HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-11-17 BOS Packet-releasedHearing Assistance Devices Available on Request
All agenda times and the order of items are approximate and subject to change.
SELECTMEN’S MEETING
Monday, November 17, 2014
Selectmen Meeting Room
7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
7:00 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS (10 min.)
Public comments are allowed for up to 10 minutes at the beginning of each meeting. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes for
comment. Members of the Board will neither comment nor respond, other than to ask questions of clarification. Speakers are
encouraged to notify the Selectmen's Office at 781-698-4580 if they wish to speak during public comment to assist the
Chairman in managing meeting times.
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. Right of First Refusal for Purchase of 430-432 Concord Avenue – 7:00 p.m. (5 min.)
2. Smoking Regulation Presentation (15 min.)
3. Update on the Cary Memorial Building and Community Center Sidewalks (15 min.)
4. Solar Task Force Discussion on Hartwell (15 min.)
5. 2015 Tax Classification, Valuation and Rate Setting Presentation (20 min.)
6. Request for Special Town Meeting (45 min.) – 8:00 p.m.
7. Update on Capital Projects for FY2016 (20 min.)
8. Solar Task Force Discussion on Community Aggregation (10 min.)
9. Selectmen Committee Appointments (5 min.)
a. Arts Council
b. Retirement Board
c. Sustainable Lexington Committee
10. Approve Limousine License – R&M Ride (5 min.)
11. Approve Class II License – Minutementech Automotive LLC (5 min.)
9:55 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA (5 min.)
1. Water and Sewer Commitments and Adjustments
2. Approve Tax Bill Insert for Bicycle Advisory Committee
3. Approve Selectmen Minutes
4. Approve Selectmen Executive Session Minutes
10:00 p.m. EXECUTIVE SESSION (15 min.)
1. Exemption 3: Coalition Bargaining Update
2. Exemption 6: Fire Station/Public Safety Site Options Update
10:15 p.m. ADJOURN
The next regular meeting of the Board of Selectmen is tentatively scheduled for Monday, December 1,
2014 at 7:00 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, 1625 Massachusetts Avenue.
The Selectmen will hold FY2016 Department Budget Presentation Meetings on Monday, December 1,
2014, at 8:30 a.m., Wednesday, December 3, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. and Thursday, December 4, 2014, at 9:30
a.m. All meetings will be in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, 1625 Massachusetts Avenue.
Prepared by Gerard Cody
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING
DATE: PRESENTER: ITEM NUMBER:
November 17, 2014 Gerard Cody, Health Director I.2
Mina Makarious, Town Counsel’s Office
SUBJECT:
Smoking Regulation Presentation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Over the last few months, the Board of Health, (BOH) proposed revisions to it’s Smoking and Youth
Access to Tobacco Products Regulation, Article III, Chapter 155, Board of Health Regulations of the
Town of Lexington Code. The changes include adding e cigarettes, increasing the purchase age of
tobacco products to twenty one, (21) years of age and prohibiting the sale of blunt wraps.
The regulations, as revised, differ in certain respects from the Town’s bylaws on, Clean Indoor Air
(General Bylaw § 97-5) Restrictions of Smoking in Public Places and Workplaces (General Bylaw § 97-
6) and Access to Tobacco by Minors (General Bylaw § 97-7).
The most noticeable difference between the proposed BOH regulation and the Access to Tobacco by
Minors Bylaw is the legal sales age for tobacco products. General Bylaw § 97-7 provides a minimum
sales age of 18. The proposed revisions to the regulations raises that age to 21. Mina S. Makarious,
ANDERSON & KREIGER LLP, recommends that the BOH seek a revision to the existing Bylaw to
accommodate such a change before the revised BOH regulation goes into effect. After reviewing the
various Bylaws listed above, there were other related smoking issues that need to be revised to reflect the
current Smoke Free Workplace law (MGL. Ch.270 §22).
Additional considerations are as follows:
Conforming changes to Non-Criminal Disposition
Conforming changes to numbering General Bylaws
Rather than amending the existing bylaws, another option is to repeal the Town’s bylaws on, Clean
Indoor Air (General Bylaw § 97-5) Restrictions of Smoking in Public Places and Workplaces (General
Bylaw § 97-6) and Access to Tobacco by Minors (General Bylaw § 97-7). Last May, Concord decided to
repeal a similar bylaws known as “Sale of Tobacco to Minors Bylaw” to avoid redundant regulation
between the bylaw and the BOH’s regulations. It is the preference of the Lexington BOH that the
existing bylaws as noted above be repealed. Note that State law gives the Board of Health independent
authority to regulate such sales in the Town. Repeal of the existing bylaw therefore will eliminate
potential conflict between the bylaw and BOH regulations
If a repeal of the Town by laws related to smoking is not a consideration, then you will find useful the
attached document that list the proposed changes to General Bylaws § 97-5, § 97-6 and § 97-7 to coincide
with the BOH regulation and the current Smoke Free Workplace.
Other attachments include the proposed BOH regulation in draft format and a pdf of the existing bylaws
noted above.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: NA
RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTED MOTION: None necessary at this time. Proposed Bylaw
change will be recommended for the 2015 Annual Town Meeting.
STAFF FOLLOW-UP: Health Department and Town Counsel will draft necessary Town Meeting
warrant article.
Page 1 of 5
"Clean Indoor Air" (97-5).
The current smoke-free workplace law (MGL Ch. 270 §22) addresses many of the
concerns of this bylaw. Here are the recommendations per section:
A: Replace the existing "smoking" definition with “Smoking: The inhalation of the
smoke, vapor, aerosol or mist of a pipe, cigar, cigarette, tobacco product, e-cigarette,
combustible or non-combustible, by the consumer, regardless of product content”.
Remove A(2), the definition for "restaurant" as it is defined in state law.
B: Delete. Now addressed by the current smoke-free workplace law (MGL Ch.270 §22).
C: Delete. Now addressed by the current smoke-free workplace law (MGL Ch.270
§22).
D: Delete as Section E. currently permits Board of Health to implement.
E: Add as first sentence before existing one: “Smoking is hereby prohibited in
accordance with M.G.L. Ch. 270, §22 (commonly known as the “Smoke-free Workplace
Law) and under regulations adopted by the Board of Health”.
F: No change.
Page 2 of 5
"Restriction of smoking in public places and workplaces" (97-6).
Recommendations per section:
A. No change.
B. Replace (1) with the "smoking". “Smoking: The inhalation of the smoke, vapor,
aerosol or mist of a pipe, cigar, cigarette, tobacco product, e-cigarette, combustible or
non-combustible, by the consumer, regardless of product content”.
B. Replace (2) with “public place". Public Place: An enclosed, indoor area when open to
and used by the general public, including but not limited to the following facilities:
atriums; auditoriums; automatic teller machines; automobile repair and maintenance
establishments; bar, lounge; common areas of apartment buildings containing four or
more dwelling units including stairwells, halls, entranceways, mailrooms, laundry
facilities and storage areas; gasoline stations; licensed childcare locations including
childcare homes; educational facilities; elevators accessible to the public; clinics,
hospitals, rest homes and nursing homes; retirement homes; health care providers; game
arcades; hair cutting and cosmetology establishments; inns, hotel and motel lobbies,
stairwells, halls, entranceways and public restrooms; free standing kiosks; laundromats;
libraries; mobile food units; municipal buildings; museums; polling places; schools;
school buses; service lines; retail stores; retail food outlets; indoor sports arenas;
theaters; public transit facilities; and any clubs, rooms or halls when used for public
meetings.
B. Replace (3), the "workplace" definition. ”Workplace: Workplace means an indoor
area, structure or facility or a portion thereof, at which 1 or more employees perform a
service for compensation for the employer, other enclosed spaces rented to or otherwise
used by the public; and where the employer has the right or authority to exercise control
over the space.
B. Delete subsection (4) as it is now addressed by the current smoke-free workplace law
(MGL Ch.270 §22).
C. Replace subsection (1) with: “Smoking is hereby prohibited in accordance with
M.G.L. Ch. 270, §22 (commonly known as the “Smoke-free Workplace Law) and under
regulations adopted by the Board of Health”.
C. Delete subsections (2), (3) and (4). Now addressed by the current smoke-free
workplace law (MGL Ch.270 §22).
C. Subsections (5) - No Change
C. Subsections (6) - Remove the term "knowingly twice as it is not a condition in the
state law and it is now addressed by the current smoke-free workplace law (MGL
Ch.270 §22).
Page 3 of 5
D. Change this section to repeat the recommended wording in 97-5(E). : 97-6 (D) should
state that “The Board of Health shall adopt rules and regulations necessary and
reasonable to implement the provisions of this section of the by-law”.
E. Delete. Now addressed by the current smoke-free workplace law (MGL Ch.270
§22).
F. Replace existing language with the following;
Penalties.
An owner, manager, or other person in control of a building, vehicle or vessel
who violates this section, in a manner other than by smoking in a place where
smoking is prohibited, shall be punished by a fine of:
a. $100 for the first violation;
b. $200 for a second violation occurring within two (2) years of the date of the
first offense; and c. $300 for a third or subsequent violation occurring within two
(2) years of the second violation.
d. Each calendar day on which a violation occurs shall be considered a separate
offense.
e. An individual or person who violates this section by smoking in a place where
smoking is prohibited shall be subject to a civil penalty of $100 for each violation.
G: Delete. Now addressed by the current smoke-free workplace law (MGL Ch.270
§22).
H: No Change.
I: No Change.
Page 4 of 5
“Access to Tobacco by Minors”, (97-7).
Recommend changing title to “Youth Access to Tobacco”
Recommendations per section:
A. Replace with 97-7(A) with “No person shall sell tobacco products or permit tobacco
products as defined herein to be sold to a person under the minimum legal sales
age or, not being a parent or legal guardian, give, exchange, barter, trade, or
otherwise distribute and/or furnish tobacco products as defined herein to a
person under the minimum legal sales age. The board of health shall adopt rules,
regulations and definitions regarding tobacco sales and the Minimum Legal Sales
Age.
(A) No person or retailer may sell tobacco products to any person under the age of
twenty-one (21). Each retailer shall verify by means of a government issued
photographic identification containing bearer's date of birth that no person
purchasing the product is a of the minimum legal sales age. No such verification
is required for any person under the age of twenty-seven (27). All retail sales of
tobacco must be face-to-face between the seller and the buyer and occur at the
permitted location. Anyone who sells tobacco products to a minor, the store
owner or manager and staff known to be in the immediate area of the sale at the
time of the sale, shall attend a training session on tobacco product sales. In
conformance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 270, Section 6, whoever
sells tobacco products to a minor, shall be punished by a fine of one hundred
dollars ($100.00) for the first offense, two hundred dollars ($200.00) for the
second offense, and three hundred ($300.00) for any third or subsequent offense
within three calendar years”.
B. Delete
C. Replace language with "Self-Service Display" as follows: “Self-Service Displays.
Self-service displays of tobacco products, from which individual packages may be
selected by the customer, are prohibited. Tobacco products must be located on, over, or
behind the checkout counter and must only be obtained by the sales clerk”.
D. Replace language with "Sales Personnel" as follows: “ Sales Personnel. No person
or entity selling tobacco products shall allow anyone to sell cigarettes and other tobacco
products until such employee reads the Town Bylaws, Board of Health regulations and
state laws regarding the sale of tobacco products and signs a sworn statement, a copy of
which will be placed on file in the office of the Board of Health, that (s)he has read and
will uphold the regulations”.
E. Replace language with "Free Distribution/Sampling" as follows: “No person shall
distribute, or cause to be distributed, any free samples of tobacco products as defined
herein. No means, instruments or devices that allow for the redemption of all tobacco
Page 5 of 5
products or nicotine delivery products for free or cigarettes at a price below the
minimum retail price determined by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue shall be
accepted by any permit holder”.
F. Delete.
(G) G. Replace "Vending machine" as follows: “Vending Machines. No person shall
install or maintain a vending machine to distribute or sell tobacco products within
the Town of Lexington.
H. No Change.
I. Replace the penalty section to use what is widely used statewide for both fining and
permit suspensions, “Penalties shall be determined by the Board of Health. It shall be
the responsibility of the establishment, permit holder and/or his or her business agent to
ensure compliance with all sections with all sections of this bylaw. The violator shall
receive:
a. In the case of a first violation, a fine of one hundred dollars ($100.00).
b. In the case of a second violation within a twenty-four (24) months of the date of
the current violation, a fine of two hundred dollars ($200.00) and the Tobacco
Product Sales Permit shall be suspended for seven (7) consecutive business days.
c. In the case of three or more violations within a twenty-four (24) month period,
a fine of three hundred dollars ($300.00) and the Tobacco Product Sales Permit
shall be suspended for thirty (30) consecutive business days.
d. In the case of further violations or repeated, egregious violations within a
twenty-four (24) month period, the Board of Health may revoke a Tobacco
Product Sales Permit”
J. No Change.
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING
DATE: STAFF: ITEM NUMBER:
November 17, 2014 William Hadley, Public Works Director I.3
John Livsey, Town Engineer
SUBJECT:
Update on the Cary Memorial Building and Community Center Sidewalks
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Community Center sidewalk - Two options for the ADA compliant sidewalks will be presented
by Bill and John. Cost estimates are not available at this time.
