 41C Amendment; this option also lowers the eligibility age to 65, but keeps the benefit at $500. The eligibility limit increases to $30,000 single/$40,000 married and the asset limit increase to $40,000 single/$55,000 married. The advantages of this option are it extends benefits to 41 new people, takes advantage of the full $29,500 in available state reimbursements, provides data for estimating exemptions under new state law and is the most popular option of area towns. The disadvantages are the bigger qualification changes make new participation less predictable and we don’t have much data on perspective participants. Mr. Pagett stated he was reluctant to go along with the 41D COLA Age 65+ because the increased cost ($13,000) of increasing the abatement by $250 would only extend these benefits to additional 8-10 taxpayers. For approximately the same amount ($14,000) by adopting the 41C Amendment Age 65+ and holding the benefit at its current level of $500, we could add approximately 43 new beneficiaries. He feels this is a small price to pay to learn what the size of the beneficiary pool actually is. Once we know the size of the set we are dealing with, we could estimate the real cost of raising the benefit level, rather that guessing at it, and take action next year to raise the benefit if we choose to do so. Patrick Mehr asked the board to consider the $1,000 Exemption Option. He feels that 2002 41C Amendment is a good investment for the town and shows compassion for seniors. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the board voted (5-0) to adopt Exemption Option 2002 41C Amendment. Mr. Lahey will prepare the motion. Operating Budget Mrs. McKenna informed the board there are three budget items that will be discussed at tonight’s Town Meeting. Article 14-Line Item 7300 The first is the change discussed at the boards last meeting which involved moving $6,000 included in line item 2410 to line item 7300. Article 14-Line Item 3100-3500 A motion to Amend the Main Motion Under Article 14, changing the language in Lines 3100- 3500 was discussed regarding the Superintendent of Environmental Services. Article 14-Adult Day Care Marion Cohen presented the board a proposal for an amendment that would restore Adult Day Care, which is currently an $46,000 at risk item. The proposal suggests that the $46,000 be Selectmen’s Meeting – April 28, 2004 made up by: 1) restructuring fees at ADC $16k; 2) placing ($16k) at risk from the BOS Compensation Budget: 3) and placing ($14k) at risk from the BOS expenses. David Williams spoke to the board about Corporate Elder Services an organization that serves five or six surrounding communities. Their center, located at Youville, currently has 25 clients at the Lexington site. It operates six days a week from 8am to 4pm. The center provides food, nurse monitoring and recreation activities. It also provides clients with the psycho-social support they need and accepts Mass Health. Although he could not give a definitive answer, Mr. Williams believes this program could absorb present participants of ADC if the override failed. Ms. Cohen commented that surely there are other medical and social day care programs in the area. However most of them are more expensive and are configured differently serving a different population with different needs. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 2-3 (Mrs. McKenna, Mr. Kelley and Mr. Pagett in opposition) not to support the motion proposed by Ms. Cohen. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn at 8:00pm. A true record, Attest: Lori Manning