Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2014-10-06-BOS-Packet-released
Hearing Assistance Devices Available on Request All agenda times and the order of items are approximate and subject to change. SELECTMEN’S MEETING Monday, October 6, 2014 Selectmen Meeting Room 7:00 p.m. AGENDA 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS (10 min.) 7:10 p.m. SELECTMEN CONCERNS AND LIAISON REPORTS (5 min.) 7:15 p.m. TOWN MANAGER REPORT (5 min.) 7:20 p.m. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 1. Grant of Location – National Grid – Cedar Street – 7:00 p.m. (5 min.) 2. Cubist Proposed Expansion Presentation (10 min.) 3. Report from Wendy Manz on Visitor Center Renovations (20 min.) 4. Endorse Community Innovation Challenge Grants (REV, Route 3 Corridor Bus and MAPC Parking Meter Technology) (10 min.) 5. Vote the FY2015 Water/Sewer Rates (20 min.) 6. Center Streetscape Update (10 min.) 7. Proposed Sale of Tax Title Land – Laconia Street (10 min.) 8. Liquor License – Change of Hours – Bermans Wine & Spirits (5 min.) 9. Approve and Sign Warrant for State Election on November 4, 2014 (5 min.) 10. Position on Question 1 – Gas Tax (5 min.) 11. Approve Revised Bicycle Advisory Committee Charge (5 min.) 12. Change Traffic Safety Advisory Committee to Working Group (5 min.) 13. Approve Lexington Municipal Managers Association Collective Bargaining Agreement (5 min.) 9:05 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA (5 min.) 1. Water and Sewer Commitments and Adjustments 2. Sign Proclamation for Employee Recognition Day, November 5, 2014 3. Appoint Michelle Ciccolo to the Massachusetts Port Authority Community Advisory Committee 4. Approve Selectmen Minutes 5. Approve Selectmen Executive Session Minutes 9:10 p.m. ADJOURN A Budget Collaboration/Summit meeting has been scheduled for Wednesday, October 8, 2014, at 7:00 p.m. in the Public Services Building Cafeteria. The next regular meeting of the Board of Selectmen is tentatively scheduled for Monday, October 20, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, 1625 Massachusetts Avenue. AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING UDATE:U USTAFF: U UITEM NUMBER:U October 6, 2014 William P. Hadley, Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing for Grant of Location Install and maintain approximately 370 feet of 4” gas main in Cedar St. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Department of Public Works/Engineering has reviewed the petition, plan and order of National Grid for a Grant of Location to Install approximately 370 feet of 4” gas main in Cedar St from the existing 4” main at Paul Revere Rd westerly to House #87 for new services at #75, #80, #86 and #87 . A Street Opening Permit is required prior to excavation. Since this petition appears to be in order, we recommend that approval be granted. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTED MOTION: Motion to approve the petition for Nationalgrid to install and maintain approximately 370 feet of 4” gas main in Cedar St. STAFF FOLLOW-UP: Engineering Division PETITIONOFNATIONALGRIDFORGASMAINLOCATIONSTownofLexington/BoardofSelectmen:TheNationalgridherebyrespectfullyrequesisyourconsenttothelocationsofmainsashereinafterdescribedforthetransmissionanddistributionofgasinandunderthefollowingpublicstreets,lanes,highwaysandplacesoftheTownofLexingtonandofthepipes,valves,governors,manholesandotherstructures,fixturesandappurtenancesdesignedorintendedtoprotectoroperatesaidmainsandaccomplishtheobjectsofsaidCompany;andthediggingupandopeningthegroundtolayorplacesame:Toinstallandmaintainapproximately370feetmoreorlessof4inchgasmaininCedarSt.,Lexington.Fromtheexisting4inchgasmainatPaulRevereRd.,westerlytohouse#87toservehouses#75,#80,#81,#86and#87.Date:September17,2014By:/-DnnisIQ’R%fiPermitRepte’sentativeTownofLexington/BoardofSelectmen:ITISHEREBYORDEREDthatthelocationsofthemainsoftheNationalgridforthetransmissionanddistributionofgasinandunderthepublicstreets,lanes,highwaysandplacesoftheTownofLexingtonsubstantiallyasdescribedinthepetitiondateSeptember17,2014attachedheretoandherebymadeaparthereof,andofthepipes,vaLves,governors,manholesandotherstructures,fixturesandappurtenancesdesignedorintendedtoprotectoroperatesaidmainsand/oraccomplishtheobjectsofsaidCompany,andthediggingupandopeningthegroundtolayorplacesame,areherebyconsentedtoandapproved.ThesaidNationalgridshallcomplywithallapplicableprovisionsoflawandordinancesoftheTownofLexingtonapplicabletotheenjoymentofsaidlocationsandrights.Datethis___________________dayof,20Iherebycertifythattheforegoingorderwasdulyadoptedbythe________________________oftheCityof,MAonthe______dayof,20____By:________________TitleMN#144-8504-988170RETURNORIGINALTOTHEPERMITSECTIONNATIONALGRID40SYLVANRD,WALTHAM,MA02451RETAINDUPLICATEFORYOURRECORDSFORM#1444,Rev.90 o©©g z NOTICE TO ABUTTERS September 18th, 2014 In conformity with the requirements of Section 22 of Chapter 166 of the General Laws (Ter. Ed.), you are hereby notified that a public hearing will be held in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, Town Office Building, of the Town of Lexington, Massachusetts, on October 6th, 2014 at 7:00 p.m., upon the following petition of National Grid for permission to construct and location for gas mains and the pipes, valves, governors, manholes and other structures, fixtures and appurtenances designed or intended to protect or operate said mains and accomplish the objects of said Company; and the digging up and opening the ground to lay or place same under the following public way(s) of Lexington: Cedar St.: Install approximately 370 feet of 4” gas main in Cedar St from the existing 4” main at Paul Revere Rd westerly to House #87 for new services at #75, #80, #86 and #87. By: Tricia Malatesta Engineering Department of Public Works Please direct inquiries to: Dennis K. Regan, (617) 293-0480 CC: Dennis K. Regan Permit Representative National Grid 40 Sylvan Road Waltham, MA 02451 TIERNEY JEANNE L 52 CEDAR ST LEXINGTON MA 0241 MACLEOD MADELEINE G LIVING 56 CEDAR ST LEXINGTON MA 02421 BOULTER ANNE 67 CEDAR ST LEXINGTON MA 02421 ELYANOW IRVING D 75 CEDAR ST LEXINGTON MA 02421 FISHER MEIL (TE) 80 CEDAR ST LEXINGTON MA 0241 BRACKEN MARK E 81 CEDAR ST LEXINGTON MA 02421 RADULESCU-BANU ANDREI 86 CEDAR ST LEXINGTON MA 02421 BORNHOFFT LISBETH 87 CEDAR ST LEXINGTON MA 02421 ORENBERG ARTHUR 92 CEDAR ST LEXINGTON MA 02421 LINDLEY MATHEW B 93 CEDAR ST LEXINGTON MA 02421 SWACK MICHAEL E 97 CEDAR ST LEXINGTON MA 02421 PATWARI NALINI 98 CEDAR ST LEXINGTON MA 02421 RIORDAN JAMES F TRUST 73 PAUL REVERE RD LEXINGTON MA 02421 SMITH LAURENCE KRZEMI 74 PAUL REVERE RD LEXINGTON MA 02421 PREVITE DOMENIC A 75 PAUL REVERE RD LEXINGTON MA 02421 CAGLIERO ENRICO 76 PAUL REVERE RD LEXINGTON MA 02421 DEITSCH IRA J 77 PAUL REVERE RD LEXINGTON MA 02421 Prepared by cfv AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING DATE: PRESENTER: ITEM NUMBER: October 6, 2014 Bob Buckley, Riemer/Braunstein I.2 Tim Hunt, Tom Durocher, Amy Reilly, Cubist SUBJECT: Cubist Proposed Expansion Presentation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: See attached letter FINANCIAL IMPACT: NA RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTED MOTION: NA STAFF FOLLOW-UP: TMO and Economic Development will assist Cubist in moving this project forward. The Shape of Cures to Come™ Cubist Pharmaceuticals Cubist Lexington Development October 6, 2014 1 Overview About Cubist Cubist Growth in Lexington Future Development Plans Q&A 2 Cubist –Quick Facts Founded in 1992, headquartered in Lexington since 2001 The world’s leader in antibiotics research and development Four marketed products, three of which are antibiotics CUBICIN®been used to treat more than 2.1 million patients worldwide and achieved blockbuster status in 2013 This year opened international headquarters in Zurich $1.1 billion in revenues in 2013 3 Key Events in Cubist’s History 1992 1996 2001 2003 2008 2011 2012 2013 Cubist Begins Construction & Relocates to Headquarters to Lexington, MA Cubist Becomes Public Company CUBICIN® Approved Complete Rennovation of R&D building Complete Major Expansion of R&D building Cubist Celebrates 20th AnniversaryCubist Founded Cambridge, MA Cubist Begins Phase 3 studies for ceftolozane/ tazobactam & surotomycin Cubist Aquires Optimer and Trius Therapeutics Cubist Acquires Adolor Corporation 2014 SIVEXTRO® FDA Approved 4 Committed to Addressing the Global Public-Health Threat of MDR Bacteria Cubist is Focused on Fighting Serious & Life-threatening Pathogens Expect to invest ~ $400M USD in 2014 on antibacterial R&D; 75% employees focused in support of antibiotics Hope to deliver at least four new antibiotics in support of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) goal of 10 new antibiotics by 2020 Aligned with CDC, ECDC, and WHO priorities Participating in the WHO’s Strategic and Technical Advisory Group for Antimicrobial Resistance, as well as the Innovative Medicines Initiative’s work in this area across Europe 5 Committed to Our Community & Our Culture Highly differentiated culture Named a top employer in Boston Globe’s Top Places to Work Philanthropic efforts focused on science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education, particularly in Greater Boston area Supported Lexington organizations, including: –Lexington METCO Scholarship Fund –Lexington Education Foundation –Cary Memorial Library –Lexington High School Science Fair –Lexington Symphony –Minuteman Career & Technical High School 46 of our employees are Lexington residents 6 Cubist’s Transformation Since Moving to Lexington 2001 TODAY Workforce ~175 1,100+(~800 in Lexington) Square footage 88,000 400,0000 Revenues $14M $1.1 billion in 2013 Marketed Products 0 7 Growth Expected to Continue in Lexington 338 374 405 439 554 693 800 925 1050 1175 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 * * * * * = EstimatedLexington Workforce8 Overview About Cubist Cubist Growth in Lexington Future Development Plans Q&A 9 Overview About Cubist Cubist Growth in Lexington Future Development Plans Q&A 10 THANK YOU 11 Prepared by cfv AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING DATE: PRESENTER: ITEM NUMBER: October 6, 2014 Wendy Manz I.3 Melisa Tintacolis, Economic Development Director SUBJECT: Report from Wendy Manz on Visitors’ Center Renovations EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At the 2014 Annual Town Meeting, $220,608 ($161,276 tax levy and $59,332 CPA) was approved in design funds for the renovation and possible expansion of the Visitors’ Center. A consensus on the program to take place in this facility, however, has not been reached. Wendy Manz agreed to meet with the various tourism stakeholders to understand and evaluate the various programming options. Her report is attached. Since Ms. Manz completed this report, the Town has taken over the daily operations of the Visitors’ Center (effective September 22, 2014). The Visitors’ Center was previously operated by the Chamber of Commerce. Melisa Tintacolis will report to the Selectmen on this transition. FINANCIAL IMPACT: NA RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTED MOTION: NA STAFF FOLLOW-UP: REPORT TO THE SELECTMEN ON CONVERSATIONS REGARDING TOURISM IN LEXINGTON WENDY MANZ JULY 14, 2014 INTRODUCTION The Selectmen have become aware that there are policy divisions among the individuals and organizations that work on tourism in Lexington. They have hoped to see reconciliation of these differences so that tourism initiatives could be more coordinated, and that participants could feel that they are all contributing to a shared project rather than competing or acting at odds with each other. The 2014 Town Meeting authorized funding for design work for renovation of the town Visitors' Center. There has been some disagreement as to the purposes of the Center and how it should function in conjunction with other visitor sites in town. The Selectmen stated that they would delay issuing an RFP for design services until an effort had been made to reach general agreement, both on the purposes and program in the Visitors' Center, but also, perhaps, on implied policy questions. Over the past several months I have had conversations with representatives of the Tourism Committee, the Chamber of Commerce, the Center Committee, the Historical Society, and a number of individuals who interact with more than one tourism group. I have suggested to them that the current question of the Visitors' Center is an opportunity to talk frankly about, and perhaps resolve, some of the existing differences. I have reassured the individuals who have been kind enough to spend time with me that I do not intend to make specific proposals of my own on contested issues, but that I will report to the Selectmen on the points of view expressed to me. Rather than specific policy recommendations, I will propose a possible framework for a general discussion which I hope may lead to greater consensus among the parties. First, however, I will try to summarize information and points of view that I have heard from my conversations, including some specific policy suggestions. Because these discussions were so informative, I have included them at some length. For those who wish to cut to the chase, the proposed Framework for Discussion begins on Page 8 and comments on the Visitors' Center on Page 10. NOTES ON CONVERSATIONS WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE The Chamber of Commerce is amenable to a general review of tourism resources in Lexington and some cost/benefit analysis of their effectiveness. They acknowledge that to date there is 2 little data to indicate that tourism has substantially increased local revenues, although estimates of regional spending on tourism are large. However, Chamber Director Mary Jo Bohart points out that even if tourism results in only a marginal increase in local tax revenue, it supports local businesses (e.g. higher-end restaurants) that our residents want to see in our town, but which our population of 30,000-plus is too small to sustain by itself. Economic development has value beyond direct revenue. Some of the current economic activities of the Chamber of Commerce and the Tourism Committee might equally be classified as community building, having value to residents as much as to tourists. For example, the summer Friday evening concerts sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce encourage people to come into town on Friday evenings and spend money at local businesses (pizza and ice cream!), but they are also a popular service to town residents, like the concerts at the bandstand. Similarly, the activities that fall under the Tourism Committee's "Revolutionary Revelry" program (e.g. the maypole, tap dancing) may be worthwhile activities for the community, particularly for children, but may not demonstrably increase tourism or related revenue. The cost of these activities, in terms of both paid and volunteer labor, could be measured against the general community benefit rather than made part of a tourism budget. Even activities which are clearly conceived as tourism activities need to be measured in the same way. To take the most prominent example, the Liberty Ride: Since its inception in 2002, the LR has developed into a popular program for tourists which offers an excellent presentation on April 19, 1775, including the history of both Lexington and Concord. The Ride makes an hour and a half circuit from Lexington to Concord and back during which riders hear a narration of the events of 1775. Any town subsidy of the Liberty Ride should be measured, at least in part, against town revenue attributable, directly or indirectly, to it. It is likely that as an attraction to tourists, it has raised Lexington's profile on tourism web sites and referral programs, increasing the overall number of visitors to town. Some number of riders buy tickets to other town attractions, such as our historic houses, and some number stay in Lexington for meals and/or