Town office building complex - Two sidewalk estimates will be presented by Bill and John. One
will demonstrate the sidewalk being constructed as all wire-cut brick. The other option will be
presented as a concrete sidewalk with brick edging.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Community Center sidewalk – These concepts are preliminary and detailed cost estimates have
not yet been developed.
Town office building complex – Pricing will be discussed during the presentation. Preliminary
estimates range from $131,000 to $215,000.
RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTED MOTION:
Motion to approve using (all wire cut bricks) (concrete with brick edging) to construct the Cary
Memorial Building complex sidewalks.
STAFF FOLLOW-UP:
Department of Public Works
BETA GROUP, INC.
315 Norwood Park South, 2nd Floor, Norwood, MA 02062
P: 781.255.1982 | F: 781.255.1974 | W: www.BETA-Inc.com
November 13, 2014
Mr. John Livsey
Town Engineer
Town of Lexington
201 Bedford Street
Lexington, MA 02420
Re: Construction Cost Estimate: Cary Hall Sidewalk/Walkway
Dear Mr. Livsey:
As requested, BETA Group, Inc. (BETA) has developed a construction cost estimate for the Cary Hall
sidewalk and walkway area based on the Nov 5, 2014 site meeting. The cost estimate includes the
sidewalk and walkway highlighted in green as show on the attached schematic plan. For planning
purposes, we have developed two construction cost estimates. Option 1 assumes a cement concrete
sidewalk with brick band and Option 2 assumes an all brick sidewalk and walkway.
Option 1 : Cement Concrete Sidewalk/Walkway with brick band
18” Brick band in sidewalk (1300 sf) = $32,500
4” Concrete base for brick (1300 sf) = $11,000
4’-6’ wide Cement Concrete Sidewalk (2900 sf) = $29,000
Assume new granite curbs are required =$12,000
Subtotal cost = $84,500k
Lighting Cost
2 lights & Conduit =$20,000
Total Cost =$104,500
Option 1 total cost with 25% contingency =$104,500 + 26,125 =$130,625 say $131,000
Cary Hall Sidewalk/Walkway Construction Cost Estimate
November 13, 2014
Page 2 of 2
Option 2: All Brick Sidewalk and Walkway
Sidewalk and walkway (4200 sf) = $105,000
4” Concrete Base (4200sf) = $35,000
Assume new granite curbs are required =$12,000
Subtotal cost = $152,000
Lighting Cost
2 lights & Conduit =$20,000
Total Cost =$172,000
Option 2 total cost with 25% contingency =$172,000 + 43,000 =$215,000 say $215,000
If we can be of any further assistance regarding this matter, please contact us at our office.
Very truly yours,
BETA Group, Inc.
Kien Y. Ho, PE, PTOE
Vice President
Cc: Bill Hadley, Director Lexington Public Works
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING
DATE: 11/17/14 STAFF: Lynne Pease ITEM NUMBER: I.4
SUBJECT:
Solar Task Force Discussion on Hartwell
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Dan Voss and Mark Sandeen will provide background information on preferred site areas. They
will return to you at your December 1 meeting to ask for a vote to select the proposed solar site
and issue a letter of intent to allow interconnection application submission. Letter of intent does
not bind the Town to proceeding with this project.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTED MOTION:
STAFF FOLLOW-UP:
Selectmen’s Office
Solar Task Force Update
Board of Selectmen Review
November 17, 2014
Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation
Brief Rooftop Solar Update
• Lexington High School is the final building to be completed –
construction is progressing.
• On track to “flick the switch” on 1.1 MW of rooftop Solar in Dec
– DPF is working on a ribbon cutting.
• Expected net benefit for 2015 has increased by $70K, or 45%
because of the effect of recent NSTAR rate increases.
2
Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation
The Hartwell Project – Solid Progress!
✔ Sep 2013 – Selectmen approve Vendor selection.
✔ Oct 2013 – Working group established
• DPW; LPD; Taskforce; Finance; Legal; Vendor
– Kick off meeting held with key stakeholders
– MOU comments received and with counsel
– Key Site uses (present and future) defined
– “Base Case” design developed and priced
– Site operations consultant engaged by BF/SC
àToday – Provide an update to the Board of Selectmen on
taskforce analysis, and request approval to bring forth a
proposal on Dec 1 for a specific site at the Hartwell facility to
enable continued project assessment.
November 14, 2014 3
Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation
Hartwell Solar Summary
• System Description
– Minimum Size 1.0 MW Ground with 0.5 MW Canopy
– Maximum Size 3.7 MW Ground with 1.0 MW Canopies
• Economics
– Solar Gross Revenue ranges from $5.7 million to $37 million
– Net Revenue impact under analysis
• Development Status
• MOU execution
• Firm Pricing and Site Assignment (LOI)
• Engineering studies
• Final Scope / Price and PPA negotiation
• Finance / Legal / DPW Review and Sign off
4
Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation
Solar – Gross Benefit
5
SITE PLAN - OPTION A
270 SOUTH MAIN STREET
FLEMINGTON, NJ 08822
908-751-5818 (PHONE)
908-751-5819 (FAX)
lyle@advancedsolarproducts.com
LYLE K. RAWLINGS, P.E.
MA PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LIC #50455
NJ CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION
LICENSE NO.: 24GA28102500
05-14-2014ATL
AS SHOWN E-2
05-14-2014RES
REVISIONS
DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.BY
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM - GROUND MOUNT :
SYSTEM SIZE = 3,683.790 KW DC (@STC)
12,078 305 WATT MODULES
671 PARALLEL STRINGS OF 18 MODULES PER STRING
SOLSTICE MOUNTING SYSTEM @ 20° TILT
S
PV ARRAY AZIMUTH = 180°
PV MODULE
SOLSTICE
SOUTH SUPPORT
(FRONT ROWS ONLY)
SOLSTICE
MAIN SUPPORT
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
SOIL
APPROX. 3" OF 3/4"
CRUSHED STONE
(AS NEEDED FOR LEVELING)
SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAY1
E-2
(NOT TO SCALE)
SITE PLAN FOR SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAY6
E-2
(SECTION VIEW)
SOLSTICE MOUNTING ASSEMBLY ON ARRAY UNDERLAYMENT2
E-2 (ISOMETRIC VIEW)
TYPICAL SOLSTICE MOUNTING ASSEMBLY4
E-2(PLAN VIEW)
320 WATT MODULES ON
SOLSTICE MOUNTING SYSTEM
3
E-2
SITE OF
SOLAR ARRAY
(NOT TO SCALE)
SITE PLAN FOR SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAY5
E-2
LEXINGTON, MA
COMPOSTING FACILITY
SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM
60 HARTWELL AVENUE
LEXINGTON, MA 02421
SITE OF NEW SOLAR ARRAY
ELECTRICAL INTERCONNECTION POINT AT STREET
(Plan View - Scale: 1/100" = 1')
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OFELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT PAD
6-17-14CLIENT COMMENTS1 RS
PERIMETER FENCE (APPROX. 3,288 LINEAR FEET)
TREE LINE
RELOCATION OF CURBSIDEPICK-UP OPERATION(APPROX. 4.5 ACRES)
WIND ROWS
(TYP.)
10-24-14POLE MOUNT OPTION2 RS
10-30-14ARRAY OPTIONS3 RS
SOLAR DESIGN SOLSTICE @20° TILT
PERIMETER FENCE (APPROX. 1,840 LINEAR FEET)
PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM - CARPORT SYSTEMS 1&2 :
COMBINED SYSTEM SIZE = 1,004.670 KW DC (@STC)
(3,294) 305 WATT MODULES
183 PARALLEL STRINGS OF 18 MODULES PER STRING
CARPORT SYSTEM #2
499.590 KW DC @STC(1,638) 305 WATT MODULES
CARPORT SYSTEM #1
505.080 KW DC @STC
(1,656) 305 WATT MODULES
11-03-14ADD'L ARRAY OPTIONS4 RS
1
2 3
A B
Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation
Site Availability Assessment
6
Current Users:
• DPW
• LPD
• MMHP/NERAC
Proposed Additional Use:
+ Ground/Canopy Solar
+ Regional Firing Range
Assessment:
• Maintain essential town
services
• Assess both Solar and New
Firing Range footprint
• Value any impacts on non
/essential operations
Legend:
Class 1 Operation (red): Essential – Maintain in Place (2 Acres)
Class 2 Operation (pink): Essential – relocation or optimization possible – incl. all roads. (7 Acres)
Class 3 Operation (green): Optional – relocation, scaling or elimination on economic basis (11.5 Acres)
Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation
Site Analysis
7
Status:
• ~ 4 Acres assumed for solar
along northern boundary
• ~ 1.5 Acre New Firing Range
• Operational analysis underway
Legend:
Class 1 Operation (red): Essential – Maintain in Place (2 Acres)
Class 2 Operation (pink): Essential – relocation or optimization possible – incl. all roads. (7 Acres)
Class 3 Operation (green): Optional – relocation, scaling or elimination on economic basis (11.5 Acres)
Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation November 14, 2014 8
Tight Schedule – December Decision is Critical!
• Nov - Assess operational impact of Solar + Range.
- Assess contractual obligations.
- Calculate net value to the town.
• Key Decision: Dec 1 – Request Board of Selectmen consider
proposed solar site and issue LOI to allow Interconnection
Application submission.
• Key Action: Dec 15 - Interconnection Application Submitted.
• Dec – Feb: EMSA Negotiated.
• Dec – April: Engineering studies and permitting.
• Key Milestone: April 2015 – NSTAR permit received.
• Dec 2015: - Construction & Commissioning complete.
Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation
Conclusion
• Hartwell project is moving forward strongly.
• Critical path rests with Development Site Selection /
Letter of Intent.
• Allows vendor to move forward with critical permit
application.
• Does not financially commit the town.
• Taskforce requests permission to present proposed site
assignment to Board of Selectmen on 1 Dec and at that
time confirm the Town Managers authority to enter a
Letter of Intent with vendor.
9 February 24, 2014"
Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation
Backup Slides
10
Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation
Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation
Solar – Gross Benefit (2015 Rates)
12
SITE PLAN - OPTION A
270 SOUTH MAIN STREET
FLEMINGTON, NJ 08822
908-751-5818 (PHONE)
908-751-5819 (FAX)
lyle@advancedsolarproducts.com
LYLE K. RAWLINGS, P.E.
MA PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LIC #50455
NJ CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION
LICENSE NO.: 24GA28102500
05-14-2014ATL
AS SHOWN E-2
05-14-2014RES
REVISIONS
DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.BY
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM - GROUND MOUNT :
SYSTEM SIZE = 3,683.790 KW DC (@STC)
12,078 305 WATT MODULES
671 PARALLEL STRINGS OF 18 MODULES PER STRING
SOLSTICE MOUNTING SYSTEM @ 20° TILT
S
PV ARRAY AZIMUTH = 180°
PV MODULE
SOLSTICE
SOUTH SUPPORT
(FRONT ROWS ONLY)
SOLSTICE
MAIN SUPPORT
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
SOIL
APPROX. 3" OF 3/4"
CRUSHED STONE
(AS NEEDED FOR LEVELING)
SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAY1
E-2
(NOT TO SCALE)
SITE PLAN FOR SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAY6
E-2
(SECTION VIEW)
SOLSTICE MOUNTING ASSEMBLY ON ARRAY UNDERLAYMENT2
E-2 (ISOMETRIC VIEW)
TYPICAL SOLSTICE MOUNTING ASSEMBLY4
E-2(PLAN VIEW)
320 WATT MODULES ON
SOLSTICE MOUNTING SYSTEM
3
E-2
SITE OF
SOLAR ARRAY
(NOT TO SCALE)
SITE PLAN FOR SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAY5
E-2
LEXINGTON, MA
COMPOSTING FACILITY
SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM
60 HARTWELL AVENUE
LEXINGTON, MA 02421
SITE OF NEW SOLAR ARRAY
ELECTRICAL INTERCONNECTION POINT AT STREET
(Plan View - Scale: 1/100" = 1')
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OFELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT PAD
6-17-14CLIENT COMMENTS1 RS
PERIMETER FENCE (APPROX. 3,288 LINEAR FEET)
TREE LINE
RELOCATION OF CURBSIDEPICK-UP OPERATION(APPROX. 4.5 ACRES)
WIND ROWS
(TYP.)
