Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-02-23-BOS-Packet-releasedSELECTMEN'S MEETING Monday, February 23, 2015 Selectmen Meeting Room 7:00 PM AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENTS 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. SELECTMAN CONCERNS AND LIAISON REPORTS TOWN MANAGER REPORT ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 1. Grant of Location - Verizon - Lowell Street (5 min.) 7:00 PM 2. Approve Bond Sale (5 min.)7:05 PM 3. Discussion of Appointed Committee's Compliance with Open Meeting Law Minutes Posting Requirements (10 min.) 7:10 PM 4. Accept Deposit of Fill for Community Housing at Busa Farm Parcel (15 min.) 7:20 PM 5. School Building Project Discussion (20 min.) 7:35 PM 6. Solar Update - Hartwell Avenue (30 min.) 7:55 PM 7. Article Presentations/Positions (20 min.) 8:25 PM 1. Article 43 - Amend General Bylaws - Demolition Delay 8. Approve FY2016 Recommended Budget (10 min.) 8:45 PM 9. Approve Veterans Services District Agreement with Bedford (5 min.) 8:55 PM 10. Approve Library Union Collective Bargaining Agreement (5 min.) 9:00 PM 11. Designation of Public Safety Official regarding Declaration to Recess Town Meeting (5 min.) 9:05 PM CONSENT AGENDA 1. Commitment of Water and Sewer Charges 9:10 PM 2. Consent Agenda 9:10 PM EXECUTIVE SESSION ADJOURN Hearing Assistance Devices Available on Request All agenda time and the order of items are approximate and subject to change. AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING DATE: 2/23/2015 PRESENTER: Joe Pato ITEM NUMBER: I.1 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Grant of Location - Verizon - Lowell Street (5 min.) SUMMARY: See attached paperwork RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTED MOTION: Motion to approve the petition of Verizon to install a new pole, T9/E9, on Lowell Street and remove an existing one, T9. FOLLOW-UP: Engineering Division APPROXIMATE TIME ON AGENDA: 7:00 PM ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Grant of Location - Verizon - Lowell Street Backup Material AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING DATE: STAFF: ITEM NUMBER: February 23, 2015 William P. Hadley, Director SUBJECT: Verizon Lowell Street. – Install one JO Pole (T9/E9) on the southwesterly side of Lowell Street and remove one SO Pole, T9. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Department of Public Works/Engineering Division has reviewed the petition, plan and order for Verizon to install one JO Pole (T9/E9) on the southwesterly side of Lowell Street about 85’ northwesterly from the centerline of Haskell Street at a point approximately 30’ northwesterly of Pole T9 which is to be removed. This pole installation is necessary in order to remove an aerial trespass at #48 Lowell Street. A public hearing is required and abutters have been notified. Since this petition appears to be in order, we recommend that approval be granted. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTED MOTION: Motion to approve the petition of Verizon to install a new pole, T9/E9, on Lowell Street and remove an existing one, T9 STAFF FOLLOW-UP: Engineering Division NOTICE TO ABUTTERS February 4, 2015 You are hereby notified that a public hearing will be held in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, 2nd Floor, Town Office Building, of the Town of Lexington, Massachusetts, on Monday, February 23rd at 7:00 p.m. upon the proposal of Verizon to install one pole and remove another in the following public way of said Town: Lowell Street: Install one JO Pole (T9/E9) on the southwestern side of Lowell Street about 85’ northwest from the centerline of Haskell Street at a point approximately 30’ northwest of Pole T9 which is to be removed. By: Tricia Malatesta Engineering Aide Department of Public Works/Engineering Please direct inquiries to: Kelly-Ann Condon (508) 330-7703 Copies to: UC Synergetic Kelly-Ann Condon Rights of Way Agent 21 Oxford Road Mansfield, MA 02048 McGarvie Nominee Trs Douglas and Gay McGarvie TRS 48 Lowell Street Lexington, MA 02420 Jonathan and Elizabeth Ludlow 46 Lowell Street Lexington, MA 02420 Colin and Diana South 51 Lowell Street Lexington, MA 02420 Krishnamoorthy and Durga Subramian 7 Haskell Street Lexington, MA 02420 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING DATE: 2/23/2015 PRESENTER: Rob Addelson ITEM NUMBER: I.2 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approve Bond Sale (5 min.) SUMMARY: On February 19, 2015, the Town sold $23,573,000 of general obligation bonds and two bond anticipation notes in the amounts of $487,061 and $1 million. The bond issue was comprised of multiple purposes shown on the attached page titled, Authorization of the Bonds and Use of Proceeds and included $10,950,000 in refunding bonds to refund April 2006 Library bonds, February 2008 Fiske Harrington Bonds and February 2008 Public Service Building Facility Bonds. The difference between $23,573,000 referenced above and the $23,768,000 shown on the attached is attributable to the application of premium bid to the Estabrook and Bridge/Bowman bonds, which reduced the ultimate amount of bonds sold. The refunding will save the Town $698,694 over the remaining life of the refunding bonds. The bond anticipation notes of $487,061 and $1 million are for financing of the Concord Avenue sidewalk project and Cary Memorial Building renovation, respectively. Moody’s conducted a credit review of the Town in anticipation of this bond sale and affirmed the Town’s Aaa rating, the highest rating that can be obtained by a municipality. A copy of that rating is attached. Nine bids were submitted for the bonds. The bids, based on a calculation of the true interest cost (TIC) - which takes into consideration the amount of the issue, its term, coupon rates and any premium bid - ranged from a high of 1.96% to a low of 1.84%. The low bidder was J.P. Morgan Securities. A component of the low bid was a premium payable to the Town of $1,175,254. $270,949, $29,651, $151,061, and $723,594 of the premium are attributable to the general fund, wastewater, exempt, and CPA debt, respectively. $138,033 of the exempt premium will be recommended to be applied to construction financing of the Bridge/Bowman and Estabrook projects at the 2015 annual town meeting. Three bids were submitted for the $487,061 bond anticipation note ranging from a high of 0.5% to a low of 0.3% by Peoples United. Four bids were submitted for the $1 million bond anticipation note ranging from a high of 0.47% to a low of 0.32% also from Peoples United. No premium was bid on the notes. The Board of Selectmen will be asked to vote to accept the bid for the bonds by J.P. Morgan Securities, and the bids for the bond anticipation notes by Peoples United. RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTED MOTION: See attached vote. FOLLOW-UP: APPROXIMATE TIME ON AGENDA: 7:05 PM ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Authorization Backup Material Moody's Bond Rating Exhibit Bond/Note Vote Exhibit New Issue: Moody's assigns Aaa to Lexington, MA's $23.8M GO Bonds; MIG 1 to $1.5M GO BANs Global Credit Research - 12 Feb 2015 Affirms Aaa on $114.2M of outstanding GO debt LEXINGTON (TOWN OF) MA Cities (including Towns , Villages and Towns hips) MA Moody's Rating ISSUE RATING General Obligation Bond Anticipation Notes, Series A MIG 1 Sale Amount $487,000 Expected Sale Date 02/18/15 Rating Description Note: Bond Antic ipation General Obligation Bond Anticipation Notes, Series B MIG 1 Sale Amount $1,000,000 Expected Sale Date 02/18/15 Rating Description Note: Bond Antic ipation General Obligation Municipal Purpos e Loan of 2015 Bonds Aaa Sale Amount $23,768,000 Expected Sale Date 02/18/15 Rating Description General Obligation Moody's Outlook STA NEW YORK, February 12, 2015 --Moody's Investors Service has assigned a Aaa rating to the Town of Lexington's (MA) $23.8 million General Obligation Munic ipal Purpose Loan of 2015 Bonds and a MIG 1 rating to the General Obligation Bond Anticipation Notes, consisting of $487,000 Series A (dated February 27, 2015 and payable March 27, 2015) and $1 million Series B (dated February 27, 2015 and payable J une 15, 2015). Concurrently, Moody's has affirmed the Aaa rating on $114.2 million of outstanding general obligation debt. The outlook is stable. SUMMARY RATING RATIONALE The Aaa long-term rating reflects the town's sizeable and affluent tax base, stable financial position with healthy res erves, and manageable debt burden. The MIG 1 rating reflects the town's strong long-term credit characteristics, ample liquidity and suffic ient management of takeout risk given a demonstrated his tory of ac cessing the short-term mark et for multiple note and bond s ales over the pas t fiv e years. OUTLOOK The stable outlook represents the town's conservative fiscal management including formalized policies, budget forecas ting and multi-year capital planning. The outlook also includes our expectation that the town will continue to benefit from a history of voter support for debt exclus ions. WHAT COULD MAKE THE RATING GO DOWN - Trend of operating deficits res ulting in reserve declines - Material growth in debt burden absent of Propos ition 2 ½ overrides - Significant declines in the tax base or deterioration of the demographic profile STRENGTHS - Sizeable and wealthy tax base with continuing economic development - Stable financial position with healthy reserves - History of voter support for Proposition 2 ½ operating overrides and debt exclus ions CHALLENGES - Large future capital needs and rising education costs due to inc reasing enrollment RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Recent developments are incorporated in the Detailed Rating Rationale. DETAILED RATING RATIONALE ECONOMY AND TAX BASE Lexington's sizeable $9.3 billion tax base will remain healthy due to new c ommercial growth and a stable res idential sector with strong property values . Located in Middlesex County , Lexington is a wealthy suburb of Boston (Aaa stable). The town's tax base is primarily residential (88% of 2015 ass essed value) with a moderate commercial and industrial presenc e (11%). Equaliz ed v alues have been stable, growing at a compound annual rate of 1.3% over the past five years , including a healthy 7.7% inc rease in fisc al 2015. New growth exceeded $3 million annually from 2011 through 2014, and was $2.9 million in fiscal 2015, exceeding management's predictions. The town benefits from its proximity to the metro region and growing life scienc e industry with approximately 27 firms located in the town who collec tiv ely employ 2,800 people, which is equal to approximately 30% of total employment, exclusiv e of town employees. The town's second largest employer, Shire Pharmaceuticals (1,275 employees currently), recently announced that it will relocate over 500 jobs from Penns ylvania to Lexington, its US operational headquarters . Current and future economic development efforts are foc used in multiple areas throughout Town with partic ular emphasis on the Hartwell avenue corridor, whic h includes a parcel that was granted a tax increment financing (TIF) designation. The town's unemployment rate of 3.6% as of November 2014 remains well below the commonwealth (5.2%) and nation (5.5%). Wealth and income levels are strong with per capita and median family incomes representing 236% and 242% of the nation, respectively. Housing values in the town are strong as ev idenced by a robust equaliz ed v alue per capita of $295,293 (330% of the US median). FINANCIAL OPERATIONS AND RESERVES The financial position will continue to remain healthy giv en a his tory of conservative budgeting prac tic es, prudent ex penditure management, and sound reserv e levels. Fiscal 2014 audited results reflec t the town's ninth consecutive operating surplus, and the available General Fund balance (unassigned, as s igned, and committed) has increased to $48.1 million, or a sound 25% of revenues. The unassigned portion remains healthy at $25.8 million, or 13.5% of revenues. The fiscal 2015 General Fund budget increas ed 5% from 2014 primarily due to rising education and debt serv ice costs. The budget is balanced with a 4.1% tax levy increase and $10.3 million free cash appropriation. Over six months into the fis c al year, management reports that rev enues and expenditures are stable. Although the town has not ex ceeded its s now and ice removal budget, management reports that any ov erage will be asses sed in the Spring. Management prudently budgets $300,000 in the succeeding year's budget to address any deficit from the preceding year. Additionally, Mass achusetts munic ipalities have the ability to carry snow and ice deficits into the succeeding y ear, though a tax increase enacted to cover the s hortfall must remain within the levy limitations imposed by Proposition 2 ½ . Lexington derives the majority of its revenues from property taxes (77% in fis cal 2014) and collections remain very strong at above 99%. State aid, including aid for education, comprised 15% of 2014 revenues. The town's largest ex penditure is education (55.5% of 2014 operating expenditures), followed by insuranc e (12.2%), debt service (7.6%), and public safety (6.4%). Liquidity The town's net cas h position at the close of fiscal 2014 was $51.9 million, an estimated 27% of General Fund rev enues. DEBT AND PENSIONS Lexington's net direct debt burden, c urrently at 1.2% of equaliz ed v alue, will increase over the near term due to planned borrowing in s upport of capital projects, primarily for school related renov ation and ex pansion. Despite this, we believe that the debt will remain manageable giv en the town's rapid rate of principal amortization (87.7% within 10 years), and successful track record of passing Proposition 2 ½ debt exc lusions . Approximately 57.7% of the town's outstanding debt, including the c urrent issue, is excluded from the tax levy cap. Future debt plans include renovations to the fire and police stations, as well as substantial improvements and additions to the town's sc hools due to inc reasing enrollment. The town is currently conducting feasibility studies to determine the total costs and will apply to the Mass achusetts School Building Authority for partial reimbursement of the school projects. In anticipation of growing debt servic e costs, the town has designated stabilization reserves to partially offset the growing capital needs and rising debt service costs. The c urrent balance in this fund is $8 million, and the town plans add approximately $8.5 million in 2016, which is net of funds allocated to mitigate debt servic e payments that year. Debt service in fis c al 2014 represented 7.6% of expenditures. Debt Structure All of Lexington's debt is fixed rate and amortiz ation of principal is rapid, with 87.7% repaid within ten years. Debt-Related Derivatives Lexington has no derivatives. Pens ions and OPEB Lexington maintains a single employer defined benefit pension plan for s ubstantially all town employees , with the ex ception of teachers and certain school administrators who are covered under the state plan. The town's annual required contribution (ARC) for the plan was $4.8 million in fis c al 2014, or a manageable 2.5% of General Fund ex penditures. The town's adjus ted net pension liability (ANPL), under Moody's methodology for adjus ting reported pension data, is $92.6 million, or 0.49 times General Fund revenues . Moody's uses the adjusted net pension liability to improve comparability of reported pension liabilities. The adjus tments are not intended to replace the town's reported liability information, but to improv e c omparability with other rated entities. The town funds its OPEB liability primarily on a pay-as -you-go basis and contributed $6.2 million in fiscal 2014, representing 52.7% of its $11.8 million ARC. The town also established an OPEB trus t fund, which has a current balance of $5.8 million, and it is propos ed that $1.9 million be added in 2016. The total unfunded liability is $128.3 million as of June 30, 2013, the most recent valuation report. Total fixed costs for fisc al 2014, including pension, OPEB and debt servic e, represented $21.9 million, or 11.5% of expenditures. MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNANCE Massachusetts cities and towns have an institutional framework score of 'Aa' or strong. The primary revenue source for Massachus etts municipalities is property taxes whic h are highly predictable and can be increased annually as allowed under the Proposition 2 ½ levy limit. Expenditures are largely predic table and cities hav e the ability to reduce expenditures. Town management employs conserv ativ e budgeting and financial management as evidenc ed in several formal fiscal policies and long-term planning for capital expenditures. KEY STATISTICS Fiscal 2015 full valuation: $9.3 billion Fiscal 2015 full valuation per capita: $295,293 Median Family Inc ome as % of U.S.: 241.6% Fiscal 2014 Available General Fund Balance as % of Revenues: 25% 5-Year Dollar Change in Available General Fund Balance as % of Revenues: 15.6% Fiscal 2014 Cash Balance as % of Revenues: 27% 5-Year Dollar Change in Cash Balance as % of Revenues: -7.2% Institutional Framework : Aa 5-Year Average Operating Rev enues / Operating Expenditures : 1.02x Net Direc t Debt as % of Full Value: 1.2% Net Direc t Debt / Operating Revenues: 0.6x 3-Year Average ANPL as % of Asses sed Value: 1.1% 3-Year Average ANPL / Operating Revenues: 0.6x OBLIGOR PROFILE Lexington is a town with a population of approximately 31,400 located in eastern Massachusetts , approximately 11 miles northwest of Boston (Aaa stable). LEGAL SECURITY The majority of the 2015 GO bonds are secured by a limited tax pledge as debt serv ice is subjec t to the levy limitations of Proposition 2 ½. Howev er, debt s ervice for approximately $2.2 million of the 2015 GO bonds has been v oted exempt from the limitations of Proposition 2 ½. The notes are sec ured by a limited tax pledge as debt serv ice is subject to the levy limitations of Proposition 2 ½. USE OF PROCEEDS Bond proc eeds in the amount of $11 million will refund a portion of the town's General Obligation Bonds dated April 1, 2006 and February 15, 2008 currently outstanding for es timated net present value savings of $621,000, or 5.5% of refunded maturities, with no extension of final maturities. Bond proceeds in the amount of $12.8 million will financ e various capital projec ts. The Series A note proceeds will finance sidewalk improvements and the Series B note proc eeds will finance upgrades to the Cary Memorial Building. PRINCIPAL METHODOLOGIES The principal methodology used in the general obligation rating was US Local Government General Obligation Debt published in January 2014. The principal methodology us ed in the bond anticipation note rating was US Bond Anticipation Notes published in April 2014. Please see the Credit Policy page on www.moodys .com for a copy of these methodologies. REGULATORY DISCLOSURES For ratings is sued on a program, series or category/class of debt, this announcement provides certain regulatory disclosures in relation to each rating of a s ubsequently iss ued bond or note of the same s eries or c ategory/c lass of debt or pursuant to a program for whic h the ratings are derived exclusively from existing ratings in acc ordance with Moody's rating practices . For ratings issued on a support provider, this announcement provides certain regulatory disclosures in relation to the rating action on the support provider and in relation to each particular rating ac tion for s ecurities that derive their credit ratings from the support provider's credit rating. For provisional ratings, this announcement prov ides certain regulatory disclosures in relation to the provisional rating as signed, and in relation to a definitiv e rating that may be assigned subsequent to the final iss uance of the debt, in each case where the trans action struc ture and terms have not changed prior to the assignment of the definitive rating in a manner that would have affected the rating. For further information please see the ratings tab on the issuer/entity page for the respective issuer on www.moodys.com. Regulatory disclosures contained in this press release apply to the credit rating and, if applic able, the related rating outlook or rating review. Please s ee www.moodys.com for any updates on changes to the lead rating analyst and to the Moody's legal entity that has issued the rating. Please s ee the ratings tab on the issuer/entity page on www.moodys.com for additional regulatory disclosures for each c redit rating. Analysts Heather Guss Lead Analyst Public Finance Group Moody 's Inves tors Service Nicholas Lehman Back up Analyst Public Finance Group Moody 's Inves tors Service Christopher Coviello Additional Contact Public Finance Group Moody 's Inves tors Service Contacts Journalists: (212) 553-0376 Research Clients : (212) 553-1653 Moody 's Inves tors Service, Inc . 250 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 USA © 2015 Moody's Corporation, Moody's Investors Service, Inc., Moody's Analytic s, Inc. and/or their licensors and affiliates (collectively, "MOODY'S"). All rights reserved. CREDIT RATINGS ISSUED BY MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE, INC. ("MIS") AND ITS AFFILIATES ARE MOODY'S CURRENT OPINIONS OF THE RELATIVE FUTURE CREDIT RISK OF ENTITIES, CREDIT COMMITMENTS, OR DEBT OR DEBT-LIKE SECURITIES, AND CREDIT RATINGS AND RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS PUBLISHED BY MOODY'S ("MOODY'S PUBLICATION") MAY INCLUDE MOODY'S CURRENT OPINIONS OF THE RELATIVE FUTURE CREDIT RISK OF ENTITIES, CREDIT COMMITMENTS, OR DEBT OR DEBT-LIKE SECURITIES. MOODY'S DEFINES CREDIT RISK AS THE RISK THAT AN ENTITY MAY NOT MEET ITS CONTRACTUAL, FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS AS THEY COME DUE AND ANY ESTIMATED FINANCIAL LOSS IN THE EVENT OF DEFAULT. CREDIT RATINGS DO NOT ADDRESS ANY OTHER RISK, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: LIQUIDITY RISK, MARKET VALUE RISK, OR PRICE VOLATILITY. CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY'S OPINIONS INCLUDED IN MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT STATEMENTS OF CURRENT OR HISTORICAL FACT. MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS MAY ALSO INCLUDE QUANTITATIVE MODEL-BASED ESTIMATES OF CREDIT RISK AND RELATED OPINIONS OR COMMENTARY PUBLISHED BY MOODY'S ANALYTICS, INC. CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS DO NOT CONSTITUTE OR PROVIDE INVESTMENT OR FINANCIAL ADVICE, AND CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT AND DO NOT PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO PURCHASE, SELL, OR HOLD PARTICULAR SECURITIES. NEITHER CREDIT RATINGS NOR MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS COMMENT ON THE SUITABILITY OF AN INVESTMENT FOR ANY PARTICULAR INVESTOR. MOODY'S ISSUES ITS CREDIT RATINGS AND PUBLISHES MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS WITH THE EXPECTATION AND UNDERSTANDING THAT EACH INVESTOR WILL, WITH DUE CARE, MAKE ITS OWN STUDY AND EVALUATION OF EACH SECURITY THAT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR PURCHASE, HOLDING, OR SALE. MOODY'S CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT INTENDED FOR USE BY RETAIL INVESTORS AND IT WOULD BE RECKLESS FOR RETAIL INVESTORS TO CONSIDER MOODY'S CREDIT RATINGS OR MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS IN MAKING ANY INVESTMENT DECISION. IF IN DOUBT YOU SHOULD CONTACT YOUR FINANCIAL OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL ADVISER. ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROTECTED BY LAW, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, COPYRIGHT LAW, AND NONE OF SUCH INFORMATION MAY BE COPIED OR OTHERWISE REPRODUCED, REPACKAGED, FURTHER TRANSMITTED, TRANSFERRED, DISSEMINATED, REDISTRIBUTED OR RESOLD, OR STORED FOR SUBSEQUENT USE FOR ANY SUCH PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN ANY FORM OR MANNER OR BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, BY ANY PERSON WITHOUT MOODY'S PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. All information contained herein is obtained by MOODY'S from sources believed by it to be acc urate and reliable. Because of the possibility of human or mechanical error as well as other factors, however, all information contained herein is provided "AS IS" without warranty of any kind. MOODY'S adopts all necessary measures s o that the information it uses in assigning a credit rating is of suffic ient quality and from sources MOODY'S considers to be reliable including, when appropriate, independent third-party sources. However, MOODY'S is not an auditor and cannot in every instance independently verify or validate information receiv ed in the rating process or in preparing the Moody’s Publications. To the ex tent permitted by law, MOODY'S and its direc tors, officers, employees, agents, repres entatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability to any person or entity for any indirect, special, cons equential, or inc idental losses or damages whatsoev er arising from or in connection with the information c ontained herein or the us e of or inability to use any such information, even if MOODY'S or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives , licens ors or suppliers is advis ed in advance of the possibility of such losses or damages , including but not limited to: (a) any los s of present or pros pective profits or (b) any loss or damage aris ing where the relevant financ ial instrument is not the subjec t of a particular credit rating assigned by MOODY’S. To the ex tent permitted by law, MOODY'S and its direc tors, officers, employees, agents, repres entatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability for any direct or compens atory los ses or damages c aused to any pers on or entity, including but not limited to by any negligence (but excluding fraud, willful misconduct or any other type of liability that, for the avoidance of doubt, by law c annot be ex c luded) on the part of, or any contingency within or beyond the control of, MOODY'S or any of its direc tors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers, arising from or in connec tion with the information contained herein or the use of or inability to us e any such information. NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF ANY SUCH RATING OR OTHER OPINION OR INFORMATION IS GIVEN OR MADE BY MOODY'S IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER. MIS, a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of Moody’s Corporation ("MCO"), hereby dis c loses that most issuers of debt securities (including corporate and munic ipal bonds, debentures, notes and commercial paper) and preferred s tock rated by MIS have, prior to as signment of any rating, agreed to pay to MIS for appraisal and rating services rendered by it fees ranging from $1,500 to approx imately $2,500,000. MCO and MIS also maintain polic ies and procedures to address the independence of MIS's ratings and rating process es. Information regarding c ertain affiliations that may exis t between direc tors of MCO and rated entities, and between entities who hold ratings from MIS and have also publicly reported to the SEC an owners hip interest in MCO of more than 5%, is posted annually at www.moodys.c om under the heading "Shareholder Relations — Corporate Governance — Direc tor and Shareholder Affiliation Policy." For Australia only: Any publication into Australia of this document is purs uant to the Australian Financial Serv ices Licens e of MOODY'S affiliate, Moody's Inv estors Service Pty Limited ABN 61 003 399 657AFSL 336969 and/or Moody's Analytics Australia Pty Ltd ABN 94 105 136 972 AFSL 383569 (as applic able). This document is intended to be provided only to "wholesale clients" within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001. By continuing to access this document from within Aus tralia, you represent to MOODY'S that you are, or are access ing the document as a representative of, a "wholesale client" and that neither you nor the entity y ou represent will direc tly or indirectly dis seminate this document or its contents to "retail c lients" within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001. MOODY'S credit rating is an opinion as to the creditworthiness of a debt obligation of the issuer, not on the equity securities of the iss uer or any form of security that is av ailable to retail c lients. It would be dangerous for "retail clients" to make any inves tment decision bas ed on MOODY'S c redit rating. If in doubt you should contact your financ ial or other professional adviser. VOTE OF THE BOARD OF SELECTMEN I, the Clerk of the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Lexington, Massachusetts (the “Town”), certify that at a meeting of the board held February 23, 2015, of which meeting all members of the board were duly notified and at which a quorum was present, the following votes were unanimously passed, all of which appear upon the official record of the board in my custody: Voted: That in order to reduce interest costs, the Treasurer is authorized to issue refunding bonds, at one time or from time to time, pursuant to Chapter 44, Section 21A of the General Laws, or pursuant to any other enabling authority, to refund all of the Town’s (i) $9,403,000 General Obligation Bonds dated April 1, 2006 and maturing on April 1 in the years 2017 through 2021, inclusive, in the aggregate principal amount of $475,000 (the “Refunded 2006 Bonds”) and (ii) $24,143,000 General Obligation Bonds dated February 15, 2008 and maturing on February 15 in the years 2019 through 2028, inclusive, in the aggregate principal amount of $10,810,000 (the “Refunded 2008 Bonds”, and collectively with the Refunded 2006 Bonds, the “Refunded Bonds”) and that the proceeds of any refunding bonds issued pursuant to this vote shall be used to pay the principal of and interest on the Refunded Bonds and costs of issuance of the refunding bonds. Further Voted: that the sale of the $23,573,000 General Obligation Municipal Purpose Loan of 2015 Bonds of the Town dated February 26, 2015 (the “Bonds”), to J.P. Morgan Securities LLC at the price of $26,275,095.04 is hereby approved and confirmed. The Bonds shall be payable on February 15 of the years and in the principal amounts and bear interest at the respective rates, as follows: Year Amount Interest Rate Year Amount Interest Rate 2016 $1,928,000 2.00% 2023 1,785,000 4.00% 2017 1,970,000 3.00 2024 1,775,000 4.00 2018 1,930,000 4.00 2025 1,770,000 4.00 2019 2,980,000 4.00 2026 1,050,000 4.00 2020 2,855,000 4.00 2027 970,000 4.00 2021 1,875,000 4.00 2028 890,000 3.00 2022 1,795,000 4.00 Further Voted: to approve the sale of a $487,061 0.30 percent General Obligation Bond Anticipation Note, Series A of the Town dated February 27, 2015, and payable March 27, 2015 (the “Series A Note”), to People’s United Bank at a price of 100% of par. Further Voted: to approve the sale of a $1,000,000 0.32 percent General Obligation Bond Anticipation Note, Series B of the Town dated February 27, 2015, and payable June 15, 2015 (the “Series B Note”, and together with the Series A Note, the “Notes”), to People’s United Bank at a price of 100% of par. 2 Further Voted: that in connection with the marketing and sale of the Bonds, the preparation and distribution of a Notice of Sale and Preliminary Official Statement dated February 11, 2015, and a final Official Statement dated February 19, 2015 (the “Official Statement”), each in such form as may be approved by the Town Treasurer, be and hereby are ratified, confirmed, approved and adopted. Further Voted: that in connection with the marketing and sale of the Notes, the preparation and distribution of a Notice of Sale and Preliminary Official Statement dated February 11, 2015, and a final Official Statement dated February 19, 2015, each in such form as may be approved by the Town Treasurer, be and hereby are ratified, confirmed, approved and adopted. Further Voted: that the Bonds shall be subject to redemption, at the option of the Town, upon such terms and conditions as are set forth in the Official Statement. Further Voted: to authorize the execution and delivery of a Refunding Escrow Agreement to be dated February 26, 2015, among the Town, U.S. Bank National Association as Refunding Escrow Agent and Paying Agent for the Refunded 2008 Bonds, and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as Paying Agent for the Refunded 2006 Bonds. Further Voted: that the Town Treasurer and the Board of Selectmen be, and hereby are, authorized to execute and deliver continuing and significant events disclosure undertakings in compliance with SEC Rule 15c2-12 in such forms as may be approved by bond counsel to the Town, which undertakings shall be incorporated by reference in the Bonds and Notes, as applicable, for the benefit of the holders of the Bonds and Notes from time to time. Further Voted: that we authorize and direct the Town Treasurer to establish post issuance federal tax compliance procedures in such form as the Town Treasurer and bond counsel deem sufficient, or if such procedures are currently in place, to review and update said procedures, in order to monitor and maintain the tax-exempt status of the Bonds and Notes. Further Voted: that each member of the Board of Selectmen, the Town Clerk and the Town Treasurer be and hereby are, authorized to take any and all such actions, and execute and deliver such certificates, receipts or other documents as may be determined by them, or any of them, to be necessary or convenient to carry into effect the provisions of the foregoing votes. I further certify that the votes were taken at a meeting open to the public, that no vote was taken by secret ballot, that a notice stating the place, date, time and agenda for the meeting (which agenda included the adoption of the above votes) was filed with the Town Clerk and a copy thereof posted in a manner conspicuously visible to the public at all hours in or on the municipal building that the office of the Town Clerk is located or, if applicable, in accordance 3 with an alternative method of notice prescribed or approved by the Attorney General as set forth in 940 CMR 29.03(2)(b), at least 48 hours, not including Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, prior to the time of the meeting and remained so posted at the time of the meeting, that no deliberations or decision in connection with the sale of the Bonds or the Notes were taken in executive session, all in accordance with G.L. c.30A, §§18-25, as amended. Dated: February 23, 2015 _____________________________________ Clerk of the Board of Selectmen AM 46098264.1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING DATE: 2/23/2015 PRESENTER: Joe Pato ITEM NUMBER: I.3 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Discussion of Appointed Committee's Compliance with Open Meeting Law Minutes Posting Requirements (10 min.) SUMMARY: Ethan Handwerker requested time on the Selectmen's agenda to discuss OML issues. Review status of recent open meeting law (OML) complaints and discuss the adequacy of OML compliance by appointed boards and committees. RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTED MOTION: FOLLOW-UP: Selectmen's Office APPROXIMATE TIME ON AGENDA: 7:10 PM AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING DATE: 2/23/2015 PRESENTER: Brian Kelley; Dave Eagle, LexHab ITEM NUMBER: I.4 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Accept Deposit of Fill for Community Housing at Busa Farm Parcel (15 min.) SUMMARY: The Town/LexHab has been offered a gift of approximately 2500 cu. yds. of fill for the portion of the Busa Farm site that has been allocated for two affordable housing structures (2 three-unit structures). This fill is needed before LexHab can construct the units. Mr. Kelley will provide this fill from his site at the intersection of Woburn St. and Lowell St. where the construction of condo units is planned. Because the Busa site has not yet been deeded to LexHab, the Board of Selectmen is asked to consider whether to accept this gift. The deposit of this fill will require a permit by the Zoning Board of Appeals, under the Town's General By-laws. The hearing on this permit is scheduled for February 25. The Town Manager has sent a letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals that includes recommended conditions to be included in the permit by the ZBA, should the Selectmen wish to accept this gift (attached). RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTED MOTION: Move to (accept) (not accept) (defer action) of the gift of up to 2500 yards of fill at the affordable housing site at the Town's Busa Farm property on Lowell Street, subject to the issuance of a permit by the Zoning Board of Appeal. FOLLOW-UP: Town Manager's Office APPROXIMATE TIME ON AGENDA: 7:20 PM ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Letter to Zoning Board of Appeals Backup Material ANR Plan of Site Backup Material Town of Lexington Town Manager’s Office Carl F. Valente, Town Manager Tel: (781) 698-4540 Linda Crew Vine, Deputy Town Manager Fax: (781) 861-2921 1625 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE • LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02420 February 13, 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals Lexington, MA Re: Permit Application – Earth and Fill Removal, February 26, 2015 Dear Members of the Board: I am writing regarding the application for a permit the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) will be considering at its February 26, 2015 meeting, whereby the applicant, Brian Kelley, is requesting approval to deposit a maximum of 2500 cu. yds. of fill on Town-owned property, known as the Busa farm parcel for community housing, located on Lowell Street (parcel 2A, map/parcel 20/38). Since the Town will be the intended recipient of this fill, I request that the permit include the following conditions, should the Board of Appeals approve this application: 1. That the applicant receive written approval from the Lexington Board of Selectmen to accept the deposit of the fill on this property for the purposes of aiding in the development of community housing at the Busa Farm parcel. The Selectmen are currently scheduled to take up this matter at the Board’s meeting on February 23, 2015. 2. That prior to the first instance of fill being brought to the site, that the applicant comply with any requirements to be established by the Town Manager or Board of Selectmen regarding: • Testing of the fill; • Gradient plan; • Planned access to the site; • Soil erosion controls; • Plan for keeping Lowell Street and other access points free of debris; • Name and contact phone number of individual responsible for the delivery of the fill; and • Attendance at a pre-construction meeting with Town staff. 3. That the applicant provide the Building Commissioner’s Office with a log of the amount of fill delivered to the site, by date and time. 4. That the applicant provide the ZBA with the estimated number of trucks, size of trucks and hours of operations for the delivery of this fill. 5. That the applicant spread and compact the fill on the site, as determined by the Town’s representative. If the fill is to be stockpiled, that it be in a location approved by the Town. 6. That the applicant meet with the Town’s Development Review Team (DRT) prior to the ZBA hearing, to present to the DRT plans for this work. Further, that the applicant agree to meet any additional conditions established by the DRT, as communicated to the applicant by the Town Manager. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Very truly yours, Carl F. Valente Town Manager C: Board of Selectmen David Eagle, LexHab Karen Mullins, Director, Community Development Brian Kelley, Applicant Attachment: ANR Plan showing location of the site AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING DATE: 2/23/2015 PRESENTER: Joe Pato ITEM NUMBER: I.5 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: School Building Project Discussion (20 min.) SUMMARY: Review draft consensus document developed by the Chairs +1 "mini summit". Identify areas of agreement and areas of concern not articulated in the draft. The Permanent Building Committee and the Department of Public Facilities have been asked to revise the schedule of requested funding for Special Town Meeting to correspond to this consensus request, but that information is not yet included in the draft document. We expect this to be available at the February 25 Budget Summit. RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTED MOTION: FOLLOW-UP: APPROXIMATE TIME ON AGENDA: 7:35 PM ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Draft School Building Project Consensus Plan Cover Memo JP ,GP -1 -19 Febru ary2015 SchoolB uilding ProjectConsensusPlan Draftforthe 25February 2015Lexington B udget Sum m it Introduction Thisdocu mentdescribesthe draftconsensu spositionofthe L exingtonB u dgetSu mmit(B oard of Selectmen,SchoolC ommittee,A ppropriationC ommittee,and C apitalExpenditu re C ommittee) regardingA rticle 2 ofthe M arch2015SpecialTownM eeting#1. ThisA rticle willrequ estinitialfu ndingtodevelopvariou sschoolbu ildingprojectsinresponse to ongoingand fu tu re overcrowdingissu esinthe L exingtonP u blic School(L P S)System.The projectscoverschoolbu ildingsservinggradesP re-K,K-5,and 6-8 ,and mayinclu de pre- fabricated classrooms,brickand mortaradditions,and/oranew elementaryschoolbu ilding. Totalcostsare estimated tobe onthe orderof$100 to$120 million.A debtexclu sionvote will be requ ired tofinance the costsofdesignand engineeringwork,aswellasthe actu al constru ction. Thisdocu mentisthe resu ltofthe discu ssionsofaworkinggrou pofthe B u dgetSu mmit composed of2 membersfrom eachcommittee and willbe formallypresented tothe B oard of Selectmenand the SchoolC ommittee inadvance ofthe nextB u dgetSu mmitonFebru ary25. Basic Assumptions Enrollmentgrowthhasbeengrowingatapproximately2% peryearforthe pastsevenyearsand itiscau singovercrowdinginexistingschoolfacilitiesnow.Thisgrowthisexpected tocontinu e forseveralmore years,bringingevengreaterpressu re toastrained schoolsystem. The L P S System requ iresexpanded schoolfacilitiestoproperlymeetitsedu cationalmandates, and tolimitthe need forexpensive ou t-of-districtplacements. The long-term goalsforthe pu blic schoolsystem are to: keepschoolbu ildingsmovingtowardstheiroptimalu sage, minimize disru ptionstostu dents, avoid extremesofover-oru nder-u tilization. The Townmu stpu rsu e these goalsinafiscallyresponsible manner,and withou tignoringother vitalcapitalprojects,e.g.pu blic safetybu ildings. The requ ested appropriationwillbe based onaflexible planthatallowsthe Towntobeginby spendingsome ofthe requ ested fu ndstostu dyasetofalternativesindepth.Some optionsmay be modified oreliminated du ringthisprocess.Inlate su mmerorearlyfall,the School C ommittee and the B oard ofSelectmenwillcoordinate the refinementofthe planand thenthe B oard ofSelectmenwillapprove additionalspendingfrom the originalappropriation.D epending onthe project,thatadditionalspendingwilladvance the workintothe designdocu mentorthe JP ,GP -2 -19 Febru ary2015 constru ctionand bid docu mentphases.The resu ltsofthisprocesswillinform the requ estfor fu ndsatafallSpecialTownM eeting. Inpu tfrom the D epartmentofP u blic Facilitiesand the P ermanentB u ildingC ommittee is expected throu ghou tthisprocess–forbothfacilityplanningand foradvice ontimingneeded to execu te desired projects. Planning Process The Townmu stcarefu llymanage itsspendinginlightofthe u ncertaintyarou nd fu tu re needsin the schoolsystem.O u rprocessforschoolplanningwillbe tokeepaclose eye onlong-range trends,while limitingdefinitive constru ctionplanstoa3-yearwindow.W e willmonitorthisplan continu ally,and re-assessthe planannu ally. Leased Modular Classrooms W e willavoid u singleased modu larclassrooms(lifespanof5to10 years),since theyare expensive and provide onlyshort-term solu tionstowhatwe see asalong-term problem. Pre-Fabricated Classrooms A ddingpre-fabricated classroomswithalifespanof20+yearsatB ridge,B owman,Fiske, D iamond,and C larke willhelptoalleviate cu rrentovercrowdinginthose schools,and insome casesprovide aseparate mu sic room asmandated byarecentchange inSchoolC ommittee policy. The popu lationsatB ridge and B owmanwillbe lowered once new classroomsare available at otherschools.A tthattime,theirpre-fabricated classroomswillbe adapted forotherschool system needssu chasin-hou se specialedu cationprograms.These new u seswillnotsignificantly increase pressu re oncore spaces. W e willstartbydoingfeasibilityand designworkforallthe pre-fabricated classrooms.Inorder tobringthem online qu ickly,the Townmayopttoproceed withconstru ctionand bid docu ments forsome orallofthese locationspriortoafallSpecialTownM eeting.Thiswillbe contingenton areview ofthe engineeringstu diesand wou ld be initiated byarequ estofthe SchoolC ommittee, areview ofthe fu ndingneedsbythe financialcommittees,withfinalapprovalfrom the B oard of Selectmen. Bricks and Mortar The existingM ariaH astingselementaryschoolrequ iressignificantrepairs.Itisalsobu rdened withsu b-standard sized classrooms,and its8 modu larclassroomsare wellpasttheirintended lifespan.C onstru ctinganew schoolonthe site (alaEstabrook)isthe preferred solu tion.The new schoolshou ld be designed withu pto9 more classroomsthanthe existingfacility(inclu ding modu lars),assu mingthatthe site and resu ltingtraffic circu lationcanaccommodate thatsize.The requ estonlycoversafeasibilitystu dyforanew bu ildingonthe H astingssite. JP ,GP -3-19 Febru ary2015 Inthe fall,ifthe feasibilitystu dyshowsthatanew H astingsSchoolcanbe constru cted onthe site,thenaconstru ctionproposalforH astings(and anyothercomponentsdetermined tobe necessaryand desirable)willbe brou ghttoTownM eetingand adebtexclu sionvote willbe presented tothe votersatthe end ofthe yearorearlyin2016. P re-K isastandalone program thatrequ ires15,000 squ are feet.Itiscu rrentlyhosted at H arringtonwithasatellite program atO ld H arrington.Relocatingthe entire P re-K program toa new bu ildingwou ld allow the fou rP re-K classroomsatH arringtontobe refu rbished foru se as K-5classrooms.Fillingthese fou rK-5classroomswou ld bringthe school’spopu lationtothe brinkofthe school’score capacity. W e willstu dythe feasibilityofbu ildinganew P re-K,and ifasite isidentified we willproceed tothe designdocu mentsphase.W e wou ld thendevelopaplanforthe minorrefu rbishments needed atH arrington. The architectu ralconsu ltantfirm SM M A hasproposed acomplicated renovationat(new) H arringtonthatincorporatesanexpanded P re-K and anenlarged cafeteriaand gym.This proposalisexpensive consideringthe nu mberofnew classroomsthatwou ld resu lt,and it requ iresmovingthree geothermalwells.Thisplanwillnotbe stu died. C ontingencyfu ndingisinclu ded forexploringoptionsatH arringtonand Fiske ifthe preferred planforalargerH astingsprovestobe infeasible.A tH arringtonand Fiske we have the optionto developfeasibilitystu diesforexpansion. B ased onthe analysisbyD iN iscoD esign,the Estabrooksite isnotconsidered su itable for expansion. Forthe twoM iddle Schools,the topographyatD iamond ismore su itable toanextension,and we wou ld ratherdoconstru ctionatonlyone M iddle School.W e willperform afeasibilitystu dyfor addingasingle large extensionatD iamond.W e willalsostu dyanextensionatC larke inthe eventthatthe D iamond site cannotaccommodate the needsofthe schoolsystem onitsown. Redistricting The SchoolC ommittee willexplore redistrictingplansthatwou ld shiftschooldensityawayfrom more crowded schoolsonthe easternside oftowntowardsEstabrookatthe northwestend of town.Ifdeemed practical,su chaplanwillbe implemented assoonaspossible. Giventhe volatilityofstu dentsmovingintoand ou tofthe schoolsystem throu ghou ttown,plans thatare nottraditionalinL exingtonshou ld be explored.Forexample,adding“bu fferzones”at districtbou ndariesmightallow districtstoadaptbyplacing new stu dentsintoeitheroftwo adjoiningdistricts.These bu fferzoneswou ld be large enou ghtoaccommodate volatility,bu tnot solarge astorequ ire u nreasonable bu srou tes. The benefitsofanyredistrictingplanare based onu ntested assu mptions.The SchoolC ommittee willinitiate atechnicalredistrictingstu dytoidentifyworkable plans,sothatpolicydiscu ssions canoccu rlaterthisyear. AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING DATE: 2/23/2015 PRESENTER: Mark Sandeen, Sustainable Lexington Committee ITEM NUMBER: I.6 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Solar Update - Hartwell Avenue (30 min.) SUMMARY: Mark Sandeen and Dan Voss of the solar task force will present a revised recommendation including a financial analysis of the proposed solar array at the Hartwell Avenue facility. A vote of the Board will allow the vendor to proceed with developing an Energy Management Agreement for the project. There are several attachments to this item, the last three items were not printed for your packets because of the format they are in. The Board will be asked to determine if it wants to: 1. vote on the recommendation; and 2. authorize the Town Manager to negotiate an Energy Management Agreement for the project RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTED MOTION: Move to proceed with the proposed recommendation and to authorize the Town Manager to negotiate an Energy Management Agreement for the project. FOLLOW-UP: Sustainable Lexington Committee APPROXIMATE TIME ON AGENDA: 7:55 PM ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Solar Presentation Presentation Langdon-Analysis of Costs and Revenues Backup Material Brightfields-Permitting Summary and Update Backup Material Town Counsel - Early Termination Backup Material Solar Timeline/Incentives Backup Material Information on Impact of Solar Energy Compared to Alternatives Backup Material Conservation Memo-Solar Array and Conservation Land Backup Material Greenways Corridor Committee-Feasibility of Solar Backup Material Police Chief Corr-Firing Range Backup Material Community Farm-Solar on Farm Backup Material PPA Pricing Backup Material Cadmus - Incentives and Timing Questions Backup Material Expected Net Savings Backup Material Expected Net Savings - Windrow Turner Backup Material Health Benefits Backup Material Solar Task Force Update Board of Selectmen Review February 23, 2015 Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation Hartwell Solar Update •We are requesting the Board of Selectmen’s support for moving to the next stage of the ground mount solar process –Concluding Power Purchase Agreement negotiations with our selected vendor –We will report back for agreement approval after financial & legal review has been completed. 2 Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation Hartwell Solar Update •Ground mount & Solar canopies –Current Size 2.25 MW over 4.5 acres •Economics –Solar returns range from $9 million to $17.7 million –Composting net increases from $0.5 to $6.4 million •Stakeholder Review Status DPW Operational Review Police Review Conservation Commission – Finance Review - initial meetings conducted – Legal Review – initial review conducted 3 Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation Proposed Project Overview 4 •31% of Town electricity demand •68 million lbs. of emission reductions –83 million miles of driving •Health Benefits –$2.2 to $8.4 million Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation Current Operations 5 A.Residential drop-off B.Police firing range C.Household Hazardous Waste & Regional Cache D.DPW material storage E.Landscaper drop-off F.Arlington & Lexington curbside compost Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation Operational Assessment •Review conducted by Langdon Environmental All current operations can continue with the purchase of a windrow turner to augment composting ops Lexington residential yard waste drop off & composting Landscaper yard waste drop off Lexington curbside composting Arlington curbside composting DPW material storage, street sweepings, storm management DPF construction material Police firing range Household Hazardous Waste drop off Regional emergency cache site 6 Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation Operational Assessment New Police firing range can be relocated and expanded without limiting Town’s ability to continue all ongoing ops Statement from Police Chief provided in BoS package Future site operational flexibility includes additional 0.75 to 1.5 acres of flexible space provided by windrow turner Can maintain all existing revenue streams with incremental revenue potential or site flexibility Reduced operating costs will provide an annual increase in positive cash flow to Town based on conservative assumptions Windrow turner will improve odor control 7 Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation Operational Assessment •Solar Canopies Designed with required clear heights and spacing to accommodate current site uses (federal highway standards) Final layout based on detailed geotechnical analysis and foundation design and will be compliant with code including wind and snow loading requirements System sizes may be adjusted to accommodate operational requirements 8 Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation Windrow Turner Benefits •Lower total life cycle operating costs •Improved turning and aeration process •Accelerates processing time •Almost 2x more compost per acre •May eliminate need for grinding; further improving positive net cash flow –Up to $1.7 million additional cash flow •Continue to receive all current leaf and yard waste, including material from Arlington •All current revenue streams maintained with lower operating costs and significant upside potential 9 Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation •$500,000 initial cost for windrow turner •Windrow turner operating and replacement costs included in operations cost estimates •Upside based on potential for additional operating savings & does not include additional revenue potential 10 Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation Site Preparation •Construction of storage bins –$175,000 estimated cost will be covered by vendor under current PPA rate •Relocation of compost materials –Work performed by vendor and covered under current PPA rate •Debris removal –$100,000 estimated cost will be covered, if needed, by an incremental $0.003 / kWh added to PPA rate •All site preparation costs covered by vendor 11 Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 12 Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation Phase 1 Layout 13 A.Residential drop-off B.Police firing range C.Household Hazardous Waste & Regional Cache D.DPW material storage E.Arlington, Lexington, & Landscaper drop-off F.1.25 MW Solar Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 14 Potential Phase 2 Layout A.Residential drop-off B.Expanded and relocated Police firing range C.Household Hazardous Waste & Regional Cache D.DPW material storage E.Arlington, Lexington, & Landscaper drop-off F.1.25 MW Solar Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation Hartwell Solar Next Steps •We are requesting the Board of Selectmen’s support for moving to next stage of the ground mount solar process. –Concluding Power Purchase Agreement negotiations with our selected vendor •We will report back for agreement approval after financial & legal review has been completed. 