shopping. The Chamber of Commerce supports the suggestion that perhaps one or two rounds of the Liberty Ride each day should make the circuit to Concord, while the other circuits should be shorter, confined to Lexington and Minuteman National Park, so that riders would have more incentive to get on and off the bus to visit local attractions or buy a meal, knowing that they could pick up the bus again within 30 minutes or so. As the Tourism Committee suggests that strong ridership depends on the Lexington-Concord route, this suggestion remains to be tested. On all questions of this kind, above all we need actual local data. Regional data is suggestive, but not refined enough to help us make local tourism decisions. For example, we can readily ascertain whether local hotel and restaurant taxes have increased in recent years, but we don't know whether this is attributable to tourism activities, an improved economy encouraging more business travel, or both. Data from local businesses is sketchy and anecdotal. Good data may require businesses to keep track of the patrons' zip codes or collect coupons, for example, to see whether business travelers, or tourists who take the Liberty Ride or visit the local historical sites, actually eat and/or shop in Lexington. There are various ways of collecting this data, but they are labor intensive and may require paid staff work to be done comprehensively. If we are serious about gathering such data, we have to 3 hire staff to do it. It is unfair to expect volunteer committees and private entities to do an adequate job of this. Whether the town chooses to incorporate tourism efforts in the Economic Development Department by hiring additional staff there, or to establish a separate Tourism Department, the first task should be gathering data on which to base decisions. There are many attractive suggestions for serving tourists and encouraging them to spend money in town, such as creating a "Minuteman Trail" through the town center and beyond to highlight sites of historical and architectural interest. Pedestrians on the Trail could access information through historical plaques, or through cell phone applications. The Chamber of Commerce is enthusiastic about the idea of the Historical Society turning the Depot into a museum to exhibit its collection of artifacts. They suggest that admission could be charged by the Historical Society to help offset the expenses of staffing and security. Ideas like these need to be reviewed for their civic and economic development value before being implemented by the town. The Selectmen, in the first instance, and then the Town Manager or whoever the Selectmen designate, should begin to make choices as to which tourism activities are useful, productive, and affordable, and which are not. The Tourism Committee, with its on-the-ground experience, is a valuable resource for advice and information, but the town government must set the policy and direct the implementation. The Chamber suggests that in this case, "top down" is more effective and "bottom up" especially when there are conflicting voices at the bottom. The Visitors' Center/ Use of Town Buildings. The Chamber believes that the current location of the Visitors' Center makes sense, in part because of its convenient proximity to the Minuteman Bike Path, and because it is visible from the Battle Green, which is the stop point for most tour buses and a major attraction for most tourists who come in their own vehicles. However, the Chamber is open to the idea of the Visitors' Center moving to the Depot if this were the town's preference. Some years ago, the Gift Shop in the ground floor of the Visitors Center was a major source of income for the Chamber. However, they advise that this in no longer the case, for several reasons. Overall purchases of souvenirs and books have fallen off considerably, in part, they believe, because the Liberty Ride tickets and historical house tickets are sold at the Visitors Center, and after these substantial purchases, most tourist families are less inclined to spend additional money on souvenirs. While processing payments for the Liberty Ride and house tours represents a substantial portion of the Gift Shop transactions, the staffing cost of this is reimbursed to the Chamber at only ten cents on the dollar. At this point, the cost of staffing the Gift Shop for twelve months a year, including the winter months when visitors are fewer, is enough to largely offset any revenue the Chamber realizes from the Gift Shop. The bottom line for the Chamber: If they were relieved of the stocking and staffing cost of the Gift Shop, they would willingly give up the revenue from it. They are also prepared to seek office space elsewhere in the town, should the town decide to relocate the Visitors Center or take it over. They do not wish their current use of the upstairs of the building to affect the town's decision on whether it is the best location for a Visitors' Center. The Chamber notes that there is a real need for a spot where visitors receive general information on town historical attractions, restaurants, shopping, bathrooms, etc. and some orientation to help 4 them locate all these things. However, they support the idea that an RFP for a design of the Visitors' Center should wait until the underlying policy questions are resolved. They suggest that while the current Visitors Center location is a good one, it is not a necessary location for them, and the town should consider taking over the Visitors Center functions either in the present building or at some other location. NOTES ON CONVERSATIONS WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY The Historical Society identifies itself as a tourism "content provider" with the three historical houses that it maintains and presents to the public. It believes that the town, whether through the Tourism Committee or otherwise, should concentrate on providing good infrastructure for tourism - website, maps, signage, attractive visitors' center and in-town means of transportation - rather than creating program content. While the Historical Society appreciates the efforts the Tourism Committee has made on these fronts, it is concerned that not all attractions get equal billing in the town's brochures, website, etc. It is their impression that the Tourism Committee's pride in the Liberty Ride tends to insure that it gets the most prominent exposure in tourism materials, and that sometimes the town's historic houses, arguably its most unique resource, get little coverage. The Historical Society feels this problem arises out of a certain amount of "mission creep" on the part of the Tourism Committee: the Committee has created its own tourism content, notably the Liberty Ride, which effectively competes with the interpretive programs offered at the historic houses. The Historical Society acknowledges that when ticketing for the Liberty Ride and the historic houses was shared (up to January 1, 2014) it brought additional visitors to the historic houses. However, the Historical Society's share of the ticket price ($3.00 on a $25.00 ticket) resulted in the Historical Society getting minimal revenue from those visitors. Having separated its ticketing from the Liberty Ride in 2014, the houses have seen some 500 fewer visitors, but virtually the same revenue. Of course the Historical Society would prefer to have as many visitors as possible, but it is reluctant to "subsidize" the Liberty Ride by allowing it a much larger share of ticket prices, especially when it perceives the Liberty Ride as structured in a way that tends to discourage visits to the houses. Through some failure of communication in the spring of 2013, the Tourism Committee was prepared to offer an increased revenue share to the Historical Society, while the Historical Society did not perceive such an offer to have been made. While in the past the Historical Society designated a member of the Tourism Committee, this seat has been allowed to remain vacant, which may contribute to such misunderstandings. The Historical Society would prefer a Liberty Ride that stayed in Lexington and actively facilitated visitors getting on and off the bus to visit local attractions. It believes that the hour and a half circuit of the current Liberty Ride loses most of that time to travel from Lexington to Concord and back, time (and money) that might be spent by visitors at Lexington attractions. The Historical Society points out that substantial funding goes into hiring the Liberty Ride bus, advertising the Ride, and hiring staff to deliver the narration. While these expenses may be covered by tickets purchased, the Historical Society would like to see this money spent in supporting and promoting local attractions, which would keep more tourist spending in town. 5 The Historical Society would be interested in a modified Liberty Ride that allowed for perhaps two daily circuits between Lexington and Concord, while the rest of the circuits ran approximately half an hour each and stayed within Lexington, allowing riders to get on and off several times at half hour intervals to see different attractions in town, eat lunch, or make purchases from our stores. The Historical Society would consider returning to the shared ticketing of previous years, if the shares of ticket revenue could be adjusted to a point that both sides agree is fair. The Historical Society has similar concerns about the current itinerary of tour buses, which brings visitors briefly to the Battle Green, where they receive some information at the Visitors' Center, and then returns them to the bus with a Lexington guide narrating their trip to Concord. Since Concord makes no financial contribution to Lexington's tourism initiatives, the Historical Society sees no reason to deliver tourists to the North Bridge or other Concord sites at the expense of local revenue forgone. The Historical Society has recently installed audio visual equipment at the Depot, where they believe visitors could receive orientation information and watch an introductory film. While the Historical Society takes no strong position on whether the Visitors' Center should remain in its present building, the Historical Society is ready to entertain installing additional bathrooms and turning the Depot into the Visitors' Center if the town is interested in this change. They stress that a visitor center should whet tourists' appetite for all the attractions in Lexington and get them back out to visit those attractions as soon as possible. It should provide information and orientation, but not interpretive or historical programs that are available elsewhere in the town. The Historical Society notes that other towns and cities, notably Cambridge, are making efforts to direct their visitors to more stops within the city, not just main attractions, and that we might look to other city programs for examples. Cambridge now features a "Cambridge in 60 Seconds" video that covers museums, coffee shops, shopping and historic sites. This may be similar to the Brand USA program that the Tourism Committee is presently pursuing. NOTES ON CONVERSATIONS WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE TOURISM COMMITTEE The Tourism Committee is the center of tourism initiatives for the town. While a volunteer committee, its members, particularly its chair, have devoted hundreds of hours to the project of bringing more visitors to Lexington and encouraging them to linger and spend money. Some of their initiatives have been long term, such as proposing the creation of a Battle Green Master Plan and helping to see it funded. Some have been focused on encouraging international tourism, such as cultivating Lexington's "sister city" relationship with Antony, France. Currently, the TC is working with Brand USA, an entity that will create short videos filmed at Lexington locations, which will be narrated in a number of foreign languages and distributed accordingly. Some have involved developing specific programs like the Liberty Ride and the month of events comprising "Revolutionary Revelry," or staffing existing programs like the Battle Green Guides. 6 The Tourism Committee maintains its own web site setting out Lexington's attractions. It creates promotional literature, including a map of the Center which includes briefs on many different sites of interest in town. The Committee has represented Lexington at state and regional events focused on developing tourism, and has developed contacts with state and regional entities promoting tourism. It efforts to raise Lexington's profile on tourism search engines and web sites and have borne fruit in recent years. A centerpiece of the Tourism Committee's initiatives is the Liberty Ride, begun in 2002, which provides a narrated bus ride for tourists. It stops at a number of Lexington locations and then makes the circuit to the North Bridge in Concord and back, telling the story of April 19, 1775. The Liberty Ride has been subsidized by the town and in earlier years, by the Masonic National Heritage Museum. I'm advised that it is currently self-supporting. It is an attractive experience for tourists, and its ridership has increased over time. Concerns have been expressed that the current price ($28) and the length of the Ride (one and one half hours on the circuit from Lexington to Concord and back) during which visitors are transported out of town rather than encouraged to stay and sample in-town offerings, discourages them from spending money and time in Lexington itself. The Tourism Committee points out that the attractiveness of the Liberty Ride is key to bringing many visitors to Lexington who would not otherwise come, and that ridership definitely increased when the full circuit to Concord was added to the original ride. They do not believe that the Liberty Ride in any way detracts from other Lexington offerings, but that in fact, when there was a shared ticket for the Liberty Ride and the Historical Society's historic houses, it directed a substantial number of visitors to them. In any case, "more is more" when it comes to attracting visitors. Noting previous disagreements between the Historical Society and the Tourism Committee as to a fair allocation of monies received from the sale of joint tickets, the Tourism Committee states that it had offered an increased share to the Historical Society and felt that it had been rebuffed. They also point out that while the Liberty Ride is widely advertised by the Tourism Committee, so are Lexington's other attractions, including the Historical Society's historic houses, and that the Historical Society in effect receives free advertising and free transportation of tourists to its sites from the Tourism Committee's initiatives. The Tourism Committee believes strongly that tourism is an economic engine for towns, and that Lexington, with its unique historic attractions, is well positioned to develop this source of revenue. Because Lexington has no Tourism Department, nor any staff member who is exclusively focused on tourism, the work described above has largely fallen to the Tourism Committee. They would like to see the town give much more attention to this work, either through the creation of a Tourism Department or by hiring more staff to work on it, and certainly by creating a town budget for tourism beyond sporadic allocations for specific programs. While they don't have a written "Strategic Plan" they feel that they have in effect created one as they have pursued the kind of initiatives described. Renovation of the current Visitors' Center is definitely part of such a strategic plan. The Tourism Committee stresses that they have been advocating for this renovation for at least three years, and that it is clearly necessary in light of the condition of the current Center and its limitations in 7 accommodating busloads of tourists who arrive at the Battle Green. They feel strongly that the current location of the Visitors' Center is the right one because