10-24-14POLE MOUNT OPTION2 RS
10-30-14ARRAY OPTIONS3 RS
SOLAR DESIGN SOLSTICE @20° TILT
PERIMETER FENCE (APPROX. 1,840 LINEAR FEET)
PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM - CARPORT SYSTEMS 1&2 :
COMBINED SYSTEM SIZE = 1,004.670 KW DC (@STC)
(3,294) 305 WATT MODULES
183 PARALLEL STRINGS OF 18 MODULES PER STRING
CARPORT SYSTEM #2
499.590 KW DC @STC(1,638) 305 WATT MODULES
CARPORT SYSTEM #1
505.080 KW DC @STC
(1,656) 305 WATT MODULES
11-03-14ADD'L ARRAY OPTIONS4 RS
1
2 3
A B
Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 13
Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation
Net Meter Credits
• Electricity (kWh) x Rate ($/kWh) = NMC ($)
– Retail rate based host’s rate class
– 100,000 kWh x $0.27 / kWh = $27,000 credit
• Host can allocate credits to different accounts
• Generation in one location can offset electricity
costs in other locations
• No limit to number of accounts that can receive
credits
14
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING
DATE: STAFF: ITEM NUMBER:
November 17, 2014 Bd. of Assessors: Greg Johnson, Ed Grant and Cas Groblewski I.5
Rob Lent, Assessor, Rob Addelson, Asst. TM for Finance
SUBJECT: FY15 Tax Rate Classification Hearing
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this agenda item is to present information to the Selectmen
on factors that will affect the determination of the Fiscal Year 2015 tax rate. A tax classification hearing
is scheduled for the Selectmen’s meeting of December 1, 2014 in anticipation of setting a tax rate at its
meeting of December 4, 2014. At the meeting of December 4th, the Board must take four votes:
Establish a residential factor (see Exhibit A);
Determine whether to adopt the Open Space Discount;
Determine whether to adopt the Residential Exemption and, if so, the percentage (up to 20
percent);
Determine whether to adopt the Small Commercial Exemption
Please note that the tax rates in Exhibit A are based on a tax levy equal to the FY15 maximum allowable
levy under Proposition 2 ½, which includes an estimated $2,870,000 in new growth that will be submitted
to the Department of Revenue for certification and debt service on exempt debt net of $950,000 voted at
the 2014 annual town meeting to mitigate the debt service impacts of the Bridge/Bowman and Estabrook
school projects.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NA
RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTED MOTION:
No motion required.
STAFF FOLLOW-UP:
Finance.
Prepared by rna
Town of Lexington
Fiscal Year 2015
Tax Classification Packet
Prepared for: Lexington Board of Selectmen
Prepared by: Lexington Assessors Office
Chairman, Gregory A. Johnson
Member, Edmund C. Grant
Member, Cas Groblewski
Robert F. Lent, Director of Assessing
Classification Presentation
November 17, 2014
1
MEMO
To: Lexington Board of Selectmen
From: Lexington Board of Assessors
Subject: FY2015 Tax Classification Process
Date: November 17, 2014
On December 1, 2014, the Board of Selectmen will conduct a public hearing on the tax classification
options available under Massachusetts General Laws. Massachusetts General Laws requires the Board
of Selectmen to consider four selections with respect to the setting the FY2015 tax rate. The decision of
the Board for each alternative must be submitted to the DOR on form LA5. The four (4) selections are:
1. Selection of a residential factor
2. Selection of a discount for Open Space
3. A residential exemption
4. A small commercial exemption
These selections are discussed below.
1. Selection of a residential factor.
The Board of Selectmen may adopt a residential factor, thus increasing the commercial, industrial, and
personal property (C-I-P) tax rate by a maximum factor of 1.750. The attached Exhibits A & B
demonstrate the shift that the various C-I-P factors have on the percentage of the tax levy borne by each
class and the resulting tax rates. 110 of the 351 communities in Massachusetts adopted this component
of classification in fiscal year 2014.
2. Selection of a discount for Open Space.
Massachusetts General Law Chapter 59 Sec. 2A Defines Class 2 Open Space as:
"..land which is not otherwise classified and which is not taxable under provisions of chapters 61,
61A or 61B, or taxable under a permanent conservation restriction, and which land is not held for
the production of income but is maintained in an open or natural condition and which contributes
significantly to the benefit and enjoyment of the public."
A maximum exemption of 25% may be adopted for all property that is classified as Open Space.
The Assessors have not identified any property that meets the definition of Open Space
according to the statute. As of FY2013, Bedford was the only community in the Commonwealth
of MA to adopt this exemption.
3. Residential exemption.
The Board of Selectmen may adopt a maximum residential exemption of 20%. This exemption applies
only to owner-occupied properties. Those below the break-even point realize a reduction in taxes and
those above pay additional taxes. Non owner-occupied properties would have a substantial increase in
taxes including apartments and vacant land. Refer to the example in Exhibit H in this classification
packet.
2
Board of Selectmen
Tax Classification Process
November 17, 2014
Thirteen (13) communities in the Commonwealth of MA, typically those with a substantial base of rental
units, adopted this exemption in FY2014 including Barnstable, Boston, Brookline, Cambridge, Chelsea,
Everett, Malden, Nantucket, Somerset, Somerville, Tisbury, Waltham and Watertown.
In Lexington in FY2015, Single Family Dwellings have an average assessed value of about $821,000
(rounded); however, the average assessed value for all “residential parcels” in Lexington (including the
following categories: single family dwellings, two & three family buildings, vacant land, condominiums,
and apartment buildings is (rounded):
$762,000
4. Small commercial exemption
An exemption of up to 10% of the property valuation can be granted to commercial (not industrial)
property that meets the requirements of the law. To qualify, eligible businesses must have occupied the
property as of January 1, must have had no more than ten (10) employees during the previous calendar
year and the building must have a valuation of less than $1,000,000. While the eligible business owners
do not have to own the building, all occupants of the commercial portion of the building must qualify.
Ten (10) Commonwealth of MA communities adopted the small commercial exemption in FY2014
including Auburn, Avon, Bellingham, Braintree, Dartmouth, New Ashford, Seekonk, Somerset, Westford,
and Wrentham.
FY2014 FY2015 % CHANGE
$148,771,313 N/A
$148,771,313 $155,683,082 4.65%$0 0.00%
$148,770,138 $155,683,082 4.65%$3,546,091 2.38%
$7,411,620,000 $8,201,523,230 10.66%$2,870,000 1.93%
$1,143,975,350 $1,161,973,860 1.57%$0 0.00%
$8,555,595,350 $9,363,497,090 9.44%495,678 0.33%
$15.51 T.B.D.T.B.D.$155,683,082 4.65%
$29.56 T.B.D.T.B.D.
C-I-P RESID C-I-P RES C-I-P RESID C-I-P RESID C-I-P RESID COMMENTS
1.000 1.000 12.41%87.59% 19,319,670$ 136,363,412$ $16.63 $16.63 -42.87%18.62%SINGLE TAX RATE
1.050 0.993 13.03%86.97% 20,285,653$ 135,397,429$ $17.46 $16.51 -40.01%17.78%
1.100 0.986 13.65%86.35% 21,251,637$ 134,431,445$ $18.29 $16.39 -37.15%16.94%
1.150 0.979 14.27%85.73% 22,217,620$ 133,465,462$ $19.12 $16.27 -34.30%16.10%
1.200 0.972 14.89%85.11% 23,183,604$ 132,499,478$ $19.95 $16.16 -31.44%15.26%
1.250 0.965 15.51%84.49% 24,149,587$ 131,533,495$ $20.78 $16.04 -28.59%14.42%
1.300 0.957 16.13%83.87% 25,115,571$ 130,567,511$ $21.61 $15.92 -25.73%13.58%
1.350 0.950 16.75%83.25% 26,081,554$ 129,601,528$ $22.45 $15.80 -22.87%12.74%
1.400 0.943 17.37%82.63% 27,047,538$ 128,635,544$ $23.28 $15.68 -20.02%11.90%
1.450 0.936 17.99%82.01% 28,013,521$ 127,669,561$ $24.11 $15.57 -17.16%11.06%
1.500 0.929 18.61%81.39% 28,979,505$ 126,703,577$ $24.94 $15.45 -14.30%10.22%
1.550 0.922 19.23%80.77% 29,945,488$ 125,737,594$ $25.77 $15.33 -11.45%9.38%
1.560 0.921 19.36%80.64% 30,138,685$ 125,544,397$ $25.94 $15.31 -10.87%9.21%
1.570 0.919 19.48%80.52% 30,331,882$ 125,351,200$ $26.10 $15.28 -10.30%9.04%
1.580 0.918 19.61%80.39% 30,525,078$ 125,158,004$ $26.27 $15.26 -9.73%8.88%
1.590 0.916 19.73%80.27% 30,718,275$ 124,964,807$ $26.44 $15.24 -9.16%8.71%
1.600 0.915 19.86%80.14% 30,911,472$ 124,771,610$ $26.60 $15.21 -8.59%8.54%
1.610 0.914 19.98%80.02% 31,104,668$ 124,578,414$ $26.77 $15.19 -8.02%8.37%
1.620 0.912 20.10%79.90% 31,297,865$ 124,385,217$ $26.94 $15.17 -7.45%8.20%
1.630 0.911 20.23%79.77% 31,491,062$ 124,192,020$ $27.10 $15.14 -6.88%8.04%
1.640 0.909 20.35%79.65% 31,684,258$ 123,998,824$ $27.27 $15.12 -6.30%7.87%
1.650 0.908 20.48%79.52% 31,877,455$ 123,805,627$ $27.43 $15.10 -5.73%7.70%
1.660 0.906 20.60%79.40% 32,070,652$ 123,612,430$ $27.60 $15.07 -5.16%7.53%
1.670 0.905 20.72%79.28% 32,263,849$ 123,419,233$ $27.77 $15.05 -4.59%7.36%
1.680 0.904 20.85%79.15% 32,457,045$ 123,226,037$ $27.93 $15.02 -4.02%7.20%
1.690 0.902 20.97%79.03% 32,650,242$ 123,032,840$ $28.10 $15.00 -3.45%7.03%
1.700 0.901 21.10%78.90% 32,843,439$ 122,839,643$ $28.27 $14.98 -2.88%6.86%
1.710 0.899 21.22%78.78% 33,036,635$ 122,646,447$ $28.43 $14.95 -2.30%6.69%
1.720 0.898 21.34%78.66% 33,229,832$ 122,453,250$ $28.60 $14.93 -1.73%6.52%
1.730 0.897 21.47%78.53% 33,423,029$ 122,260,053$ $28.76 $14.91 -1.16%6.36%
1.740 0.895 21.59%78.41% 33,616,225$ 122,066,857$ $28.93 $14.88 -0.59%6.19%
1.750 0.894 21.72%78.28% 33,809,422$ 121,873,660$ $29.10 $14.86 -0.02%6.02%FY15 MAX SHIFT
Amended FY13 New
Growth
Residential Valuation New Growth Increment
Comm + Indl + PP Valuation Override
EXHIBIT A: ALTERNATIVE TAX RATE SCENARIOS FOR FY2015
FY2014-FY2015 Change in Levy Limit and Values Factors Affecting Determination of FY2015 Levy Limit
FY2014 Maximum
Allowable Levy Limit
Maximum Allowable Levy Limit
FACTOR % SHARE OF LEVY TAX LEVY TAX RATE
Tax Levy (FY13 actual, and FY14 levy
limit)
Proposition 2 1/2
increment
% LEVY CHNG: FY13 TO FY14
Total Valuation Debt Exclusion
Increment
Residential Tax Rate FY2014 Maximum
Allowable Levy Limit
Comm/Indl/PP Tax Rate
3