15 Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation Questions •Have we looked at other sites? – Yes –Rooftop RFQ process reviewed all Town rooftops •Solar is installed on all possible Town roofs •Currently provides 14% of Town electricity –Rooftop RFQ reviewed all Town parking lots •Selected vendor with highest interest in developing canopies •Smaller solar canopies were found to be non-economic 16 Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation Questions •Have you looked at other sites? – Yes –15 acre site on Hartwell Avenue is primarily wetlands –Other Town owned open space •Statement from ConCom provided in BoS package •Statement from LexFarm provided in BoS package •Statement from Greenways Corridor Committee provided –Composting facility is best 4 acre plus site for solar •Mass incentives not available for forested or open space •Wetlands approvals difficult at best •Flood zone land requires Army Corps approval •Conservation land requires BoS, Town Meeting, Mass approval •Non-economic to develop under power lines for several reasons 17 Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation Questions •Background on Environmental Benefit calculation –Recent studies show solar panels produce 20x their embedded energy over lifetime –Natural gas plant net energy ratio is only 7x (Scientific American) –Fossil fuel power plants emission calculations do not include embedded energy to construct plant or to extract, drill, process, and transport fuel to plant. –Fossil fuel environmental analysis does not include water impact. –Solar at Hartwell will have only positive environmental impact as there will be no reduced composting 18 Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation Questions •Background on environmental benefit –Federal government requires agencies to consider value of reducing emissions in all decisions –Stanford study finds environmental benefit of reducing emissions 4 times higher than federal assessment •$220 per metric ton vs. federal $58 / metric ton 19 –We calculate actual MA CO2e emissions per kWh –Our assessment uses 2.5% Average column –Health Benefit Calculator provided Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation Questions •Will solar make an environmental difference? –Electricity consumption our largest source of greenhouse gas emissions – currently 44% of our emissions. Reducing electricity emissions is our number one priority. –Installing this 2.25 MW of solar will reduce the Town’s electricity use and related emissions by 31%. –This array will reduce overall Town’s emissions by 13.6% - a huge step in the right direction. 20 Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation Questions •Site flexibility options –We are gaining site flexibility with windrow turner –We can accommodate all current uses plus solar and still have additional space left over –We do not give up any ability to laydown material –Remove ground mount solar early •Total Project $51K positive cash flow in Year 6 •Total Project $2.7 million positive cash flow in Year 10 –Remove ground mount and canopies early •Total Project $826K positive cash flow in Year 10 –Kevin Batt provided memo to Town Manager on contract termination provisions 21 Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation Solar Agreement Overview •What happens if our vendor goes bankrupt? –SolarCity is the largest and best financed solar developer in the country. But in the event they go out of business – the solar array would still continue to generate revenue for us. We would not lose any money in that event. –The solar array would be an attractive asset for another solar company. Almost certainly another vendor would be willing to take over our agreement on the same terms. If not we would inherit a free solar array and free electricity from that point on. 22 Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation Solar Agreement Overview •SolarCity will install, own, operate, & maintain PV solar energy systems at composting facility all at no upfront cost to Town •Lexington will purchase all electricity generated at a negotiated 20 year rate •Our rate for solar energy will be less than the utility’s electricity rate, creating savings for the Town. 23 Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation 24 Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation Solar Agreement Overview •SolarCity will pay Lexington an annual PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) of $58,344 •SolarCity will provide Lexington with a production guarantee and take SREC market risks. •Lexington’s economic value will have a $9 million economic benefit if utility rates stay flat for next 25 years and $14.7 million if rates stay at historical averages, $18 million if rates rise 1% faster. 25 Sustainable Lexington Committee Presentation Solar Agreement Overview •Change of law? –The agreement has a change of law provision that allows us to renegotiate or walk away if there is a material change to the value of the net meter credits. •Timing –Federal tax credits expire in 2016. $2 to $3 million of our expected value comes from those tax credits. –We are approaching net meter caps and utilities are working to establish policies for new systems later this year that would be disadvantageous for our current project. 26 Langdon Environmental LLC 241 Boston Post Rd., West Marlborough, Massachusetts 01752 February 20, 2015 Mr. Michael Singer Brightfields Development LLC 40 Walnut Street, Suite 301 Wellesley, Massachusetts 02481 Mr. William Hadley Director of Public Works Samuel Hadley Public Services Building 201 Bedford Street Lexington, Massachusetts 02420 Subject: Analysis of Costs and Revenues Proposed 1.25 MW Ground Mount Solar Development Hartwell Avenue Landfill Site, Lexington, MA Dear Messrs. Singer and Hadley: Over the past several months, Langdon Environmental, LLC (Langdon) has been working with Brightfields, LLC and the Town of Lexington to review both operation and financial implications of installing a solar photovoltaic (PV) system on a portion of the Hartwell Avenue Landfill site. 1Please note that the following analysis is based on the preferred alternative – the installation of a 1.25 MW installed capacity solar PV system along the northern side of the site (parallel to the Minuteman Commuter Bike Path) along with the installation of two 500 KW solar canopies on other areas of the Hartwell Avenue Site. Based on numerous discussions and meetings, the results presented in this letter includes the purchase of a windrow turner to augment the future leaf and yard waste composting operations. The following analysis provides a summary includes: 1. A summary of a site analysis that demonstrates that all the current Lexington operations can be accommodated with the installation of the proposed solar PV system in its proposed location. Additionally, if the Town elects to construct a new police firing range at a future date, the proposed solar installation will not further limit the Town’s ability to continue all ongoing operations. The analysis presents estimated costs associated with both site preparation and operational improvements. 2. Estimates of the revenues and offsetting operational costs for each of the three current sources of leaf and yard waste materials to the site – curbside collected materials from the Town of Arlington and Lexington and deliveries from local landscapers. 3. Estimates of revenues and offsetting operational costs for the future leaf and yard waste composting operations after the installation of the solar PV system. This alternative includes the addition of a windrow turner to allow additional leaf and yard waste materials to be Mr.Michael Singer Mr. William Hadley February 20, 2015 Page 2 Langdon Environmental LLC accommodated within the available remaining area after installation of the proposed 1.25 MW solar PV system. In addition to the 1.25 MW ground mount solar array, there is a proposal to install two solar PV canopy systems over the front drop-off area and the existing Minuteman Regional Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) facility. These canopy systems can be designed with the required clear heights and column spacing to accommodate the current site uses being performed in these areas with minimal reconfiguration. Please note that the final layout of these solar canopies will be based on a detailed geotechnical analysis and foundation design. Once this work has been completed, final operational and layout plans for the canopies will be completed. Figures showing the preliminary conceptual location of these canopy systems provided by Brightfields are attached to this letter. Based on this analysis, Langdon has concluded that the 1.25 MW installed solar PV system in conjunction with the addition of a windrow turner and changes to the Town’s current operations can be accommodated at the site with minimal impact on the level of services currently offered by the Town assuming the improvements outlined below are implemented. Site Analysis As shown schematically on the attached Figure 1, the Hartwell Avenue Landfill site is currently used for a wide variety of municipal and regional uses. Based on detailed discussions with the Town and Langdon’s familiarity with site operations, Langdon has developed two additional Figures showing the revised Town operations areas after the 1.25 MW solar facility is installed. The first future schematic (Figure 2) shows the operations with the police firing range (Area B) in its current location. The second schematic (Figure 3) shows a potentially reconfigured police firing range (Area B) relocated to an area currently utilized for public works material storage and processing and filling of the existing range area. Note that the attached Figure 3 assumes that the existing police firing range footprint is filled and re-used for the relocated material storage and processing operations. Site Preparation To accommodate the proposed solar PV system, several changes to current Town operations will need to be implemented. The costs for these tasks have been incorporated into the Town’s Solar Revenue Model. These operational changes and associated costs are in addition to those associated with the composting operation which are discussed below. To free up space for the proposed solar PV system, the Town will be required to revise their current operations for the storage and processing of soil and similar materials along the southern side of the site (Area D on Figure 1). The materials currently stored at this location include street sweepings and catch basin cleanings stockpiled prior to off-site disposal; a significant pile (estimated at 25,000 cy’s) of miscellaneous construction soils and debris from town projects; a stockpile of loam and finished compost; and numerous bins and storage piles for construction materials regularly needed by public works operations. In order to provide the proposed space for the 1.25 MW solar PV system, the Town will need to revise these storage and processing operations both to limit their footprint but also to allow for expansion of the central composting area (Area E on Figure 1). To meet these requirements, Langdon recommends implementation of the following site improvements: Mr.Michael Singer Mr. William Hadley February 20, 2015 Page 3 Langdon Environmental LLC • Construct a series of bins to increase the efficiency of the storage of construction materials as well as excess soils from Town projects, street sweepings and catch basin cleanings. These bins would be offset from the edge of the slope and would be approximately 350 feet in length. The existing bins and storage materials would all be removed and relocated to these new structures. The approximate location of the new bins are shown as Area D on Figures 2 and 3. • Coordination for the removal of the existing stockpile of soil and debris from Town operations. The Town currently has a Memorandum of Understanding with a private vendor to remove all of these materials within three years at no cost to the Town (one year of this period has already been completed). In order to accommodate the installation of the new bins, the remainder of the current stockpile after the contractor removes this year’s materials has to be either relocated on-site or removed. • Removal of the existing piles of street sweepings and catch basin cleanings to an appropriate off-site disposal location. • Development of a plan to relocate any existing composting windrows off of the area proposed for the solar PV installation to Area E on Figure 1. Based on numerous meetings and discussions, Langdon has developed estimated costs attributable to the solar PV installation for site preparation presented in Table 1. Table 1 Summary of One-Time Site Development Costs to Accommodate Proposed 1.25 MW Solar PV Installation Cost Item Estimated Cost Basis Relocation of Soil/Debris Pile $100,000 Allowance based on 16,000 cy’s remaining after this year’s processing and $6.25 per cy to relocate and process. Construction of Bins for Future Material Storage $175,000 500 linear feet (lf) of new bins at $350 per lf Relocation of compost windrows from area proposed for solar PV $0 Work to be performed by solar developer. TOTAL ONE-TIME SITE PREPARATION COSTS $275,000 Notes: 1. Changes in composting costs and revenues are annual costs and not included above. 2. Costs for disposal of street sweepings and catch basin cleanings are Town operational costs and not attributable to the solar PV installation. 3. The Estimated Costs presented above are currently in the Solar Revenue Model being presented to the Town. Mr.Michael Singer Mr. William Hadley February 20, 2015 Page 4 Langdon Environmental LLC Future Site Operational Flexibility Due to the Hartwell Avenue site’s existing large operating area, the Site is able to support Town construction projects by providing temporary storage of soils and materials. In the past, the Site has allowed for temporary storage of Town-generated construction materials which has resulted in avoided costs for disposal of excess soils and the eliminated the need to purchase new soils at the end of construction. Based proposed modifications to the leaf and yard waste composting operations, the proposed new operations could potentially include approximately 0.75 to 1.5 acres of flexible space for this purpose should it be needed in the future. Current Operating Revenues and Costs for Composting Operations The proposed location of the 1.25 MW solar PV system will require relocation of the area that is currently used by the Town to process the leaf and yard waste collected at curbside by Lexington’s contractor as well as the curbside yard waste delivered to the site by the Town of Arlington under an intermunicipal agreement. Based on discussions with Town staff and information developed by the Town Department of Public Works (DPW) on current costs and revenues of the on-going composting operations, Langdon has developed a baseline for the three major leaf and yard waste sources. Please note that Langdon has assumed in all cases that the leaf and yard waste delivered by Lexington residents and composted at the site entrance (Area A on Figures 1, 2 and 3) will continue to be handled in small windrows near the point where it is dropped off. For the purposes of this analysis, Langdon relied on the revenues and costs for the most recent full fiscal year (2014) as provided by the DPW. The analysis relies on costs developed by the Town in evaluating the tipping fees to be charged to the Town of Arlington. In general, operational costs such as turning windrows that are associated with all materials were prorated based on the percentage of each material source. A summary of the quantities of each source and the associated revenues and costs is presented in Tables 2 and 3. A summary of the net revenues for each source of materials is presented in Table 4. Estimated Future Revenues and Costs for Composting Installation of the 1.25 MW solar PV system would entirely utilize the approximately 4.5 acres currently used for composting leaf and yard waste collected from curbside in Lexington and Arlington (see Area F on Figures 2 and 3). Based on the reconfiguration of the public works storage area into bins and the removal of the existing stockpile (discussed above), there will be a total of approximately 8-acres of area remaining available for composting (see Figures 2 and 3). Mr.Michael Singer Mr. William Hadley February 20, 2015 Page 5 Langdon Environmental LLC Table 2 Summary of Current Estimated Operating Costs for Leaf and Yard Waste Composting by Material Source (2014) Hartwell Avenue Landfill Leaf and Yard Waste Composting Operations Basis for Costs Annual Estimated Costs by Material Source (Volume) Other Vendor Lexington Equipment and Labor Lexington Curbside Landscaper Arlington Curbside TOTAL COSTS (10,000 cy) (36,000 cy) (17,000 cy) Grinding Town provided cost for both Lexington and Arlington curbside materials. Costs allocated by quantity. Town provided cost of $9,300 for loader and operator to feed grinding machine for Arlington (based on 65 hours). Lexington curbside costs proportional by volume. $22,600 $0 $38,300 $60,900 Landscaper materials are not ground. Does not include grinding of wood chips and Christmas trees. Windrow Turning No vendor costs Total cost for annual windrow turning is 1,200 hours at $142.78 per hour (from Town). Each source allocated proportional share of total costs based on volume. $27,100 $97,700 $46,100 $170,900 Screening Costs No vendor costs $125 per hour for screener at $60/cy/HR for finished compost. Raw compost volume assumed reduced by 70% in finished product $4,800 $17,100 $8,100 $30,000 Does not include disposal of screenings. Administrative Costs No vendor costs Town estimate of $11,600 for Arlington materials made proportional for landscaper materials by volume. $0 $24,600 $11,600 $36,200 Assumed no administration costs for Lexington curbside materials. TOTALS $54,500 $139,400 $104,100 $298,000 Note: Numbers rounded to nearest $100. Mr.Michael Singer Mr. William Hadley February 20, 2015 Page 6 Langdon Environmental LLC Table 3 Estimated Current Revenues from Each Leaf and Yard Waste Composting by Material Source (2014) Hartwell Avenue Landfill Composting Operations ANNUAL ESTIMATED GROSS REVENUES Material Source Annual Volume (2014) Percent of Total Volume Disposal Fee Payments (Note 1) Product Sale Revenue (Note 2) Total Gross Revenues Lexington Curbside 10,000 16% $ - $ 48,000 $ 48,000 Landscaper Materials 36,000 57% $ 161,000 $ 171,000 $ 332,000 Arlington Curbside 17,000 27% $ 113,000 $ 81,000 $ 194,000 TOTAL 63,000 100% $ 274,000 $ 300,000 $ 574,000 Notes 1. Disposal Fee Payments based on sticker and punch card sales for landscaper materials and contract payment amount for Arlington curbside. 2. Product Sale Revenue for each source is based on proportion of total product sale revenues to total volume. 3. Lexington curbside does not include avoided costs if transported to an out-of-town disposal facility. Table 4 Estimated Current Net Revenues from Each Leaf and Yard Waste Material Source (2014) 2014 – Hartwell Avenue Landfill Composting Operations ANNUAL ESTIMATED TOTALS Material Source Annual Volume (cy’s) Percent of Total Volume Gross Revenues Operating Costs Net Revenues (See Note) Lexington Curbside 10,000 16% $ 48,000 $(54,500) $(6.500) Landscaper Materials 36,000 57% $ 332,000 $(139,400) $192,600 Arlington Curbside 17,000 27% $ 194,000 $(104,100) $89,900 TOTAL 63,000 100% $ 574,000 $(298,000) $276,000 Note: Net revenues do not include avoided cost for out-of-town disposal of Lexington curbside collected leaf and yard waste. All costs rounded to nearest $100. Mr.Michael Singer Mr. William Hadley February 20, 2015 Page 7 Langdon Environmental LLC Currently, the Town uses approximately 11.2 acres to compost 63,000 cy’s of leaf and yard waste annually. This is approximately 5,625 cy’s per acre of as-delivered leaf and yard waste used. Note that the total volume is based on the leaf and yard waste as received and it will significantly decrease in volume during the initial stages of composting. Using this incoming volume (before the start of initial decomposition), the composting operations over 8 acres could accept approximately 45,000 cy’s of leaf and yard waste –equal to the existing total volume of the current Lexington curbside and landscaper- delivered materials. In other words, the Town could continue to operate in the current manner and accept all of the existing materials except for those currently delivered by Arlington. Larger composting operations such as the one operated by the Town at the Hartwell Avenue site often utilize specialized windrow turning equipment to process organic materials more efficiently. Windrow turners are expensive to purchase (up to $500,000) but have the following advantages: • Windrow turners allow the windrows to be spaced significantly closer together that results in an increase to the cubic yard of material that can be processed per acre; • Windrow turners improve the turning and aeration process thus accelerating the time needed to create a finished product downward from a year to between 6 to 8 months, • Windrow turners may eliminate the need for grinding of materials as is now done for the curbside collected materials, and • Finally, windrow turners will improve odor control. For planning purposes, Langdon assumed that the use of a windrow turner could increase the volume of compost able to be processed on a single acre to between 8,000 cy’s to 10,000 cy’s per acre. Therefore, with the addition of a windrow turner, the Town could, at a minimum, continue to receive all of the current leaf and yard waste, including the materials currently received from the Town of Arlington. Because the total volume of materials would remain the same, Langdon has assumed that the total gross revenues currently generated from landscapers and the Town of Arlington would not change. Based on the maximum potential density of leaf and yard waste at 10,000 cy’s per acre, the Town could continue to accept the current 63,000 cy’s over 6.3 acres and keep between 0.75 to 1.5 acres available for the intermittent storage of soils or other materials from Town construction projects. Alternatively, the Town could potentially increase the total amount of leaf and yard waste accepted at the site assuming an adequate market exists at a reasonable fee. The use of a windrow turner will require the purchase of a new piece of equipment as well as different operating costs than the current composting approach. The anticipated costs for this are summarized below in Table 5. Please note that these costs are based on continuing the current quantity of incoming leaf and yard waste (63,000 cy’s per year) so the current gross revenues will remain the same. Mr.Michael Singer Mr. William Hadley February 20, 2015 Page 8 Langdon Environmental LLC Table 5 Summary of Future Annual Costs for Operation of Windrow Turner Operational Item Cost Item Subtotal Cost Basis Grinding of Curbside Collected Materials Vendor and Town Costs $50,000 Allowance for potential grinding of compost material in future. May not be required. Windrow Turning and Maintenance Windrow Turner Labor $14,200 Turner handles 2,000 cy’s per hour. Turning once per week for first 4-weeks and 2 turns per month for remaining time (14 turns total). Six- months to create finished product. Town supplied $32.13 per hour for labor. Windrow Turner Operation & Maintenance $44,200 Same turning frequency as above. Hourly operations and maintenance assumed $100 per hour. Front End Loader $35,700 250 hours per year for clean-up at $142.78 per hour (town supplied) Finished Product Screening Screening and processing of finished compost $39,400 Same costs as current operations (see Table 2) Administrative Costs Costs to administer Arlington contract and landscaper program $36,200 Same costs as current operations (see Table 2) Turner Replacement Costs Set aside funds to replace windrow turner $46,000 Assume $500,000 replacement cost. Ten year life with salvage value equal to 20% of purchase price. 4% interest rate. Subtotal – Estimated Annual Operating Costs $265,700 Current Annual Operating Costs (Table 2) $298,000 Net Annual Decrease in Operating Costs $32,300 Note: Assumes that the Town continues to accept and process the current quantity of leaf and yard waste (63,000 cy’s per year). All numbers rounded to nearest $100. Conclusions The following are the conclusions of the site assessment and cost analysis work performed by Langdon for the potential installation of a 1.25 MW solar PV system at a portion of the Hartwell Avenue Landfill site parallel to the Minuteman Commuter Bike Path including the addition of a windrow turner to the ongoing leaf and yard waste composting operations: • The area proposed for installation of the 1.25 MW solar PV system can be accommodated with the proposed modifications to current Town operations with minimal impacts to the current services provided by the facility, assuming the purchase of the windrow turner To continue current town services and the current services, the Town will need to construct a series of bins to store town materials and relocate and remove the current stockpile of miscellaneous soil and associated debris from the site. The total one-time costs for this work is estimated at $275,000 as summarized in Table 1. Mr.Michael Singer Mr. William Hadley February 20, 2015 Page 9 Langdon Environmental LLC • The remaining area for leaf and yard waste composting after installation of the solar PV system can continue to accept and process the current amount of materials provided the Town purchases and operates a windrow turner. The evaluation of the solar PV system should include a $500,000 initial purchase price for a windrow turner. Initial estimates of the operating costs for the windrow turner indicate an overall decrease the current operating costs by an estimated $32,300 per year, including putting funds aside for the future replacement of the windrow turner in ten years. Please do not hesitate to contact me at my office at (508) 630-0351 or mobile phone at (617) 875-3693 if you have any questions or require anything further. Sincerely yours Bruce W Haskell, P.E. Langdon Environmental LLC cc: Robert Beaudoin, Lexington Summary of Current Site Uses of Hartwell Avenue Landfill Site and Future Anticipated Changes After Installation of 1.25 MW Solar Photovoltaic System February 20, 2015 FINAL Section Designation General Description of Area Activities Specific Activities and Services to Town Current Area Used Future Change with Installation of 1.25 MW Ground-Mounted Solar PV System Financial Impacts Attached Table Reference Initial Costs Annual Recurring Costs A Residential Drop-off and Administration Facilities Residential Drop-off of cardboard, scrap metal, reusable bicycles, Universal Waste shed for mercury items and batteries. Residential drop off of brush and yard waste Landscaper drop-off for brush with periodic chipping for removal/re-use Administration for sales of compost products and tracking of other materials Pick-up for compost bins Composting of residentially delivered leaf and yard waste (approximately 3,000 cy’s) Bins for unscreened compost and wood chips for Lexington residents 3 Acres None (Note: Design of proposed solar canopies will be done to accommodate continued existing operations). None None N/A B Police Firing Range Active Police firing and practice range including facility and associated vehicle parking 0.5 Acres None Future Relocated Range can be accommodated None None N/A C Regional Facilities Minuteman Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) facility – 8 regional collections per year NERAC Regional Cache DPW Equipment Storage 1.3 Acres None Overall site design needs to accommodate queuing of HHP residential vehicles (Note: Design of proposed solar canopies will be done to accommodate continued existing operations). None None N/A D Miscellaneous Public Works Storage Receipt, stockpiling and processing of numerous materials generated by public works including existing miscellaneous soil and debris pile; granite; asphalt; and steel plating. Storage in bins of materials for public works including gravel, cold patch, stone, and parks materials. Processing and stockpiling of loam (from off-site sources) and processing with finished compost. Screening and final processing of site-generated compost. Historically used for storage of Town-generated construction materials (e.g. Estabrook School). 