it is in a town-owned building in view of the Green and readily accessible to tourists who tend to arrive there. They state that they have been flexible with regard to program offered at the Visitors' Center, and are willing to limit such program to orientation and general information for tourists, encouraging them to then visit the attractions throughout town. To relieve the burden on Chamber of Commerce employees, the Tourism Committee now has an employee stationed at the Visitor's Center to sell Liberty Ride tickets. The Tourism Committee feels strongly that it has worked very hard over the last decade to raise Lexington's tourism profile and to develop programs attractive to visitors. They see no conflict in the town (via the Tourism Committee) developing programs of its own, even with considerable content overlap with program offered by the Historical Society at existing historic sites, and believe that the more choices available to visitors, the easier it is to sell Lexington. They consider that there is often not enough attention given to the expertise they have acquired over the years, and that individual complaints from various stakeholders tend to block or delay necessary initiatives like renovation of the Visitors' Center without contributing positively to the tourism effort. With regard to the current "listening tour" I have undertaken, they have serious concerns. They note that a number of attempts have already been made to bring stakeholders to consensus. They do not believe that further attempts at meetings of stakeholders are likely to be productive, and they do not see any need for a broad based review of tourism initiatives. Given the inevitable slowness of "process" (well known to us all) they feel that these efforts are only another form of delay, in effect preventing them from getting on with the program. And, as noted, until the town itself decides to take the reins of the tourism effort, they feel that they are the guiding force in this area. NOTES ON CONVERSTATIONS WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CENTER COMMITTEE The Center Committee proposes to approach tourism discussions from the point of view of resources available to tourists rather than that of groups working on tourism. That is, the whole range of offerings in Lexington, including both places and programs, should be laid out, and each such offering given at least a general cost/benefit analysis. What is the cost in labor and money in preserving, maintaining and presenting each such resource, whether a historic building, a talk from a Battle Green Guide, a summer concert, or a narrated bus ride? What is the source of labor and money for each such resource? Are the costs warranted by the contribution of that resource to the overall effort? Are such costs fairly allocated? A general discussion of all available offerings would help to identify areas in which overlap of program offerings may be wasteful. For example, while the Historical Society may have been dissatisfied with its share of ticket revenue when it shared a ticket with the Liberty Ride, the value to the Historical Society of having town bus transportation to the historical houses needs to be factored in. The various 8 bodies all contribute in different ways to the effort and should be encouraged to do their part. When the Historical Society purchased the town Depot, there was talk of it being used as a museum for the artifacts in the Historical Society's collection. This would be a substantial additional contribution to the town from the Society. As a local merchant and on behalf of the Center Committee, Chair Jerry Michelson favors any tourism initiatives that will bring additional potential customers to the town center. While he favors a cost/benefit analysis of various tourism activities and attractions, he acknowledges that getting anything like "hard" data on the results of tourism efforts is difficult. As a merchant, he has tracked customers who come from the Liberty Ride and found them to be very few. However, a shoe store is not the most likely destination for short term visitors. He tends to see local residents whose out of town visitors have left them their coupons from the Liberty Ride. He has seen some traffic from tourist buses, who now often allow an hour or so "layover" in Lexington for their passengers. The Center Committee acknowledges that the proportion of tax revenue which the town realizes from retail businesses in the town Center and neighborhood commercial districts is very small compared to that from larger businesses located in the Hartwell Avenue and Hayden Avenue commercial districts. However, as the Center Committee carries out its mission to maintain a lively, attractive and sustainable Center Business District, it considers tourism a significant contributor to that effort. As noted by the Chamber of Commerce, out of town visitors to the Center help to sustain businesses there, even if they do not appreciably raise overall tax revenue. With regard to the Visitors' Center, the Center Committee has voted to support town Meeting's appropriation of design funds for renovation of the current Center, noting that it is worn, and of inadequate size to accommodate busloads of tourists who tend to arrive at once. The Committee has not seriously discussed the Depot as an alternative location for a Visitors Center, although it has noted that the Depot is more centrally located in the Center Business District and appears to be a natural site for tourists to come to seeking information. The Center Committee Chair is not persuaded that the Depot would accommodate groups of tourists as well as the present location and notes that issues of staffing would have to be worked out. The Center Committee designates a liaison, Fred Johnson, to attend Tourism Committee meetings and keep the Center Committee informed. They note that the Historical Society, which holds a statutory seat on the Tourism Committee, no longer has even a formal liaison member, although Richard Pagett, a member of the Historical Society Board, has been attending the Tourism Committee's meetings informally. This lack of interaction contributes to possible misunderstandings and lack of shared information among tourism participants. To the extent that it would seem useful, the Center Committee is willing to act as an honest broker between points of view on the Tourism Committee, the Historical Society and other bodies. FRAMEWORK FOR DISCUSSION My conversations have suggested some threshold questions: 9 1. Does the Town of Lexington wish to pursue tourism, either as a source of revenue or for other reasons? 2. If so, what benefits do we expect to realize from doing so? 3. What resources does the town have to offer tourists? 4. What is the cost (in both labor and money) of preserving, maintaining, and presenting each of these resources and how does it compare with the benefits of doing so? 5. Who or what entity is going to bear the costs identified? 6. Who or what entity should make policy decisions on which tourism initiatives to pursue, and how to coordinate them so that they augment rather than compete with each other? There is a general consensus that Lexington does wish to build and support tourism here for two broad reasons. The town is blessed with unique historical sites and an important historical narrative about our country's history. Most believe that it is our civic responsibility to preserve and maintain these sites, make them accessible to the public, and use them to tell Lexington's story, specifically for April 19, 1775, but also over the course of its subsequent history. This is a substantial "benefit" regardless of any economic return that may be realized. Beyond this, we pursue tourism for the sake of revenue, or more broadly, economic development. While the town hopes tourism will yield increased commercial tax revenue from hotels, shops and restaurants, the margin of tax increase is not the only measure of benefit. The Chamber of Commerce points out that we are a town of 30,000-plus residents, not a large enough population to easily sustain all of the high end restaurants, attractive shops, and arts and entertainment venues we may wish to see in our town center. Patrons from outside of town, whether from China, Wyoming or Cambridge, are necessary to sustain the local businesses that residents want to see. So we have general consensus on Questions 1 and 2. Step 1. Initial Discussion Questions 3 is a means of structuring the discussion that I propose. There are disagreements about the role of one group or another in pursuing tourism. While the Tourism Committee was conceived as the general coordinating body, each group tends to pursue its own course without any coordinated review. The Center Committee Chair has suggested that we approach this discussion from the point of view of resources, rather than groups. We need to lay out a comprehensive list of all such resources (or at least categories of resources) to include historic sites and buildings, shops, restaurants, and performance venues, and also programs, such as Battle Green guide presentations, the Liberty Ride, summer concerts, and so on. The ultimate goal of the town's tourism program should be a mosaic of offerings, which, to the extent possible, complement and augment each other. Some overlap is inevitable; no tourist is going to take in everything; and as the Tourism Committee argues, "more can be more" in attracting visitors. However, we need to begin to assess whether some overlaps are essentially wasteful, in that they may attract tourist spending primarily at the expense of other programs, or at the expense of more general spending in the town. Seeing the range of resources as a whole 10 may allow us talk about how they fit together, and whether, in some instances, adjustments to one or another program may provide greater benefit from the town's offerings as a whole. I would propose an initial discussion of tourism stakeholders around this concept of a Lexington tourism mosaic. A common understanding of what resources we have, and some consensus on how they might fit together, could then lead to discussion on which groups should shepherd which programs as we go forward. This is, in a sense, no more than the coordinating mission originally assigned to the Tourism Committee, but I believe it can only happen with all the interests in the room, tasked with assembling a whole picture, not defending one program or another. If my own experience is any guide, each group could emerge better informed about all the different efforts being made by the others. The Visitors Center It seems to me that this discussion can readily lead to a consensus on the purpose and program appropriate for a Visitors' Center. The concerns of the Historical Society about Visitors' Center program duplicating material more fully developed at the historical houses have been heard. All parties have already indicated that they are comfortable with a Visitors' Center simply providing general information on all the town's resources, with orientation as to how to access them. Attention should be given to a balanced presentation of the town's offerings. The Visitors' Center is generally seen as a service supportive of tourism rather than a site of independent interest. However, a question has arisen in my conversations as to whether the current location of the Visitors' Center is ideal, or whether the Depot (owned by the Historical Society) should be considered as an alternative site. The Historical Society is prepared to consider alterations to the Depot (e.g., more bathrooms) if the town is interested in this alternative. The Chamber of Commerce advises that if they were relieved of the duty to run the existing Visitor Center gift shop, they could consider relocating. The arguments in favor of the current location include its proximity to the Battle Green, where tour buses and tourists in cars tend to arrive, and its availability as a town-owned building. Arguments in favor of the Depot include its central Mass Ave location, often mistaken by tourists for a Visitors' Center, and its availability without major overhaul by the town. If there were to be any change in the Visitors' Center location, at least two issues would arise: whether to maintain a gift shop in that location, and staffing. Obviously, a consensus on the location of the Visitors' Center must be reached before design funds are expended on the current location. I have heard the Tourism Committee's understandable distress that renovation of the Visitors' Center might be further delayed by this question, after three years of advocacy and a vote of Town Meeting for design funds. I am reluctant to contribute to any unnecessary delay, and can only suggest that the Selectmen consider the question of location promptly with whatever input they need, in order to reach a decision and move forward. Step 2 (and onward) Data Gathering The proposed initial discussion is only a first step. My conversations have led me to believe that we are unlikely to reach any lasting agreement on policy until we have at least general agreement 11 on some facts (Questions 4 and 5). We need some measure of the value of specific programs and the advisability of keeping, expanding, modifying, or abandoning them. Ultimately, with regard to each resource or resource category, we need to consider, at least generally, the cost of maintaining and presenting it, as well as the source of that labor and funding. Is it taxpayer funds, private funds, federal and state grants, ticket sales, volunteer labor? Does the cost exceed the benefit (broadly defined, as in Question 2)? If a particular program is self-sustaining without contributing substantially to tourism beyond itself, is there sufficient benefit to justify it? Do some activities contribute generally to the quality of life in Lexington without yielding any identifiable tourism benefit and if so, should they be defined and funded as tourism activities? Private businesses of any kind are privately funded, of course, but if we are pursuing tourism programs in order to support them, we need to consider the cost/benefit of those programs: do we have evidence that they are working? Where public/private partnerships exist, as in the preservation and maintenance of historic sites, we need to factor in public versus private contributions. Regarding presentation of unique historical resources, we may choose to define the "benefit" as a given, but we must also consider the level of resources expended in their support. For example, the town, through the Community Preservation Fund, has made large investments in the renovation of each of our three historical houses, one owned by the town and the other two owned by the private non-profit Historical Society. At what funding level should the town provide ongoing support for these resources in the form of advertising, transport, etc.? Should it look to the Historical Society for contribution toward these things? The Chamber of Commerce sponsors events throughout the year, such as outdoor concerts, craft shows and holiday lighting. What is the cost of providing DPW assistance for these events? Insofar as they help to attract visitors to the town, should they receive any additional town funding? Direct town spending on tourism can be quantified, and in many cases, this spending supports a range of tourism resources. Maintenance of the town and Tourism Committee's web sites, creation of advertising brochures and maps, and presentations to state-wide tourism gatherings presumably support all, or many categories, of the town's tourism resources. Periodic review of these initiatives should insure that the full range of town resources is being presented. Specific costs of DPW and Police services can be allocated to individual events, such as the daily activities of the Tourism Committee's Revolutionary Revelry program, or the Chamber events mentioned. All of these expenditures should receive