MAXIMUMRESCIPTOTALCIPFYLEVYVALUEVALUEVALUE% VALUE%LEVY% VALUE%LEVYFACTOR1982 $25,840,699 $981,805,500 $260,146,400 $1,241,951,900 79.05% 72.07% 20.95% 27.93% 1.431983 $27,069,102 $990,919,800 $276,376,600 $1,267,296,400 78.19% 71.06% 21.81% 28.94% 1.331984$28,022,798$997,961,400$296,494,700$1,294,456,10077.10%69.73%22.90%30.27%1.321985 $29,632,914 $1,007,078,700 $301,942,600 $1,309,021,300 76.93% 68.88% 23.07% 31.12% 1.321986 $31,019,098 $1,020,964,400 $317,326,500 $1,338,290,900 76.29% 68.76% 23.71% 31.24% 1.321987 $33,153,338 $2,235,803,100 $666,024,100 $2,901,827,200 77.05% 67.03% 22.95% 32.97% 1.441988 $34,836,855 $2,255,006,000 $674,748,700 $2,929,754,700 76.97% 66.81% 23.03% 33.19% 1.441989 $37,264,901 $2,301,575,500 $673,074,254 $2,974,649,754 77.37% 67.26% 22.63% 32.75% 1.451990 $40,392,000 $2,928,897,300 $843,484,600 $3,772,381,900 77.64% 66.71% 22.36% 33.29% 1.491991 $42,322,992 $2,620,862,100 $586,620,600 $3,207,482,700 81.71% 69.14% 18.29% 30.86% 1.691992 $43,474,747 $2,519,321,000 $532,077,800 $3,051,398,800 82.56% 70.86% 17.44% 29.14% 1.671993 $47,365,952 $2,574,645,700 $460,616,200 $3,035,261,900 84.82% 74.14% 15.18% 25.86% 1.701994 $48,686,562 $2,633,197,000 $420,527,200 $3,053,724,200 86.23% 76.59% 13.77% 23.41% 1.701995 $50,261,924 $2,801,492,000 $415,545,200 $3,217,037,200 87.08% 78.04% 12.92% 21.96% 1.701996 $53,185,783 $2,975,007,040 $433,858,760 $3,408,865,800 87.27% 78.36% 12.73% 21.64% 1.701997 $54,713,901 $3,099,278,410 $445,558,740 $3,544,837,150 87.43% 78.63% 12.57% 21.37% 1.701998 $56,940,636 $3,300,687,100 $494,410,360 $3,795,097,460 86.97% 77.85% 13.03% 22.15% 1.701999 $58,891,464 $3,523,737,000 $565,977,160 $4,089,714,160 86.16% 76.47% 13.84% 23.53% 1.702000 $61,263,839 $3,761,567,000 $744,710,290 $4,506,277,290 83.47% 75.21% 16.53% 24.79% 1.502001 $68,753,066 $4,200,706,000 $814,607,290 $5,015,313,290 83.76% 74.01% 16.24% 25.99% 1.602002 $72,024,765 $4,706,431,500 $911,710,050 $5,618,141,550 83.77% 73.71% 16.23% 26.29% 1.622003 $75,793,067 $5,186,133,750 $897,438,810 $6,083,572,560 85.25% 74.92% 14.75% 25.08% 1.702004 $82,109,040 $6,018,408,000 $892,768,060 $6,911,176,060 87.08% 76.75% 12.92% 23.25% 1.802005 $91,165,834 $6,275,351,000 $870,816,360 $7,146,167,360 87.81% 78.07% 12.19% 21.93% 1.802006 $94,751,711 $6,823,275,250 $862,993,280 $7,686,268,530 88.77% 80.01% 11.23% 19.99% 1.782007 $101,074,790 $7,135,277,500 $923,957,080 $8,059,234,580 88.54% 80.05% 11.46% 19.95% 1.742008 $110,222,125 $6,945,049,000 $984,115,350 $7,929,164,350 87.59% 78.90% 12.42% 21.10% 1.702009 $116,338,164 $6,991,353,500 $1,042,254,630 $8,033,608,130 87.03% 77.95% 12.97% 22.05% 1.702010 $121,725,000 $6,896,447,750 $995,142,860 $7,891,590,610 87.39% 77.72% 12.61% 22.28% 1.702011 $127,955,723 $6,953,985,750 $1,019,733,440 $7,973,719,190 87.21% 77.59% 12.79% 22.41% 1.702012 $134,337,548 $6,974,904,000 $1,051,783,320 $8,026,687,320 86.90% 77.72% 13.10% 22.28% 1.702013 $141,639,397 $7,196,488,310 $1,111,468,450 $8,307,956,760 86.62% 77.26% 13.38% 22.74% 1.702014 $148,761,313 $7,411,620,000 $1,143,975,350 $8,555,595,350 86.63% 77.27% 13.37% 22.73% 1.72015155,683,0828,201,523,2301,161,973,8609,363,497,09087.59%TBD12.41%TBDTBDNote: CIP value is net of portion of value that is not taxable due to TIF agreements.EXHIBIT B: HISTORICAL LEVY SUMMARY CIPRESIDENTIAL 4
FiscalYear (*)SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING VALUATIONNUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGSAVERAGE SFD A / VPERCENTINCREASE A / V TAX RATEAVERAGE TAXESCIPFACTOR1992 $2,268,576,000 8,682 $261,296 N/A $12.23 $3,195.66 N/A 1.67 $3,051,398,8001993 $2,324,384,000 8,715 $266,711 2.07% $13.64 $3,637.93 13.84% 1.70 $3,035,261,9001994 $2,386,608,000 8,734 $273,255 2.45% $14.16 $3,869.29 6.36% 1.70 $3,053,724,2001995 $2,535,745,000 8,752 $289,733 6.03% $14.00 $4,056.26 4.83% 1.70 $3,217,037,2001996 $2,681,040,000 8,758 $306,125 5.66% $14.01 $4,288.81 5.73% 1.70 $3,408,865,8001997 $2,791,978,000 8,775 $318,174 3.94% $13.88 $4,416.26 2.97% 1.70 $3,544,837,1501998 $2,975,012,000 8,798 $338,146 6.28% $13.43 $4,541.31 2.83% 1.70 $3,795,097,4601999 $3,171,199,000 8,810 $359,954 6.45% $12.79 $4,603.82 1.38% 1.70 $4,089,714,1602000 $3,376,143,000 8,821 $382,739 6.33% $12.25 $4,688.56 1.84% 1.50 $4,506,277,2902001 $3,777,857,000 8,840 $427,359 11.66% $12.11 $5,175.32 10.38% 1.60 $5,015,313,2902002 $4,225,339,000 8,845 $477,709 11.78% $11.28 $5,388.56 4.12% 1.62 $5,618,141,5502003 $4,693,071,000 8,898 $527,430 10.41% $10.95 $5,775.36 7.18% 1.70 $6,083,572,5602004 $5,456,206,000 8,887 $613,954 16.40% $10.47 $6,428.09 11.30% 1.80 $6,911,176,0602005 $5,687,532,000 8,899 $639,120 4.10% $11.34 $7,247.62 12.75% 1.80 $7,146,167,3602006 $6,206,172,000 8,910 $696,540 8.98% $11.11 $7,738.56 6.77% 1.78 $7,686,268,5302007 $6,499,630,000 8,917 $728,903 4.65% $11.34 $8,265.76 6.81% 1.74 $8,059,234,5802008 $6,262,572,000 8,922 $701,925 -3.70% $12.52 $8,788.10 6.32% 1.70 $7,929,164,3502009 $6,274,760,000 8,934 $702,346 0.06% $12.97 $9,109.43 3.66% 1.70 $8,033,608,1302010 $6,184,505,000 8,944 $691,470 -1.55% $13.86 $9,583.77 5.21% 1.70 $7,891,590,6102011 $6,234,563,000 8,949 $696,677 0.75% $14.40 $10,032.15 4.68% 1.70 $7,973,719,1902012 $6,251,243,000 8,963 $697,450 0.11% $14.97 $10,440.82 4.07% 1.70 $8,026,687,3302013 $6,441,950,000 8,978 $717,526 2.88% $15.20 $10,906.40 4.46% 1.70#REF!2014 $6,658,875,000 8,996$740,204 3.16% $15.51 $11,480.56 5.26% 1.70 $8,555,595,3502015$7,388,986,0009,004$820,63410.87%TBDTBDTBDTBD$10,250,808,550* All values are inclusive of new growthTOTAL (Taxable RE & PP)PERCENT INCREASETAXESEXHIBIT C: HISTORY OF AVERAGE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND TAX BURDEN - FY1992 TO PRESENT5
Residential ( R ) Commercial ( C ) Industrial (I)Commercial + Industrial CombinedPersonal Property (P) C-I-P Subtotal Total AssessedFY 14 Assessed Value $7,411,620,000 $659,735,600 $344,486,000$1,004,221,600$187,553,750 $1,191,775,350 $8,603,395,350FY 15 Assessed Value$8,201,523,230$661,677,370$363,393,000$1,025,070,370$180,027,950$1,205,098,320$9,406,621,550$ increase$789,903,230 $1,941,770 $18,907,000$20,848,770($7,525,800)$13,322,970 $803,226,200% increase10.66%0.29% 5.49%2.08%-4.01%1.12%9.34%FY 15 New Growth$108,862,200$5,458,000$5,455,000$10,913,000$27,151,910$38,064,910$146,927,110FY15 Assessed Value w/o New Growth$8,092,661,030 $656,219,370 $357,938,000$1,014,157,370$152,876,040 $1,167,033,410 $9,259,694,440$ inc./decr. over FY 14 $681,041,030 -$3,516,230 $13,452,000$9,935,770($34,677,710) ($24,741,940)$656,299,090% inc./decr. over FY 149.19% -0.53% 3.90%0.99%-18.49%-2.08%7.63%FY 14 share of total value86.15%7.67% 4.00%11.67%2.18%13.85%FY 15 share of total value w/o growth87.40%7.09% 3.87%10.95%1.65%12.60%Change1.25%-0.58%-0.14%-0.72%-0.53%-1.25%EXHIBIT D: PRELIMINARY/UNAPPROVED VALUES BY CLASS: FY2014 TO FY2015Note: Industrial value is gross assessed value and includes that portion of value that is not taxable due to TIF agreements.6
RESIDENTIALSINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (# props = 9,004)Single(Does not include condos, apts, 2-3 family, etc)FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015Avg. SFD Assmt.(FY15 pend'g DOR approval) $740,204 $808,717 $808,717 $808,717 $808,717 $808,717 $808,717 $808,717 $808,717 $808,717 $808,717 $808,717Tax Burden Shift Factor 1.701.651.661.671.681.691.701.711.721.731.741.75Tax Rate (per $1K of Ass'd value) $15.51$15.10 $15.07 $15.05 $15.02 $15.00 $14.98 $14.95 $14.93 $14.91 $14.88 $14.86Avg. Tax Bill (based on Avg. Ass'd Value) $11,481 $12,208 $12,189 $12,170 $12,151 $12,132 $12,113 $12,094 $12,075 $12,056 $12,036 $12,017$ Tax differential between FY14-FY15 Not applicable $727$708 $689 $670 $651 $632 $613 $594 $575 $555 $536% Tax differential between FY14-FY15 Not applicable 6.33% 6.17% 6.00% 5.83% 5.67% 5.50% 5.34% 5.17% 5.00% 4.84% 4.67%COMMERCIALLARGE OFFICE BLDG (# props = 20)Large(Office (non-Lab/Med) > 30,000 sqft GBA)FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015FY 15 Assmt.@ ~ $141/sf for Avg. Prop. $12,380,263 $12,267,850 $12,267,850 $12,267,850 $12,267,850 $12,267,850 $12,267,850 $12,267,850 $12,267,850 $12,267,850 $12,267,850 $12,267,850Tax Burden Shift Factor 1.701.651.661.671.681.691.701.711.721.731.741.75Tax Rate (per $1K of Ass'd value) $29.56$27.43 $27.60 $27.77 $27.93 $28.10 $28.27 $28.43 $28.60 $28.76 $28.93 $29.10Avg. Tax Bill (based on Avg. Ass'd Value) $365,961 $336,555 $338,594 $340,634 $342,674 $344,714 $346,753 $348,793 $350,833 $352,873 $354,912 $356,952$ Tax differential between FY14-FY15 Not applicable-$29,406 -$27,366 -$25,326 -$23,287-$21,247 -$19,207 -$17,167 -$15,128 -$13,088 -$11,048 -$9,009% Tax differential between FY14-FY15 Not applicable-8.04% -7.48% -6.92% -6.36%-5.81% -5.25% -4.69% -4.13% -3.58% -3.02% -2.46%MEDIUM OFFICE BLDG (# props = 7)Medium(Office (non-Lab/Med) 10,000>,<30,000 sqft GBA)FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015FY 15 Assmt.@ ~ $167/sf for Avg. Prop. $2,256,571 $2,389,857 $2,389,857 $2,389,857 $2,389,857 $2,389,857 $2,389,857 $2,389,857 $2,389,857 $2,389,857 $2,389,857 $2,389,857Tax Burden Shift Factor 1.701.651.661.671.681.691.701.711.721.731.741.75Tax Rate (per $1K of Ass'd value) $29.56$27.43 $27.60 $27.77 $27.93 $28.10 $28.27 $28.43 $28.60 $28.76 $28.93 $29.10Avg. Tax Bill (based on Avg. Ass'd Value) $66,704 $65,563 $65,960 $66,358 $66,755 $67,152 $67,550 $67,947 $68,345 $68,742 $69,139 $69,537$ Tax differential between FY14-FY15 Not applicable -$1,141 -$744 -$346 $51$448 $846 $1,243 $1,640 $2,038 $2,435 $2,832% Tax differential between FY14-FY15 Not applicable -1.71% -1.12% -0.52% 0.08% 0.67% 1.27% 1.86% 2.46% 3.05% 3.65% 4.25%TOWN-WIDE RETAIL (# props = 59)Town-Wide(Retail, Restaurants, & Banks, w/offices up/down stairs)FY 2014FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015FY 15 Assmt.@ ~ $193/sf for Avg. Prop. $1,443,932 $1,476,779 $1,476,779 $1,476,779 $1,476,779 $1,476,779 $1,476,779 $1,476,779 $1,476,779 $1,476,779 $1,476,779 $1,476,779Tax Burden Shift Factor 1.701.651.661.671.681.691.701.711.721.731.741.75Tax Rate (per $1K of Ass'd value) $29.56$27.43 $27.60 $27.77 $27.93 $28.10 $28.27 $28.43 $28.60 $28.76 $28.93 $29.10Avg. Tax Bill (based on Avg. Ass'd Value) $42,683 $40,514 $40,759 $41,005 $41,250 $41,496 $41,741 $41,987 $42,233 $42,478 $42,724 $42,969$ Tax differential between FY14-FY15 Not applicable-$2,169 -$1,923-$1,678 -$1,432 -$1,187 -$941 -$696 -$450 -$205 $41$287% Tax differential between FY14-FY15 Not applicable-5.08% -4.51%-3.93% -3.36% -2.78% -2.21% -1.63% -1.05% -0.48% 0.10% 0.67%OFFICE CONDOMINIUM (# props = 195)Office(Retail Condominiums are not included)FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015FY 15 Assmt.