6.2 Acres Existing stockpile of crushed materials (soil and debris) has to be removed on an expedited schedule. $100,000 None Table 1 Construction of new bin system for storage of public works materials $175,000 None Table 1 E Landscaper Drop-off and Leaf and Yard Waste Composting Area for landscapers with permits to drop-off leaf and yard waste with composting windrows (approximately 36,000 cy’s per year). Stockpiling of catch basin cleanings and street sweepings for off-site disposal. Loading dock and CRT storage 6.4 Acres Relocation of street sweepings, catch basin cleanings and CRT container to new bins. No Cost None N/A Purchase and Operation of Windrow Turner to process existing landscaper and curbside collected materials $500,000 to purchase windrow turner Net reduction in annual operating costs of estimated $32,300 Table 5 F Curbside Collected Drop-off and Leaf and Yard Waste Composting Area for leaf and yard waste compost from curbside collection vehicles from both Lexington (10,000 cy’s) and Arlington (17,000 cy’s) to be unloaded, ground and composted. 4.8 Acres Operations entirely relocated to Area E with Windrow Turner Included above Included above Included Above Relocation of existing compost materials to new expanded Area E $0 None Cost for relocation by solar developer Miscellaneous Roadways and Access to Operations On-site loop road for drop-off and delivery of materials and all other activities. Does not include site access driveway. 3 Acres Some revisions to existing access road network to accommodate bins and relocated materials None None N/A TOTAL SITE OPERATING AND ROADWAY AREA 25.2 Acres Note: Location F shown highlighted in blue above is the area proposed for installation of the 1.25 MW ground-mounted solar installation. Table 1 Summary of One-Time Site Development Costs to Accommodate Proposed 1.25 MW Solar PV Installation Cost Item Estimated Cost Basis Relocation of Soil/Debris Pile $100,000 Allowance based on 16,000 cy’s remaining after this year’s processing and $6.25 per cy to relocate and process. Construction of Bins for Future Material Storage $175,000 500 linear feet (lf) of new bins at $350 per lf Relocation of compost windrows from area proposed for solar PV $0 Work to be performed by solar developer. TOTAL ONE-TIME SITE PREPARATION COSTS $275,000 Notes: 1. Changes in composting costs and revenues are annual costs and not included above. 2. Costs for disposal of street sweepings and catch basin cleanings are Town operational costs and not attributable to the solar PV installation. 3. The Estimated Costs presented above are currently in the Solar Revenue Model being presented to the Town. Page 1 February 20, 2015 Table 2 Summary of Current Estimated Operating Costs for Leaf and Yard Waste Composting by Material Source (2014) Hartwell Avenue Landfill Leaf and Yard Waste Composting Operations Basis for Costs Annual Estimated Costs by Material Source (Volume) Other Vendor Lexington Equipment and Labor Lexington Curbside Landscaper Arlington Curbside TOTAL COSTS (10,000 cy) (36,000 cy) (17,000 cy) Grinding Town provided cost for both Lexington and Arlington curbside materials. Costs allocated by quantity. Town provided cost of $9,300 for loader and operator to feed grinding machine for Arlington (based on 65 hours). Lexington curbside costs proportional by volume. $22,600 $0 $38,300 $60,900 Landscaper materials are not ground. Does not include grinding of wood chips and Christmas trees. Windrow Turning No vendor costs Total cost for annual windrow turning is 1,200 hours at $142.78 per hour (from Town). Each source allocated proportional share of total costs based on volume. $27,100 $97,700 $46,100 $170,900 Screening Costs No vendor costs $125 per hour for screener at $60/cy/HR for finished compost. Raw compost volume assumed reduced by 70% in finished product $4,800 $17,100 $8,100 $30,000 Does not include disposal of screenings. Administrative Costs No vendor costs Town estimate of $11,600 for Arlington materials made proportional for landscaper materials by volume. $0 $24,600 $11,600 $36,200 Assumed no administration costs for Lexington curbside materials. TOTALS $54,500 $139,400 $104,100 $298,000 Note: Numbers rounded to nearest $100. Page 2 February 20, 2015 Table 3 Estimated Current Revenues from Each Leaf and Yard Waste Composting by Material Source (2014) Hartwell Avenue Landfill Composting Operations ANNUAL ESTIMATED GROSS REVENUES Material Source Annual Volume (2014) Percent of Total Volume Disposal Fee Payments (Note 1) Product Sale Revenue (Note 2) Total Gross Revenues Lexington Curbside 10,000 16% $ - $ 48,000 $ 48,000 Landscaper Materials 36,000 57% $ 161,000 $ 171,000 $ 332,000 Arlington Curbside 17,000 27% $ 113,000 $ 81,000 $ 194,000 TOTAL 63,000 100% $ 274,000 $ 300,000 $ 574,000 Notes 1. Disposal Fee Payments based on sticker and punch card sales for landscaper materials and contract payment amount for Arlington curbside. 2. Product Sale Revenue for each source is based on proportion of total product sale revenues to total volume. 3. Lexington curbside does not include avoided costs if transported to an out-of-town disposal facility. Table 4 Estimated Current Net Revenues from Each Leaf and Yard Waste Material Source (2014) 2014 – Hartwell Avenue Landfill Composting Operations ANNUAL ESTIMATED TOTALS Material Source Annual Volume (cy’s) Percent of Total Volume Gross Revenues Operating Costs Net Revenues (See Note) Lexington Curbside 10,000 16% $ 48,000 $(54,500) $(6.500) Landscaper Materials 36,000 57% $ 332,000 $(139,400) $192,600 Arlington Curbside 17,000 27% $ 194,000 $(104,100) $89,900 TOTAL 63,000 100% $ 574,000 $(298,000) $276,000 Note: Net revenues do not include avoided cost for out-of-town disposal of Lexington curbside collected leaf and yard waste. All costs rounded to nearest $100. Page 3 February 20, 2015 Table 5 Summary of Future Annual Costs for Operation of Windrow Turner Operational Item Cost Item Subtotal Cost Basis Grinding of Curbside Collected Materials Vendor and Town Costs $50,000 Allowance for potential grinding of compost material in future. May not be required. Windrow Turning and Maintenance Windrow Turner Labor $14,200 Turner handles 2,000 cy’s per hour. Turning once per week for first 4-weeks and 2 turns per month for remaining time (14 turns total). Six- months to create finished product. Town supplied $32.13 per hour for labor. Windrow Turner Operation & Maintenance $44,200 Same turning frequency as above. Hourly operations and maintenance assumed $100 per hour. Front End Loader $35,700 250 hours per year for clean-up at $142.78 per hour (town supplied) Finished Product Screening Screening and processing of finished compost $39,400 Same costs as current operations (see Table 2) Administrative Costs Costs to administer Arlington contract and landscaper program $36,200 Same costs as current operations (see Table 2) Turner Replacement Costs Set aside funds to replace windrow turner $46,000 Assume $500,000 replacement cost. Ten year life with salvage value equal to 20% of purchase price. 4% interest rate. Subtotal – Estimated Annual Operating Costs $265,700 Current Annual Operating Costs (Table 2) $298,000 Net Annual Decrease in Operating Costs $32,300 Note: Assumes that the Town continues to accept and process the current quantity of leaf and yard waste (63,000 cy’s per year). All numbers rounded to nearest $100. Page 4 February 20, 2015       February 19, 2015    VIA EMAIL    To:  Mark Sandeen   Dan Voss    From:  Michael Singer  Principal   Brightfields Development, LLC    CC:  William Hadley   Director of Public Works   Town of Lexington, MA    Subject:  Permitting Summary and Update   Proposed 1.25 MW Ground Mount and 1 MW Solar Canopies   Hartwell Avenue Compost Facility, Lexington MA        As requested, the memorandum provides a brief update on the permitting progress and path forward  for the 2.25 MW proposed solar arrays proposed for the Hartwell Avenue Site. As you are aware the  closure of the landfill was completed under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP), and greatly  minimizes Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection’s involvement in this project. The  environmental permitting of the Site will be handled by a private Massachusetts Registered Licensed  Site Professional (LSP) who will opine directly on the suitability of solar re‐use for the Site. A Post‐ Closure Use Permit (PCUP) issued by the DEP will not be required.   Key Site attributes are as follows:  • Site has RTN 3‐21522 closed under MCP with Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) in 2009.   • Site was a landfill capped with 2 feet of fill. Town then brought in an additional 6 to 10‐feet  construction and demolition (C&D) debris above cap.   • Site is a Tier 1C site under MCP, meaning there was significant contamination and also surrounded by  sensitive environmental receptors.   • Contaminants of concern included Lead, PAH’s and TPH.  • There was some spot removal, but AUL still exists, meaning no residential development would be  permitted.   • The site could be developed for passive uses (including solar), with preparation of a Soil Management  Plan (SMP).  • Any soil disturbances (>20 cubic yards) would require a Release Abatement Measure (RAM). This would  require submittal of a plan that details the testing, management and disposal of excavated impacted  soils.        We have begun working with an LSP and feel that the path forward is clear and quantifiable. Once we  have formal site control, we will engage our consultant and move forward with the RAM and the SMP  (as noted above).  We anticipate that this work can be completed in approximately 3 months. Additional  investigative work will likely be required to complete the final design of the canopies and their  associated foundations.   In addition to the work being completed by the LSP (outlined above), Brightfields will move ahead and  begin working with the Town and the State on the additional permitting items:  Storm Water Evaluation and Design   Evaluate Current Site Conditions   Determine Existing Peak Discharge/Run‐Off Volumes   Evaluate the Efficacy of the Existing Storm Water Control System   Model Post‐Construction Flows   Determine any required Changes to the Storm Water Control System   Estimate Improvements in Storm water Quality/Quantity based on upgraded control  system    Storm Water Permitting   Complete Review of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)  Construction Permit   Define Limits of Work    Project Notification Form (MHC)   Review and Submit ‐ Massachusetts Historical Commission Review   Review and Submit ‐ MHC Form Completion and Filing (If Applicable)    Endangered Species Acts (MESA Checklist)   Review of Mapped Habitat of Rare or Endangered Species   Completion of  MESA Filing Requirements (If Applicable)    Determination of Applicability and Wetlands Notice of Intent (NOI)   Review Completed Request for Determination of Applicability   Oversight of the Completion of Wetlands NOI   Identify All Work Areas within Buffer Zone Including Conduit/Pole Runs, Access Roads    Massachusetts Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) Environmental Notification Form   Review MEPA Project Thresholds    Municipal/Local – Site Plan Approval   Complete Town Plan Set   Draft Submittal to Town – Design Review Team   Meet with Critical Town Agencies   Revise Town Plan Submittal Set   Attend Planning Board Meetings   Final Submittal and Approval      Municipal/Local ‐ Building Permit   Prepare Building Permit Application   Prepare Stamped Drawings   Complete Inspections and Affidavits required by Town   Oversee Permit Close‐Out and Certification    Municipal/Local ‐ Electrical Permit   Prepare Electrical Permit Application   Prepare Stamped Drawings    Oversee Permit Close‐Out and Certification  Based on our numerous conversations with key Town personnel, a preliminary meeting with the Town’s  Design Review Team, and our experience permitting similar projects in Massachusetts and around the  country, we are confident that this process can be completed successfully in a timely and efficient  manner. We will continue our collaborative approach with all Town stakeholders as we work towards  groundbreaking and through to project completion.         1 Lynne Pease From:Mark Sandeen <mark.sandeen@sustainablelexington.org> Sent:Friday, February 20, 2015 10:48 AM To:Lynne Pease Subject:FW: PPA Provision re: early termination of solar facility Attachments:Solar City PPA Provision re. relocation of solar system or termination by Town (A0293710xB0BA5).docx Kevin Batt's statement for the board.     From: Kevin Batt <kbatt@AndersonKreiger.com>  Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 6:23 PM  To: Carl Valente <cvalente@lexingtonma.gov>  Cc: Mark Sandeen <mark.sandeen@sustainablelexington.org>, Dan Voss <voss.dan@gmail.com>, Mina Makarious  <mmakarious@AndersonKreiger.com>, 40b <40b@andersonkreiger.com>  Subject: PPA Provision re: early termination of solar facility    Carl,    Mark asked me to send an email that could be transmitted to Michelle and other BOS members concerning the PPA provision with Solar City that would allow the Town to take back the area of the landfill for a different use.     If the Town wanted to take back the property and its decision did not coincide with a purchase option date (7th, 11th or 16th anniversaries), the attached provision would apply:     The Town could seek to have the facility relocated, at Town expense and covering lost revenues;   If no other space could be made available to relocate, the Town could recover the licensed area but at the cost of termination payment ( this would be for an approximate purchase price, but without the benefit of keeping the system if this happened at any time other than the dates set for the purchase option to be exercised). While this option would be costly, it does allow the Town to recover the licensed area for another use.         -----------------------------------------     Kevin D. Batt  ANDERSON & KREIGER LLP  One Canal Park, Suite 200  Cambridge MA 02141  t: 617-621-6514  f: 617-621-6614  www.andersonkreiger.com  Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.    This electronic message contains information from the law firm of Anderson & Kreiger LLP that may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited and this message should be deleted.           {A0293710.1 } 1. Relocation of System. If Purchaser ceases to conduct business operations at and/or vacates the Premises or is prevented from operating the Systems at the Premises prior to the expiration of the Term, or otherwise directs the removal of the Systems, or any part thereof, from the Licensed Area, Purchaser shall have the option to provide Seller with a mutually agreeable substitute premises located within the same Utility district as the terminated System or in a location with similar Utility rates and Insolation. Purchaser shall provide written notice at least sixty (60) days but not more than one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the date that it wants to make this substitution. In connection with such substitution, Purchaser shall execute an amended agreement that shall have all of the same terms as this Agreement except for the (i) Effective Date; (ii) License, which will be amended to grant rights in the real property where the System relocated to; and (iii) Term, which will be the remainder of the Term of this Agreement and such amended agreement shall be deemed to be a continuation of this Agreement without termination. Purchaser shall also provide any new purchaser, owner, lessor or mortgagee consents or releases required by Seller or Seller’s Financing Parties in connection with the substitute facility. Purchaser shall pay all costs associated with relocation of the Systems or any part thereof, including all costs and expenses incurred by or on behalf of Seller in connection with removal of the System from the Licensed Area and installation and testing of the System at the substitute location and all applicable interconnection fees and expenses at the substitute location, as well as costs of new title search and other out-of-pocket expenses connected to preserving and refiling the security interests of Seller’s Financing Parties in the Systems. Seller shall reasonably estimate the amount of Net Metering Credits that would have been delivered to Purchaser during the period of time the Systems is not in operation due to the relocation and shall invoice Purchaser for such amount and any associated lost or recaptured Environmental Incentives and lost sales (and penalties payments associated with the same) of associated Environmental Attributes in accordance with Section 7. Seller shall remove the System from the vacated Licensed Area prior to the termination of Purchaser’s ownership, lease or other use of such Licensed Area. Seller will not be required to restore the Licensed Area to its prior condition. Seller t shall promptly pay Purchaser for any damage caused by Seller during removal of the System, but not for normal wear and tear. If the substitute location has inferior Insolation as compared to the original Licensed Area, Seller shall have the right to make an adjustment to Exhibit 1 such that Purchaser’s payments to Seller are the same as if the System were located at the original Licensed Area. If Purchaser is unable to provide such substitute location and to relocate the Systems as provided, any early termination subject to an early Termination fee paid by Purchaser, in accordance with the Purchaser Termination Schedule attached as Exhibit ___. Lexington’s Solar Timeline Governor Patrick Signs Green Communities Act in 2008 September 2009 - Lexington Board of Selectmen decide to pursue Green Communities Application. Lexington secures Green Communities Technical Assistance Grant. April 2010 - Board of Selectmen and Town Meeting unanimously adopt solar energy “as of right siting” bylaw to promote the creation of new large-scale ground-mounted solar photovoltaic installations on Hartwell Avenue which have rated nameplate capacity exceeding 250 kW (DC) or more. Simultaneously Town adopts an expedited application and permitting process under which as-of-right energy facilities may be sited within the municipality. May 2010 – Lexington becomes one of the first five Green Communities in Massachusetts. June 2010 – Lexington Board of Selectmen appoints Sustainable Lexington Committee with a charter to advise Selectmen on programs designed to enhance Lexington’s long term sustainability and resilience in response to environmental, resource, and energy challenges. January 2012 – Sustainable Lexington conducts Town wide survey and solar energy assessment of Town properties to determine best sites for solar. Presents results to Town Staff and Energy Conservation Committee. Survey identifies potential for 3MW solar installation at Hartwell Avenue site as by far the largest solar potential in Town. August 2012 – Lexington Solar Task Force formed with support from Board of Selectmen, Town Staff, Energy Conservation Committee, Appropriation Committee, Capital Expenditures Committee, and Sustainable Lexington based on Town’s rooftop and ground mount solar potential. Fall 2012 – Lexington Solar Task force conducts peer review of other Massachusetts municipalities’ solar energy projects. Determines that 51 Massachusetts municipalities have economically viable and operational solar facilities up and running. Survey finds that the majority of operational solar projects in 51 municipalities utilize long-term agreements with 3rd parties to procure solar electricity. Determines Lexington bylaw change is needed to allow Town to enter into these types of contracts. Fall 2012 – Town staff hires Cadmus as 3rd party owners agent to validate solar energy technical and economic assessment conducted by Sustainable Lexington and Solar Task Force. Winter 2013 – Cadmus completes technical and economic assessment of Lexington’s solar energy potential – validating Solar Task Forces’ earlier assessment. Town hires Cadmus to assist in development of rooftop and ground mount RFPs. March 2013 – Board of Selectmen and Town Meeting unanimously adopt solar energy procurement bylaw, which would allow the Town to enter into long-term agreements for the purpose of installing solar energy facilities and purchasing solar electricity. Board of Selectmen and Town Meeting were informed that Solar Task Force had determined that Town of Lexington could generate up to 66% of Town’s electricity with a combination of school rooftops and ground mount arrays at Hartwell Avenue. Spring 2013 – Solar Task Force and Cadmus prepare draft RFP for rooftop and ground mount systems. DOER and Town staff start review of draft RFP and evaluation criteria. June 2013 – Massachusetts announces surprise end to SREC program due to over subscription. Initial 400 MW target over subscribed by 50%. Follow on program yet to be determined. Cadmus advises against releasing RFP. Does not believe the Town will get any responses until new incentives are announced due to financing uncertainty. All previous economic viability assessments are no longer valid. Large solar energy projects stall for six month due to financing uncertainty. September 2013 – Sustainable Lexington presents potential for installing 3 MW of solar energy at Hartwell Facility to Economic Development Advisory Committee and receives positive feedback. January 2014 – Massachusetts releases draft SREC II regulations and March / April 2014 as the expected start date of the new program. Q1 2014 – Cadmus advises Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process instead of RFP process to move forward during period before formal start of SREC II program. Town Manager and DOER review and approve Draft RFQ. Town Staff and Board of Selectmen approve issuance of RFQ for rooftop school and municipal buildings and another RFQ for ground mount installation at Hartwell Avenue based on 12 acres potential. March 2014 - Rooftop and Ground Mount RFQs released. Lexington hosts site visits for interested vendors for both sites. Rooftop RFQ asks all vendors to evaluate solar canopy parking lot potential in addition to rooftop solar potential. April 2014 – SREC II program officially starts. Town receives RFQ responses from rooftop and ground mount vendors. Town of Lexington sends additional questions to vendors after reviewing RFQs. Sustainable Lexington presents update to Town Meeting that Solar Energy Task Force is working towards installing 5.6 MW solar on school rooftops and Hartwell Avenue. May 2014 – Lexington selection team selects short list of 4 ground mount vendors and conducts face to face interviews with short list vendors. Lexington selection team selects another short list of 2 vendors based on results of face to face interviews. Remaining 2 vendors were asked to provide revised proposals to Town designed to maximize economic value per acre. Both vendors conducted detailed site inspections to support their revised proposal process. June 2014 – Massachusetts announces intention to end to SREC II incentive program with the expected passage of HB 4185 in July 2014 – which would end distribution credit for virtual net metering projects (Distribution credit was 39% of the economic value of our solar projects.) This provision would have ended the economic viability for all of Lexington’s solar energy projects. Solar Task Force meets with Lexington’s representatives on Beacon Hill to explain likely impact of the utility’s proposed net metering legislative proposals – No solar on Town property. Dramatic reduction of energy efficiency programs. July 2014 – Remaining two vendors submit revised proposals. Town of Lexington conducts face to face interviews to review revised proposals. HB 4185 is narrowly defeated – allowing Lexington’s solar projects to continue for another year. August 2014 – Selection team conducts on site visits of vendors’ other ground mount landfill facilities in Scituate, Barnstable and Mashpee. Selection team selects final vendor. Solar Incentives Federal Incentives - The solar 30% federal tax credit will expire December 31, 2016. Our project will need to be installed and interconnected and commercially operational by December 31, 2016 to qualify for the tax credit. Our developer's finance partners are unwilling to take on any project that does not have a completion date of March 31, 2016 in order to give them the safety margin they need in case there are delays in the project. Most construction timelines for a project of this size take 9 months. That gives us about 3 or 4 months to get the agreement signed so construction can begin. Once we pass that window - the project's economic return will take a dramatic turn for the worse. It is almost certain that the solar canopies would be eliminated, if not the whole project. Delaying this project beyond that time window - is effectively choosing to turn down about $2 to $2.5 million dollars of federal money for the Town. State Incentives - Prior to 2010 Massachusetts was providing an upfront rebates to solar power owners based on the size of system installed. This rebate was eliminated in favor of the Solar Carve Out Program in March of 2010. Under the new program, solar owners were issued Solar Renewable Energy Certificates (SRECs) for every 1 MWh of electricity generated by the solar energy system for the first ten years the system was in production. The value of the SRECs was not guaranteed, but set by market price. In June of 2013, Massachusetts shocked everyone by announcing the immediate termination of the SREC program, since solar installations had surprisingly exceeded the governor's goal of 400 MW. In December of 2013, Massachusetts announced an SREC II program, that provided lower value solar installations. Rooftop projects like our schools - would only get 90% of an SREC for every 1 MWh of electricity generated, and landfills/brownfields - would only get 80% of an SREC for every 1 MWh of electricity generated, and they basically eliminated incentives for forested and agricultural land. In June of 2014, Massachusetts DOER shocked everyone again by announcing the intention to pass legislation that would terminate the SREC II program - which they proposed would be replaced by a substantially lower incentive program called the declining block program which paid over 15 years instead of 10 years. As the name implies, the value of the program would decline each year of the program. Net Metering - In 2008, the Green Communities Act established that solar energy owners would be paid the full retail rate for the electricity they produced. They also established the right for facilities such as our landfill site to "virtual net meter" - basically the ability produce electricity at a site where there isn't a lot of energy demand and then to export that power to the grid for use at another location. Both of these provisions of the Green Communities Act are absolutely essential to the economics of both our rooftop and landfill solar energy systems. In June of 2014, as part of the legislation that planned to eliminate the SREC II program, the utilities included provisions in the proposed legislation that would end the ability for Lexington to virtual net meter the solar electricity we produced at full retail rate. The legislation eliminated the distribution credit portion of the net meter credit. This had the effect of lowering the Town's virtual net meter rate by 37% to a rate lower than the price we had to pay our developer for the solar electricity generated from our rooftops. I met with Lexington's legislative staffs (Barrett, Kaufman, Donnelly) to help them understand that hugely negative impact this legislation would have on Lexington's municipal projects. In July of 2014, the legislature narrowly avoided passing this legislation that would have eliminated the possibility of doing a project on Hartwell Avenue. Fast forward to today - Utilities across the country are successfully changing net meter rates with the goal of eliminating solar energy (and energy efficiency) as a competitors to their monopoly positions. Massachusetts utilities are already lobbying heavily in another attempt to eliminate virtual net metering, distribution credits and SREC incentives. Lots of people think that since solar panel prices have been declining - that declining prices will make up for the reduced incentives. Meanwhile the price of solar panels has declined from $9 a watt in 2008 to about $0.75 a watt today. The majority of the cost of solar is today what is called the Balance of System - basically the cost of materials, labor, engineering, interconnection costs, permitting, etc... Even if we were able to get our solar panels for free, we wouldn't be able to make up for the reduced incentives. It is extremely unlikely that we will ever have the tremendous value of incentives available for installing solar in Lexington ever again. 