some level of cost/benefit analysis in the tourism context, which may lead to some of them being categorized as valued community building rather than tourism. The Lexington tourism initiative with the most sizable budget is the Tourism Committee's Liberty Ride, which, although initially subsidized by the town and the Masonic National Heritage Museum, has reportedly reached an income level to be self-sustaining. Here, as elsewhere, the analysis should include whether the Ride, by attracting more visitors to Lexington, makes an identifiable contribution to tourist spending in town beyond the ticket sales that support the Ride. Conversely, does the Lexington-Concord itinerary of the Liberty Ride 12 reduce the level of tourist spending that might otherwise occur in Lexington? In either case, is its presentation of the Lexington story valuable solely on its own terms? All of my conversations have noted that data of this kind is difficult to obtain and even more difficult to quantify. However, until some understanding/agreement is reached on the cost/benefit of our various tourism initiatives, supporters of one or another of them are likely to be at odds. Step 3. Who Is in Charge Here? The complexity of these questions brings us to Question 6: Who or what entity is going to make the ultimate policy decisions with regard to a tourism program (or strategic plan, if you like) for Lexington. Who has the expertise, funding or staff to make a serious data-gathering effort, which will provide the basis of such decisions? While my conversations have approached this issue from different sides, I believe there is some convergence on these questions. The Chamber of Commerce put it this way: "Policy on this should come from the top down, not from the bottom up." The bottom is energetic but not unified. The Chamber also made the point that it is unrealistic to ask private groups with single missions or volunteer committees to conduct professional level data gathering exercises. The Historical Society has suggested that initiatives conducted by other municipalities like Cambridge be consulted, and that in Lexington, we should return to the basic mission statement which provided for a Tourism Committee advisory to the decision-making Board of Selectmen, rather than one that originates independent tourism programs which may possibly compete with existing resources. The Center Committee agrees with the difficulty of informal gathering or analyzing of data, but would like to see some analysis of costs and benefits. It does not want to be drawn into policy disputes among various tourism stakeholders, but considers itself, in this context, to be "Switzerland." The Tourism Committee Chair has strongly advocated that the town itself become more engaged in the tourism project, by hiring additional economic development staff to address tourism or by forming a Tourism Department. Particularly with regard to funding, the Tourism Committee has found itself half way between a committee and a department, which is a stressful place to be. Also it appears to the Committee that while it has been left, perhaps by partial default, to develop and pursue a tourism strategy for Lexington, its many hundreds of volunteer hours, and the expertise gained from them, are sometimes unacknowledged or unappreciated. The question posed by the Tourism Chair is: Does the town really want to pursue tourism, and if so, what is it going to do about it? So the final step would seem to be a definition of tourism responsibilities, initially by the Board of Selectmen, and thereafter by their designated authority, whether the Town Manager, the Director of Economic Development, a Tourism Department or some other entity. The town needs to provide more clarity as to the scope of activities appropriate to each group, and also the scope of each group's responsibility of for labor, money, or other forms of contribution to the 13 joint enterprise. "Joint enterprise" is a good word on which to end this report; as the town seeks to realize maximum benefit from its various tourism initiatives. AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING DATE: STAFF: ITEM NUMBER: October 6, 2014 Melisa Tintocalis I.4 SUBJECT: Endorse Community Innovation Challenge Grants EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On October 10, 2014 the FY15 Community Innovation Challenge (CIC) grant applications are due. This year the Town of Lexington, through the Economic Development Office, is the lead municipality for an application requesting funds to continue the operation of the REV Bus service through April 2016. In addition, the Town of Lexington has been asked to lend its support to two other CIC grant applications, one for the creation of the Middlesex 3 Transportation Management Association and another for the support of the MAPC Parking Meter Technology Program. The CIC grant program was developed in 2012 by the Patrick Administration to provide incentives, such as technical assistance, training, and other funding for municipal leaders to work together to pursue innovative ways to deliver services to taxpayers more efficiently. Each application submittal requires documentation of local support; the Board of Selectmen is being asked to support and sign the applications included in this packet. 1. Project Title: The REV Bus Lead Applicant: Town of Lexington; co applicant, Town of Bedford Amount: $86,500 Overview: The funding from this grant application would be used to extend the operation period of the increasingly popular REV Bus that connects the Hartwell-Wiggins business districts to the Alewife Red Line Station. The goal is to sustain the REV Bus for an additional 12 months while cultivating ridership and also allowing time for property owners to incorporate future contributions into their operating expenses so that the REV will operate exclusively on private funds and fares by the end 2016. The service geographically covers the area along Route 2 and 95 North. 2. Project Title: Middlesex 3 Transportation Management Association Lead Applicant: Middlesex 3 Coalition Amount: $139,400 Overview: The funding from this grant application would be used to create a transportation management association and to hire a Transportation and Workforce Development Coordinator to assist businesses, developers, and community groups in the towns of Bedford, Billerica, Burlington, Chelmsford, Lexington, Tewksbury, Tyngsboro, Westford and the City of Lowell. The association would address and coordinate transportation resources along Route 3 to 495 as well as link workforce development needs with education resources. 3. Project Title: MAPC Parking Meter Technology Program Lead Applicant: MAPC Amount: $260,000 Overview: The funding from this grant would be distributed to participating communities to help purchase new meter technology that will allow for demand-based pricing within the calendar year of 2015. Depending on the final award amount, eligible communities could receive up to $20,000 to purchase new meters. ______________________________________________________________________________ FINANCIAL IMPACT: None RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTED MOTION: 1. Move to support and sign three Community Innovation Challenge Grants applications including: 1) The REV Bus (Town of Lexington, lead applicant); 2) Middlesex 3 Transportation Management Association (Middlesex3 Coalition, lead applicant); and 3) MAPC’s Parking Meter Fund (MAPC, lead applicant). STAFF FOLLOW-UP: Economic Development Office will follow-up on grant submittals FY15 Community Innovation Challenge Grant Middlesex 3 Coalition Application FY15 Application Deadline: October 10, 2014 Sign on behalf of the Applicants: Applicants must submit documentation of demonstrated support for the proposed initiative and grant application from each participating entity through the local support documentation form at the end of the application. Please refer to the chart below to determine who should sign your application. Town with a Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen (The chair or Town Manager may sign for the Board, provided that evidence shows that the Board authorized the Town Manager or chair to sign on behalf of the Board). Town with a Town Council Town Manager/ Administrator Cities Mayor, unless charter designates some other local office to be chief administrative or executive officer (i.e. City Manager). M.G.L. Ch. 4 Sec. 7 Regional school district School Committee (The chair or superintendent may sign for the committee, provided that evidence shows that the committee authorized the chair or superintendent to sign on behalf of the committee) Regional planning agencies and councils of governments Executive Director Special municipal districts Directors or equivalent Counties Commissioners Signature Entity Print Name Title Signature Entity Print Name Title Middlesex 3 Coalition - Community Innovation Challenge (CIC) Grant FY2015 Middlesex 3 Transportation Management Association (M3 TMA) and Transportation and Workforce Development Coordinator Overview The Middlesex 3 Coalition is requesting community support to apply for a FY2015 Community Innovation Challenge (CIC) Grant. This funding would be used to create a Middlesex 3 Transportation Management Association (M3 TMA) and to hire a Transportation and Workforce Development Coordinator to assist businesses, developers and community groups in the towns of Bedford, Billerica, Burlington, Chelmsford, Lexington, Tewksbury, Tyngsboro, Westford and the city of Lowell. The M3 TMA will create a system to address and coordinate transportation resources as well as link workforce development needs with available workforce and educational resources. A critical component of this grant will be the hiring of a Transportation and Workforce Development Coordinator who will serve as a point of contact linking businesses, developers and community groups to both transportation and educational resources. Overall, the estimated costs of the M3 TMA and Workforce Development Iniatitive are $139,400 and are detailed below. Background – Current CIC Project In 2013, the Coalition was generously awarded a FY2014 CIC Grant of $147,000 from the Office of Administration and Finance for transportation coordination and improvements in Billerica, Burlington, Bedford, Chelmsford, and Lowell. This funding is currently being used to: Create an inventory of current transportation services, Evaluate the effectiveness of the existing services, Determine the need for additional transit by meeting with area businesses, stakeholders, and community leaders Develop a marketing plan to educate the public about the current transportation programs in the region, Coordinate the existing transportation resources in the towns of Billerica, Burlington, Bedford, Chelmsford, and the city of Lowell. While work on the FY2014 grant is still in progress, the early results are very positive. Over the last seven months, leadership within the Middlesex 3 communities have been working together to evaluate transportation resources within the region and determine gaps in the transportation system. Through outreach and coordination meetings, it has been determined that there is a strong desire to provide more transportation options. These meetings have included companies, office developments and educational institutions, such as EMD Serono, Lahey Health, Cross Point Towers, E Ink, The Davis Companies, iRobot, BioM, New England Executive Park, Nordblom, Middlesex Community College, UMass Lowell and The MITRE Corporation as well as community groups in the Middlesex 3 municipalities. Based on the information received through these outreach efforts as well as ongoing data collection including employee zip code analyses, there is a clear focus from businesses and community groups that increasing transportation options in the region is a priority. Common themes among these meetings included: Providing predictable “last mile” connections for employees to get to and from work, Enhancing transportation systems that enable companies to recruit new employees from the Boston/Cambridge area, and retain valued employees, Offering green transportation initiatives that meet environmental goals. As a result of this research and outreach, the Middlesex 3 Coalition Board of Directors seeks to establish the M3 TMA under the umbrella of the Middlesex 3 Coalition. The M3 TMA will become a self-supporting transportation organization by year two, as interest in membership from area businesses has been strong. In concert with these efforts, E Ink has established a shuttle service to provide transportation linkage from Cambridge and Boston to their offices in Billerica. The shuttle service is anticipated to be expanded and falls under the umbrella of the M3 TMA. In addition to the E Ink shuttle service, Lahey Health has agreed to contribute $100,000 as part of a mitigation agreement with the Department of Environmental Protection. These funds are provided as matching dollars for businesses in the Middlesex 3 service area who wish to participate in a shuttle program and join the M3 TMA. Each business may receive up to $20,000 to participate in a 12 month trial shuttle service. This mitigation agreement aims to decrease vehicle emissions and air pollution by encouraging shuttle usage for businesses, employees, and residents as an alternative to single occupancy vehicles. According to DEP regulations, these funds can be used solely for shuttle services and not for operating expenses of the TMA. Proposed CIC Project The Middlesex 3 Coalition is seeking FY2015 CIC Grant funding to take the next steps in creating a regional Transportation Management Association. This proposal includes all nine Middlesex 3 Communities, as the Coalition has expanded its geographic borders to include Lexington, Tewksbury, Tyngsboro and Westford as well as the original five communities of Bedford, Billerica, Burlington, Chelmsford, and Lowell. Coordination of transportation resources and outreach with the four new communities will be addressed as part of the M3 TMA. This work will be done as part of the job responsibilities of the Transportation and Workforce Development Coordinator. Also, it should be noted that two of the Middlesex 3 communities have existing TMAs in place within their communities. Westford participates in CrossTown Connect and Lexington has shuttle service to Hayden and Hartwell Avenues through the Route 128 Business Council TMA. Our TMA will serve to complement these existing associations and provide needed linkages between the transportation network including these TMA services. The Middlesex 3 Coalition believes that the M3 TMA will be a more resourceful and effective organization if the TMA Director also provides workforce development resources. It is logical that the M3 TMA incorporates the resources of a workforce development coordinator as access to and retention of a high quality workforce is a key reason businesses are interested in alternative modes of transportation. Businesses are concerned with environmental impacts, demands on the current infrastucture, parking concerns and the like. However, access to and retention of a high quality workforce has emerged as the primary reason businesses in this region are willing to invest time and money towards a Transportation Management Association (TMA). Therefore, it is logical for the TMA Director to incorporate workforce assistance, as it would provide a more efficient level of service and provide additional resources to the area companies. The role of the Transportation and Workforce Development Coordinator will include: Engaging with the MBTA, LRTA, MART, and private carriers to improve connections to, and promote the use of, all modes of public transportation; Collaborating with participating employers to establish on-site commuter programs, developing programs designed to meet each employers specific needs based on feedback from the employer, including the