@ ~ $208/sf for Avg. Prop. $152,415 $155,661 $155,661 $155,661 $155,661 $155,661 $155,661 $155,661 $155,661 $155,661 $155,661 $155,661Tax Burden Shift Factor 1.701.651.661.671.681.691.701.711.721.731.741.75Tax Rate (per $1K of Ass'd value) $29.56$27.43 $27.60 $27.77 $27.93 $28.10 $28.27 $28.43 $28.60 $28.76 $28.93 $29.10Avg. Tax Bill (based on Avg. Ass'd Value) $4,505$4,270 $4,296 $4,322 $4,348 $4,374 $4,400 $4,426 $4,452 $4,477 $4,503 $4,529$ Tax differential between FY14-FY15 Not applicable-$235 -$209-$183 -$157 -$131 -$106 -$80-$54-$28-$2$24% Tax differential between FY14-FY15 Not applicable-5.22% -4.64%-4.07% -3.49% -2.92% -2.34% -1.77% -1.19% -0.62% -0.05% 0.53%INDUSTRIALLAB/OFFICE COMBINATION (# props = 13)Lab/Office(Bio/Chem Laboratory or Medical Use is Primary)FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2015FY 15 Assmt.@ ~ $253/sf for Avg. Prop. $25,801,750 $24,729,000 $24,729,000 $24,729,000 $24,729,000 $24,729,000 $24,729,000 $24,729,000 $24,729,000 $24,729,000 $24,729,000 $24,729,000Tax Burden Shift Factor 1.701.651.661.671.681.691.701.711.721.731.741.75Tax Rate (per $1K of Ass'd value) $28.97$27.43 $27.60 $27.77 $27.93 $28.10 $28.27 $28.43 $28.60 $28.76 $28.93 $29.10Avg. Tax Bill (based on Avg. Ass'd Value) $747,477 $678,412 $682,524 $686,636 $690,747 $694,859 $698,970 $703,082 $707,194 $711,305 $715,417 $719,528$ Tax differential between FY14-FY15 Not applicable-$69,064 -$64,953 -$60,841 -$56,729 -$52,618 -$48,506 -$44,395 -$40,283 -$36,171-$32,060 -$27,948% Tax differential between FY14-FY15 Not applicable-9.24% -8.69% -8.14% -7.59% -7.04% -6.49% -5.94% -5.39% -4.84%-4.29% -3.74%EXHIBIT D-1: TOWN OF LEXINGTON - Tax Rate Shift Options & Property Comparisons(FY2015 Values are derived net of new growth)RESIDENTIALCOMMERCIALINDUSTRIALNote: Shire TIF Properties (200/300/400 Shire Way) & King St Property (portion of 113 Hartwell Ave) are included above in INDUSTRIAL Lab/Office Combo category as "Gross Avg. Assessment less Gross Avg. Growth"7
FY2013 FY2014
FY 2014 RESID C-I-P C-I-P RESID C-I-P C-I-P
MUNICIPALITY C / I / P RATE RATE SHIFT RATE RATE SHIFT
Cambridge $10,519,300,746 $8.66 $21.50 1.710 $8.38 $20.44 1.690
Waltham $2,925,865,713 $13.49 $31.77 1.750 $13.43 $31.97 1.750
Newton $2,275,093,565 $11.49 $21.93 1.740 $12.12 $23.18 1.740
Woburn $1,790,777,112 $10.40 $27.01 1.750 $10.44 $27.41 1.750
Burlington $1,726,622,683 $11.85 $31.70 1.668 $12.00 $32.24 1.668
Wellesley $1,204,329,300 $11.70 $11.70 1.000 $11.54 $11.54 1.000
Lexington $1,143,975,350 $15.20 $28.97 1.700 $15.51 $29.56 1.700
Needham $1,065,027,418 $11.30 $22.18 1.750 $11.64 $22.99 1.750
Watertown $996,441,245 $14.68 $27.15 1.750 $14.96 $27.96 1.750
FY2013 FY2014
RESID C-I-P C-I-P RESID C-I-P C-I-P
MUNICIPALITY RATE RATE SHIFT RATE RATE SHIFT
Arlington 13.61$ 13.61$ 1.000 13.79$ 13.79$ 1.000
Bedford 15.37$ 33.80$ 1.750 15.71$ 34.04$ 1.750
Belmont 13.33$ 13.33$ 1.000 13.50$ 13.50$ 1.000
Burlington 11.85$ 31.70$ 1.668 12.00$ 32.24$ 1.668
Concord 14.07$ 14.07$ 1.000 14.45$ 14.45$ 1.000
Lincoln 14.23$ 18.72$ 1.300 14.41$ 18.95$ 1.300
Waltham 13.49$ 31.77$ 1.750 13.43$ 31.97$ 1.750
Winchester 12.77$ 12.01$ N/A 12.66$ 11.91$ N/A
N/A = not applicable
COMPARABLE COMMERCIAL COMMUNITIES
COMMUNITIES CONTIGUOUS TO LEXINGTON
EXHIBIT E: TAX FACTORS AND TAX RATES - COMPARABLE
COMMERCIAL COMMUNITIES AND CONTIGUOUS COMMUNITIES
8
Division of Local ServicesMunicipal Databank/Local Aid SectionFiscal Year 2014 Assessed Values by Class MunicipalityFiscal YearResidential ValueOpen Space ValueCommercial ValueIndustrial ValuePersonal Property ValueComm/Indl/Pers (C/I/P)Total Assessed ValueR & O as % of Total ValueCIP as % of Total Value1Boston 2014 $64,541,402,530 $0 $29,631,862,869 $707,563,713 $4,951,983,447 $35,291,410,029 $99,832,812,559 64.6 35.42Cambridge 2014 $16,642,348,024 $0 $5,936,084,416 $3,503,030,118 $1,080,186,230 $10,519,300,764 $27,161,648,788 61.3 38.73Newton 2014 $18,687,096,235 $0 $1,756,659,465 $150,126,600 $368,307,500 $2,275,093,565 $20,962,189,800 89.1 10.94Nantucket 2014 $15,734,218,626 $11,460,900 $939,061,724 $48,571,000 $206,415,205 $1,194,047,929 $16,939,727,455 93 75Brookline 2014 $14,744,840,400 $0 $1,392,313,500 $13,929,900 $191,578,140 $1,597,821,540 $16,342,661,940 90.2 9.86Barnstable 2014 $11,114,256,735 $0 $1,206,529,030 $79,328,500 $193,985,740 $1,479,843,270 $12,594,100,005 88.2 11.87Worcester 2014 $7,902,179,543 $0 $2,006,883,465 $528,430,575 $592,517,400 $3,127,831,440 $11,030,010,983 71.6 28.48Falmouth 2014 $9,926,397,342 $3,248,800 $578,777,042 $73,842,400 $178,513,638 $831,133,080 $10,760,779,222 92.3 7.79Quincy 2014 $8,732,643,225 $0 $1,588,953,675 $83,081,900 $275,010,130 $1,947,045,705 $10,679,688,930 81.8 18.210Wellesley 2014 $8,550,806,000 $0 $1,087,234,000 $7,814,000 $109,281,300 $1,204,329,300 $9,755,135,300 87.7 12.311Somerville 2014 $7,894,327,349 $0 $1,020,307,151 $331,988,000 $199,049,900 $1,551,345,051 $9,445,672,400 83.6 16.412Waltham 2014 $5,772,320,361 $0 $2,127,776,189 $461,112,274 $336,977,250 $2,925,865,713 $8,698,186,074 66.4 33.613Plymouth 2014 $6,739,080,284 $0 $796,421,860 $841,559,633 $225,709,450 $1,863,690,943 $8,602,771,227 78.3 21.714Lexington 2014 $7,411,620,000 $0 $659,735,600 $296,686,000 $187,553,750 $1,143,975,350 $8,555,595,350 86.6 13.415Needham 2014 $7,003,705,577 $0 $741,516,228 $141,475,100 $182,036,090 $1,065,027,418 $8,068,732,995 86.8 13.216Arlington 2014 $6,924,743,377 $0 $331,293,424 $16,149,400 $105,443,220 $452,886,044 $7,377,629,421 93.9 6.117Framingham 2014 $5,569,402,378 $0 $1,200,300,512 $244,817,100 $227,073,797 $1,672,191,409 $7,241,593,787 76.9 23.118Springfield 2014 $5,025,199,000 $0 $1,064,979,700 $162,566,500 $665,647,970 $1,893,194,170 $6,918,393,170 72.6 27.419Andover 2014 $5,474,892,385 $8,409,800 $541,616,314 $578,490,500 $237,117,137 $1,357,223,951 $6,840,526,136 80.2 19.820Medford 2014 $5,930,338,991 $0 $632,697,209 $92,874,000 $122,328,860 $847,900,069 $6,778,239,060 87.5 12.521Edgartown 2014 $6,120,742,215 $0 $383,182,445 $3,749,800 $106,161,978 $493,094,223 $6,613,836,438 92.5 7.522Natick 2014 $5,071,958,730 $0 $1,359,882,270 $36,485,100 $121,001,510 $1,517,368,880 $6,589,327,610 77 2323Peabody 2014 $4,668,178,302 $0 $1,092,889,615 $236,371,100 $114,305,840 $1,443,566,555 $6,111,744,857 76.4 23.624Lowell 2014 $4,984,640,552 $0 $547,112,179 $350,200,113 $203,732,904 $1,101,045,196 $6,085,685,748 81.9 18.125Dennis 2014 $5,430,544,151 $671,578 $358,198,771 $25,236,700 $75,750,260 $459,185,731 $5,890,401,460 92.2 7.8EXHIBIT F: TOP 25 COMMUNITIES BY TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE9
Massachusetts Municipality Bond
Rating
FY14 TAX RATE
RESID
FY14 TAX
RATE C-I-P
FY14 SHIFT
FACTOR
RESID % OF
TOTAL
VALUE
C-I-P % OF
TOTAL
VALUE
RESID
EXEMPT'N
ADOPTED
2012
Population
AREA SQ
MILES
DENSITY
PER SQ
MILE
2011 PER
CAPITA
INCOME
Lexington Aaa 15.51 29.56 1.700 86.6 13.4 No 32,272 16.4 1,968 $88,987
Acton Aaa 19.45 19.45 1.000 87.4 12.6 No 22,599 20.0 1,132 $55,932
Andover AAA 15.18 25.25 1.470 80.2 19.8 No 34,142 31.0 1,101 $66,653
Arlington AAA 13.79 13.79 1.000 93.9 6.1 No 43,711 5.2 8,438 $45,654
Barnstable AAA 9.12 8.22 n/a 88.2 11.8 Yes 44,824 60.0 747 $31,096
Bedford Aaa 15.71 34.04 1.750 79.6 20.4 No 13,765 13.7 1,002 $53,790
Belmont Aaa 13.50 13.50 1.000 94.4 5.6 No 25,204 4.7 5,409 $69,079
Boston Aaa 12.58 31.18 1.750 64.6 35.4 Yes 636,479 48.4 13,142 $35,786
Boxborough AAA 17.69 17.69 1.000 75.0 25.0 No 5,105 10.4 493 $59,751
Brewster AAA 8.18 8.18 1.000 94.1 5.9 No 9,806 23.0 427 $30,164
Brookline Aaa 11.39 18.50 1.720 90.2 9.8 Yes 59,115 6.8 8,706 $65,085
Cambridge Aaa 8.38 20.44 1.690 61.3 38.7 Yes 106,471 6.4 16,558 $51,439
Canton AAA 12.87 26.53 1.650 76.5 23.5 No 21,932 18.9 1,159 $48,593
Chatham AAA 5.08 5.08 1.000 93.0 7.0 No 6,141 16.2 379 $42,083
Chilmark AAA 2.48 2.48 1.000 97.9 2.1 No 900 19.1 47 $48,479
Dartmouth AAA 9.86 15.03 1.400 83.1 16.9 No 34,448 61.6 559 $28,245
Dedham AAA 16.08 34.72 1.750 79.8 20.2 No 24,974 10.5 2,390 $43,117
Dennis AAA 6.35 6.35 1.000 92.2 7.8 No 14,153 20.6 687 $26,949
Dover Aaa 13.08 13.08 1.000 97.4 2.6 No 5,722 15.3 373 $188,206
Duxbury AAA 16.15 16.15 1.000 95.6 4.4 No 15,172 23.8 639 $70,008
Eastham AAA 7.02 7.02 1.000 96.0 4.0 No 4,946 14.0 354 $26,633
Hamilton AAA 17.40 17.40 1.000 94.7 5.3 No 8,072 14.6 553 $59,462
Harvard AAA 17.09 17.09 1.000 95.1 4.9 No 6,530 26.4 248 $56,549
Hingham Aaa 12.56 12.56 1.000 87.2 12.8 No 22,520 22.5 1,002 $81,511
Hopkinton AAA 17.63 17.63 1.000 82.6 17.4 No 15,478 26.6 583 $73,764
Lincoln AAA 14.41 18.95 1.300 96.3 3.7 No 6,503 14.4 453 $126,821
Littleton AAA 17.41 29.22 1.470 79.1 20.9 No 9,132 16.6 549 $42,066
Manchester By The Sea AAA 10.45 10.45 1.000 93.1 6.9 No 5,216 9.3 561 $99,243
Marblehead AAA 11.09 11.09 1.000 94.6 5.4 No 20,076 4.5 4,432 $78,969
Marion AAA 10.59 10.59 1.000 92.3 7.7 No 4,909 14.6 336 $47,145
Mashpee AAA 9.20 9.20 1.000 91.7 8.3 No 14,005 23.5 596 $28,845
Mattapoisett AAA 12.72 12.72 1.000 93.0 7.0 No 6,113 16.5 371 $46,296
Milton AAA 14.99 22.97 1.500 95.9 4.1 No 27,158 13.0 2,083 $57,880
Natick AAA 14.18 14.18 1.000 77.0 23.0 No 33,760 15.1 2,239 $47,566
Needham AAA 11.64 22.99 1.750 86.8 13.2 No 29,366 12.6 2,329 $87,232
Norwell AAA 16.37 16.37 1.000 84.6 15.4 No 10,574 20.9 507 $71,404
Orleans AAA 6.20 6.20 1.000 92.1 7.9 No 5,881 14.2 415 $38,139
Reading AAA 14.74 14.74 1.000 90.9 9.1 No 25,192 9.9 2,537 $44,656
Sherborn AAA 20.34 20.34 1.000 95.1 4.9 No 4,199 16.0 263 $182,248
Sudbury AAA 18.03 24.94 1.354 93.3 6.7 No 18,119 24.4 743 $93,407
Watertown AAA 14.96 27.96 1.750 80.7 19.3 Yes 32,863 4.1 7,996 $36,765
Wayland Aaa 18.33 18.33 1.000 94.5 5.5 No 13,285 15.2 872 $133,867
Wellesley Aaa 11.54 11.54 1.000 87.7 12.3 No 28,748 10.2 2,824 $138,036
Wellfleet AAA 6.70 6.70 1.000 95.4 4.6 No 2,742 19.8 138 $40,255
Wenham AAA 18.88 18.88 1.000 95.9 4.1 No 4,993 7.7 647 $81,173
Westborough AAA 19.29 19.29 1.000 63.5 36.5 No 18,455 20.5 899 $53,248
Westford AAA 16.60 16.60 1.000 84.8 15.2 No 22,851 30.6 747 $51,230
Weston Aaa 12.73 12.73 1.000 95.2 4.8 No 11,737 17.0 690 $267,636
Westwood AAA 15.40 28.18 1.650 86.9 13.1 No 14,768 11.0 1,346 $89,407
Winchester Aaa 12.66 11.91 n/a 94.6 5.4 No 21,869 6.0 3,621 $90,091
Note: AAA denotes Standard & Poor rating and Aaa denotes Moody's Rating
Source of Data: DOR Division of Local Services/Municipal Data Bank
EXHIBIT G: TAX FACTORS and TAX RATES for Aaa RATED COMMUNITIES
10
EXHIBIT H: RESIDENTIAL EXEMPTION: FY2015 PROPERTY IMPACT ANALYSIS
IN PROCESS
11
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING
DATE: PRESENTER: ITEM NUMBER:
November 17, 2014 Margaret Coppe I.6
SUBJECT:
Request for Special Town Meeting
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Consider School Committee’s request for a special town meeting to address space needs in the
elementary schools.