1 Lynne Pease From:Mark Sandeen <mark.sandeen@sustainablelexington.org> Sent:Friday, February 20, 2015 10:23 AM To:Lynne Pease Subject:Background material Attachments:436817, Solar Energy, Yue.pdf Lynne,    Some members of the Board of asked for information on the environmental impact of solar energy compared to alternatives.    Here is one of many recent studies showing that a typical solar energy module requires 1.5 years to generate the amount of  energy required to manufacture the panels.   Since 30 years is an industry accepted useful life of those panels, that means the net energy or energy return on investment  (EROI) factor is 20x for solar panels.    Scientific American conducted an EROI net energy survey that calculated a 7x EROI for electricity generated by natural gas.     By way of comparison they found a factor of 40x for hydro power, 20x for wind power, and 18x for coal power, 7x for natural  gas electricity, and 5x for nuclear power.   (It turns out that enriching uranium ore can be an incredibly energy intensive process.)     Mark          From: "Lexington ILL Dept." <lexill@minlib.net>  Date: Thursday, February 19, 2015 12:18 PM  To: Mark Sandeen <mark.sandeen@verizon.net>  Subject: article you requested    Hi, Mark:  Here's the Yue article.    Best,    Jean Williams  Interlibrary Loan Department  Cary Memorial Library  1874 Massachusetts Avenue  Lexington, MA 02420  781‐862‐6288 x250  lexill@minlib.net       Domestic and overseas manufacturing scenarios of silicon-based photovoltaics: Life cycle energy and environmental comparative analysis Dajun Yue a, Fengqi You a,⇑, Seth B. Darling b,c a Northwestern University, Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, 2145 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208, USA b Argonne National Laboratory, Center for Nanoscale Materials, 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL, USA c University of Chicago, Institute for Molecular Engineering, 5747 South Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL, USA Received 10 May 2013; received in revised form 29 March 2014; accepted 11 April 2014 Available online 21 May 2014 Communicated by: Associate Editor S.C. Bhattacharya Abstract While life cycle assessment (LCA) has been recognized as an invaluable tool to assess the energy and environmental profiles of a pho- tovoltaic (PV) system, current LCA studies are limited to Europe and North America. However, today most PV modules are outsourced to and manufactured in non-OECD countries (e.g., China), which have a substantially different degree of industrialization and environ- mental restriction. To investigate this issue, we perform a comparative LCA between domestic and overseas manufacturing scenarios illustrated by three kinds of silicon-based PV technologies, namely mono-crystalline silicon, multi-crystalline silicon and ribbon silicon. We take into account geographic diversity by utilizing localized inventory data for processes and materials. The energy payback time, energy return on investment and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for both scenarios are calculated and analyzed. Compared to the domestic manufacturing scenario, the energy use efficiency is generally 30% lower and the carbon footprint is almost doubled in the over- seas manufacturing scenario. Moreover, based on the LCA results, we propose a break-even carbon tariff model for the international trade of silicon-based PV modules, indicating an appropriate carbon tariff in the range of €105–€129/ton CO2. 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords:Life cycle assessment; Silicon-based photovoltaics; Manufacturing; Renewable energy 1. Introduction Concerns about climate change, waste pollution, energy security and resource depletion are driving society to search for more sustainable approaches of energy supply. Among the various alternatives (e.g., wind, nuclear), photovoltaics (PV) are considered one of the most promis- ing sustainable energy solutions (Darling et al., 2011). PV systems generate electricity directly from solar radiation, which is so abundantly available that the Earth receives enough solar energy every hour to meet the world’s annual energy needs (EPIA, 2011). Furthermore, PV systems pro- duce electricity with no air emissions during operation and have a very low carbon footprint throughout the life cycle stages, thus providing superior environmental performance compared to traditional fossil-fuel-based electricity genera- tion technologies. Silicon-based PV (Si-PV) technologies receive the most attention, both because they were the first to be commercialized and because they have the largest market share (Fraunhofer, 2012; IEA, 2012). Thin-film PV technologies represent a substantially smaller market http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2014.04.008 0038-092X/2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. ⇑Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 847 467 2943; fax: +1 (847) 491 3728. E-mail address:you@northwestern.edu (F. You). www.elsevier.com/locate/solener Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Solar Energy 105 (2014) 669–678 share, and current materials available for thin-film PVs will eventually run up against daunting resource limitation challenges (Feltrin and Freundlich, 2008; Fthenakis et al., 2009b; Keshner and Arya, 2004). Next-generation technol- ogies such as organic PVs are emerging as promising alter- natives, but there are still several crucial obstacles to overcome before large-scale implementation can be achieved (Gu¨nes et al., 2007; Peet et al., 2009; Yue et al., 2012). Therefore, for the purpose of this study, we only focus on the life cycle energy and environmental analysis of Si-PV technologies. When measuring the energy and environmental perfor- mance of a product system, the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology is usually employed. LCA takes into account the direct and indirect impacts throughout the entire life cycle of the product, including material sourcing, manufacturing, operation, transportation, disposal, etc. As illustrated by many authors, LCA is recognized as an invaluable tool to assess the energy and environmental pro- files of a PV product system (Fthenakis and Kim, 2011). In early life cycle studies, researchers reported a wide range of primary energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for Si-PV systems. Besides the inherent uncer- tainty in data collection, the adoption of different assump- tions and allocation rules by individual LCA practitioners is considered as the main cause.Alsema (2000)estimated that the total energy requirements for mono-crystalline sil- icon (mono-Si) and multi-crystalline (multi-Si) frameless modules to be 5700 and 4200 MJ/m 2, respectively. He found the energy payback time (EPBT) to be 2.5–3 years and life cycle GHG emission to be 46–63 g CO2 eq./kWh for roof-top installations for multi-Si PV. He considered Southern European conditions with an irradiation of 1700 kWh/(m 2 yr) and a performance ratio of 0.75. The module efficiencies were assumed to be 14% for mono-Si and 13% for multi-Si, respectively.Meijer et al. (2003) reported a slightly higher energy demand of 4900 MJ/m 2 for multi-Si modules, which corresponds to an EPBT of 3.5 years. They assumed the conversion efficiency of 14.5% under the irradiation of 1000 kWh/(m 2 yr). Jungbluth (2005)reported an EPBT of 3–6 years and GHG emissions of 39–110 g CO2 eq./kWh under the Swiss average insolation of 1100 kWh/(m 2 yr), depending on con- figuration of different PV systems (i.e., facade, slanted- roof, and flat-roof). Their results were based on the assumption that the 300 lm-thick mono-Si and multi-Si PV modules operated with conversion efficiency of 14.8% and 13.2%, respectively. The PV industry has developed rapidly over the past decade, and therefore material inventory and LCA results have also been updated as new technologies become avail- able. Researchers have (Alsema and De Wild-Scholten, 2006; Fthenakis and Alsema, 2006) reported EPBTs of 1.7–2.7 years and GHG emissions of 30–45 g CO2 eq./kWh for South-European locations based on the life cycle inventory (LCI) data representative for the technology sta- tus in 2004–2005. These studies covered mono-Si, multi-Si as well as ribbon-Si PV technologies for rooftop installa- tions with conversion efficiency of 14%, 13.2% and 11.5%, respectively. Recently, several reports have (De Wild-Scholten, 2009; Fthenakis et al., 2009a) updated these estimates based on the latest technologies involving thinner modules and more efficient processes. Comparing with the 2004–2006 production processes, they reported that the EPBT decreased by 25–40% and the GHG emissions decreased by 30–40% for roof-top installed mono-Si, multi-Si and ribbon-Si PV modules. However, the corre- sponding LCI data are not yet in the public domain. Although extensive life cycle studies for Si-PV technolo- gies exist, most of them focus on manufacturing in Europe and North America; the results may not accurately reflect the energy and environmental impact of Si-PV modules made outside these areas. According to the IEA annual report (IEA, 2012), the cumulative installed PV capacity reached 63.6 GW in 2012, of which the greatest proportion (about 60%) was installed in Germany and Italy alone. The United States shared slightly more than 6% of the total capacity worldwide, and China accounted for about 5%. Despite the fact that Europe and the United States are leading the research and development of PV technologies, the majority of the PV modules are manufactured in Asia (about 80%). China alone accounts for 62% of the total production worldwide. European manufacturers produced about 10% of the PV modules, and only 4% of PV modules were made in the United States. These figures indicate that most PV modules are manufactured overseas but installed in Europe and North America, which is driven by factors such as lower labor and material costs and greater vertical integration in China. However, as a non-OECD country, China has a vastly different energy and industry structure with more lenient environmental restrictions. Therefore, the energy and environmental profiles of PV modules made in China can be distinctive from those manufactured in Europe or North America. It is important to conduct a life cycle study that explicitly considers the overseas manufac- turing scenario and utilizes country-specific LCI data for processes and materials, which is the focus of this work. The major novelties of this work are summarized as follows: Comparative life cycle study of Si-PV modules consider- ing domestic and overseas manufacturing scenarios. Calculations based on country-specific LCI data for processes and materials. Break-even carbon tariff model based on LCA results. Our analysis will be presented as follows. First, we will briefly introduce the LCA methodology and define the domestic and overseas manufacturing scenarios. Then, the life cycle boundary and inventory will be specified, fol- lowed by the analysis of energy and environmental profiles using certain indicators. Based on the LCA results, we pro- pose a break-even carbon tariff model as a complementary analysis. 670 D. Yue et al./Solar Energy 105 (2014) 669–678 2. Life cycle stages and inventories Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a well-structured quanti- tative tool aimed at evaluating the material and energy flows and the associated environmental impacts through- out a product’s life cycle from raw material acquisition through production, use, end-of-life treatment, recycling and final disposal (i.e., cradle-to-grave). Leaving practitio- ners with a lot of choices without affecting the validity of the LCA results, ISO 14040 (ISO, 2006a) and ISO 14044 (ISO, 2006b) provide principles and framework for LCA including: (a) goal and scope definition, (b) inventory anal- ysis, (c) impact assessment, and (d) interpretation. How- ever, the LCA methodology still leaves the individual practitioner with a range of choices for assumptions that can affect the validity of the LCA results. In order to retain consistency, quality and credibility of our findings, we adopt the methodology guidelines reported by IEA (IEA, 2011a, 2011b), which represent a consensus among the authors, PV LCA experts in the United States, Europe, and Asia, for assumptions on PV performance, process input and emissions allocation, methods of analysis, and reporting of the results. In general, LCA methods can be categorized into three types,namely process-based methods,input–output (I/O) analyses, and hybrid LCA methods. Process-based meth- ods are bottom-up methods and can provide more specific information for the process under study. I/O analyses are a top-down approach, which use public data from I/O tables to evaluate the environmental impacts at the sector-level resolution. Hybrid LCA attempts to integrate I/O analysis with process-based methods to quantify both the direct and indirect impacts (Finnveden et al., 2009). As recommended by the guidelines, we employ the conventional process- based LCA instead of the I/O or hybrid methods, because of the relative maturity of process-based LCA and our interest in detailed product-level LCA. The major stages along the manufacturing of the three Si-PV modules are illustrated in Fig. 1, which is modified from that presented in the work by Fthenakis et al. (2008). As shown in Fig. 1, the three types of Si-PV modules differ in the technology for cell manufacturing, where mono-Si, multi-Si and rib- bon-Si technology correspond to the pathway at the top, middle and bottom, respectively. Note that we are not considering the balance of system (BOS) in this work. We employ a “cradle-to-grave”life cycle boundary for the life cycle study. The production of Si-PV modules starts with the mining of quartz sand. The silica in the quartz sand is then reacted in an electric arc furnace using carbon electrodes with wood, charcoal and coal to produce “metallurgical grade”silicon (MG-Si, at least 98% purity). The MG-Si can be further purified into “electronic grade” (EG-Si, 9 N purity) or “solar grade”silicon (SoG-Si, 6 N purity) to meet the more stringent requirement in the elec- tronics and solar industries. This is typically accomplished via either the “Siemens”process or the “modified Siemens” process. In the Siemens process trichlorosilane gas decom- poses and deposits additional silicon onto silicon rods at 1100–1200 C, while in the modified Siemens process silane is used as feedgas instead and the decomposition tempera- ture is kept at about 800 C(Aulich and Schulze, 2002). Apart from the conventional routes, a number of novel processes are being developed (e.g., Fluidized Bed Reactor process). The source of SoG-Si usually involves a mixture of EG-Si, off-spec EG-Si and dedicated SoG-Si. Historically, off-spec EG-Si and silicon scraps from the production of EG-Si were the primary sources for the PV industry, but with the large growth in demand from the PV industry, the relative importance of dedicated SoG-Si has been increasing. Manufacturing of mono-Si and multi-Si wafers involves the production of silicon ingots, followed by wafer sawing. On the other hand, ribbon-Si wafers are directly pulled or cast from liquid silicon, thus a much higher mate- rial efficiency can be achieved because sawing losses are avoided. The cell manufacturing and subsequent module assembly processes are essentially identical for the three types of Si-PV technologies. Ethylene–vinyl acetate and glass sheets are used to encapsulate the PV modules and provide protection from the physical elements during operation.Aluminumframesareusuallyemployedforaddi- tional strength and easy mounting. In our study, we investi- gate the production of Si-PV modules with 60 solar cells of 156 mm 156 mm. The nameplate capacity is 224, 210 and 192 Wp for mono-Si, multi-Si and ribbon-Si modules, respectively. The module area is assumed to be 1.60 m 2. Different from conventional LCA studies, we are consid- ering two geographically diverse manufacturing scenarios Fig. 1. Flow diagram from raw acquisition to manufacturing stages of Si-PV modules. D. Yue et al./Solar Energy 105 (2014) 669–678 671 in our life cycle energy and environmental comparative analysis. In the domestic manufacturing scenario, we assume that the Si-PV modules are made and installed in Southern Europe. In the overseas manufacturing scenario, we assume that the Si-PV modules are made in China, then exported to and installed in Europe. In both scenarios, we consider installation in Europe, because Europe is the major market for PV modules worldwide, as mentioned in the Introduction. Similarly, we select China as an exam- ple of overseas manufacturing, because China has the larg- est production capacity of PV modules in the world. Note that some European manufacturers also purchase interme- diate products (e.g., ingots, wafers and cells) from vendors in places like China. However, we only consider the two most representative scenarios mentioned above for illustra- tion of our comparative life cycle study. The LCI data of the three kinds of PV modules and cor- responding background processes employed for the domes- tic manufacturing scenario are derived from Ecoinvent database v2.2 (ecoinvent, 2010), which is the most widely used life cycle database in the world. Since China has a dif- ferent degree of industrialization and environmental restrictions compared to Europe, country-specific LCI data must be used for the overseas manufacturing scenario. In this work, we employ the Chinese Life Cycle Database (CLCD) v0.8 (IKE and SCU-ISCP, 2013), which is avail- able in the software eBalance v4.0 (IKE, 2013). CLCD is a national background life cycle database consisting of about 600 LCI datasets for key materials and chemicals, energy carriers, transport, and waste management, which is based on a consistent core life cycle model and represents the combination of various technologies in the Chinese market. Conveniently, CLCD employs the same data for- mat (Ecospold) as that in Ecoinvent, which facilitates the comparative life cycle study. Since the LCI data for Si- PV modules are not directly available in CLCD v0.8, we build life cycle models in eBalance v4.0 for the overseas manufacturing scenario based on the unit process raw (UPR) data provided in Ecoinvent v2.2, assuming the same manufacturing technologies apply to China. This assump- tion is valid because the UPR data in Ecoinvent v2.2 rep- resent mixed data including some Asian companies, and many European and American companies have been build- ing production lines in China. Therefore, by employing region-specific data from Ecoinvent and CLCD, we cap- ture the differences in technology level, industrial structure, energy efficiency, electricity mix, etc. in the domestic and overseas manufacturing scenarios. The LCI data derived from CLCD are considered com- parable with those from the Ecoinvent database in terms of two aspects. First, the up-to-date Ecoinvent database is integrated in and compatible with CLCD. During the data collection of CLCD, domestic production is distinguished from imported parts. The Ecoinvent database is applied to represent the production outside of China. Production in China is further broken down by process technology and factory scale to collect data and set up models. By weighted average market share in China, the market aver- age technology data are calculated in CLCD. In most unit processes, raw material consumption data are primarily from Chinese industry statistics or technical literature; the main emission data are from the China Pollution Source Census; partial emissions data are derived from chemical equilibrium calculations. Some process data are from cooperative factories, modified as an estimation of industrial average rather than factory-specific data. Sec- ond, during the development of CLCD, the data quality assessment method based on the raw data’s uncertainty and the data quality control method based on sensitivity analysis are applied according to the methodologies in Eco- invent for data quality check, evaluation and control. However, we note that Ecoinvent alone is not sufficient for evaluating the overseas manufacturing scenario, because very limited LCI data for China are available in Ecoinvent compared to those in CLCD. In this study, we define the functional unit as “1m2 module area”. We note that some life cycle studies use “1 piece of PV module”as the functional unit, of which the LCI data are usually different (IEA, 2011a). In the follow- ing sections, we will look into the energy and environmen- tal profiles of Si-PV modules by assessing the relative indicators for both scenarios based on the LCI data. 3. Life cycle energy profile 3.1. Energy payback time Since PVs are considered as one of the primary alterna- tives for energy supply, it is of significant importance to understand the energy profile of Si-PV technologies. The most frequently employed metric is the energy payback time (EPBT), which indicates the time needed to compen- sate for the total primary energy (renewable and nonrenew- able) required throughout the life cycle of an energy supply system. Primary energy is defined as the energy embodied in natural resources that has not undergone any anthropo- genic conversion and needs to be converted and trans- ported to become usable energy. The total demand, valued as primary energy, during the life cycle of a product is also called the cumulative energy demand (CED), which includes the direct uses as well as the indirect or grey con- sumption of energy due to the use of construction materi- als, raw materials, consumables, etc. Based on the LCI data for both the domestic and overseas scenarios, the CED results for the three kinds of Si-PV modules are sum- marized in Fig. 2. The infrastructure and internal transport to manufacture Si-PV modules are accounted for in the calculation, while international shipping from China to Europe is not included for a fair comparison. However, we note that the stage of international shipping can be eas- ily added to the overseas manufacturing scenario, since it is independent of the other stages or processes. This addition would, of course, add to the EPBT and adverse environ- mental impact of PV panels manufactured overseas. 672 D. Yue et al./Solar Energy 105 (2014) 669–678 As can be seen, in both scenarios, mono-Si technology requires the highest CED and the ribbon-Si technology requires the least. The differences mainly stem from the different processes for ingots and wafer production. For example, ribbon-Si wafers are produced directly from purified liquid silicon, thus avoiding the material as well as energy losses in wafer sawing. Compared to the domes- tic manufacturing scenario, the overseas manufacturing scenario involves a significantly higher CED, which is 28%, 48% and 30% higher for mono-Si, multi-Si and rib- bon-Si modules, respectively. Two of the most important factors underlying these differences are electricity mix and energy efficiency. China generates 80% of its electricity from coal, while renewable energy resources (e.g., hydro- power plants) have a larger share in Europe. Moreover, the large share of coal in energy generation also causes the efficiency level in China to stand below the world average (ABB, 2010). Knowing the CED, we can calculate the EPBT accord- ing to the following formula, EPBT ¼CED Eagen =nG ð1Þ where Eagen stands for the annual electricity generation and nG represents the grid efficiency, which is the average pri- mary energy-to-electricity conversion efficiency at the demand side. We note that, in both scenarios, the Si-PV modules are assumed to be installed in Europe. Thus the denominator in Eq.