training of Employee Transportation Coordinators; Designing and conducting promotional events and activities to encourage employees of member companies to rideshare (carpool, vanpool, or take public transportation); Serving as the primary contact for outside agencies such as the MassCommute, Massachusetts Department of Transportation, MassRIDES, or others as necessary on transportation matters, participate in meetings of these organizations as needed; Working with local, state and federal officials where necessary, to implement programs to help reduce traffic congestion in the area; Coordinating existing transportation services; Addressing employment concerns and matching employer needs with the available workforce development resources; Introducing businesses to available educational resources within Middlesex 3 Communities; Working with the Middlesex 3 Workforce Development Committee to coordinate initiatives, tasks and outreach efforts among the educational and workforce development resources , including UMass Lowell, Middlesex Community College, Northeastern University (Burlington), Shawsheen Technical High School, Nashoba Valley Technical High School, Greater Lowell Technical High School, Minuteman Technical High School, Greater Lowell Career Center, Greater Lowell Workforce Investment Board, the Career Place, Metro North Regional Employment Board as well as the local primary and secondary schools, etc.; Assisting with the coordination and applications for Massachusetts Workforce Training Grants; Coordinating between businesses and educational / workforce development instiutions for interships, externships, career days, in-kind and other donations, and other means to coordinate participation. During year one, the Transportation and Workforce Development Coordinator will focus on outreach to businesses throughout the nine communities. This will be done in part through outreach with CoStar contacts. In addition to funding the Transportation and Workforce Development Coordinator, the CIC grant funding to establish the M3 TMA will include start up costs for services, marketing and administrative expenses. Details are outlined in the attached budget. Estimated Revenue START-UP PHASE Ends 12/2014 YEAR 1 – CIC FY 2015 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 *Member Dues and Mitigation $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 $80,000 Requirements from Communities MassCommute TMA Assistance $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 CIC Grant YR 2 $139,400 TOTAL REVENUE SOURCES $139,400 $100,000 $110,000 $120,000 $130,000 * Year 2 Estimate: ten (10) members contributing $50,000 to M3 TMA for membership dues; Years 3 - 5 Estimate: Two (2) new members per year @$10,000 in additional revenue per year OPERATING EXPENSES Estimated Administrative Expense START-UP PHASE YEAR 1 – CIC FY 2015 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 TMA Director and Workforce Development Coordinator (w/benefits) FY2014 CIC Grant $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $80,000 $90,000 Support Staff FY2014 CIC Grant $4,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 Middlesex3 Staff FY2014 CIC Grant $30,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Financial Review (CPA AUDIT) N/A $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 Office Lease(in-kind) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Travel FY2014 CIC Grant $1,000 $1,500 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 Ridematching Software N/A N/A N/A $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 Guaranteed Ride Home FY2014 CIC Grant $250 $250 $250 $250 $250 Misc.(office expenses) FY2014 CIC Grant $250 $250 $500 $500 $500 TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES $107,500 $87,000 $91,250 $102,250 $113,250 Estimated Marketing Expense Develop Logo/Marketing Materials FY2014 CIC Grant $5,000 $3,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 Big Contacts Database FY2014 CIC Grant $2,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 CoStar N/A $8,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 Bike Promotion FY2014 CIC Grant $1,000 $500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 Commuter Events FY2014 CIC Grant $1,500 $2,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 Promotions/Incentives FY2014 CIC Grant $2,000 $1,000 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 Mass Commute Dues $0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 TOTAL MARKETING EXPENSES $19,900 $11,500 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 10% Contingency N/A $12,000 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $139,400 $98,500 $107,250 $118,250 $129,250 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING DATE: PRESENTER: ITEM NUMBER: October 6, 2014 Rob Addelson I.5 SUBJECT: Vote the FY2015 Water/Sewer Rates EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is the third of three meetings on proposed Water/Wastewater rates for FY2015. At the first meeting held on August 25, 2014, the Board reviewed the results of FY2014 Water and Wastewater operations, billed usage and retained earnings histories; the FY2015 Water and Wastewater budgets as adopted at the 2014 annual town meeting (direct and indirect costs that will serve as the basis for calculating FY2015 water and wastewater rates), and proposed changes to the budgets adopted last spring; and, preliminary FY2015 water and wastewater rates. At the second meeting, held on September 22, 2014, the Board took public comment on proposed Water/Wastewater rates for FY2015. Tonight’s meeting is for the purpose of setting FY2015 Water/Wastewater rates. The proposed rates presented on September 22rd reflected a combined increase of 2.1%, or $32 annually, for the average user of 120 hundred cubic feet. Those same rates are presented tonight for the Board’s consideration. In addition, the Board is being presented with an alternative set of water rates which yield a combined increase of 1.8%, or $28 annually, for that average user. The reason for the change in water rates is follows: 1. Subsequent to the presentation on September 22nd, the Fall 2014 reads for Section 1 irrigation accounts were completed. An analysis of usage for Section 1 and the application of that usage to projections of Sections 2 and 3 (to be read in October and November) indicate that the projections of irrigation usage for all of FY15 that was used to generate proposed rates on September 22nd can be increased by an additional 10,000 HCF. This results in increased water rates of 4.2% versus 5.1% presented on September 22nd and combined increase of 1.8% versus 2.1% presented on September 22nd. Based on these changes, staff is proposing two options for FY2015 water and wastewater rates for consideration by the Board: Option 1: Projected Annual Irrigation Usage at 244,000 HCF Option 2: Projected Annual Irrigation Usage at 254,000 HCF In addition, staff is proposing the following changes to non-rate revenue fee schedules. Residential / Commercial / Industrial FY14 Water Rates Proposed FY15 Water Rates % Change FY14 Wastewater Rates FY15 Wastewater Rates % Change block 1 $3.31 $3.48 5.1% $7.00 $7.05 0.8% block 2 $4.97 $5.23 5.1% $11.43 $11.52 0.8% block 3 $6.55 $6.89 5.1% $18.17 $18.31 0.8% irrigation $6.55 $6.89 5.1% NA NA 0.0% municipal $2.34 $2.42 3.4% $2.65 $2.88 8.7% Hanscom/Lincoln Labs $4.88 $5.13 5.1% NA NA NA VA Hospital $5.83 $6.13 5.1% NA NA NA Bedford-water $2.36 $2.44 3.6% NA NA NA Residential / Commercial / Industrial FY14 Water Rates Proposed FY15 Water Rates % Change FY14 Wastewater Rates FY15 Wastewater Rates % Change block 1 $3.31 $3.45 4.2% $7.00 $7.05 0.8% block 2 $4.97 $5.18 4.2% $11.43 $11.52 0.8% block 3 $6.55 $6.82 4.2% $18.17 $18.31 0.8% irrigation $6.55 $6.82 4.2% NA NA 0.0% municipal $2.34 $2.42 3.4% $2.65 $2.88 8.7% Hanscom/Lincoln Labs $4.88 $5.08 4.2% NA NA NA VA Hospital $5.83 $6.07 4.2% NA NA NA Bedford-water $2.36 $2.44 3.6% NA NA NA FY14 FY15 Tail Piece Charges 5/8” (straight) None $8.00 each 5/8” (90 Bend) None $11.00 each 3/4” (straight) None $9.00 each 3/4” (90 Bend) None $14.00 each 1” (straight) None $14.00 each 1” (90 Bend) None $19.00 each Water Meter Charges 5/8” Meter $78.00 No Change 3/4” Meter $103.00 $100.00 1” Meter $130.00 $127.00 1 ½” Meter $535.00 No Change 2” Meter $725.00 No Change Radio Read (devices) $131.00 No Change (devices) Backflow Prevention Device Testing None $35/test Water Usage Fee for Demolition None $75/da y Included as an attachment to this agenda item is a PowerPoint presentation including FY14 operating results, proposed FY15 budgets, retained earnings histories, proposed FY15 rates and their impact on low, average and high users, and non-rate revenue recommendations. Also, included is a memorandum from the Assistant Town Manager for Finance to the Town Manager dated October 3, 2014 in response to questions raised by Joel Adler at the public hearing held on September 22nd. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Rates as proposed will generate revenue need to fully support the FY2015 direct and indirect operating costs of water and wastewater operations. RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTED MOTION: Move that the Board approve (Option 1) (Option 2) proposed FY2015 water and wastewater rate schedules as shown above, and the changes to the non-rate revenue fee schedules. STAFF FOLLOW-UP: Finance Prepared by rna FY2015 WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SETTINGPROPOSED RATES FY14 OPERATING RESULTSWATER FUNDBudget Actual DifferenceRevenues $ 8,696,732 $ 9,772,249 $ 1,075,517 Expenditures $ 8,696,792 $ 8,654,075 $ 42,717 Addition to Fund Balance $ 1,118,234 WASTEWATER FUNDBudget Actual DifferenceRevenues $ 9,225,900 $ 10,101,666 $ 875,766 Expenditures $ 9,225,900 $ 9,087,854 $ 138,046 Addition to Fund Balance $ 1,013,812 FY15 PROPOSED BUDGETSChangeFY14 FY15 $ %Water $ 8,696,792 $ 9,268,774 $ 571,982 6.6%Wastewater $ 9,225,900 $ 9,511,297 $ 285,397 3.1%Combined $ 17,922,692 $ 18,780,071 $ 857,379 4.8% RETAINED EARNINGS HISTORYCertified as of 6/30/2011Certified as of 6/30/2012Certified as of 6/30/2013Projected Certification as of 6/30/14 1WATERCertified $ 1,952,253 $ 2,066,566 $ 2,324,007 $ 2,100,000 Appropriated $ 575,000 $ 1,050,000 $ 1,323,500 NA WASTEWATERCertified $ 1,168,190 $ 1,310,716 $ 1,990,816 $ 2,000,000 Appropriated $ 150,000 $ 300,000 $ 990,500 NA 1Contributing to the projected 6/30/14 certification of water retained earnings is FY13 usage by Bedford in excess of estimates attributable to its aggressive flushing program in the summer of 2013, which resulted in payments from Bedford being approximately $250,000 greater than projections. IRRIGATION USAGESection 1 Section 2 Section 3 TotalsProjected Usage for Rate MakingFall 2013 57,649 94,261 99,790 251,700Spring 2014 12,780 8,907 4,546 26,23370,429 103,168 104,336 277,933244,000 Fall 2014 59,822 97,815 103,552 261,188Spring 2015 - 4 year minimum 6,286 2,858 3,262 12,40666,108 100,673 106,814 273,594254,000 FY14 ACTUAL USAGE (HCF)FY15 EXTRAPOLATED USAGE BASED ON SECTION 1 READSFall 2014 usage for Sections 2 and 3 are an extrapolation based on the ratio of the Fall 2014 Section 1 usage to Fall 2013 Section 1 usage. Spring 2015 reads are based on the the minimum usage for the prior four spring reads. PROPOSED FY15 RATES-OPTION 1Residential / Commercial / IndustrialFY14 Water RatesProposed FY15 Water Rates% ChangeFY14 Wastewater RatesFY15 Wastewater Rates% Changeblock 1 $3.31 $3.48 5.1% $7.00 $7.05 0.8%block 2 $4.97 $5.23 5.1% $11.43 $11.52 0.8%block 3 $6.55 $6.89 5.1% $18.17 $18.31 0.8%irrigation$6.55 $6.89 5.1% NA NA 0.0%municipal$2.34 $2.42 3.4% $2.65 $2.88 8.7%Hanscom/Lincoln Labs$4.88 $5.13 5.1% NA NA NAVA Hospital$5.83 $6.13 5.1% NA NA NABedford-water$2.36 $2.44 3.6% NA NA NA PROPOSED FY15 RATES-OPTION 2Residential / Commercial / IndustrialFY14 Water RatesProposed FY15 Water Rates% ChangeFY14 Wastewater RatesFY15 Wastewater Rates% Changeblock 1 $3.31 $3.45 4.2% $7.00 $7.05 0.8%block 2 $4.97 $5.18 4.2% $11.43 $11.52 0.8%block 3 $6.55 $6.82 4.2% $18.17 $18.31 0.8%irrigation$6.55 $6.82 4.2% NA NA 0.0%municipal$2.34 $2.42 3.4% $2.65 $2.88 8.7%Hanscom/Lincoln Labs$4.88 $5.08 4.2% NA NA NAVA Hospital$5.83 $6.07 4.2% NA NA NABedford-water$2.36 $2.44 3.6% NA NA NA OPTION 1: IMPACT OF PRELIMINARY RATES ON LOW/AVERAGE/HIGH USERSFY14 Cost FY15 Cost$ Change% ChangeLow User (50 HCF/Yr.)Water165.50$ 174.02$ 8.52$ 5.1%Wastewater350.00$ 352.71$ 2.71$ 0.8%Combined515.50$ 526.73$ 11.23$ 2.2%Avg. User (120 HCF/Yr.)Water463.60$ 487.47$ 23.87$ 5.1%Wastewater1,017.20$ 1,025.07$ 7.87$ 0.8%Combined1,480.80$ 1,512.54$ 31.74$ 2.1%High. User (240 HCF/Yr.)Water1,186.40$ 1,247.48$ 61.08$ 5.1%Wastewater2,928.00$ 2,950.66$ 22.66$ 0.8%Combined4,114.40$ 4,198.14$ 83.74$ 2.0% OPTION 2: IMPACT OF PRELIMINARY RATES ON LOW/AVERAGE/HIGH USERSFY14 Cost FY15 Cost$ Change% ChangeLow User (50 HCF/Yr.)Water165.50$ 172.43$ 6.93$ 4.2%Wastewater350.00$ 352.71$ 2.71$ 0.8%Combined515.50$ 525.14$ 9.64$ 1.9%Avg. User (120 HCF/Yr.)Water463.60$ 483.01$ 19.41$ 4.2%Wastewater1,017.20$ 1,025.07$ 7.87$ 0.8%Combined1,480.80$ 1,508.08$ 27.28$ 1.8%High. User (240 HCF/Yr.)Water1,186.40$ 1,236.08$ 49.68$ 4.2%Wastewater2,928.00$ 2,950.66$ 22.66$ 0.8%Combined4,114.40$ 4,186.74$ 72.34$ 1.8% Non-Rate Revenue Recommendations• Meter Tail Pieces• Water Meter Charges• Backflow Prevention Device Testing• Water Usage Fee for Home Demolition Non-Rate Revenue RecommendationsFY14 FY15Tail Piece Charges5/8” (straight) None $8.00 each5/8” (90 Bend) None $11.00 each3/4” (straight) None $9.00 each3/4” (90 Bend) None $14.00 each1” (straight) None $14.00 each1” (90 Bend) None $19.00 eachWater Meter Charges5/8” Meter $78.00 No Change3/4” Meter $103.00 $100.001” Meter $130.00 $127.001 ½” Meter $535.00 No Change2” Meter $725.00 No ChangeRadio Read (devices) $131.00 No Change (devices)Backflow Prevention Device TestingNone$35/testWater Usage Fee for DemolitionNone$75/day Town of Lexington Comptroller’s Office Robert Addelson, Assistant Town Manager for Finance Phone: (781) 862- 0500 Fax: (781) 861-2794 1625 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE • LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02420 To: Carl Valente, Town Manager From: Rob Addelson, Assistant Town Manager for Finance Date: October 3, 2014 Subject: FY15 Water and Wastewater Rate Setting – responses to Joel Adler’s questions ______________________________________________________________________ At the Board of Selectmen’s public hearing on proposed FY15 water and wastewater rates, Joel Adler raised a number of questions regarding rates we charge the VA Hospital and Hanscom/Lincoln Labs. Mr. Adler had raised the same questions last year. Below are responses to these questions that were included in a memorandum I wrote to you last year dated October 3, 2013. Why are Hanscom and the Cambridge Center (MIT Lincoln Labs) charged 2.05 times the Bedford rate and the VA hospital charged 2.5 times the Bedford rate? Upon my arrival in Lexington, I inherited the practice of annually increasing the water rate billed to Hanscom, the Cambridge Center and the Veteran’s Hospital by the same percentage increase applied to Tiers 1, 2 and 3. Bill Hadley and I researched our files to see if we could find written agreements that codified this practice but did not find any. However, I did find the following through a search in Laserfiche which indicates formal deliberation and discussion on the provision of water to Hanscom and the Veterans’ Hospital: April 4, 1949 Town Meeting: approval of an agreement between the Town and the Veterans’ Administration for the extension of water mains to a point near the Bedford line for the purpose of supply water at the point to the Veterans’ Hospital June 28, 1961 Meeting of the Board of Selectmen: The proposed water contract with the Air Force was discussed. It was agreed that before proceeding further with an agreement, a letter should be obtained from Whitman and Howard, an engineering firm. Finally, if the Town had a unitary rate for all users instead of the predominant tiered rates, the unitary rate, net of Bedford usage and revenue, would be $4.38 per HCF. FY2014 rates proposed to be charged to Hanscom/Lincoln Labs and the Veterans’ Hospital are $4.88 per HCF and $5.83 per HCF respectively. The result is that the Hanscom/Lincoln Labs rate is 1.1 times the unitary rate and Veterans’ Hospital rate is 1.3 times the unitary rate, which I would suggest is appropriate for these commercial entities. AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING DATE: STAFF: ITEM NUMBER: October 6th, 2014 Bill Hadley and John Livsey, DPW I.6 SUBJECT: Presentation of the 25% design plans for the proposed center streetscape improvements EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The 25% design plans will be presented with the focus being on key areas that may warrant discussion. A power point presentation is included and will be presented at the meeting. Extended focus will be given to the Mass Ave / Woburn Street intersection including possible alternatives. The recommendation of the consultant and working group is for the signalized intersection for several reasons with pedestrian safety being at the forefront. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This is a design level discussion and all decisions have some financial impacts, however, all presented alternatives are within the projects proposed overall budget. RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTED MOTION: Motion to approve the intersection design that is preferred by the Board of Selectman. STAFF FOLLOW-UP: If approved, the design will proceed with Board of Selectman recommendation. Lexington Town Center Streetscape ProjectTown Center Streetscape ProjectLexington, MAProject UpdateBoard of Selectmen MeetingOctober 6, 2014 Lexington Town Center Streetscape ProjectProject UpdateDate Committees6/24/2013 Transportation Forum8/8/2013 Center Committee 9/10/2013 Streetscape Committee 9/30/2013 Streetscape Committee11/25/2013 Streetscape Committee 12/5/2013 Public Meeting Workshop12/19/2013 Streetscape Committee (debrief public workshop)1/9/2014 Streetscape Committee (on Battlegreen)1/9/2014 ADA Committee1/18/2014 Battle Green Committee2/14/2014 Coordination Meeting with Nelson Nygaard on Parking Study2/20/2014 Battle Green Committee2/28/2014 Tourism Committee3/11/2014 Pre‐BOS meeting with Town Manger3/12/2014 Property Owners Meeting3/12/2014 Streetscape Committee‐Lighting3/17/2014 BOS Meeting3/18/2014 Public Meeting6/13/2014 Streetscape Committee (Preliminary Design Reviews7/10/2014 ADA Committee7/17/2014 Preliminary Design Submittal9/10/2014 Streetscape Committee (Project Coordination) Lexington Town Center Streetscape ProjectPresentation Outline•Town Center1. Traffic Safety Improvements•Pedestrians, Bicycles & Vehicles2. Streetscape Improvements•Walkway Treatment Renderings•Interpretive Elements Lexington Town Center Streetscape ProjectOverall PlanWaltham StEdison WayCary Memorial LibraryMeriam StCary Memorial BuildingProject LimitProject Limit Lexington Town Center Streetscape Project Lexington Town Center Streetscape ProjectElectronic Blankout Sign With Volume Controlled Audio Feature Lexington Town Center Streetscape ProjectMassachusetts Avenue/Woburn Street/Winthrop Road Intersection Lexington Town Center Streetscape ProjectDesign Option ComparisonsMassachusetts Avenue/Woburn Street/Winthrop Road IntersectionDesign Option Pros ConsOption 1 ‐Do NothingMaintains existing traffic movements.Maintains the existing island.Unsafe traffic patterns.No pedestrian or bicycle accommodation.Queuing on Woburn Street (320 feet)Poor Operation (LOSF)Appearance/ expansive pavementOption 2 ‐Modify Geometry, No SignalEstablish gateway to Town Center.Pedestrian/ bicycle accommodations. Improved traffic patterns/ channelization.Traffic Calming.Pedestrian crosswalk unprotected.Increased traffic queues on Woburn Street. (Minuteman crossing; 500 ft. beyond)Poor operation (LOSF).Option 3 ‐Modify Geometry, Traffic SignalsEnhanced gateway to Town CenterProtected pedestrian/ bicycle accommodations.Improved traffic safety/ operations.Traffic calming benefits.Manage Mass. Ave. Traffic.Manage Winthrop Rd. traffic.Installation and maintenance of traffic signals.RoundaboutControls traffic without the use of traffic signals.Requires extensive Right‐of‐Way. Lexington Town Center Streetscape ProjectDesign Option Comparisons SummaryMassachusetts Avenue/Woburn Street/Winthrop Road IntersectionDesign OptionOption 1(Do Nothing)Option 2(Modify Geometry, No Signal)Option 3(Modify Geometry, Traffic Signal)1. Overall Safety‐++ +2. Pedestrian Crossing‐++ +3. Traffic Calming‐++ +4. Level of Operation (Delays/ LOS)‐‐‐+5. Appearance‐+ ++6. Gateway‐++ +7. Winthrop Rd.‐++Legend- Negative+ PositiveNote:Our recommendation is Option 3. It provides overall safety, operational improvements and gateway enhancements. Lexington Town Center Streetscape ProjectMassachusetts Avenue/Woburn Street/Winthrop Road IntersectionRecommended Option Lexington Town Center Streetscape ProjectExistingProposedView A Lexington Town Center Streetscape ProjectExistingProposedView B Lexington Town Center Streetscape ProjectCommercial Area/Waltham Street Gateway Lexington Town Center Streetscape ProjectGrain Mill Alley•Gathering Area/Historic Interpretation•Coordinate with Grain Mill AlleyPrevious Design Lexington Town Center Streetscape ProjectSalter BuildingPrevious Design Lexington Town Center Streetscape Project Lexington Town Center Streetscape Project Lexington Town Center Streetscape ProjectNext Steps•Final Design–50 % Design–100 % Design•Construction Phase (2 to 3 Phases Subject to Funding Availability) BOARD OF SELECTMEN POLICY SALE OF LAND- TAX TITLE Date Approved by BOS: Signature of Chair: February 5, 2007 Jeanne K. Krieger I. Purpose Periodically, land is taken by the Board of Selectmen for failure to pay taxes. This property is known as tax title land. The purpose of this policy is to create a fair and equitable process for selling such land and returning to the tax roles, when requested to do so by a resident. II. Application 1. The Board of Selectmen shall approve a list of qualified appraisers containing a minimum of 6 appraisers. Said list shall be maintained by the Executive Clerk and updated every five years. 2. The sales process may be initiated by any resident of the Town of Lexington, or by the Board of Selectmen. 3. All requests to purchase property must be in writing to the Town Manager’s Office detailing the property sought, and the intent for use of the property. 4. Town Manager receives written request to purchase property. 5. Town Manager obtains information and history of parcel from Assessor’s Office and Community Services. 6. Memo sent to all department heads and committee chairmen (appropriate committees) informing them of the size and location of the property and the intent that has been expressed for its purchase. 7. The Board of Selectmen vote on whether or not they would be willing to release property. 8. If yes, the Selectmen will select an appraiser from the list of qualified appraisers. 9. The intent to sell is advertised in the legal notices in the local paper for two weeks stating the location and size of the parcel, citizen requesting, the minimum acceptable bid (the appraisal price) and the date of the Selectmen’s Meeting by which all interested bidders must submit a notice of intent to bid. A copy of the legal notice is sent to all abutters. 10. The cost of the appraisal will be added to the sales price. 11. At the next meeting of the Selectmen, if there are no alternate bidders, Selectmen vote to sell the property to the citizen at the appraised price plus the cost of the appraisal. If there are alternate bidders, sealed bids with a minimum of the acceptable bid price should be submitted within 14 days of the meeting. The highest bidder will then pay the bid price, plus the cost of the appraisal. III. Background Periodically, the Manager’s office has received requests to purchase tax title property. These requests generally are made by abutters. Typically, the lots are small and not separately buildable. They have value only to the direct abutters. Occasionally, more than one person has shown interest in particular tax title properties. By establishing a policy the Selectmen have set guidelines for the manager to help determine when it is appropriate to sell a parcel. AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING DATE: 10/6/14 PRESENTER: Joe Pato ITEM NUMBER: I.8 SUBJECT: Liquor License – Change of Hours – Bermans Wine & Spirits, 55 Mass. Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: I have received all the necessary paperwork to request your approval for a change of hours for Bermans Market Inc., d/b/a Bermans Wine & Spirits, 55 Mass. Avenue. Also attached is the ABCC Advisory regarding allowing Package Stores to open at 10:00 a.m. FINANCIAL IMPACT: RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTED MOTION: Motion to approve the application for a change of hours of the package store restaurant liquor license for Bermans Market Inc., d/b/a Bermans Wine & Spirits, located at 55 Mass. Avenue. STAFF FOLLOW-UP: Selectmen’s Office Minutes of the Be President and increase Sunday hours may legally The meeting was b to pass the motion. The meeting was A true record. n's Market,Inc. corporate Board Meeting held septemberr0,2014 rer, Joel Berman, Secretary/Clerk, Barbara Berman voted unanimously to rs, where legal, to 10A.M.- to 6P.M. starting on october the26th when the changed. Director Gregory Berman was in accord. order at 10 A.M. on9l10lr4 and a vote taken after amotion was made fter being seconded by Barbara Berman, the motion passed unanimously. adjoumed. : Clerk BarbaruBerman THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES CONTROL COMMISSION (“ABCC”) ADVISORY M.G.L. c. 138, §15 OFF-PREMISES RETAIL LICENSEES SUNDAY OPENING TIME ALLOWED AT 10:00 A.M. Effective October 23, 20141, off-premises retail alcoholic beverages licensees (M.G.L. c. 138, §15) will be permitted to sell alcoholic beverages beginning at 10:00 a.m. on Sundays. Although under the law, these licensees are entitled as a matter of right to open at 10:00 a.m. and as such do not need the approval of the Local Licensing Authorities, licensees must notify the Local Licensing Authorities about the change of hours. The simplest way for licensees to effectuate this change is to follow the process outlined in the CHANGE OF HOURS Application which may be found on our website at http://www.mass.gov/abcc/pdf/forms/nofeetransmittal.pdf. Licensees should use this form to notify the Local Licensing Authority of the change in hours and attach a corporate vote authorizing the change. Upon receipt of this request, the Local Licensing Authority must approve it. The Local Licensing Authority should forward an approved “Form 43” with the additional Sunday hours of sale to the ABCC for each licensee affected. As mentioned above, this law does not go into effect until October 23, 2014. All licensees should ensure that sales of alcoholic beverages take place only on the days and hours approved by the Local Licensing Authority. Licensees who fail to notify the Local Licensing Authority about the change to their hours are prohibited from making sales at an earlier time than those permitted on the face of their license. As always, all licensees must ensure that they are in compliance with the Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and that sales of alcoholic beverages take place only as authorized by applicable law. Individuals with questions concerning this advisory may contact Ralph Sacramone, Executive Director, at 617-727-3040 x 731. (Issued: September 8, 2014) 1 The Massachusetts Legislature amended M.G.L. c 136, §6(52) which allow off-premises M.G.L. c. 138, §15 or so called “package store” license holders to sell alcoholic beverages, beginning at 10 A.M. on Sundays. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of the State Treasurer Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission 239 Causeway Street Boston, MA 02114 Steven Grossman Treasurer and Receiver General Kim S. Gainsboro Chairman AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING DATE: 10/6/14 PRESENTER: Joe Pato ITEM NUMBER: I.9 SUBJECT: Sign the Warrant for the November 4, 2014 State Election Primary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Attached is the November 4, 2014 State Election Warrant for you to sign. FINANCIAL IMPACT: RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTED MOTION: Motion to sign the November 4, 2014 State Election Warrant. STAFF FOLLOW-UP: Selectmen’s Office COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS WILLIAM FRANCIS GALVIN SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH WARRANT FOR STATE ELECTION Middlesex, ss. To the Constables of the Town of Lexington GREETINGS: In the name of the Commonwealth, you are hereby required to notify and warn the inhabitants of said town who are qualified to vote in the State Election to vote at: PRECINCT ONE, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING; PRECINCT TWO, BOWMAN SCHOOL; PRECINCT THREE, JONAS CLARKE MIDDLE SCHOOL; PRECINCT FOUR, BRIDGE SCHOOL; PRECINCT FIVE, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING; PRECINCT SIX, WILLIAM DIAMOND MIDDLE SCHOOL; PRECINCT SEVEN, ESTABROOK SCHOOL; PRECINCT EIGHT, SAMUEL HADLEY PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING; PRECINCT NINE, MARIA HASTINGS SCHOOL, on TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2014, from 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. for the following purpose: To cast their votes in the State Election for the candidates for the following offices and questions: SENATOR IN CONGRESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FOR THIS COMMONWEALTH GOVERNOR AND LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR . . . . .. . . . . .FOR THIS COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY GENERAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FOR THIS COMMONWEALTH SECRETARY OF STATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FOR THIS COMMONWEALTH TREASURER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FOR THIS COMMONWEALTH AUDITOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FOR THIS COMMONWEALTH REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FIFTH DISTRICT COUNCILLOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .THIRD DISTRICT SENATOR IN GENERAL COURT (precincts 1,2,4-7) . . . . . . FOURTH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT SENATOR IN GENERAL COURT (precincts 3,8,9) . . . . . . . . . THIRD MIDDLESEX DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE IN GENERAL COURT . . . . . . .FIFTEENTH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT DISTRICT ATTORNEY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NORTHERN DISTRICT REGISTER OF PROBATE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .MIDDLESEX COUNTY QUESTION 1: LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives on or before May 6, 2014? SUMMARY This proposed law would eliminate the requirement that the state’s gasoline tax, which was 24 cents per gallon as of September 2013, (1) be adjusted every year by the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index over the preceding year, but (2) not be adjusted below 21.5 cents per gallon. A YES VOTE would eliminate the requirement that the state’s gas tax be adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index. A NO VOTE would make no change in the laws regarding the gas tax. 2 QUESTION 2: LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives on or before May 6, 2014? SUMMARY This proposed law would expand the state’s beverage container deposit law, also known as the Bottle Bill, to require deposits on containers for all non-alcoholic non-carbonated drinks in liquid form intended for human