The School Committee will email their presentation to you over the weekend.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NA
RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTED MOTION:
Motion to schedule a Special Town Meeting on Wednesday, January 21, 2015.
Motion to schedule a Special Town Meeting at the beginning of the Annual Town Meeting in
March.
STAFF FOLLOW-UP:
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING
DATE: STAFF: ITEM NUMBER:
November 17, 2014 Rob Addelson, Asst. Town Mgr. for Finance I.7
SUBJECT: FY2016 Preliminary Capital Projects
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Staff has begun the process of developing the FY2016-FY2020 capital plan. The purpose of this agenda
item is to give the Selectmen the opportunity – at this relatively early stage in the process – to highlight
projects members deem significant, for staff to hear any initial comments from the Board regarding these
projects, and for staff to respond to any questions the Board may have.
All requested capital projects are shown on the attached spreadsheet. The inclusion of a project on this
list does not indicate the project will be recommended by the Town Manager. The list of school projects
is preliminary as they have yet to be voted by the School Committee.
All project requests have been forwarded to the Capital Expenditure Committee and, where applicable,
the Community Preservation Committee, for review. As has been the case in prior years, transmittal of
these requests to the Committees is with the understanding that the Town Manager has yet to make a
recommendation on any project, and they have yet to be reviewed and/or endorsed by the Board of
Selectmen. Town departments will make presentations of their requests to the Selectmen in December
when the Board conducts its review of requested FY16 operating budgets.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: NA
RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTED MOTION: NA
STAFF FOLLOW-UP:
Finance Department
Project ID NumberProject NameDepartmentFY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 Total882 Parker Meadow Accessible Trail ConstructionCommunity Development‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 928 Conservation Meadows Preservation ProgramCommunity Development26,400$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 26,400$ 931 Lower Vine Brook Paved Recreation Path ReconstructionCommunity Development221,092$ 148,721$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 369,813$ 932 Land AcquisitionCommunity Development‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ Total Community Development247,492$ 148,721$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 396,213$ 962 Parking Meter ReplacementEconomic Dev500,000$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 500,000$ 963 Grain Mill AlleyEconomic Dev455,600$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 455,600$ Total Economic Development955,600$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 955,600$ 735 Ambulance ReplacementFire‐$ ‐$ 280,000$ ‐$ ‐$ 280,000$ 738 Headquarters Fire Station ReplacementFire‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 741 Portable Radio ReplacementFire‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 849 Ladder Truck ReplacementFire‐$ 1,000,000$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 1,000,000$ 926 Public Safety Radio StabilizationFire90,000$ 90,000$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 180,000$ 964 Fire PumperFire500,000$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 500,000$ Total Fire590,000$ 1,090,000$ 280,000$ ‐$ ‐$ 1,960,000$ 927 Cary Library Internal ReconfigurationLibrary375,000$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 375,000$ 553 Replace Town Wide Phone Systems‐Phase IVMIS52,000$ 204,000$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 256,000$ 556 Head End Equipment Replacement ‐ unfunded yearMIS‐$ 125,000$ 250,000$ ‐$ ‐$ 375,000$ 708 Municipal Technology Improvement Program‐ Phase IIIMIS140,000$ ‐$ 100,000$ 55,000$ 80,000$ 375,000$ 855 Network Redundancy & Improvement Plan ‐ Phase IIIMIS57,000$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 57,000$ TOTAL MIS249,000$ 329,000$ 350,000$ 55,000$ 80,000$ 1,063,000$ 477 Software (Police & Fire/EMS)Police646,406$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 646,406$ 692 Police Station; Renovation and Add‐on Design and EngineeringPolice‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ Total Police646,406$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 646,406$ 561 Townwide Roofing ProgramPublic Facilities‐$ 416,408$ 285,443$ 704,834$ 1,950,384$ 3,357,069$ 562 School Building Envelope and Systems ProgramPublic Facilities210,000$ 215,000$ 221,000$ 226,000$ 231,600$ 1,103,600$ 564 LHS Heating Systems Upgrade Phases 2 & 3Public Facilities518,000$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 518,000$ 647 Municipal Building Envelope and SystemsPublic Facilities182,760$ 187,329$ 192,012$ 196,812$ 201,732$ 960,645$ 653 School Building Flooring ProgramPublic Facilities125,000$ 125,000$ 125,000$ 125,000$ 125,000$ 625,000$ 698School Paving ProgramPublic Facilities150,000$ 153,750$ 157,593$ 161,901$ 166,000$ 789,244$ 699 Interior Painting ProgramPublic Facilities157,594$ 161,534$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 319,128$ 749 Public Facilities Bid DocumentsPublic Facilities75,000$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 375,000$ 754 Diamond Energy ImprovementsPublic Facilities‐$ 250,000$ 3,500,000$ ‐$ ‐$ 3,750,000$ 835 Visitors CenterPublic Facilities‐$ 2,080,298$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 2,080,298$ 838 Middle School Science and Performing ArtsPublic Facilities‐$ 250,000$ 3,100,000$ ‐$ ‐$ 3,350,000$ 870 Hastings School Renovation/ReplacementPublic Facilities1,100,000$ 40,000,000$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 41,100,000$ 900 Renovation & Update of Diamond Kitchen and CafeteriaPublic Facilities‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 905 Clarke Gymnasium LockersPublic Facilities30,000$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 30,000$ 930 Department of Public Facilities Vehicle with Aerial LiftPublic Facilities96,000$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 96,000$ 934 Clarke Middles School Circulation and Parking ImprovementsPublic Facilities363,000$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 363,000$ 935 Diamond Middle School Lighting to Rear Parking LotPublic Facilities77,000$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 77,000$ 936 Diamond Gym Motors for BackboardsPublic Facilities25,300$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 25,300$ FY2016 to FY2020 Capital Project Requests
Project ID NumberProject NameDepartmentFY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 TotalFY2016 to FY2020 Capital Project Requests937 Security Camera Upgrade to Digital from AnalogPublic Facilities38,500$ 77,000$ 82,500$ 49,500$ ‐$ 247,500$ 938 LHS Phase 2 Overcrowding CompletionPublic Facilities90,200$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 90,200$ 939 Public Facilities Mechanical/Electrical System ReplacementsPublic Facilities363,000$ 423,500$ 484,000$ 544,500$ 605,000$ 2,420,000$ 953 Food Service LHS Dishwasher and InstallationPublic Facilities61,000$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 61,000$ 955 LHS Bike Racks and InstallationPublic Facilities31,531$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 31,531$ 959 Elementary School Short Term Capacity IncreasePublic Facilities‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 960 Pre‐K Short Term Capacity IncreasePublic Facilities‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 961 Lexington Public School Educational Capacity IncreasePublic Facilities‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ xxx Cary Memorial Building SidewalkPublic FacilitiesTBD‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ TBDxxx Community Center SidewalkPublic FacilitiesTBD‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ TBDTotal Public Facilities3,693,885$ 44,414,819$ 8,222,548$ 2,083,547$ 3,354,716$ 61,769,515$ 321 Center Streetscape ImprovementsPublic Works4,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ ‐$ ‐$ 8,000,000$ 327 Automatic Meter Reading SystemPublic Works‐$ 657,250$ 496,000$ 496,000$ ‐$ 1,649,250$ 520 Equipment ReplacementPublic Works770,000$ 840,000$ 790,000$ 790,000$ 770,000$ 3,960,000$ 522 Street ImprovementsPublic Works2,532,959$ 2,548,560$ 2,564,552$ 2,580,943$ 2,597,744$ 12,824,758$ 523 Storm Drainage Improvements and NPDES compliancePublic Works340,000$ 340,000$ 340,000$ 340,000$ 340,000$ 1,700,000$ 524 Sanitary Sewer System Investigation and ImprovementsPublic Works1,200,000$ 1,200,000$ 1,200,000$ 1,200,000$ 1,200,000$ 6,000,000$ 528 Hydrant Replacement ProgramPublic Works150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 750,000$ 529 Pump Station UpgradesPublic Works600,000$ 600,000$ 600,000$ 600,000$ 600,000$ 3,000,000$ 554 Street AcceptancePublic Works‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 557 Comprehensive Watershed Storm Water Management Study and ImplementationPublic Works390,000$ 390,000$ 390,000$ 390,000$ 390,000$ 1,950,000$ 560 Water Distribution System ImprovementsPublic Works900,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 4,900,000$ 587 Mass Ave ‐ Three Intersections ImprovementPublic Works‐$ 50,000$ ‐$ 6,550,000$ ‐$ 6,600,000$ 644 Sidewalk ImprovementPublic Works400,000$ 400,000$ 400,000$ 400,000$ 400,000$ 2,000,000$ 645 Dam RepairPublic Works‐$ 530,000$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 530,000$ 672 Battle Green Master Plan ‐ Phase 3Public Works‐$ 570,438$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 570,438$ 683 Town Wide Culvert ReplacementPublic Works390,000$ 390,000$ 390,000$ 390,000$ 390,000$ 1,950,000$ 688 Town‐wide Signalization ImprovementsPublic Works125,000$ 125,000$ 125,000$ 125,000$ 125,000$ 625,000$ 850 Hartwell Avenue Infrastructure ImprovementsPublic Works4,750,000$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 4,750,000$ 881 Municipal Parking lot improvementsPublic Works‐$ 40,000$ 400,000$ ‐$ ‐$ 440,000$ 883 Bikeway Bridge RenovationsPublic Works80,000$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 80,000$ 915 Hartwell Avenue Compost Site ImprovementsPublic Works‐$ 350,000$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 350,000$ 921 Hastings Park Underground WiresPublic Works300,000$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 300,000$ 922 Battle Green Streetscape ImprovementsPublic Works60,000$ 270,000$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 330,000$ 940 Westview Cemetery Building AssessmentPublic Works35,000$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 35,000$ 941 Public Parking lot Improvement ProgramPublic Works‐$ 100,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 1,600,000$ Total Public Works17,022,959$ 12,551,248$ 11,345,552$ 15,511,943$ 8,462,744$ 64,894,446$ 278 Athletic Facility LightingRecreation‐$ 287,552$ ‐$ 483,150$ ‐$ 770,702$ 280 Pine Meadows ImprovementsRecreation‐$ ‐$ 50,000$ ‐$ 75,000$ 125,000$ 282 Park and Playground ImprovementsRecreation68,000$ 68,000$ 68,000$ 60,000$ 75,000$ 339,000$ 283 Town Pool RenovationRecreation‐$ 1,188,308$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 1,188,308$ 518 Park Improvements ‐ Athletic FieldsRecreation85,000$ 120,000$ 150,000$ 210,000$ 400,000$ 965,000$ 519 Pine Meadows EquipmentRecreation68,000$ 50,000$ ‐$ 52,000$ 45,000$ 215,000$ 530 ADA Accessibility StudyRecreation78,000$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 78,000$ 532 Park Improvements‐ Hard Court ResurfacingRecreation55,000$ 55,000$ ‐$ 60,000$ 40,000$ 210,000$ 732 Center Track and Field ReconstructionRecreation‐$ ‐$ 3,000,000$ ‐$ ‐$ 3,000,000$ 848 Lincoln Park Field ImprovementsRecreation650,000$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 650,000$
Project ID NumberProject NameDepartmentFY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 TotalFY2016 to FY2020 Capital Project Requests880 Parker Meadow Accessible Trail ConstructionRecreation‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 893 Recreation Site Assessment of Potential Land AcquisitionRecreation‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ Total Recreation1,004,000$ 1,768,860$ 3,268,000$ 865,150$ 635,000$ 7,541,010$ 896 School Furniture, Equipment & Systems ProgramSchools200,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 600,000$ 945 LPS Technology Capital RequestSchools1,378,000$ 1,320,000$ 1,320,000$ 1,320,000$ 1,320,000$ 6,658,000$ 950 Additional Time Clock System FundsSchools208,000$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 208,000$ Total Schools 1,786,000$ 1,420,000$ 1,420,000$ 1,420,000$ 1,420,000$ 7,466,000$ 307 Archives & Records Management/Records Conservation & PreservationTown Clerk20,000$ 20,000$ ‐$ ‐$ 851 Election System UpgradeTown Clerk‐$ ‐$ 75,000$ ‐$ ‐$ 75,000$ 933 Cary Memorial Bldg Records Center ShelvingTown Clerk30,000$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 30,000$ Total Town Clerk30,000$ ‐$ 75,000$ ‐$ ‐$ 105,000$ Grand Total26,225,342$ 61,722,648$ 24,961,100$ 19,935,640$ 13,952,460$ 146,797,190$
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING
DATE: 11/17/14 STAFF: Lynne Pease ITEM NUMBER: I.8
SUBJECT:
Solar Task Force Discussion on Community Choice Aggregation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Mark Sandeen and Dan Voss will present information and ask the Selectmen to submit a warrant
article seeking Town Meeting authorization for the Board to enter into a Community Choice
Aggregation (CCA) Program.