(1)is the same for both scenarios. In our calculation, we consider the Southern European condi- tion with irradiation of 1700 kWh/(m 2 yr) and a perfor- mance ratio of 0.75. The module efficiency for mono-Si, multi-Si and ribbon-Si modules is 14.0%, 13.2% and 12.0%, respectively. The annual electricity production Eagen is equal to the product of irradiation, performance ratio, and module efficiency. The average conversion efficiency nG is assumed as 0.31 for Europe. The EPBT estimates for both scenarios are presented in Fig. 3. The EPBT of PV modules made in Europe have EPBTs of 1.9, 1.6 and 1.4 years for mono-Si, multi-Si and ribbon-Si technologies, respectively. However, the PV modules made in China have the EPBTs of 2.4, 2.3 and 1.8 years for mono-Si, multi-Si and ribbon-Si technolo- gies, respectively. As can be observed from the stacked column chart, the production of purified silicon is the most energy intensive part in the life cycle of Si-PV modules, which can occupy up to 47% of the EPBT for multi-Si modules. The substantial role of Si feedstock is rooted in the fact that acquisition of SoG-Si feedstock involves a large amount of electricity consumption (e.g., Siemens and modified Siemens processes). As a conse- quence, the different electricity mix and energy efficiency leads to the increase in EPBT in the overseas manufactur- ing scenario. Compared to the primary energy consump- tion associated with electricity use, the differences in other materials are less affected. For example, the differ- ences in primary energy consumption for manufacturing glass and aluminum for module assembly contribute to a relatively insignificant increase in the EPBTs. The results indicate that the largest energy-saving potential lies in the Si feedstock acquisition phase, which can be achieved by development of new technology, higher usage of dedicated SoG-Si instead of EG-Si for Si-PV manufac- turing, etc. To narrow the gap of CED and EPBT between the domestic and overseas manufacturing scenar- ios, a cleaner electricity mix in China is critical, which calls for the employment of more sustainable energy production systems such as Si-PVs themselves. Many countries have adopted policy mechanisms to encourage increased use of renewable energy generation, such as feed-in tariffs and direct subsidies to end users. However, note that the EPBTs presented in Fig. 3 represent the technology status as of 2004–2006, for which detailed LCI data are in the public domain. Current technologies should have lower EPBTs due to the use of novel purifi- cation processes for SoG-Si production and thinner wafer thickness. Also, the EPBTs are expected to continue decreasing in the future, though with ever decreasing marginal returns. Fig. 2. Cumulative energy demand (CED) results (CN: China, RER: Europe). Fig. 3. Energy payback time (EPBT) results (CN: China, RER: Europe). D. Yue et al./Solar Energy 105 (2014) 669–678 673 3.2. Energy return on energy investment Besides the EBPT, it is crucial to measure the energy return on investment (EROI)of an energy production process for the sake of its long-term viability (Raugei et al., 2012). The traditional way of calculating the EROI of PVs is given as follows (Lloyd and Forest, 2010). According to Eq.(2), the value of EROI indicates how much electricity, valued as primary energy, can be returned for the investment of one unit of primary energy. We note that some researchers compute the EROI with- out prior conversion of the generated electricity into its primary energy equivalent, resulting in a difference by the factor of 1/nG. EROI ¼lifetime EPBT ¼lifetime Eagen =nG CED ð2Þ In this life cycle study, we assume the lifetime of the three kinds of PV modules to be 30 years, in alignment with typical commercial guarantees. Based on the previ- ous results on EPBTs, we present the EROIs for different Si-PV technologies and manufacturing scenarios in Fig. 4. The calculated EROIs for Si-PV modules manufactured in Europe are 16.1, 19.1 and 22.0 for mono-Si, multi-Si and ribbon-Si technologies, respectively, while the EROIs for Si-PV modules made in China are 12.6, 12.9 and 16.9 for mono-Si, multi-Si and ribbon-Si technologies, respectively. As the EROIs are all greater than 1, the energy production over the Si-PV modules’ lifetime is larger than the initial energy investment in the manufacturing process. Therefore, the larger EROI indicates higher net power generation potential. Because the EROI metric has a negative correla- tion with EPBT, ribbon-Si technology has the highest EROI among the three kinds of Si-PV modules. Compar- ing the EROI between the domestic and overseas manufac- turing scenarios, we can see that the EROIs for Si-PV modules made in China are much lower than those made in Europe. This provides another perspective of the effi- ciency in energy use. For example, by burning 1 ton of coal in Europe, one can achieve a higher electricity return from PVs than doing the same in China. Therefore, we can conclude that the domestic manufacturing scenario is favored for alleviating the resource depletion crisis. 4. Life cycle carbon footprint A central advantage of PV technologies, in the context of increasing attention associated with anthropogenic climate change, is that they have an extraordinarily low carbon footprint with almost no greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) during operation, thus providing significant envi- ronmental benefits compared to traditional fossil-fuel or even nuclear technologies. Carbon footprint is usually measured by the amount of greenhouse gas emissions dur- ing the life cycle of the PV system, which involves direct emissions from manufacturing processes and various activ- ities, as well as indirect emissions embedded in the materi- als and infrastructures. In this life cycle study, we estimate the carbon footprint as the equivalent amount of CO2 that has the same global warming potential (GWP) measured over an integrated time horizon of 100 years, using the most recent global warming potential factors published by IPCC (Forster and Ramaswamy, 2007; IPCC, 2007). The major emissions include CO2 (GWP = 1), CH4 (GWP = 25), N2O (GWP = 298) and chlorofluorocarbons (GWP = 4750–14400), etc. Based on the discussion above, the carbon footprint can be calculated using the following formula, CF ¼ P i2GHG ki CEi Eagen ð3Þ where CF stands for the life cycle carbon footprint of the PV system. Index i represent the species of emissions that belong to the GHG family.ki is the GWP factor corre- sponding to species i.CEi is the cumulative emissions (direct and indirect) of species i during the life cycle of the system.Eagen is the annual generation of electricity, as mentioned before. The total weighted GHG emission is normalized by the annual generation of electricity, because we are interested in establishing the environmental cost, or carbon footprint price, that we pay per kWh elec- tricity generated from the energy production process. Fol- lowing this approach, we present the carbon footprint results for the three kinds of Si-PV technologies under both scenarios in Fig. 5. The carbon footprint of the modules made in Europe is 37.3,31.8 and 28.5 g CO2-eq./kWh for mono-Si, multi-Si and ribbon-Si technology, respectively. However, the car- bon footprint of the modules manufactured in China is 72.2, 69.2, and 54.3 g CO2-eq./kWh for mono-Si, multi- Si and ribbon-Si technology, respectively. These results indicate that the carbon footprint of Si-PV modules in the overseas manufacturing scenario have almost doubled compared to the domestic manufacturing sce- nario. Since the manufacturing of Si-PV modules is an Fig. 4. Results of energy return on energy investment (CN: China, RER: Europe). 674 D. Yue et al./Solar Energy 105 (2014) 669–678 electricity-intensive process, most of the carbon footprint can be traced back to the generation of electricity. As mentioned before, China uses a large amount of coal for electricity generation, which is the least climate- friendly fossil fuel because of its high carbon intensity. Therefore, in comparison with Fig. 3, we can observe a similar profile between the EPBT and carbon footprint. Since the current Si-PV capacity in China is relatively small, large-scale installation of Si-PV production systems in China has great potential to restructure the electricity mix, which in return will help to reduce the carbon foot- print and increase energy efficiency. 5. Break-even carbon tariff model We propose a break-even carbon tariff model for Si-PV modules based on the previous calculation. As an essential part of post-Kyoto international climate negotiations, the “carbon tariff”, a means of carbon-based border tax adjust- ments, has been proposed to level the playing field by the United States, European Union and other OECD countries as a policy tool to protect competitive advantages of domestic industries (Bao et al., 2013; Kuik and Hofkes, 2010; van Asselt and Brewer, 2010). Furthermore, accord- ing to the Copenhagen accord, several participating coun- tries are launching a carbon tax on their domestic industries to fulfill the pledged emission reduction targets (Meng et al., 2013; Zhang and Baranzini, 2004). However, the legality of carbon tariff policy under the WTO frame- work is still under discussion, while the carbon tax is cur- rently only accepted in a few countries and localities. Since the focus of this work is on comparative life cycle studies of domestic and overseas manufacturing scenarios for Si-PV modules, we are not performing a comprehensive simulation and analysis for carbon-pricing policies cover- ing all the sectors. The following carbon tariff break-even model is designed to provide insights on the economic impact of Si-PV carbon footprints. ðCostCN ;raw þ CtaxCN CF CN ÞþðCtarCN RER CF CN Þ ¼ðCostRER;raw þ CtaxRER CF RER Þð4Þ where CostA,raw stands for the raw price excluding any carbon prices of Si-PVs manufactured in region A. CtaxA is the carbon tax rate in region A.CFA represents the carbon footprint of Si-PV modules made in region A. CtarA-B is the carbon tariff for Si-PV modules imported by region B from region A. The terms in the first bracket indicate the Si-PV module price in China after a carbon tax. Similarly, the terms in the third bracket indicate the Si-PV module price in Europe after a carbon tax. By inserting the terms in the second bracket, we set the cost of domestic and overseas manufacturing scenarios equal. Therefore,CtarA-B is called the break-even carbon tariff. Note that the anti-dumping tariff, which is another means of border tax adjustments to protect domestic industries, is not included in the calculation (ITA, 2012). This model establishes a simple relationship among the local manufacturing cost, carbon tax, carbon footprint, and cross-border carbon tariff. The calculated break-even value can serve as reference for setting future carbon tariffs. Imposing this carbon tariff will drive the overseas Si-PV manufacturers to reduce their carbon footprint and make the domestic Si-PV manufacturers more competitive in the marketplace, thus leading to more sustainable Si-PV manufacturing. The raw costs of Si-PV modules made in Europe and China are 1.12 and 0.81 €/Wp, respectively. These data are derived from typical spot market prices at the end of 2011 (Wissing, 2012; Xu et al., 2012). Instead of investigat- ing each Si-PV technology individually, we take the average according to their share in global annual PV instal- lation by technology at the end of 2011 (Fraunhofer, 2012), which are 46%, 53% and 1% for mono-Si, multi-Si and rib- bon-Si technologies, respectively. This analysis suggests that the average carbon footprint for Si-PV modules is 1.32 and 2.70 kg CO2 eq./Wp for domestic and overseas manufacturing scenarios, respectively (see Appendix A for detailed calculations). Here, we normalize the carbon footprint in terms of watt-peak (Wp), which is often employed as a measure of the nominal power of a photovoltaic solar energy device. Knowing the raw prices and carbon footprints of Si- PV modules,we perform a scenarios analysis by varying the values of carbon tax in both domestic and overseas manufacturing scenarios. We assume that the carbon tax in China ranges from 0 to €10/ton CO2, because China started levying a carbon tax in 2012 at ¥10/ton CO2, and plans to increase the tax to ¥50/ton CO2 by 2020 (Xinhua, 2013). We assume that the carbon tax in Europe ranges from 0 to €30/ton CO2, since different lev- els of carbon tax programs were launched in European countries (CTC, 2013). The results are presented in Fig. 6. In Fig.6, the X-axis is the carbon tax rate imposed in Europe, and the Y-axis is the break-even carbon tariff. Fig. 5. Results of carbon footprints of Si-PV modules (CN: China, RER: Europe). D. Yue et al./Solar Energy 105 (2014) 669–678 675 The series of lines correspond to different levels of carbon tax rate imposed in China ranging from 0 to €10/ton CO2. A linear relationship between region-specific carbon taxes and break-even carbon tariff can be observed from the figure. The lowest carbon tariff is €105/ton CO2 if carbon tax is absent in Europe while China has a carbon tax of €10/ton CO2. The highest carbon tariff is €129/ton CO2 if carbon tax is absent in China while Europe has a carbon tax of €30/ton CO2 When carbon tax is absent in both China and Europe, the break-even carbon tariff is about €115/ton CO2. As an approximation of the current situation, the carbon tax rate in China and Europe is esti- mated to be €2 and €20/ton CO2, respectively. This corre- sponds to a break-even carbon tariff of €123/ton CO2. Considering the current trend towards stricter environmen- tal restrictions, we expect the carbon tax rate both in China and Europe to increment upward in the future. In year 2020, the break-even carbon tariff may reach €119/ton CO2, corresponding to the carbon tax rate of €10 and €30/ton CO2 for China and Europe, respectively. Since the major parameters of the Si-PV technologies including conversion efficiency, wafer thickness, and mate- rial utilization are continuously improving, the above LCA and related calculations may not accurately represent the current or future data, warranting timely updates of these indicators. The comparative analysis reveals a significant difference in the energy and environmental impacts between domestic and overseas manufacturing scenarios. But, as China is adopting stricter energy and environmen- tal policies, energy use efficiency and emission control in China are expected to improve, thus narrowing the differ- ence in EPBT and carbon footprint between the two scenarios. 6. Conclusion In this work, we conducted a life cycle energy and environmental comparative analysis using region-specific LCI databases, and investigated the domestic and overseas scenarios for manufacturing three types of sili- con-based photovoltaic (Si-PV) modules. Since China is the largest PV module producer in the world, while Europe is the largest consumer, we assert that the over- seas manufacturing scenario better reflects the current status of the Si-PV supply chain. The results show that the Si-PV modules manufactured in China consume 28–48% more primary energy resources than their coun- terparts made in Europe, which indicates that the actual energy payback time (EPBT) of the installed PV modules were underestimated. Furthermore, the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions embedded in Si-PV modules corre- sponding to the overseas manufacturing scenario were twice as much as those associated with the domestic scenario. This finding suggests that though lower cost of Si-PV modules could be achieved in the overseas man- ufacturing scenario, the contribution to the risk of global warming is actually doubled. The results of energy return on investment (EROI) also indicate that the relatively higher energy use efficiency in the domestic manufactur- ing scenario would be beneficial to the relief of the energy depletion crisis. In addition to the conventional energy and environmental analysis, we propose a carbon tariff break-even model, which establishes the correlation between local manufacturing cost, carbon footprint, car- bon tax, and cross-border carbon tariff. It can provide reference for setting cross-border carbon tariffs and help to drive toward more sustainable of Si-PV manufactur- ing. We find that the break-even carbon tariff would be in the range of €105–€129/ton CO2 as the carbon tax rate in China and Europe ranges from 0 to €10/ton CO2 and to €30/ton CO2, respectively. Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial sup- port from the Institute for Sustainability and Energy at Northwestern (ISEN). This work was performed, in part, at the Center for Nanoscale Materials, a U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sci- ences User Facility under Contract no. DE-AC02- 06CH11357. We are also grateful to IKE Environmental Technology Co. Ltd. for providing part of the life cycle inventory data from the Chinese Life Cycle Database (CLCD) for the life cycle energy and environmental analy- sis of the overseas manufacturing scenario. Appendix A. Calculation of average carbon footprint According to the given nameplate capacity and module area,we can first calculate the capacity per functional unit. Then the average carbon footprint can be calculated according to the given market shares. Detailed calculations are given in the following table; the last two rows show that the average carbon footprint for Si-PV modules made in China and Europe is 2.70 and 1.32 kg CO2 eq/Wp, respectively. Fig. 6. Break-even carbon tariff. 676 D. Yue et al./Solar Energy 105 (2014) 669–678 References ABB, 2010. The state of global energy efficiency. ABB Group.http:// www05.abb.com/global/scot/scot316.nsf/veritydisplay/e22257539f674 37248257a24004e8c91/$file/The%20state%20of%20global%20energy% 20efficiency_final.pdf. Alsema, E.A., 2000. Energy pay-back time and CO2 emissions of PV systems. Prog. Photovoltaics 8, 17–25. Alsema, E.A., De Wild-Scholten, M.J., 2006. Environmental impacts of crystalline silicon photovoltaic module production. In: Papasavva, S., Fthenakis, V. (Eds.), Life-Cycle Analysis Tools for Green Materials and Process Selection. Materials Research Society, Warrendale, pp. 73–81. Aulich, H.A., Schulze, F.-W., 2002. Crystalline silicon feedstock for solar cells. Prog. Photovoltaics Res. Appl. 10, 141–147. Bao, Q., Tang, L., Zhang, Z.X., Wang, S.Y., 2013. Impacts of border carbon adjustments on China’s sectoral emissions: simulations with a dynamic computable general equilibrium model. China Econ. Rev. 24, 77–94. CTC, 2013. Where Carbon is Taxed. Carbon Tax Center.http:// www.carbontax.org/progress/where-carbon-is-taxed/. Darling, S.B., You, F., Veselka, T., Velosa, A., 2011. Assumptions and the levelized cost of energy for photovoltaics. Energy Environ. Sci. 4, 3133–3139. De Wild-Scholten, M.J., 2009. Renewable and Sustainable. Presentation at the Crystal Clear final event, Munich. ecoinvent, 2010. ecoinvent database v2.2. Swiss Center for Life Cycle Inventories. 3/21/2013. EPIA, 2011. EPIA Sustainability Working Group Fact Sheet.http:// www.epia.org/news/fact-sheets/. Feltrin, A., Freundlich, A., 2008. Material considerations for terawatt level deployment of photovoltaics. Renewable Energy 33, 180–185. Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M.Z., Ekvall, T., Guine´e, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S., Koehler, A., Pennington, D., Suh, S., 2009. Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J. Environ. Manage. 91, 1–21. Forster, P., Ramaswamy, V., 2007. Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. In: Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K., Tignor, M.M.B., Miller, H.L. (Eds.), Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergov- ernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Fraunhofer, 2012. Photovoltaics Report. Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems, Freiburg, Germany.http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/ de/downloads/pdf-files/aktuelles/photovoltaics-report.pdf. Fthenakis, V., Alsema, E., 2006. Photovoltaics energy payback times, greenhouse gas emissions and external costs: 2004 – early 2005 status. Prog. Photovoltaics 14, 275–280. Fthenakis, V.M., Kim, H.C., 2011. Photovoltaics: life-cycle analyses. Sol. Energy 85, 1609–1628. Fthenakis, V.M., Kim, H.C., Alsema, E., 2008. Emissions from photo- voltaic life cycles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 2168–2174. Fthenakis, V., Kim, H.C., Held, M., Raugei, M., Krones, J., 2009a. Update of PV energy payback times and life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions. In: 24th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference. Hambury, Germany. Fthenakis, V., Wang, W.M., Kim, H.C., 2009b. Life cycle inventory analysis of the production of metals used in photovoltaics. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 13, 493–517. Gu¨nes, S., Neugebauer, H., Sariciftci, N.S., 2007. Conjugated polymer- based organic solar cells. Chem. Rev. 107, 1324–1338. IEA, 2011a. Life Cycle Inventories and Life Cycle Assessments of Photovoltaic Systems. Report IEA-PVPS T12-02:2011, International Energy Agency.http://www.clca.columbia.edu/Task12_LCI_LCA_ 10_21_Final_Report.pdf. IEA, 2011b. Methodology Guidelines on Life Cycle Assessment of Photovoltaic Electricity. Report IEA-PVPS T12-03:2011, International Energy Agency.http://www.clca.columbia.edu/IEA_Task12_LCA_ Guidelines_12_1_11_Latest.pdf. IEA, 2012. Trends in Photovoltaic Applications: Survey Report of Selected IEA Countries between 1992 and 2011. Report IEA-PVPS T1-21:2012, International Energy Agency.http://www.iea-pvps.org/ index.php?id=92&eID=dam_frontend_push&docID=1239. IKE, 2013. eBalance 4.0. IKE Environmental Technology Co., Ltd., www.itke.com.cn. IKE, SCU-ISCP, 2013. Chinese core Life Cycle Database version 0.8. IKE Environmental Technology Co., Ltd. & Institute for Sustainable Consumption and Production at Sichuan University. www.itke.com.cn. IPCC, 2007. Glossary in Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007.http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_ appendix.pdf. ISO, 2006a. ISO 14040: Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework. International Standardiza- tion Organization. ISO, 2006b. ISO 14044: Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Requirements and Guidelines. International Standard- ization Organization. ITA, 2012. An introduction to U.S. Trade Remedies. International Trade Administration.http://ia.ita.doc.gov/intro/index.html. Jungbluth, N., 2005. Life cycle assessment of crystalline photovoltaics in the swiss ecoinvent database. Prog. Photovoltaics 13, 429–446. Keshner, M.S., Arya, R., 2004. Study of Potential Cost Reductions Resulting from Super-Large-Scale Manufacturing of PV Modules: Final Subcontract Report. NREL, National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Kuik, O., Hofkes, M., 2010. Border adjustment for European emissions trading: Competitiveness and carbon leakage. Energy Policy 38, 1741– 1748. Lloyd, B., Forest, A.S., 2010. The transition to renewables: can PV provide an answer to the peak oil and climate change challenges? Energy Policy 38, 7378–7394. Meijer, A., Huijbregts, M.A.J., Schermer, J.J., Reijnders, L., 2003. Life- cycle assessment of photovoltaic modules: comparison of mc-Si, Mono-Si Multi-Si Ribbon-Si Unit Ref. # Nameplate capacity 224 210 192 Wp A1 Module area 1.6 1.6 1.6 m 2 A2 Capacity per area 140.00 131.25 120.00 Wp/m2 A3 = A1/A2 Carbon footprint CN 386.71 349.55 249.25 kg CO2 eq/m2 A4 Carbon footprint per capacity CN 2.76 2.66 2.08 kg CO2 eq/Wp A5 = A4/A3 Carbon footprint RER 199.75 160.44 130.64 kg CO2 eq/m2 A6 Carbon footprint per capacity RER 1.43 1.22 1.09 kg CO2 eq/Wp A7 = A6/A3 Market share 46 53 1 % A8 Average carbon footprint CN 2.70 kg CO2 eq/Wp A9 = PA5 A8 Average carbon footprint RER 1.32 kg CO2 eq/Wp A10 = PA7 A8 D. Yue et al./Solar Energy 105 (2014) 669–678 677 InGaP and InGaP/mc-Si solar modules. Prog. Photovoltaics 11, 275– 287. Meng, S., Siriwardana, M., McNeill, J., 2013. The environmental and economic impact of the carbon tax in Australia. Environ. Resource Econ. 54, 313–332. Peet, J., Heeger, A.J., Bazan, G.C., 2009.“Plastic”solar cells: self- assembly of bulk heterojunction nanomaterials by spontaneous phase separation. Acc. Chem. Res. 42, 1700–1708. Raugei, M., Fullana-i-Palmer, P., Fthenakis, V., 2012. The energy return on energy investment (EROI) of photovoltaics: methodology and comparisons with fossil fuel life cycles. Energy Policy 45, 576–582. van Asselt, H., Brewer, T., 2010. Addressing competitiveness and leakage concerns in climate policy: an analysis of border adjustment measures in the US and the EU. Energy Policy 38, 42–51. Wissing, L., 2012. National Survey Report of PV Power Applications in Germany 2011. International Energy Agency.http://www.iea- pvps.org/index.php?id=93&eID=dam_frontend_push&docID=1234. Xinhua, 2013. China to introduce carbon tax: official. Xinhua News.http:// news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2013-02/19/c_132178898.htm. Xu, H., Dou, C., Wang, S., Lv, F., 2012. National Survey Report of PV Power Applications in China 2011. International Energy Agency. http://www.iea-pvps.org/ index.php?id=93&eID=dam_frontend_push&docID=1236. Yue, D., Khatav, P., You, F., Darling, S.B., 2012. Deciphering the uncertainties in life cycle energy and environmental analysis of organic photovoltaics. Energy Environ. Sci. 5, 9163–9172. Zhang, Z.X., Baranzini, A., 2004. What do we know about carbon taxes? An inquiry into their impacts on competitiveness and distribution of income. Energy Policy 32, 507–518. 678 D. Yue et al./Solar Energy 105 (2014) 669–678 MEMORANDUM TO: Mark Sandeen, Chair, Sustainable Lexington Committee CC: Carl Valente, Town Manager FROM: Karen Mullins, Conservation Administrator DATE: February 18, 2015 RE: Solar Array and Conservation Land Thank you for reaching out to me recently to investigate the feasibility of installing a ground mounted solar array, covering greater than 4 acres in area, on conservation land within Lexington. Per our discussion, conservation land falls under the care, custody and control of the Conservation Commission for natural resources and watershed protection purposes pursuant to G.L.Ch. 40, § 8C. Further, conservation land is provided permanent environmental protection status under Article 97 of the state Constitution and can only be diverted to another use by the following: a majority vote of the Conservation Commission, and a two-thirds vote of the town meeting, followed by a two-thirds vote of the state Legislature. The disturbance of permanently protected undeveloped conservation land to install a ground mounted solar array, covering greater than 4 acres in area, could be considered a diversion of conservation land to another use under Article 97 of the state Constitution, and would thus require the votes described above. In addition to your question regarding conservation land, you inquired about the feasibility of installing such a solar array on undeveloped town-owned land off Hartwell Avenue, shown as Lot 2 on Assessors Map 80. According to available plans and GIS map references, this subject lot contains extensive protected wetland resource areas, including bordering vegetated wetlands, bordering land subject to flooding, and riverfront area. Because of this, installation of such a solar array would be subject to both the Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act and Lexington’s Wetland Protection Code and would require a Notice of Intent filing and a permit from the Conservation Commission. As part of the Conservation Commission’s review, the Commission would consider the project plans and details to determine whether the project complied with the performance standards of the Commission’s regulations. However, based on the large size of the proposed solar array and the extensive protected wetland resource areas on the lot, compliance with the performance standards of the wetland protection regulations would be very challenging. Please do not hesitate to contact the Conservation Commission or me if there are further questions during this process. Dear Mark, You asked me for my opinion on the feasibility of placing solar farm installations on Town Conservation land or other open space parcels. I am happy to share with you what I have learned as Chair of the Greenways Corridor Committee (GCC) as we have explored the possibility of establishing additional trail connections on various parcels of Town owned land, Conservation or otherwise. My understanding regarding the management of Town Conservation land is that it would require an affirmative vote of Town Meeting followed by a vote in favor by the State Legislature to reverse the protected status of land designated as Conservation land in order to allow any construction other than trail improvements to take place, let alone something on the scale of a solar farm. It goes without saying that approval and recommendation by the Town’s Conservation Administrator followed by that of the Conservation Commission, as custodians of the Town’s Conservation holdings, would be necessary to bring such a matter before Town Meeting. And I am not going to even speculate on the likelihood of generating sufficient voter support in the town to support such an action. As we on the GCC have discovered over the last couple of years, the Town does own other parcels of undeveloped land that do not have Conservation status, but most are either wetlands or wooded in nature. The challenge in considering building on wetlands, especially wetlands lying within the 100 year flood plain, is that State and Federal Army Corps of Engineers wetlands protective zoning restrictions pretty much preclude most development possibilities due to the high cost of remediation. And it goes without saying that the challenge in considering wooded parcels is that the land would need to first be cleared, this action itself contributing negatively to the planet’s greenhouse gas equation leaving aside the costs involved. I think it is fairly safe to say that most any open space of any size in Lexington that is free of trees is either a playing field, park, active farmland, or meadowland under Conservation status. Which brings us back to the Town’s Recycling facility on Hartwell Avenue as the only reasonable sized land parcel in town that might be considered for a solar farm installation that would not entail the regulatory hurdles outlined above. I hope this has been useful in your quest. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have further questions. Keith Ohmart, Chair Greenways Corridor Committee 1 Lynne Pease From:Mark Sandeen <mark.sandeen@sustainablelexington.org> Sent:Friday, February 20, 2015 10:45 AM To:Lynne Pease Subject:FW: Firing Range Chief Corr's statement for the Board.     From: Carl Valente <cvalente@lexingtonma.gov>  Date: Friday, February 6, 2015 4:52 PM  To: Mark Sandeen <mark.sandeen@sustainablelexington.org>  Subject: FW: Firing Range    Mark,     Per our discussion – from Chief Corr.     Carl     Carl F. Valente  Town Manager  1625 Massachusetts Avenue  Lexington, MA  02420  781 698‐4545 (new direct phone number as of March 2014)  781 861‐2921 (fax)     (When writing or responding please understand that the Secretary of State has determined that emails are a public record and,  therefore, may not be kept confidential.)     From: Mark Corr   Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 4:50 PM  To: Carl Valente  Subject: RE: Firing Range     Good afternoon,     I do not have any new maps in front of me but they had previously left sufficient space with DPW operations being moved.    Mark       1 Lynne Pease From:Mark Sandeen <marksandeen@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 20, 2015 10:50 AM To:Lynne Pease Subject:Solar at Lexington Community Farm Here is LexFarm's statement regarding the potential for putting solar at the farm. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ken Karnofsky <kenkarno@gmail.com> Date: Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 5:46 PM Subject: Solar at Lexington Community Farm To: Mark Sandeen <marksandeen@gmail.com> Mark, I understand that you are evaluating suitability of open space in Lexington for siting solar arrays to generate clean power for the Town. While LexFarm supports the goal of solar-generated power for the town, unfortunately the land that LexFarm is leasing for use as a community farm is not suitable for solar installation. The property has limited tillable acreage, and reducing it further would be inconsistent with the mission of a sustainable community farm. The remaining land is needed for access to the fields or is located close to wetlands (Arlington Reservoir). Regards, Ken Karnofsky President, LexFarm Board of Directors Subject:RE:  Lexington  Solar  Project  -­‐  Board  of  Selectmen's  Meeting Date:Sunday,  January  25,  2015  5:38:41  PM  Eastern  Standard  Time From:Miles  Hovis To:Mark  Sandeen Yes,  having  home  office  in  SF  has  its  advantages,  in  addition  to  its  challenges…   I’ve  run  some  iterations  to  ground.    First  off,  good  news:  we’ve  managed  to  fit  the  $175k  allowance  for  the  bins  into  both  iterations  –  1.25  and  2.5 MWdc  –  through  some  shifts  in  site  prep  allowance.  So  we’re  covered  there.   Second,  on  top  of  the  $175k,  I’ve  plotted  out  an  adder  for  increments  for  $100k  up  to  $500k  (so  $675k  total  non-­‐project  site  work)  for  the  2.5  MWdc option.  The  cost  adder  is  $0.003/kWh  (three-­‐tenths  of  a  cent)  per  $100k  of  rubble  removal  cost,  over  and  above  the  $0.0975/kWh  base  PPA  with PILOT.  As  you  say,  it’s  likely  to  be  a  non-­‐cost  (or  even  some  revenue),  but  this  way  we’re  covered  in  any  remotely  rational  scenario.   Let  me  know  if  you  have  any  questions.   Thanks!   Miles   Miles Hovis | Project Development Manager | SolarCity | T: 704.813.4027 | mhovis@solarcity.com | www.solarcity.com   HIC 168572 / MA Lic. 1136MR   From: Mark Sandeen [mailto:mark.sandeen@sustainablelexington.org] Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 5:12 PM To: Miles Hovis Subject: Re: Lexington Solar Project - Board of Selectmen's Meeting You  dog  you…  skating  out  of  town  before  the  storm  of  the  century…   I  wish  I  had  business  in  sunny  California  as  well.     The  financial  loose  end  that  would  be  great  to  close  –  is  the  issue  we  discussed  last  time  about  creating  an  index  on  the  PPA  price  to  deal  with  the  rubble  pile costs.     Has  your  team  run  those  numbers  yet?    If  not,  you  might  want  to  consider  adding  another  point  on  the  curve  -­‐  $150K,  $300K,  $450K,  $600K.   I  know  we  think  it  is  probably  going  to  be  zero  –  and  certainly  much  lower  than  $600K,  but…..  They  were  talking  about  $800K  before  Mike  brought  them  back to  earth.     I'm  assuming  the  index  number  would  apply  only  to  the  ground  mount  PPA  rate  –  since  the  canopies  do  not  have  any  effect  on  the  rubble  pile.     Mark                 From:  Miles  Hovis  <mhovis@solarcity.com> Date:  Sunday,  January  25,  2015  4:56  PM To:  Mark  Sandeen  <mark.sandeen@sustainablelexington.org> Subject:  RE:  Lexington  Solar  Project  -­‐  Board  of  Selectmen's  Meeting   Thanks,  Mark.  I’ve  actually  had  to  change  my  flight  plans  to  SF  next  week  to  avoid  the  snow,  and  I’ll  be  relying  on  my  good  friends  at  Brightfields  to represent  the  team  at  tomorrow’s  BoS  meeting,  as  necessary.  My  flight  is  at  11:30  a.m.  tomorrow.   Would  you  like  to  jump  on  the  phone  tonight  or  tomorrow  to  tie  off  any  loose  ends  on  the  financial  model  before  the  meeting?   Thanks,   Miles             Miles Hovis | Project Development Manager | SolarCity | T: 704.813.4027 | mhovis@solarcity.com | www.solarcity.com   HIC 168572 / MA Lic. 1136MR   From: Mark Sandeen [mailto:mark.sandeen@sustainablelexington.org] Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 4:49 PM To: Caitlin McSherry; Miles Hovis; Lyle Rawlings (lyle@advancedsolarproducts.com); Dan Voss (voss.dan@gmail.com); William Hadley (whadley@lexingtonma.gov); Robert Beaudoin (rbeaudoin@lexingtonma.gov) Cc: John Hanselman; Mike Singer; Bruce Haskell (bhaskell@langdonenv.com); Ronald Kelly Subject: Lexington Solar Project - Board of Selectmen's Meeting The  current  plan  is  that  the  Board  of  Selectmen  meeting  is  still  on  for  tomorrow  night.     They  are  planning  to  hold  the  meeting  if  the  forecast  in  the  morning  is  for  "normal"  snowfall  amounts  prior  to  9:30PM  tomorrow  night.   We  will  have  the  final  word  by  mid-­‐morning.     The  current  agenda  has  us  up  at  7:45PM,  but  they  are  planning  to  rearrange  the  schedule  to  have  the  solar  agenda  item  start  closer  to  7:00,  so  those  who  are traveling  from  outside  Lexington  can  get  home  sooner.     http://www.egovlink.com/public_documents300/lexington/published_documents/meeting%20postings/2015-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐Jan-­‐Feb%20Agenda/2015-­‐01-­‐26-­‐BOS.pdf   If  this  meeting  is  canceled  or  postponed,  the  next  full  Board  of  Selectmen  meeting  is  currently  scheduled  for  February  9th.     Talk  to  you  tomorrow, Mark                       This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com Subject:RE:  Proposed  PPA  Pricing Date:Thursday,  November  13,  2014  9:52:06  AM  Eastern  Standard  Time From:Miles  Hovis To:Mark  Sandeen CC:Dan  Voss,  JOHN  B.HANSELMAN,  Mike  Singer,  Ronald  Kelly Mark,   Please  see  the  table  below  for  parameters  and  assumptions.  Per  the  relevant  line  below,  we’ve  assumed  that  the  Town  will  waive  local  building  and  electrical  permitting  fees,  as  this  is  a  project  for  the  Town,  as  Needham  did  for  their  landfill project.  Our  interconnection  fee  assumption  is  also  based  on  our  experience  with  the  Needham  project  –  a  similar  grid-­‐direct  interconnection  in  NSTAR-­‐NEMA  territory.   Please  let  me  know  what  else  you  would  like  to  see    to  make  your  presentation.   Thanks,   Miles     Maximum Option  1 Option  2 Carport System  Size  (kWdc)3,683.79 1,004.67 1,251.72 1,004.67  or  500 SREC  Factor 0.8 0.8 0.8 1 Specific  Yield  (kWh/kWp)1283 1274 1275 1183 PILOT  Rate $0 $0 $0 $0 Lease  Rate $0 $0 $0 $0 Term  (All  Agreements)20 20 20 20 Tilt 20  degrees 20  degrees 20  degrees 6  degrees Utility  Upgrades  Fee  Assumption $150,000 Environmental  Permits  &  Civil  Engineering Assumption $125,000 Local  AHJ  Permits  Assumption $0 PPA  rate  ($/kWh)$0.0685 $0.08 $0.0775 $0.18 PPA  escalation  rate  (%/Year)0%0%0%0%     Miles Hovis | Project Development Manager | SolarCity | T: 704.813.4027 | mhovis@solarcity.com | www.solarcity.com   HIC 168572 / MA Lic. 1136MR   From: Mark Sandeen [mailto:mark.sandeen@sustainablelexington.org] Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 8:31 AM To: Miles Hovis Cc: Dan Voss; JOHN B.HANSELMAN Subject: Re: Proposed PPA Pricing John  and  Miles,   I  will  need  to  know  the  proposed  first  year  production  in  kWh  for  each  of  the  proposed  arrays  including  the  carports.     Please  provide  this  information  at  your  earliest  opportunity.     Thanks, Mark     From:  Miles  Hovis  <mhovis@solarcity.com> Date:  Wednesday,  November  12,  2014  7:21  PM To:  Mark  Sandeen  <mark.sandeen@sustainablelexington.org> Cc:  Dan  Voss  <voss.dan@gmail.com>,  John  Hanselman  <jhanselman@brightfieldsllc.com> Subject:  RE:  Proposed  PPA  Pricing   Mark,   Thank  you  for  your  patience  while  I  wrangled  with  home  office.   For  the  three  options  currently  under  consideration,  we  have  established  these  PPA  rates:   1.25  MWdc  =  $0.0775/kWh,  0%  escalation,  20  years 1.0  MWdc  =  $0.08/kWh,  0%  escalation,  20  years 3.7  MWdc  =  $0.0685/kWh,  0%  escalation,  20  years   As  discussed,  these  rates  assume  $0  in  revenue  to  the  Town  in  the  form  of  lease  and  PILOT  payments.  Final  pricing  will  be  adjusted  to  account  the  ultimate  contractual  amounts  specified  within  those  agreements:   The  carports  are  proving  difficult  to  model,  due  to  the  custom  nature  and  unusual  installation  environment.  As  my  Structured  Finance  team  noted  this  afternoon,  this  may  well  be  the  first  solar  canopy  structure  installed  on  a  capped  landfill, ever,  anywhere.  Much  will  depend  on  the  minimum  height  of  the  canopy  structure  and  the  type  of  foundation  system  MA  DEP  will  allow  us  to  employ.  Our  current  estimates  place  the  carport  rates  in  the  $0.18/kWh  range,  0%  escalation,  for  20 years.  If  you’d  prefer,  we  can  an  apply  an  escalator  to  sculpt  down  the  starting  rate  in  line  with  projected  utility  rate  increases.   Please  let  me  know  if  you  have  any  questions  as  you  prepare  your  presentation  for  the  Selectmen.   Thank  you,   Miles           Miles Hovis | Project Development Manager | SolarCity | T: 704.813.4027 | mhovis@solarcity.com | www.solarcity.com   HIC 168572 / MA Lic. 1136MR   From: Mark Sandeen [mailto:mark.sandeen@sustainablelexington.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 2:26 PM To: Miles Hovis Subject: Re: Proposed PPA Pricing Excellent!     From:  Miles  Hovis  <mhovis@solarcity.com> Date:  Wednesday,  November  12,  2014  2:19  PM To:  Mark  Sandeen  <mark.sandeen@sustainablelexington.org> Cc:  Dan  Voss  <voss.dan@gmail.com> Subject:  RE:  Proposed  PPA  Pricing Subject:  RE:  Proposed  PPA  Pricing   Absolutely,  Mark.  I’ll  have  those  finalized  and  over  to  you  within  the  hour.   Miles Hovis | Project Development Manager | SolarCity | T: 704.813.4027 | mhovis@solarcity.com | www.solarcity.com   HIC 168572 / MA Lic. 1136MR   From: Mark Sandeen [mailto:mark.sandeen@sustainablelexington.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 2:18 PM To: Miles Hovis Cc: Dan Voss Subject: Proposed PPA Pricing Miles,   Could  you  send  through  the  proposed  PPA  pricing  we  should  be  using  to  prepare  our  briefing  for  the  Board  of  Selectmen?     As  we  discussed  –  I'd  like  to  see  PPA  prices  for  the  1MW,  1.25MW  and  4MW  ground  mount  systems.   I  would  like  to  see  separate  pricing  for  the  solar  canopy  options  of  500kW  and  1MW.     Thank  you, Mark  Sandeen   1 Lynne Pease From:Mark Sandeen <mark.sandeen@sustainablelexington.org> Sent:Friday, February 20, 2015 1:20 PM To:Lynne Pease Subject:FW: Solar Incentives and Timing Lynne,    I don't know if the package has gone out already – but this just came in a few minutes ago – from the Town's 3rd party solar  owner's agent.   Very few organizations understand the solar marketplace better than Cadmus.     Mark      From: Danielle Burns <Danielle.Burns@cadmusgroup.com>  Date: Friday, February 20, 2015 11:53 AM  To: Mark Sandeen <mark.sandeen@sustainablelexington.org>, "Daniel R E Voss (dvoss@rivermoorsystems.com)"  <dvoss@rivermoorsystems.com>  Cc: David Beavers <David.Beavers@cadmusgroup.com>  Subject: Solar Incentives and Timing    Hi Mark and Dan,     Thanks for your question concerning incentives and timing for solar projects. The short answer is that it is key to secure  incentives as soon as possible. Time is of the essence for the following reasons:     1. The federal Investment Tax Credit (30%) is set to sunset on 12/31/16. This incentive is a huge economic benefit  that allows Brightfields/SolarCity to offer Lexington a favorable PPA rate.     2. Uncertainty in net metering incentive structure. As of 2/20/15, approximately 104 MW of capacity remains in  the NSTAR public cab. However, legislation has been previously proposed (House Bill 4185) which would have  significantly lowered the economic value of net metering (due to removal of a distribution credit). Proposals for  subsequent legislation altering net metering are uncertain (e.g., limitations on virtual net metering), but have  the potential to change the economic value of net metering for the Town of Lexington.     3. Pending legislative proposal from the Solar Net Metering Task Force in MA. The Task Force will be presenting  solar incentive recommendations in March 2015 that could substantially change the incentive structure in MA.  Although the structure of the revised incentive(s) is unclear at this time, a step‐down in incentives offered is  inevitable. For example, SREC‐II incentives will likely end or change substantially after 7/31/15.     4. Uncertainty regarding incentives can negatively impact the solar market. Cadmus has seen viable solar projects  stopped because of incentive uncertainly (e.g., from SREC‐I to SREC‐II). Cadmus advised the Town of Lexington  to delay release of their solar RFQ by 6 months to ensure that there was more certainty in the market.  Unfortunately, any further delays would likely result in the tabling of Lexington’s solar project (due to the  sunsetting of the federal ITC).     5. Substantial timeline to develop a solar project. Lexington should be sure to allow appropriate time for the  Selectmen to approve the EMS (2 months); prepare the site and receive utility and regulatory approvals (4‐6  months); and bring the project online (~12 months from Selectmen approval). This places the solar project  online in about mid‐February 2016. Again, time is of the essence.  2    In conclusion, the federal and state incentives for solar are likely as good as they are going to get, and Lexington should  move forward expeditiously to ensure that it receives the best possible economic value for this solar project.     Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.     Regards,  Danielle     _____________     Danielle Burns (formerly Poulin) | Senior Analyst  The Cadmus Group, Inc.  100 5th Ave., Suite 100 | Waltham, MA |02451  Office: 617.673.7169 | Fax: 617.673.7369  www.cadmusgroup.com           Follow us on social media:   AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING DATE: 2/23/2015 PRESENTER: Joe Pato ITEM NUMBER: I.7 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Article Presentations/Positions (20 min.) SUMMARY: Attached is a table with all of the articles listed to be used to take positions on all of the articles for the Annual Town Meeting and the two Special Town Meetings. I have left a message for the proponent for Article 43, asking if they could come to your meeting to provide information on the purpose of the article. I have not heard from them so they may be away. I have left the item on the agenda in case I hear from them on Monday and they can attend. RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTED MOTION: FOLLOW-UP: APPROXIMATE TIME ON AGENDA: 8:25 PM ATTACHMENTS: Description Type 2015 Specials and Annual Town Meeting Warrant Cover Memo Article Position Table Backup Material ARTICLE POSITIONS 2015 SPECIALS AND ANNUAL TOWN MEETING ARTICLE SPECIAL TOWN MEETING #1 PRESENTATION JP PK NC MC SB AC CEC SC Article 2 Appropriate for School Facilities Capital Projects ARTICLE SPECIAL TOWN MEETING #2 PRESENTATION JP PK NC MC SB AC CEC SC Article 2 Pump Station Repairs Article 3 Appropriate for Purchase of Fire Engine Article 4 Appropriate for Cary Memorial Building Sidewalk Enhancement Article 5 Amend FY2015 Operating, Enterprise and CPA Budgets Article 6 Appropriate for Authorized Capital Improvements ARTICLE ANNUAL TOWN MEETING - FINANCIAL ARTICLES PRESENTATION JP PK NC MC SB AC CEC SC Article 4 Appropriate FY2016 Operating Budget Article 5 Appropriate FY2016 Enterprise Funds Budgets Article 6 Appropriate for Senior Service Program Article 7 Establish and Continue Departmental Revolving Funds ARTICLE FINANCIAL ARTICLES (continued) PRESENTATION JP PK NC MC SB AC CEC SC Article 8 Appropriate the FY2016 Community Preservation Committee Operating Budget and CPA Projects: a) Conservation Meadow Preservation Program b) Parker’s Revenge Site Restoration c) First Parish Church Restoration Historic Structure Report d) Cary Memorial Building Records Center Shelving e) Battle Green Streetscape Improvements f) Community Center Sidewalk Design g) Cary Memorial Building Sidewalk Enhancement h) Community Center Preservation Restriction Endowment i) Park and Playground Improvements j) Park Improvements – Athletic Fields k) Park and Playgrounds ADA Accessibility Study l) Parks Improvements – Hard Court Resurfacing m) Lincoln Park Field Improvements – Phase 3 n) Minuteman Bikeway Culvert Rehabilitation o) Grain Mill Alley Design Funds p) Minuteman Bikeway Wayfinding Signs – Design Funds q) Lower Vine Brook Paved Recreation Path Reconstruction r) Community Preservation Fund Debt Service s) Administrative Budget ARTICLE FINANCIAL ARTICLES PRESENTATION JP PK NC MC SB AC CEC SC Article 10 Appropriate for Recreation Capital Projects Article 11 Appropriate for Municipal Capital Projects and Equipment a) Center Streetscape Improvements and Easements – Phase I b) DPW Equipment c) Storm Drainage Improvements and NPDES Compliance d) Comprehensive Watershed Storm Water Management Study and Implementation e) Sidewalk Improvements, Additions, Designs and Easements f) Town-wide Culvert Replacement g) Town-wide Signalization Improvements h) Hartwell Avenue Infrastructure Improvements and Easements i) Street Improvements and Easements j) Bikeway Bridge Repairs and Engineering k) Hastings Park Undergrounding Wires l) Hydrant Replacement Program m) Westview Cemetery Building Assessment n) Replace Town-wide Phone Systems – Phase IV o) Municipal Technology Improvement Program – Phase III p) Police/Fire Dispatching and Recoreds Software q) Parking Meter Replacement r) Public Safety Radio Stabilization - Phase I s) Design/Engineering – Firing Range at Hartwell Avenue Compost Site ARTICLE FINANCIAL ARTICLES PRESENTATION JP PK NC MC SB AC CEC SC Article 13 Prospect Hill Road Sidewalk (Citizen Article) Article 14 Appropriate for Water System Improvements Article 15 Appropriate for Wastewater System Improvements Article 16 Appropriate for School Capital Projects and Equipment Article 17 Technical Correction to the Borrowing Authorization under Article 13b of the 2014 Annual Town Meeting Article 18 Appropriate for Public Facilities Capital Projects: a) Middle School Space Mining b) Clarke Middle School Circulation and Parking Improvements, Design c) LHS Phase 2 Overcrowding/ Completion d) Major Mechanical/Electrical Systems’ Replacement e) Lexington Public School Educational Capacity Increase – Short and Long-Term f) LHS Heating Systems Upgrade – Phases 2 and 3 - Design g) School Building Envelope and Systems h) Municipal Building Envelope and Systems i) Repairs/Replacements/Upgrades:  School Building Flooring Program  School Interior Painting Program  Diamond Middle School Lighting to Rear Parking Lot  Diamond Middle School Motors for Backboards  LHS Bike Racks and Installation Article 18 (concluded) j) School Paving Program k) Public Facilities Bid Documents l) Security Cameras Upgrade ARTICLE FINANCIAL ARTICLES (concluded) PRESENTATION JP PK NC MC SB AC CEC SC Article 19 Martingale Road Street Acceptance Article 20 Richmond Circle Street Acceptance Article 21 Appropriate to Post Employment Insurance Liability Fund Article 22 Adjust Retirement COLA Base for Retirees Article 23 Accept Chapter 235 of the Acts of 1994 Article 24 Appropriate Bonds and Notes Premiums Article 25 Rescind Prior Borrowing Authorizations Article 26 Establish and Appropriate To and From Specified Stabilization Funds Article 27 Appropriate to Stabilization Fund Article 28 Appropriate from Debt Service Stabilization Fund Article 29 Appropriate for Prior Years’ Unpaid Bills Article 30 Amend FY2015 Operating, Enterprise and CPA Budgets Article 31 Appropriate for Authorized Capital Improvements ARTICLE GENERAL ARTICLES PRESENTATION JP PK NC MC SB AC CEC SC Article 32 Establish Qualifications for Tax Deferrals Pres. 2/10/15 - IP Article 33 Authorize Home Rule Petition for Tax Relief Article 34 Accept MGL Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 54 and Set Personal Property Minimum Tax Article 35 Accept MGL Chapter 90-I, Section 1 (Complete Streets Program) Pres. 2/10/15 Article 36 Authorize Community Electrical Aggregation Program Article 37 Amend General Bylaws – Street Performers ARTICLE GENERAL ARTICLES (concluded) PRESENTATION JP PK NC MC SB AC CEC SC Article 39 Repeal General Bylaws – Sale and Use of Tobacco Article 40 Amend General Bylaws – Sale and Use of Tobacco Article 41 Amend General Bylaws – Contracts and Deeds Article 42 Commission on Disability Request Article 43 Amend General Bylaws – Demolition Delay (Citizen Article) Article 44 Resolution on Fossil Fuel Divestment (Citizen Article) Article 45 Townwide Process for Safety (Citizen Article) ARTICLE ZONING/LAND USE ARTICLES PRESENTATION DM PK NC JP MC AC CEC SC Article 46 Acquisition of Land Shown on Assessors’ Property Map 22, Lot 51B Article 47 Amend Zoning By-Law – Medical Marijuana (Citizen Article) Article 48 Amend Zoning Map – Commercial Zoning District Lines a) CN (229-235 Bedford Street) b) CS (242-246 Bedford Street) c) CLO (173-181 Bedford Street) d) CN (Bedford Street & Reed Street) e) CS (North Street and Lowell Street) f) CRS (Lowell Street and Woburn Street g) CLO (Marrett Road and Lincoln Street) h) CS (Marrett Road and Spring Street) i) CN & CRS (Waltham Street and Marrett Road) j) CLO (Waltham Street at the Waltham Town Line Pres. 2/10/15 ARTICLE ZONING/LAND USE ARTICLES (concluded) PRESENTATION DM PK NC JP MC AC CEC SC Article 49 Amend Zoning By-Law and Map – Civic Use Districts Pres. 2/10/15 Article 50 Amend Zoning Map – CM District, Waltham Line Near Route 128/I95 Pres. 2/10/15 Article 51 Amend Zoning By-Law – Site Plan Review Applicability Pres. 2/10/15 Article 52 Amend Zoning By-Law – Technical Corrections Pres. 2/10/15 Article 53 Amend Zoning By-Law – CB District Moratorium on Banks Pres. 2/10/15 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING DATE: 2/23/2015 PRESENTER: Carl F. Valente, Town Manager; Rob Addelson, Assistant Town Manager for Finance ITEM NUMBER: I.8 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approve FY2016 Recommended Budget (10 min.) SUMMARY: Selectmen to consider the operating, enterprise and capital budgets to be included in the FY2106 Recommended Budget (i.e., Brown Book) to be submitted to Town Meeting and the financial committees. See attached information explaining proposed changes to the Preliminary Budget. RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTED MOTION: 1. Move to approve the FY2016 Operating Budget as presented. Further, to (approve) (defer) the Town Manager's proposed creation of the Office of Land Use, Inspectional Services and Economic Development, to be comprised of the Planning, Building Commissioner/Zoning Enforcement, Conservation, Health and Economic Development offices. 2. Move to approve the FY2016 Enterprise Fund Budgets as presented. Further, to approve the Town Manager's proposed creation of the Department of Recreation and Community Programs. 