consumption, except beverages primarily derived from dairy products, infant formula, and FDA approved medicines. The proposed law would not cover containers made of paper-based biodegradable material and aseptic multi-material packages such as juice boxes or pouches. The proposed law would require the state Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) to adjust the container deposit amount every five years to reflect (to the nearest whole cent) changes in the consumer price index, but the value could not be set below five cents. The proposed law would increase the minimum handling fee that beverage distributors must pay dealers for each properly returned empty beverage container, which was 2¼ cents as of September 2013, to 3½ cents. It would also increase the minimum handling fee that bottlers must pay distributors and dealers for each properly returned empty reusable beverage container, which was 1 cent as of September 2013, to 3½ cents. The Secretary of EEA would review the fee amounts every five years and make appropriate adjustments to reflect changes in the consumer price index as well as changes in the costs incurred by redemption centers. The proposed law defines a redemption center as any business whose primary purpose is the redemption of beverage containers and that is not ancillary to any other business. The proposed law would direct the Secretary of EEA to issue regulations allowing small dealers to seek exemptions from accepting empty deposit containers. The proposed law would define small dealer as any person or business, including the operator of a vending machine, who sells beverages in beverage containers to consumers, with a contiguous retail space of 3,000 square feet or less, excluding office and stock room space; and fewer than four locations under the same ownership in the Commonwealth. The proposed law would require that the regulations consider at least the health, safety, and convenience of the public, including the distribution of dealers and redemption centers by population or by distance or both. The proposed law would set up a state Clean Environment Fund to receive certain unclaimed container deposits. The Fund would be used, subject to appropriation by the state Legislature, to support programs such as the proper management of solid waste, water resource protection, parkland, urban forestry, air quality and climate protection. The proposed law would allow a dealer, distributor, redemption center or bottler to refuse to accept any beverage container that is not marked as being refundable in Massachusetts. The proposed law would take effect on April 22, 2015. A YES VOTE would expand the state’s beverage container deposit law to require deposits on containers for all non- alcoholic, non-carbonated drinks with certain exceptions, increase the associated handling fees, and make other changes to the law. A NO VOTE would make no change in the laws regarding beverage container deposits. 3 QUESTION 3: LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives on or before May 6, 2014? SUMMARY This proposed law would (1) prohibit the Massachusetts Gaming Commission from issuing any license for a casino or other gaming establishment with table games and slot machines, or any license for a gaming establishment with slot machines; (2) prohibit any such casino or slots gaming under any such licenses that the Commission might have issued before the proposed law took effect; and (3) prohibit wagering on the simulcasting of live greyhound races. The proposed law would change the definition of “illegal gaming” under Massachusetts law to include wagering on the simulcasting of live greyhound races, as well as table games and slot machines at Commission-licensed casinos, and slot machines at other Commission-licensed gaming establishments. This would make those types of gaming subject to existing state laws providing criminal penalties for, or otherwise regulating or prohibiting, activities involving illegal gaming. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect. A YES VOTE would prohibit casinos, any gaming establishment with slot machines, and wagering on simulcast greyhound races. A NO VOTE would make no change in the current laws regarding gaming. QUESTION 4: LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives on or before May 6, 2014? SUMMARY This proposed law would entitle employees in Massachusetts to earn and use sick time according to certain conditions. Employees who work for employers having eleven or more employees could earn and use up to 40 hours of paid sick time per calendar year, while employees working for smaller employers could earn and use up to 40 hours of unpaid sick time per calendar year. An employee could use earned sick time if required to miss work in order (1) to care for a physical or mental illness, injury or medical condition affecting the employee or the employee’s child, spouse, parent, or parent of a spouse; (2) to attend routine medical appointments of the employee or the employee’s child, spouse, parent, or parent of a spouse; or (3) to address the effects of domestic violence on the employee or the employee’s dependent child. Employees would earn one hour of sick time for every 30 hours worked, and would begin accruing those hours on the date of hire or on July 1, 2015, whichever is later. Employees could begin to use earned sick time on the 90th day after hire. The proposed law would cover both private and public employers, except that employees of a particular city or town would be covered only if, as required by the state constitution, the proposed law were made applicable by local or state legislative vote or by appropriation of sufficient funds to pay for the benefit. Earned paid sick time would be compensated at the same hourly rate paid to the employee when the sick time is used. Employees could carry over up to 40 hours of unused sick time to the next calendar year, but could not use more than 40 hours in a calendar year. Employers would not have to pay employees for unused sick time at the end of their employment. If an employee missed work for a reason eligible for earned sick time, but agreed with the employer to work the same number of hours or shifts in the same or next pay period, the employee would not have to use earned sick time for the missed time, and the employer would not have to pay for that missed time. Employers would be prohibited from requiring such an employee to work additional hours to make up for missed time, or to find a replacement employee. 4 Employers could require certification of the need for sick time if an employee used sick time for more than 24 consecutively scheduled work hours. Employers could not delay the taking of or payment for earned sick time because they have not received the certification. Employees would have to make a good faith effort to notify the employer in advance if the need for earned sick time is foreseeable. Employers would be prohibited from interfering with or retaliating based on an employee’s exercise of earned sick time rights, and from retaliating based on an employee’s support of another employee’s exercise of such rights. The proposed law would not override employers’ obligations under any contract or benefit plan with more generous provisions than those in the proposed law. Employers that have their own policies providing as much paid time off, usable for the same purposes and under the same conditions, as the proposed law would not be required to provide additional paid sick time. The Attorney General would enforce the proposed law, using the same enforcement procedures applicable to other state wage laws, and employees could file suits in court to enforce their earned sick time rights. The Attorney General would have to prepare a multilingual notice regarding the right to earned sick time, and employers would be required to post the notice in a conspicuous location and to provide a copy to employees. The state Executive Office of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Attorney General, would develop a multilingual outreach program to inform the public of the availability of earned sick time. The proposed law would take effect on July 1, 2015, and states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect. A YES VOTE would entitle employees in Massachusetts to earn and use sick time according to certain conditions. A NO VOTE would make no change in the laws regarding earned sick time. QUESTION 5: THIS QUESTION IS NOT BINDING Shall the state representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation that would allow the state to regulate and tax marijuana in the same manner as alcohol? Hereof fail not and make return of this warrant with your doings thereon at the time and place of said voting. Given under our hands this 6th day of October, 2014. _____________________________________ _____________________________________ _____________________________________ _____________________________________ Selectmen of Lexington I have served the foregoing warrant by posting a printed copy thereof in the Town Office Building, 7 days at least before the time of said Election. _____________________________________ October , 2014 Constable of Lexington AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING DATE: 10/6/14 PRESENTER: Michelle Ciccolo ITEM NUMBER: I.10 SUBJECT: Position on Question 1 – Gas Tax EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Attached is a letter received from the Committee for Safer Roads and Bridges requesting that the Selectmen endorse a NO vote on statewide ballot Question 1. Michelle will speak on this issue and answer any of your questions. FINANCIAL IMPACT: RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTED MOTION: Motion to endorse a NO vote on statewide ballot Question 1 and authorize the Safer Roads and Bridges to list the Town as an opponent t0 Question 1. STAFF FOLLOW-UP: Selectmen’s Office AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING DATE: 10/6/14 PRESENTER: Joe Pato ITEM NUMBER: I.11 SUBJECT: Approve Revised Bicycle Advisory Committee Charge EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Attached is a proposed revised charge for the Bicycle Advisory Committee. The existing charge has 13 members (9 citizens plus 4 nominated by the Selectmen, Planning Board, Conservation Commission and Recreation Committee). It is proposed that the membership be 9 and that the Selectmen, Planning Board, Conservation Commission and Recreation Committee positions be liaisons. The Bicycle Advisory Committee approves these changes. Attached is the existing charge and the proposed new charge. FINANCIAL IMPACT: RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTED MOTION: Motion to approve the proposed changes to the Bicycle Advisory Committee charge, reflecting a change in membership from 13 to 9 and representatives from the Selectmen, Planning Board, Conservation Commission and Recreation Committee will be liaisons instead of members. STAFF FOLLOW-UP: Selectmen’s Office BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) is an advisory committee to the Board of Selectmen. It replaces the Minuteman Commuter Bikeway committee which was established in 1992 and has since been dissolved. The functions to be performed by the reorganized committee are listed below. These functions are to be performed consistent with the terms of the License Agreement of December 1987 between the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBTA) and the Town of Lexington. The agreement specifies, “Lexington agrees that it will use the line segment as ‘a Bikeway’, a way established for the passage of bicycles and other conveyances which operate without motor power.” Members: 9 Liaisons: Selectmen, Conservation Commission, Planning Board and Recreation Committee Appointed by: Board of Selectmen Length of Term: 3 years, staggered appointments Appointments Made: September 30 Description: The Committee shall advise the Selectmen on all matters relating to bicycle routes and general bicycle policy to serve the best interests of the Town of Lexington and its citizens and those of neighboring communities affected by these facilities. These functions include but are not limited to: 1. Monitoring and advising on the Minuteman Commuter Bikeway and on other approved routes in Town with attention to such factors as safety, landscaping, drainage, signage, and other related factors. 2. Monitoring and advising on the operation, maintenance, and security of the Lexington bicycling facilities with the objective of encouraging their harmonious use and enjoyment by a variety of patrons, including all non-motorized users. 3. Working with Town officials, State agencies and representatives of nearby towns to develop connecting bikeways and bicycle routes, agreed upon rules of the road and consistent policies and procedures for the operation, maintenance and security of the Bikeway and other bicycle routes. 4. Collaborating with non-government groups and associations to encourage and coordinate participation in the care and maintenance of Lexington bicycle facilities, safety programs, and other educational efforts. 5. Working with Town committees and employees and with commercial interests to promote bicycling activities and amenities that will benefit Lexington and other communities. 6. Articulating and responding to the concerns and interests of abutters, commuters, and other users of the Lexington bicycling facilities. 7. Reviewing and advising on proposals for the extension of the Minuteman Commuter Bikeway and its linkage to bikeways in adjacent towns. Criteria for Membership: The citizens should be committed to the functioning of the Committee. Citizen members will serve for three-year terms on a staggered basis, with three to be appointed or reappointed each year at the end of September. A position of honorary membership shall be given for life to individuals by unanimous committee vote for their extraordinary service to committee goals and to the community at large. Policies and Procedures: Meetings will be held bimonthly throughout the year, alternating with Friends of the Minuteman Bikeway and at a specific date, time and place announced in advance. All meetings will be open to the public. Minutes will be taken at each meeting. On its first meeting following the appointment process, the Committee will elect one of its members to serve as Chair for the following year. The Chair can be removed for cause at any time by a majority vote of members present in public meeting, providing a quorum of seven (7) Committee members are present. The Chair may appoint ad hoc subcommittees from the membership from time to time to study specific issues of concern to the Committee. Such ad hoc groups shall serve for periods not exceeding one year, unless formally extended, and their work will deal exclusively with the purpose announced when created. Reference: Original charge adopted by the Selectmen on October 21, 1992; revised November 1994. Charge revised November 2001. Board of Selectmen voted to designate as Special Municipal Employees on 1/18/06. Revised charge reflecting correction to membership and liaisons on October 6, 2014. LEXINGTON BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE _________________________________________________________ The Lexington Bicycle Advisory Committee is an advisory committee to the Lexington Board of Selectmen. It replaces the Minuteman Commuter Bikeway committee which was established in 1992 and has since been dissolved. The functions to be performed by the reorganized committee are listed below. These functions are to be performed consistent with the terms of the License Agreement of December 1987 between the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBTA) and the Town of Lexington. The agreement specifies, “Lexington agrees that it will use the line segment as ‘a Bikeway’, a way established for the passage of bicycles and other conveyances which operate without motor power.” Members: 13 (including 9 citizens appointed by Selectmen and four ex-officio members nominated by their respective boards or committees, representing the Selectmen, Planning Board, Conservation Commission, and Recreation Committee) Appointed by: Board of Selectmen Length of Term: 3 years, staggered appointments Appointments Made: September 30 Functions: The Committee shall advise the Selectmen on all matters relating to bicycle routes and general bicycle policy to serve the best interests of the Town of Lexington and its citizens and those of neighboring communities affected by these facilities. These functions include but are not limited to: 1. Monitoring and advising on the Minuteman Commuter Bikeway and on other approved routes in Town with attention to such factors as safety, landscaping, drainage, signage, and other related factors. 