CCA allows local governments the option of consolidating residential and commercial retail
electricity demand to seek proposals for cheaper and cleaner sources of power on behalf of their
residents and businesses.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTED MOTION:
STAFF FOLLOW-UP:
Selectmen’s Office
Community Choice
Lexington Board of Selectmen
November 17, 2014
UTILITY
Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation
Community Choice
• Community Choice Task Force recommends that
the Board of Selectmen submit a warrant article
seeking Town Meeting authorization for the Board
of Selectmen to enter into a Community Choice
Aggregation program.
• Sustainable Lexington Committee unanimously
supports this recommendation.
Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation
Current Electricity Generation
NSTAR
using conventional
Basic Service
electricity
Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation
Competitive Supplier Status
• All electricity consumers in Massachusetts have
the option to select an alternate retail electricity
supplier.
• But only 10% of Lexington’s residential customers
have switched to competitive suppliers
(1,200 out of 11,650 - Source: NSTAR)
• Vendor selection process can be complicated and
time consuming, creating concern about making
the right choice.
Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation
Commercial Accounts
• In contrast, 86% of the electricity consumed by
Lexington’s commercial customers comes from
competitive electricity suppliers.
• Large commercial customers have proven that
they can obtain lower rates by switching to
competitive suppliers.
• The Town of Lexington is purchasing electricity
from a competitive supplier for 22% less than the
NSTAR Basic Service rate.
($0.07 / kWh vs. $0.09 / kWh)
Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation
Community Choice
A Public - Private Option
What is Community Choice?
• Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) allows local
governments the option of consolidating residential and
commercial retail electricity demand to seek proposals for
cheaper and cleaner sources of power on behalf of their
residents and businesses.
NSTAR
Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation
What is Community Choice?
NSTAR
Customers continue to
receive one bill
Community Choice
supplier’s name listed here
Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation
Community Choice
Approval Process
• Town Meeting approval
• Issue RFP to hire an energy broker (at no cost to Town)
• Broker develops aggregation plan with DOER
(At no cost to Town)
• Selectmen approve aggregation plan
(with no obligation to choose a competitive supplier)
• DPU approval of plan (at no cost to Town)
• Broker issues RFP for competitive supplier
• Town chooses competitive supplier
– No obligation to proceed and no cost to Town if none of
the proposals are acceptable
Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation
Community Choice
• Residents and businesses can opt out at any time
without penalty, choose their own competitive
supplier, return to NSTAR Basic Service or opt
back into the program at any time.
Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation
Global Warming Solutions Act
• Emission Reduction Goals
– 25% reduction by 2020
– 80% reduction by 2050
• Primary Methods
– Energy Efficiency / Demand Reduction
– Greening the Grid
• Community Choice accelerates our progress
12
Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 13
Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation
Lexington’s Electricity Usage
• Town of Lexington, residents, and businesses use
about 450 million kWh of electricity per year.
• About 150 million kWh is supplied by NSTAR at
Basic Service Rates.
• Currently Town of Lexington is buying 9 million
kWh per year of cleaner and cheaper electricity
from a competitive supplier.
Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation
Why Community Choice?
• Local governments are achieving a powerful range of
objectives for their constituents
• Competitive, often significantly lower, electricity rates
• Transition to a cleaner, more efficient energy supply
• Consumer choice, consumer protection, local control
Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation
Draft Warrant Article
• To see if the Town will vote to authorize the Board
of Selectmen to enter into a Community Choice
Aggregation Program and contract for electric
supply for Lexington residents and businesses as
per MGL 164, Section 134, or otherwise act
thereon.
Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation
Community Choice Next Steps
• Community Choice Task Force recommends that
the Board of Selectmen submit a warrant article
seeking Town Meeting authorization for the Board
of Selectmen to enter into a Community Choice
Aggregation program.
• Sustainable Lexington Committee unanimously
supports this recommendation.
Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation
Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation
Energy Price Volatility
• Studies indicate that greater reliance on
renewable energy sources can provide more
stable consumer rates over the long run.
Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation
Competitive Suppliers
• The Massachusetts DPU must approve all
competitive electric suppliers that are allowed to
supply electricity in the Commonwealth.
http://www.nstar.com/ss3/residential/competitive_supply/suppliers.asp
http://web1.env.state.ma.us/DPU/FileRoom/Licenses
1 | Last updated April 16, 2014. For the most up-to-date information and additional resources, visit
http://www.mapc.org/clean-energy.
Start a Community Choice
Aggregation Program
Community choice aggregation (CCA), also known as municipal electric aggregation, is a way for
one or a group of cities and towns currently served by investor-owned utilities to use bulk
purchasing power to negotiate electric supply on behalf of their residents and small businesses
currently on basic service. Typically in Massachusetts, residents and businesses receive their
utility’s basic service supply by default. Communities with CCA can contract for rates and
renewable energy content with competitive suppliers and obtain funds to provide energy
efficiency services to residents. This strategy outlines how to initiate a community choice
aggregation program.
Advantages and Disadvantages of CCA
Note: Some of the following benefits of CCA may not be able to be realized at the same time,
such as lower rates and higher renewable energy content.
Possible advantages of CCA include:
Lower rates – CCA rates can be lower than basic service rates depending on when rates
are locked in and the bids are received. When deregulation occurred in Massachusetts in
1997, initial contracted rates were required to be lower than the investor-owned utility’s
standard offer. Since the standard offer expired in 2005, this restriction no longer applies.
Consumer education –Public meetings, posted notices, press releases, newspaper articles
and notifications enclosed in electric bills can lead to greater consumer awareness of
where their electricity comes from and what other suppliers exist, in addition to
informing consumers of their ability to opt out of the aggregation by choosing basic
service or a competitive supplier.
Consumer protection – As more energy brokers enter the deregulated market, consumers
are increasingly approached by brokers attempting to sell them energy contracts. CCAs
offer municipalities a way to vet brokers and suppliers for residents through government
procurement procedures.
2 | Last updated April 16, 2014. For the most up-to-date information and additional resources, visit
http://www.mapc.org/clean-energy.
Increased renewable portfolio – CCAs give communities the opportunity to purchase
energy with a higher renewable content than the Massachusetts Renewable Portfolio
Standard, which requires electric suppliers to obtain a designated percentage of their
energy content from renewable sources each year. Through 2013, the state RPS requires
that eight percent of electricity sales to end-users come from new (built after December
31, 1997) renewable energy sources, increasing by one percent each year with no
mandated expiration date.
Reserve fund – A municipality can choose to receive a fee from the supplier that can be
dedicated to funding energy efficiency or renewable projects, such as the purchase and
installation of high-efficiency streetlights or solar photovoltaic panels.
Energy efficiency funds – If a municipality chooses to collect the systems benefit charge
for energy efficiency (0.25 cents/kWh), it will gain control of the funds to run its own
energy efficiency programs. To date, only the Cape Light Compact has done so in
Massachusetts – likely due to the economies of scale available to a large regional
aggregation.
Electric consumption information – By forming a CCA, communities are able to more
easily obtain data on their residents’ aggregate energy use. This data, which is extremely
useful for energy reduction and climate change planning purposes, can otherwise be
difficult to acquire from investor-owned utilities (IOUs).
Rate stability – CCAs can choose longer-term contracts (a year or more) in order to
buffer customers from the volatility of the electricity market.
Possible disadvantages of CCA include:
Higher rates – After the contract has been executed, the utility’s basic service rates could
drop below the CCA rates. Note that as of November 27, 2013, the DPU has decided
that aggregations cannot be temporarily suspended. If an aggregation puts it customers
back on the utility’s basic service, it will need to go through the plan approval process
again in order to return them to competitive supply.
Political fallout – Some residents and small businesses may be upset that the program is
opt-out rather than opt-in. Additionally, there could be backlash if basic service rates drop
below the CCA rates or the program is disbanded.
Administrative costs – While brokers who are paid by the supplier rather than the
municipality do much of the research and paperwork for the CCA, municipal employees
must monitor the brokers and deal with public response.
3 | Last updated April 16, 2014. For the most up-to-date information and additional resources, visit
http://www.mapc.org/clean-energy.
Program Overview
Implementation Steps Objectives Key Implementers
Estimated
Time
Frame
Initial research Learn about CCA and the potential role
it could play in your community.
Town Administrator or
Relevant Municipal Staff
Authorize CCA
Authorize development of an
aggregation plan by majority vote in city
council or town meeting.
City Council or Town
Meeting 1 month
Issue RFP for energy
broker (optional)
Hire a broker for assistance in the design,
implementation, and ongoing monitoring
of the aggregation plan.
Town Administrator or
Energy Planner 2 months
Develop aggregation plan
with DOER
Draft a plan with the input of DOER that
meets the goals of the community and the
requirements of the DPU.
Broker, Town
Administrator or Energy
Planner
2 months
Approve aggregation
plan Authorize plan to be filed with the DPU. City Council or Board of
Selectmen 1 month
Submit aggregation plan
to DPU Petition the DPU to authorize the CCA. Broker 6 months
Issue RFP for competitive
supplier
Solicit competitive bids for the CCA
contract. Broker 1 month
Execute contract with
supplier Choose supplier for the CCA. Town Administrator or
Energy Planner
Notify customers Inform customers about the CCA and the
opt-out period. Broker 2 months
Begin automatic
enrollment
Enroll basic service customers who have
not opted out. Utility 1 month
Program Implementation Steps
1. Initial Research.
Conduct feasibility study – Consider conducting independent research, as well as
meeting with multiple energy brokers for expertise and guidance. Although the
Department of Energy Resources (DOER) aggregation guide recommends feasibility
studies, which outline potential savings, analyze power supply information and provide
engineering evaluations of the distribution network, they are not required. However,
brokers often include this information in their formal bid to the municipality or in
informational sessions prior to release of the broker RFP. Therefore, paying for a formal
feasibility study may be an unnecessary expense.
4 | Last updated April 16, 2014. For the most up-to-date information and additional resources, visit
http://www.mapc.org/clean-energy.
Contact DOER – Municipalities should reach out to the DOER as early in the process as
possible through the Green Communities Regional Coordinator for their region, even if
the community has not received a Green Community designation.