2. Monitoring and advising on the operation, maintenance, and security of the Lexington bicycling facilities with the objective of encouraging their harmonious use and enjoyment by a variety of patrons, including all non- motorized users. 3. Working with Town officials, State agencies and representatives of nearby towns to develop connecting bikeways and bicycle routes, agreed upon rules of the road and consistent policies and procedures for the operation, maintenance and security of the Bikeway and other bicycle routes. 4. Collaborating with non-government groups and associations to encourage and coordinate participation in the care and maintenance of Lexington bicycle facilities, safety programs, and other educational efforts. 5. Working with Town committees and employees and with commercial interests to promote bicycling activities and amenities that will benefit Lexington and other communities. 6. Articulating and responding to the concerns and interests of abutters, commuters, and other users of the Lexington bicycling facilities. 7. Reviewing and advising on proposals for the extension of the Minuteman Commuter Bikeway and its linkage to bikeways in adjacent towns. Criteria for Membership: The citizens should be committed to the functioning of the Committee. Citizen members will serve for three-year terms on a staggered basis, with three to be appointed or reappointed each year at the end of September. A position of honorary membership shall be given for life to individuals by unanimous committee vote for their extraordinary service to committee goals and to the community at large. Policies and Procedures: Meetings will be held bimonthly throughout the year, alternating with Friends of the Minuteman Bikeway and at a specific date, time and place announced in advance. All meetings will be open to the public. Minutes will be taken at each meeting. On its first meeting following the appointment process, the Committee will elect one of its members to serve as Chair for the following year. The Chair can be removed for cause at any time by a majority vote of members present in public meeting, providing a quorum of seven (7) Committee members are present. The Chair may appoint ad hoc subcommittees from the membership from time to time to study specific issues of concern to the Committee. Such ad hoc groups shall serve for periods not exceeding one year, unless formally extended, and their work will deal exclusively with the purpose announced when created. Reference: Original charge adopted by the Selectmen on October 21, 1992; revised November 1994. Charge revised November 2001. Board of Selectmen voted to designate as Special Municipal Employees on 1/18/06. Prepared by cfv AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING DATE: PRESENTER: ITEM NUMBER: October 6, 2014 Carl F. Valente I.12 SUBJECT: Change Traffic Safety Advisory Committee to Working Group EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Traffic Safety Advisory Committee has been examining ways to more quickly respond to citizen requests for pedestrian and vehicle safety measures. To this end David Kucharsky from the Planning Department was assigned to TSAC to manage the overall workflow and be the contact person for all resident inquiries. As David has become more exposed to the work of TSAC, he has found that the Committee could process inquiries and requests more quickly and thoroughly if it became a working group rather than continuing as a formal Town Committee. Attached is a detailed memo with David’s recommendation. Also included is the current TSAC charge and the proposed Traffic Safety Group charge. FINANCIAL IMPACT: NA RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTED MOTION: Move that the Board of Selectmen dissolve the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee, effective October 6, 2014, and authorize the Town Manager to create a working group with similar goals of responding to citizen inquiries for pedestrian and vehicle traffic safety measures. STAFF FOLLOW-UP: TMO MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Carl Valente, Town Manager / Linda Vine, Deputy Town Manager FROM: David Kucharsky, Planner DATE: August 13, 2014 SUBJECT: TSAC Recommendation Earlier this year a memo was finalized which outlined a process and identified administrative “holes” to improve the overall tracking and responsiveness of submitted traffic safety requests. Over the last eight months I have worked with TSAC to implement and evaluate the effectiveness of this process and believe we have improved both the review process and the response times. However, I believe additional changes to how the committee is currently structured would further streamline this process to better serve residents and utilize the expertise of Town staff more effectively. TSAC is currently an Advisory Committee to the Board of Selectman (BOS), subject to open meeting law, which requires deliberation in a public forum as well as a quorum to discuss safety requests before any recommendations can be made. There have been instances where these requirements have been a factor in delaying response times, decision making and implementation of certain recommendations. In one instance a meeting notice could not be posted in time due to last minute scheduling conflicts. Another time the committee did not have a quorum, again due to last minute scheduling. As a result, TSAC could not technically discuss or propose any recommendations until the next meeting with a quorum. In other instances, there was quorum but certain Town staff were absent and any recommendations made required their expertise in order to move forward and fully endorse a proposal. Again, decisions were deferred until a time when staff was present to evaluate the request and offer their expertise. In my opinion, the existing committee structure can hinder the workflow of Town staff and as a result delay resolution for residents. Typically when requests are forwarded to TSAC, Engineering and Police visit the site in question and develop a recommendation prior to presenting to the full committee. As these staff members are also officially members of TSAC, this could be a violation of open meeting law because deliberations have taken place outside of the public forum. If we were to follow procedure, staff members of TSAC would evaluate and develop these recommendations only after discussing the requests with the full committee where a decision was made to have staff visit the location and develop a proposal. Again, hindering the overall turnaround time we could otherwise achieve. In an effort to improve the overall process and avoid any violations of open meeting law in the future I propose that the Committee be dissolved and a Town Manager appointed Working Group be formed consisting of staff from DPW‐Engineering, Police, Planning and School Departments as well as liaisons from Bicycle, Sidewalk and the Transportation Advisory Committees. The intent is not to remove the public from the process but allow staff to evaluate requests, develop proposals and focus on implementation in a timely fashion. I envision the group functioning in many ways as it does today to ensure that proponents are kept informed and public input is provided: MEMORANDUM 2 The Police Department will continue to receive and filter all traffic safety issues submitted by residents. The Working Group will meet on a regular basis (approx. once a month). Prior to meetings staff will have conducted any necessary analysis to formulate recommendations. Residents will be invited to attend meetings when their particular request will be discussed and notified of the recommendation made. This will provide an opportunity for residents to voice their opinion as well as learn staff’s process and rationale. Subsequent to these meetings staff will focus on implementing the recommendations while keeping residents updated. The methods recently developed to track and notify residents on the status of their requests will continue and be modified as new technology is introduced and integrated into the process. As noted earlier, liaisons from Bicycle, Sidewalk and the Transportation Advisory Committees should be involved with this group and notified when meetings are to take place with an agenda to prepare for the discussion bringing their committees perspective and insight. There will still be instances where recommendations will involve regulatory changes that will require BOS approval which offers an opportunity for public comment. Recommendations that do not involve regulatory changes can be made by staff, discussed and evaluated with the working group and any work orders can be submitted for implementation. Lastly, this group should be referred to as the Transportation Safety Working Group as it would encompass and evaluate the safety of all forms of transportation including walking, biking, transit and vehicular modes. TRAFFIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Membership: Six member committee, including: Police Chief or designee, Director of Public Works or designee from engineering, School Superintendent or designee. The Committee may request liaisons as needed from the Planning Department, Bicycle, Sidewalk, and Transportation Advisory Committees. Appointed by: Selectmen Length of Term: 1 year – September 30th appointments Meeting Times: As needed Description: The purpose of TSAC is to review and act on inquiries or requests relative to traffic, pedestrian, bicycle and parking safety. Items may be placed on the agenda of the Committee by request of a resident, group of residents, business or by referral from Police, Engineering, Board of Selectmen or the Town Manager; or by vote of the Committee. The Committee will report their findings and recommendations to the Board of Selectmen and the Town Manager. The committee shall adopt and place on the Town’s website the procedures it will follow for reviewing inquiries and requests. Regulatory changes that may be recommended by the Committee shall be brought to the Board of Selectmen for adoption. Criteria for Membership: In the selection of membership for this committee, consideration shall be given to the experience and expertise in traffic control, traffic planning and public safety. Prior to serving as a member of this Committee, appointees are required to: 1. Acknowledge receipt of the Summary of the Conflict of Interest Statue. Further, to continue to serve on the Committee the member must acknowledge annually receipt of the Summary of the Conflict of Interest Statue. Said summary will be provided by and acknowledged to the Town Clerk. 2. Provide evidence to the Town Clerk that the appointee has completed the on-line training requirement required by the Conflict of Interest statue. Further, to continue to serve on the Committee, the member must acknowledge every two years completion of the on-line training requirement. Ref.: Revised October 26, 1987. Revised July 20, 1998 raising number of members to eight to number of citizens to six. Revised and approved by the Selectmen on November 28, 2005. Selectmen designated as Special Municipal Employees on January 9, 1984. Selectmen reaffirmed designation as Special Municipal Employees on January 18, 2006. Selectmen approved revisions to Traffic Safety Advisory Committee charge on July 29, 2013. TRANSPORTATION SAFETY GROUP Membership: Working group including, but not limited to, Police Chief or designee, Director of Public Works or designee from Engineering, School Superintendent or designee, Planning Director or designee, and interested residents. Liaisons will be requested from the Bicycle, Sidewalk, and Transportation Advisory Committees. Appointed by: Town Manager Meeting Times: Monthly and as Needed including Field Visits Description: The purpose of TSG is to review and act on inquiries or requests relative to traffic, transit, pedestrian, bicycle and parking safety. Items may be submitted by request of a resident, group of residents, Town Committee, business or by referral from Police, Engineering, Board of Selectmen or the Town Manager. The Group shall meet on a regular basis (approx. once a month). Prior to meeting, staff will conduct any necessary field work and analysis to formulate recommendations. Relevant individuals or parties will be notified of the recommendation made and invited to attend meetings when their particular request will be discussed. The Group will report their findings and recommendations to the Town Manager. Regulatory changes that may be recommended by the Group shall be brought to the Board of Selectmen for review and adoption. Ref.: Formerly operated as Traffic Safety Advisory Committee which was a Board of Selectmen appointed Committee. Selectmen approved dissolving Committee October 6, 2014 in order for a Town Manager designated Working Group. Prepared by cfv AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING DATE: PRESENTER: ITEM NUMBER: October 6, 2014 Denise Y. Casey, Carl F. Valente I.13 SUBJECT: Approve Collective Bargaining Agreement – Lexington Municipal Management Association (LMMA) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Town and the Lexington Municipal Management Association have reached a two-year collective bargaining agreement for the period of FY15 and FY16. The Board of Selectmen previously approved this agreement in Executive Session on September 22. The LMMA membership has recently voted to accept this contract settlement. The Agreement provides for: A 2% cost of living adjustment for Fiscal Year 2015; A 2.5% cost of living adjustment for Fiscal Year 2016; Implementation of the results of a classification and compensation study; Removal of the position of Operations Manager / DPW from the bargaining unit; Addition of the position of Town Clerk to the bargaining unit; Addition of the Mass Small Necessities Act and Mass Maternity Leave Act; and Listing of those positions that are eligible for a clothing allowance. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This contract settlement is within the amount allocated in the operating budget. RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTED MOTION: Move to approve and authorize the Town Manager to sign the collective bargaining agreement between the Town and Lexington Municipal Management Association for the period of FY15-16. STAFF FOLLOW-UP: TMO/Human Resources will prepare final signature documents. AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING DATE: 10/6/14 PRESENTER: Joe Pato ITEM NUMBER: C.2-5 SUBJECT: Consent EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 2. Sign Proclamation for Employee Recognition Day, November 5, 2014. 3. Appoint Michelle Ciccolo as Lexington’s Representative member on the Massachusetts Port Authority Community Advisory Committee. 4. Approve the Selectmen minutes for September 8, 2014. 5. Approve the Selectmen Executive Session minutes for September 22, 2014 and September 30, 2014. See attached information. FINANCIAL IMPACT: RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTED MOTION: Motion to approve the Consent Agenda. STAFF FOLLOW-UP: Selectmen’s Office