2. Authorize CCA
Vote in city council or town meeting – Before a municipality can design an aggregation
plan, there must be an affirmative vote at city council or town meeting. If two or more
municipalities decide to pursue a joint CCA, they must individually authorize it by
majority vote.
3. Issue RFP for Energy Broker (Optional)
Hire a broker – Massachusetts General Law does not require municipalities to contract
with an energy broker to facilitate the CCA process; however, due to the significant time
investment and technical knowledge brokers provide, the five individual municipalities
that have implemented CCA in Massachusetts as of August 2013, hired a broker for
assistance in the design, implementation, and ongoing monitoring of their aggregation.
Brokers also assume the majority of the upfront risk for the process, including legal and
Department of Public Utilities (DPU) filing fees. They do not receive compensation until
after the competitive supplier has been chosen. Brokers are paid by the supplier, and in
Massachusetts have historically received $0.001 (a mil adder) per kWh consumed by the
CCA. The broker helps develop the aggregation plan, assists in the DPU approval
process, and issues the RFP for a competitive supplier once the aggregation plan has been
approved. The broker can also facilitate the customer opt-out notification process
(typically paid for by the supplier) and provides ongoing customer support. Additionally,
the broker monitors competitive supply and utility rates on an ongoing basis.
Bid out contract – Broker contracts are exempt from standard procurement procedure
(M.G.L. ch. 30B), but procurement may provide transparency and defend the validity of
the municipality’s ultimate choice if those consulting services are obtained through a
competitive Request for Proposals (RFP). Using the competitive process outlined in
M.G.L. ch. 30B, even for exempt contracts, is considered a best practice by the
Massachusetts Office of the Inspector General.
4. Develop Aggregation Plan with DOER
Draft plan – The plan must demonstrate how the CCA will provide universal access,
reliability, and equitable treatment of all classes of customers. The broker typically designs
the plan based upon the specific needs of the municipality. Each municipality is required
to consult with DOER prior to submitting the plan to the DPU. This consultation is
intended to help streamline the DPU approval process by identifying areas in the plan
that are unclear, that have previously caused delays for other CCAs, or that may
otherwise be flagged by the DPU or the Attorney General.
5 | Last updated April 16, 2014. For the most up-to-date information and additional resources, visit
http://www.mapc.org/clean-energy.
5. Approve Aggregation Plan
Review and approve – A municipality must make the plan available for review by its
citizens through a public posting or hearing, and the plan must be approved by the board
of selectmen or city council.
6. Submit Plan to DPU
File for DPU review and approval – The municipality, with the help of the energy
broker, must petition the DPU to officially authorize the CCA. This is typically the
longest part of the process. It includes an initial filing with DPU, comment periods where
other parties may intervene with questions or concerns (such as the Attorney General or
the IOU in the service area), information request and discovery periods, and a public
hearing. Electronic copies of DPU filings, comments and follow-ups are available on the
DPU website, and municipalities should review the proceedings of previous CCA plans
to avoid delays caused by questions that have been addressed in prior filings. If a plan is
found to be in compliance with regulation, it will be approved by a formal order.
7. Issue RFP for Competitive Supplier
Set parameter for supply bids – The RFP for competitive supply should articulate the
specific energy needs of the municipality identified in the CCA plan. Suppliers may be
asked to bid on multiple supply and term options. For example, if the municipality wants
to offer residents an option to buy power that exceeds the Massachusetts RPS, it may
request that the supplier provide pricing for both a basic rate and “green” rates with
certain percentages of renewable content. Many RFPs ask for 3-, 6-, 9-, 12-, and 24-month
options. While longer-term contracts (6-plus months) may offer a certain amount of price
stability, several of the approved aggregation plans have chosen to pursue six-month
contracts that mirror the six-month timetable that the IOUs are required to follow. The
energy broker is typically responsible for issuing the RFP for competitive supply on behalf
of the town, evaluating bids according to the specific goals of the municipality, and
recommending a supplier.
8. Execute Contract with Supplier
Choose competitive supplier – The municipality ultimately chooses the supplier and
executes the contract.
9. Notify Customers of Opt-Out Period
Detail opt-out choices – The CCA must inform basic service customers by mail at least
30 days prior to automatic enrollment that their electric supply will be switched to the
chosen competitive supplier and the new rate. They must also notify affected customers
that they have the right to opt out of the CCA within 180 days without an exit charge
and anytime thereafter (historically, also without an exit charge). The notification must
also disclose the utility’s basic service rate and detail how customers can opt out or choose
6 | Last updated April 16, 2014. For the most up-to-date information and additional resources, visit
http://www.mapc.org/clean-energy.
another competitive supplier. The customer may also opt out or in at any point by
contacting the broker or supplier. For the five individual municipalities that have
authorized CCA, the opt-out process was funded by the supplier and administered by the
energy broker. Customers could opt out by returning the initial opt-out postcard, by
phone, or online by visiting the broker’s website.
10. Begin Automatic Enrollment
Enroll basic service customers – All ratepayers on the utility’s basic service who do not opt
out of the CCA will be automatically enrolled in the plan. They will continue to receive an
electricity bill from their utility, which displays separate delivery and supply charges. Delivery
charges (distribution, transmission) will remain with the utility, but the supply section
(generation charge) will list the new competitive supplier. Customers will pay one bill directly
to the utility, and supply charges will be passed through the utility to the supplier.
11. Monitor Market (Ongoing)
Watch rates – The broker continues to monitor the electricity market, secures rates when
they are favorable, and notifies the municipality if utility basic service rates have dropped
below competitive rates.
12. Submit Aggregation Status Report (Annually)
Compile CCA performance data – Within 30 days of the end of the first year of
operation, a CCA must submit an annual aggregation status report to the Director of the
Green Communities Division of DOER. The status report should include the number of
participants by customer type (residential, commercial, industrial), the number of
customers opting out by type, load served, contractor costs, and savings data.
13. Pursue Energy Efficiency Systems Benefit Funds (Optional)
Administer energy efficiency programs – Massachusetts CCA legislation (M.G.L. Ch.
164 S. 134b) allows a municipality to administer the energy efficiency systems benefit
charge currently paid by all ratepayers of IOUs. IOUs administer energy conservation and
efficiency programs through MassSave, but municipalities pursuing CCA may choose to
take this funding to run their own localized efficiency programming that conforms to
MassSave guidelines. Currently, only the regional Cape Light Compact has pursued this
option. The burden of administering efficiency programming might be cost-prohibitive
for single-municipality CCAs due to economies of scale.
Adopt energy plan – If a municipality decides to seek control of these funds, it must
adopt an energy plan through an affirmative vote in city council or town meeting that
articulates how the CCA will administer demand-side management programs. The plan
must be approved by the DPU. Municipalities interested in administering the energy
efficiency systems benefit charge should review the Cape Light Compact DPU filings and
consult with the DOER.
7 | Last updated April 16, 2014. For the most up-to-date information and additional resources, visit
http://www.mapc.org/clean-energy.
References
“Community Choice Aggregation: Municipal Bulk Buying of Electricity in
Massachusetts.” Tufts University (2013)
http://ase.tufts.edu/uep/degrees/field_project_reports/2013/Team_7_Final_Report_20
13.pdf
“Guide to Municipal Electric Aggregation in Massachusetts.” Department of Energy
Resources. (2004)
http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/doer/electric-deregulation/agg-guid.pdf
“Load Aggregation Programs.” M.G.L. Chapter 164 Section 134.
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXII/Chapter164/Section
134
“Choosing a Competitive Supplier.” Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and
Environmental Affairs.
http://www.mass.gov/eea/energy-utilities-clean-tech/electric-power/electric-market-
info/competitive-supplier.html
“Petition of City of Lowell for approval by the Department of Public Utilities of its
municipal aggregation plan pursuant to G.L. c. 164, § 134.” Massaschusetts Department
of Public Utilities.
http://www.env.state.ma.us/dpu/docs/electric/12-124/12-124-Order-6700.pdf
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING
DATE: 11/17/14 PRESENTER: Joe Pato ITEM NUMBER: I.9
SUBJECT:
Selectmen Committee Appointments
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Council for the Arts requested that Seetha Ramnath be appointed.
The Greenways Corridor Committee requested that Kevin Breunig be appointed.
Frederick Weiss is interested in becoming a member of the Retirement Board.
See attached information.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTED MOTION:
Motion to appoint Seetha Ramnath to the Council for the Arts to for a term to expire September
30, 2017.
Motion to appoint Kevin Breunig to the Greenways Corridor Committee to fill the unexpired
term of Richard Abrams until September 30, 2015.
Motion to appoint Frederick Weiss to the Retirement Board for a 3-year term to expire
November 16, 2017.
STAFF FOLLOW-UP:
Selectmen’s Office
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING
DATE: 11/17/14 STAFF: Lynne Pease ITEM NUMBER: I.10
SUBJECT:
Limousine License –R&M Ride, 24 Deering Avenue
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Attached is an application for a Limousine License. This is a request to get a license for a new
vehicle to replace the one he currently has licensed.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTED MOTION:
Motion to approve the application and issue one (1) Limousine License to R&M Ride , 24
Deering Avenue.
STAFF FOLLOW-UP:
Selectmen’s Office
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING
DATE: 11/17/14 STAFF: Lynne Pease ITEM NUMBER: I.11
SUBJECT:
Approve Class II License – Minutementech Automotive, LLC
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Minutementech Automotive, LLC is requesting your approval for a Class II license. Since this is
a residential location the license will state that no vehicles are to be stored at 6 Fulton Road at
any time.
They have provided all the necessary information and a CORI check showed no information.
See attached information.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTED MOTION:
Motion to approve the application and issue a Class II license to Minutementech Automotive,
LLC, 6 Fulton Road, provided no vehicles are stored at the property at any time.
STAFF FOLLOW-UP:
Selectmen’s Office
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING
DATE: 11/17/14 PRESENTER: Joe Pato ITEM NUMBER: C.2-4
SUBJECT:
Consent
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
2. Approve Tax Bill Insert for Bicycle Safety Flyer at request of the Bicycle Advisory
Committee.
3. Approve the minutes of October 6, 2014.
4. Approve executive session minutes of October 20, 2014 and November 3, 2014.
See attached information.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTED MOTION:
Motion to approve the Consent Agenda.
STAFF FOLLOW-UP:
Selectmen’s Office
Lexington Bike Resources
General Opinions and Questions
Bike Lexington Discussion List:
bike_lexington@yahoogroups.com
Bicycle Advisory Committee Meetings
Held monthly on second Thursday at 7 PM
in the Parker Room in the Town Office
Building.
Draft: Bike Lexington! Massachusetts Law
summarized from Massachusetts
General Law, Chapters 85, 89, 90
-Cyclists may ride on any road where not
prohibited by posted signs
-Cyclists must use a white headlight and
red taillight or rear reflector from 1/2 hour
after sunset until 1/2 hour before sunrise
-Cyclists may pass traffic on the left or
right
-Motorists must check for bicyclists
before opening their car doors.
-Motorists must yield to oncoming
bicyclists when making left turns
-Motorists must not make an abrupt right
turn immediately after passing a bicyclist
For more information, see
http://massbike.org/resourcesnew/bike-law
Road Markings
These markings show where cyclists
should stop to activate a loop-controlled
traffic signal.
Sharrows (“share-the-road arrows”) help
cyclists position themselves in the lane to
avoid obstructions.
Only cyclists may use bike lanes, but
cyclists may ride outside of bike lanes.
Taking the Lane
Why is that bicyclist out in the lane?
To avoid car doors.
To avoid potholes, debris, or other
obstructions, or because the lane is
too narrow to share safely.
To prepare for a left turn.
11/14/14
Hazard Avoidance !
Beware of turning vehicles and large trucks or
busses traveling at high speed.
At red lights, stop where motorists can see
you. When the light turns green, remember
that motorists may suddenly make a right
turn in front of you without signaling.
Keep away from the sides of parked or
stopped cars to avoid being hit by an
opening door.
For more tips, visit:
!
http://bicyclesafe.com/
Courtesy on Bikeways
Keep to the right
Stay to the right of the center line, and be
attentive to those wishing to pass. If you need
more space, try using the area beside the path.
Be responsible with animals
Keep animals on a short leash and keep both
animal and leash where they won’t trip cyclists
and runners. Pick up animal waste.
When approaching an animal, make an audible
signal and proceed with caution.
Be responsible with children
Teach your children to stay to the right, and to
respond to warnings from oncoming traffic. Do
not allow them to wander dangerously over the
path.
When approaching a child, make an audible
signal and be on the lookout for sudden
movements.
Pass cautiously; be aware of your
surroundings
Do not squeeze through narrow gaps in bike
path traffic at high speeds or obstruct traffic. Pay
attention to your surroundings.
Signal that you are about to pass: ring a bell
or say “on your left”.
Riding at Night !
Reflectors !
Reflectors and reflective tape increase
visibility of shoes, helmets, and leashes.
!!!!!!!
“Be-seen” lights (20-100 lumen) !
These lights do not allow you to see the road
well, but help make you visible to motorists
and satisfy the legal minimum at night.
!!!!!!!
“See” lights (150-750 lumen) !
These lights provide excellent visibility and
allow you to see the road. If possible, cover
the top portion of the beam when
approaching others on the bikeway.
!!