3. Move to (approve) (defer) the FY2016 Capital Budget as presented, with the exception of the School Facilities Master Planning projects. FOLLOW-UP: Finance will complete the FY2016 Recommended Budget and Financing Plan (Brown Book) for electronic distribution on February 27 and hard copy distribution the following week. APPROXIMATE TIME ON AGENDA: 8:45 PM ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Proposed Changed to the FY2016 Recommended Budget and Financing Plan Backup Material Summary of Revenues and Expenditures; Revenue Summary Exhibit FY2016 Recommended Operating Budget Exhibit Recommended FY2016 Enterprise Fund Budgets Exhibit FY2016 Recommended Capital Budget Exhibit Town of Lexington Town Manager’s Office Carl F. Valente, Town Manager Tel: (781) 698-4540 Linda Crew Vine, Deputy Town Manager Fax: (781) 861-2921 1625 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE • LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02420 Proposed Changes to the FY2016 Recommended Budget and Financing Plan The following are the proposed changes to the FY16 budget: Operating Budget: 1. Facilities Budget: The School Committee, at its meeting on February 24th, will be acting on Pat Goddard’s request to add a $108,500 vehicle with aerial lift for use by the electrician. Mr. Goddard believes this vehicle is of higher priority than other capital projects and, therefore, has recommending reducing the following capital projects, so as not to increase the overall cash capital budget: • Interior painting: ($24,169) • Diamond Middle School Backboard Motors: ($25,300) • LHS Bike Racks: ($31,531) • Electrician’s Van: ($30,000) Further, the Facilities Budget has been increased by approximately $26,000 to reflect the lease costs for the standard modular classrooms proposed for the Fiske School, although this may change once the final School Facilities Master Plan is approved. 2. Health Insurance Budget: Increased by approximately $530,000 to reflect a 7.5% increase in premiums. The White Book version of the budget has included a 5% increase. Final GIC rates will be approved on March 4. 3. Minuteman High School: Reduced by $97,186 to reflect the final assessment. 4. Library Budget: Updated salary figures to reflect the new collective bargaining agreement. This does not increase the overall municipal budget as the dollar impact of this agreement has been taken from the Salary Adjustment Account line-item. 5. Office of Land Use, Inspectional Services and Economic Development: Budgets of Planning, Conservation, Health, Economic Development and Building Commissioner have been consolidated, based on Town Manager’s recommendation to the Board of Selectmen for reorganizing these departments under a new Assistant Town Manager Position. Further, the proposed Assistant Town Manager position previously shown in the Town Manager’s budget is now shown in this budget. 6. Salary Transfer Account: Reduced by approximately $90,000 based on revised cost of future contract settlements and the Library union collective bargaining agreement explained above. 7. Appropriation from the Capital Stabilization Fund: The appropriation from this fund has been reduced by approximately $50,000 as a result of the actual interest rate from the recent bond sale being lower than estimated. This appropriation is recommended in order to keep the growth of within-levy debt service at 5 percent. 8. Appropriation to the Capital Stabilization Fund: The appropriation to this fund has been reduced by approximately $250,000, to $9,533,000, to reflect all of the other changes listed here. Capital Budget: 1. Middle School Space Mining: Reduced by $350,000 to offset the $500,000 increase for the High School modular classroom project. The remaining $150,000 to be funded via a reserve fund transfer. 2. Lexington Public Schools Educational Capacity Increase: Current request by School Committee is $4,080,000. May be adjusted at Summit 7. 3. Fiske School Standard Modulars: Current request by School Committee is $842,000. May be adjusted at Summit 7. 4. School Interior Painting: Reduced by $24,169. See Facilities Budget above. 5. Diamond Middle School Motors for Backboards: Reduced by $25,300. See Facilities Budget above. 6. LHS Bike Racks and Installation: Reduced by $31,531. See Facilities Budget above. 7. Cary Memorial Building Sidewalk: Increased by $30,000 (CPA funding), based on HDC plan approved for this sidewalk. 8. Supplemental Appropriation-LHS Modulars. Increased by $350,000 based on recent bids. Also see Middle School Space Mining above. 9. DPW Equipment Replacement: Increased by $500,000 (debt) for Compost Windrow Turner, if solar project proceeds. Funding from Compost Revolving Fund. 10. Sidewalk Improvements, Additions and Design: Remaining at $600,000. The Board of Selectmen, however, should consider whether Pleasant Street sidewalk feasibility study ($20,000) and Prospect Hill sidewalk and intersection ($100,000) should be funded with this proposed appropriation. Both of these projects are also citizen petition articles. Selectmen’s Meeting 2/23/2015 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING DATE: 2/23/2015 PRESENTER: Carl F. Valente, Town Manager ITEM NUMBER: I.9 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approve Veterans Services District Agreement with Bedford (5 min.) SUMMARY: In 2013 the Town's of Lexington and Bedford created a District for the purpose of providing services to the veterans and their families living in the two towns. The initial forming of the District, and continuation of the District, required approval of the Massachusetts Department of Veteran's Services (DVS). The DVS has granted the continuation of this District and the Town's have entered into a new five-year intermunicipal agreement. The new agreement has not changed from the original agreement, other than the updating of dates and cost sharing amounts. RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTED MOTION: Move to approve and sign the Inter-Municipal Agreement Between the Towns of Lexington and Bedford, for a Veterans' Services District, for a term expiring on June 30, 2019. FOLLOW-UP: Town Manager's Office will handle distribution of the agreement. APPROXIMATE TIME ON AGENDA: 8:55 PM ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Intermunicipal Agreement Exhibit 834694v1 1 INTER-MUNICIPAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWNS OF LEXINGTON AND BEDFORD VETERANS’ SERVICES DISTRICT THIS AGREEMENT dated as of this _____ day of ________, 2015 (“Agreement”) by and between the Town of Lexington, a Massachusetts municipal corporation having a usual place of business at Town Hall, 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, Lexington, MA 02420, acting by and through its Board of Selectmen (“Lexington”), and the Town of Bedford, a Massachusetts municipal corporation having a usual place of business at 10 Mudge Way, Bedford, Massachusetts 01730, acting by and through its Board of Selectmen (“Bedford”). WITNESSETH THAT: WHEREAS, Lexington and Bedford desire to continue to share the services and costs associated with a Veterans’ Services District; and WHEREAS, each of the parties has obtained authority to enter into this Agreement pursuant to G.L. c. 40, s 4A and c. 115 (Chapter 471 of the Acts of 1972); WHEREAS, the Massachusetts Department of Veterans’ Services Secretary (Secretary) must approve this District and Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises set forth above and for other good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree under seal as follows: 1. District Board. A District Board shall be created on acceptance of this agreement with one representative from Lexington and Bedford. Said representative shall be the Town Manager or designee. The Board shall meet as needed and shall address all issues related to the implementation of this District and shall oversee the performance of the Director. 2. Payment of Veterans’ Services District Benefits. During the Term of this Agreement, it is agreed that the distribution of benefits payable to Veterans in the member towns under the provisions of MGL c. 115 shall be paid by the Treasurer of the member Town in which that Veteran resides. 3. Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the date of execution hereof, and shall expire on June 30, 2019, subject to approval by the Massachusetts Department of Veterans’ Services, unless earlier terminated as set forth herein. On or before May 1st of each year during the Term of this Agreement, the parties shall review their contractual relationship, the terms of which are set forth herein, to ensure that this Agreement continues to satisfy the needs and objectives of each community. 4. Veterans’ Services District Director. The Veterans Services Officer (“VSO”) of Lexington, or a successor hired through standard personnel practices agreed to by the Town Managers of Lexington and Bedford, shall serve as the Director of the District and will supervise all VSO’s in their duties as related to the Office in the two Towns. Specifically, the parties shall share the services of the Veteran Services District Director and the Veteran Services Officer, notwithstanding any other the provision of this Agreement to the contrary. 5. Cost of District Operations. Lexington and Bedford shall assume their respective shares of the 834694v1 2 costs associated with a common Veteran Services District, based on the Cost Allocation Model found in Appendix D. Shared expenses under this Agreement will include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following expenses attributable to the VSO’s: employee salary, benefits, Medicare tax, Worker’s Compensation, liability insurance, membership in professional associations, recruitment costs and as further detailed in Appendix D Lexington shall employ all VSO’s of the District and pay all reasonable and customary salaries and operating expenses. Bedford shall contribute its share of the associated costs for these positions by paying to Lexington an amount as required by the terms and conditions of this Agreement and Appendix D. Payments to Lexington shall be due and payable within fifteen (15) days after the commencement of such fiscal quarter (i.e., after 7/1, 10/1, 1/1 and 4/1). Lexington shall adjust the compensation it pays said positions as it may elect to do in accordance with standard personnel practices which impact upon the Veteran Services District Director and VSO, and shall give prompt written notice to Bedford of any such adjustment. To provide Bedford with certainty in planning its budget for the Veterans’ Services District, Bedford’s payment to Lexington each fiscal year shall be established and fixed by January 15, prior to the start of the fiscal year. Within 90 days of the close of each fiscal year, Lexington will provide the Town of Bedford with an analysis of actual staff and office expenses for the prior fiscal year. Any amount over or under the amount paid by Bedford will be adjusted in the subsequent year’s payment by Bedford. 6. Other Benefits. Lexington shall provide all VSO benefits to which he/she is entitled under standard personnel practices of the Lexington. Both parties agree to allow the Director and VSO to enjoy such vacation, sick days, personal days and other leave as he may be entitled to receive under such agreement and under standard personnel practices of Lexington. Neither party shall make any demand on the Director or VSO or take any action with respect to them that is in violation of their rights under standard personnel practices of Lexington or under any applicable legislation. Should a VSO formerly employed by this District (but not the Director) file for unemployment insurance benefits or workers’ compensation benefits, the Bedford share of the cost will be increased in the following year by an equal amount. 7. Retirement Benefits. All VSO’s of the District will be members of the Lexington Contributory Retirement System, assuming eligibility requirements are met. As part of Bedford annual payment, it will pay the agreed upon prorated normal cost or other retirement benefits toward the pension/retirement costs of the VSO’s of the district. 8. Duties. The VSO’s of the District shall perform their duties as required by the District Board and the respective local laws and regulations of Lexington and Bedford. Attached, as Appendix C to this document, are the “Goals, Objectives and Structure of the Veterans’ Services District. 9. Office Hours and Locations. The Director and the Veterans’ Services Officer shall work primarily in the office spaces provided by Lexington and Bedford. Both Towns shall maintain regular, public office hours with such office hours to be mutually agreed upon by the parties. 10. Indemnification. Notwithstanding the final sentence of G.L. c. 40, §4A, and to the extent permitted by law, the Town of Bedford agrees to indemnify the Town of Lexington, including all officials, officers, employees, agents, servants and representatives, from and against any claim arising out of the duties performed by the Veterans’ Services District staff pursuant to the Agreement in or on behalf of the the Town of 834694v1 3 Bedford for any claim of liability, loss, damages, costs and expenses for personal injury or damage to real or personal property by reason of any negligent act or omission by the Veterans’ Services District while performing services for the Town of Bedford; and the Town of Lexington agrees to indemnify the Town of Bedford, including all officials, officers, employees, agents, servants and representatives, from and against any claim arising out of the duties performed by the Veterans’ Services District staff pursuant to the Agreement in or on behalf of the Town of Lexington for any claim of liability, loss, damages, costs and expenses for personal injury or damage to real or personal property by reason of any negligent act or omission by the Veterans’ Services District while performing services for the Town of Lexington. As to any claim or occurrence, the express indemnification set forth above shall be town-specific: Bedford's obligations shall be limited to the services provided for Bedford; Lexington's obligations shall be limited to the services provided for Lexington. 11. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by either party for any reason or no reason on one-hundred eighty (180) days written notice to the other, unless the parties agree otherwise. No such termination shall affect any obligation of indemnification that may have arisen hereunder prior to such termination. The parties shall equitably adjust any payments made or due relating to the unexpired portion of the Term following such termination. 12. Assignment. Neither party shall assign or transfer any of its rights or interests in or to this Agreement, or delegate any of its obligations hereunder, without the prior written consent of the other. 13. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, or if any such term is so held when applied to any particular circumstance, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision of this Agreement, or affect the application of such provision to any other circumstances, and this Agreement shall be construed and enforced as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision were not contained herein. 14. Waiver. The obligations and conditions set forth in this Agreement may be waived only by a writing signed by the party waiving such obligation or condition. Forbearance or indulgence by a party shall not be construed as a waiver, nor limit the remedies that would otherwise be available to that party under this Agreement or applicable law. No waiver of any breach or default shall constitute or be deemed evidence of a waiver of any subsequent breach or default. 15. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended only by a writing signed by both parties duly authorized thereunto. 16. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the substantive laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, without regard to the conflicts of laws provisions thereof. 17. Headings. The paragraph headings herein are for convenience only, are no part of this Agreement and shall not affect the interpretation of this Agreement. 18. Notices. Any notice permitted or required hereunder to be given or served on either party by the other shall be in writing signed in the name of or on behalf of the party giving or serving the same. Notice shall be deemed to have been received at the time of actual receipt of any hand delivery or three (3) business days after the date of any properly addressed notice sent by mail as set forth below. a. To Bedford. Any notice to Bedford hereunder shall be delivered by hand or sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, to: 834694v1 4 Richard T. Reed, Town Manager Bedford Town Hall 10 Mudge Way Bedford MA 01730 or to such other address(es) as Bedford may designate in writing to Lexington. b. To Lexington. Any notice to Lexington hereunder shall be delivered by hand or sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, to: Carl F. Valente, Town Manager Lexington Town Hall 1625 Massachusetts Avenue Lexington, Massachusetts 02420 or to such other address(es) as Lexington may designate in writing to Bedford. 19. Complete Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties concerning the subject matter hereof, superseding all prior agreements and understandings. There are no other agreements or understandings between the parties concerning the subject matter hereof. Each party acknowledges that it has not relied on any representations by the other party or by anyone acting or purporting to act for the other party or for whose actions the other party is responsible, other than the express, written representations set forth herein. 20. Financial Accounting and Reporting. Lexington shall maintain separate, accurate and comprehensive records of all services performed for each of the parties hereto. Lexington shall maintain accurate and comprehensive records of all costs incurred by or on account of the Veteran Services District, and all payments received from Bedford. An annual financial statement will be issued by Lexington to Bedford within 120 days of the end of the fiscal year. 21. Justification for District formation per Massachusetts Department of Veteran Services. See Appendix A for the District Formulation basis upon which the Massachusetts Secretary of Veteran Services will consider this request for approval to form a veterans’ services district per 108 CMR 12.02(2)(a) through 12.02(2)(f). WITNESS OUR HANDS as of the first date written above. TOWN OF BEDFORD TOWN OF LEXINGTON By its Board of Selectmen By its Board of Selectmen 834694v1 5 Appendix A District Formation Justification for DVS District Name Lexington/Bedford Veteran Services District Municipalities: Lexington Bedford Municipality Populations (2010 Federal Census): Lexington: 31,394 Bedford: 13,320 Total: 44,714 District Position Titles: District Director Veteran Services Officer Number of Full-time Positions Required by Chapter 115 Director: 1 Part-Time VSO: 1 Clerical: 1* *District will have a full-time/shared administrative staff to meet this requirement. Office Locations Director: 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, Lexington MA 02420 VSO: 12 Mudge Way, Bedford, MA 01730 Hours of Operation Lexington Office: Monday – Wednesday: 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; Thursday, 8:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.; Friday: 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 noon. Bedford Office: Tuesday and Thursday: 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 834694v1 6 Appendix B Mission Statement Lexington/Bedford Veteran Services District Mission Statement Our mission is to support the veterans residing in our district by identifying veterans and their families in need of service and providing information and access to the services for which they are eligible under the law. 834694v1 7 Appendix C - Goals and Objectives Lexington-Bedford Veterans’ Services District Goals and Objectives 1.) To execute timely and accurate benefit delivery for all veterans seeking help from the Federal, State and Local branches of government 2.) To provide dignity, compassion, respect and privacy to all veterans seeking assistance 3.) To empower veterans through technology, information sharing, and networking; where they can assist themselves and their fellow veterans by connecting services to need 4.) To continue the fight against homelessness and joblessness within the veteran community 5.) To be honest and forthright with our veterans, researching the correct answer and providing results as quickly as accuracy allows 6.) To see the office as a base of operations, not a home, bringing services to the veteran wherever they are whenever they need 834694v1 8 Appendix D – Budget and Cost Allocation Veterans' Services DistrictA1:I43 Annual Estimated Budget/Town Allocation Effective Date Annual Estimated Total Lexington Allocation Lexington Amount Bedford Allocation Bedford Amount 1 Salary-Director 7/1/14-10/3/14 District Director - Ryan Lennon 15,968$ 91.20% 14,563$ 8.80% 1,405$ Vacation Buy out 1,936$ 91.20% 1,765$ 8.80% 170$ 2 Benefits Health 9,473$ 91.20% 8,639$ 8.80% 834$ 3 Dental 3,399$ 91.20% 3,099$ 8.80% 299$ 4 Life 2$ 91.20% 2$ 8.80% 0$ 5 Medicare (1.45%)260$ 91.20% 237$ 8.80% 23$ 6 Pension (4.90% normal cost)877$ 91.20% 800$ 8.80% 77$ 7 Workers Compensation-Reinsurance 14.37$ 91.20% 13$ 8.80% 1$ 8 Subtotal 31,928$ 29,118$ 2,810$ Salary-Director 12/15/14-6/30/15 District Director - Gina Rada 31,904$ 91.20% 29,097$ 8.80% 2,808$ Benefits Health 7,218$ 91.20% 6,583$ 8.80% 635$ Dental -$ 91.20% -$ 8.80% -$ Life -$ 91.20% -$ 8.80% -$ Medicare (1.45%)463$ 91.20% 422$ 8.80% 41$ Pension (4.90% normal cost)1,563$ 91.20% 1,426$ 8.80% 138$ Workers Compensation-Reinsurance 28.71$ 91.20% 26$ 8.80% 3$ Subtotal 41,177$ 37,553$ 3,624$ 9 Salary-VSO 7/1/14-6/30/15 VSO - Bill Linnehan 25,890$ 0.00% -$ 100.00% 25,890$ 10 Benefits Health -$ -$ 0.00% -$ 11 Dental -$ -$ 0.00% -$ 12 Life -$ -$ 0.00% -$ 13 Medicare (1.45%)375$ 0.00% -$ 100.00% 375$ 14 Pension -$ -$ 0.00% -$ 15 Workers Compensation-Reinsurance 23$ -$ 100.00% 23$ 16 Subtotal 26,288$ -$ 26,288$ 17 Salary-clerical Note 1 Note 1 18 Expenses 7/1/14-6/30/15 Printing 400$ 65.00% 260$ 35% 140$ 19 Professional Serv./Special Events 650$ 100.00% 650$ 0% -$ 20 Mileage 500$ 60.00% 300$ 40% 200$ 21 Seminars/Conf.500$ 60.00% 300$ 40% 200$ 22 Cell Phone/Pager 1,248$ 50.00% 624$ 50% 624$ 23 Supplies 1,860$ 65.00% 1,209$ 35% 651$ 24 Public Liability Ins.-$ -$ 100% -$ 25 Recruitment Costs (not prorated)-$ 0.00% -$ 100% Note 2 26 Unemployment Benefits Paid -$ 100% Note 3 27 Workers Compensation Benefits Paid -$ 100% Note 3 28 Subtotal 5,158$ 3,343$ 1,815$ 29 Total Total Salary, Benefits and Expenses 63,374$ 32,461$ 30,913$ Note 1 Each community will provide administrative support with existing office staff Note 2 Actual Bedford amount will be billed quarterly by Lexington Note 3 Bedford will be charged with Worker's Compensation benefits or UI benefits only if incurred Lexington will provide primary office space and office equipment for the District Director Bedford will provide primary office space and office equipment for the VSO Part-time employees working fewer than 20 hours per week receive pro-rated holiday and sick leave benefits. FY2015 834694v1 9 Appendix E - District Structure Lexington Bedford Veterans’ Services District Complete Integration of the Veteran Community Maximize Local Resources Open Doors to Veteran DIRECTOR VSO Lexington Celebrations Committee Bedford Patriotic Holiday Committee VETERAN ORGANIZATIONS LEXINGTON OTHER LOCAL VOLUNTEERS BEDFORD Budgeting State Regulation Enforcement Establishing Local Procedure Outreach Internal Funding Mechanisms Advisory Board Execution Application and Referral Case Management Local Procedure Office Hours AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING DATE: 2/23/2015 PRESENTER: Denise Y. Casey, Human Resources Director, Carl F. Valente, Town Manager ITEM NUMBER: I.10 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approve Library Union Collective Bargaining Agreement (5 min.) SUMMARY: The Town and the Cary Memorial Library Staff Association have reached a three-year collective bargaining agreement for the period of FY15-17. The Board of Selectmen previously approved this agreement in Executive Session on January 12, 2015. The Cary Memorial Staff Association membership has recently voted to accept this contract settlement. The Agreement provides for: A 2% cost of living adjustment in Fiscal Year 2015; A 2.5% cost of living adjustment in Fiscal Year 2016; A 2% cost of living adjustment for Fiscal year 2017; An increase of 0.5% in the top step for Adult Pages, Library Technicians, Library Associates, Brand Librarians/Circulation Supervisor and Librarian I; Increase the Saturday differential by $.50 per hour; Creation of a new Librarian II position and salary band; Remove the restriction on employees to use accrued personal, sick or vacation leave during their probationary period; Grant para-professional employees the same vacation leave amounts as professional employees; Clarify the amount of personal leave a new hire receives in his/her first year of employment; Codify the holiday schedule for Library employees since the Library may be open on a day the Commonwealth designates a holiday; Add a reference to the Town's Administrative Directives; Add language for an Agency Fair Share Fee; and Allow employees who work at least fifteen (15) hours per week access to the Library's sick leave bank. This contract settlement is within the amount allocated in the operating budget. RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTED MOTION: Move to approve and authorize the Town Manager to sign the collective bargaining agreement between the Town and the Cary Memorial Library Staff Association for the period of FY15-17. FOLLOW-UP: TMO/Human Resources will prepare final signature documents. APPROXIMATE TIME ON AGENDA: 9:00 PM AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING DATE: 2/23/2015 PRESENTER: Carl F. Valente, Town Manager ITEM NUMBER: I.11 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Designation of Public Safety Official regarding Declaration to Recess Town Meeting (5 min.) SUMMARY: A recent change in State law, MGL chapter 39, section 10A, permits the Town Moderator to declare a continuation of town meeting to a time, date and place, due to inclement weather or a public safety emergency, after consultation with local public safety officials and members of the Board of Selectmen. The law further requires that within 10 days of the declaration to recess and continue a town meeting, a local public safety official designed by the Board of Selectmen shall submit a report to the attorney general that sets forth the reason for the declaration. It is recommended that Fire Chief John Wilson, the Town's Director of Emergency Management, be designated for this purpose. RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTED MOTION: Designate Fire Chief/Director of Emergency Management John Wilson as the local public safety official set for in MGL Chapter 39, Section 10A (d). FOLLOW-UP: Town Manager's office will convey this designation to the Town Clerk and Town Moderator. APPROXIMATE TIME ON AGENDA: 9:05 PM ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Summary of Statute Backup Material AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING DATE: 2/23/2015 PRESENTER: William Hadley ITEM NUMBER: C.1 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Commitment of Water and Sewer Charges SUMMARY: See attached request for approval of commitments of water and sewer charges. RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTED MOTION: Motion to approve the water and sewer commitments as submitted. FOLLOW-UP: APPROXIMATE TIME ON AGENDA: 9:10 PM ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Water and Sewer Commitments Backup Material AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING DATE: 2/23/2015 PRESENTER: Joe Pato ITEM NUMBER: C.2-4 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Consent Agenda SUMMARY: 1. MiniLux has requested a one-day liquor license to serve beer and wine on Thursday, March 19, 2015, for a Manicures for Melanoma fundraiser from 4:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 2. Lexington Little League has requested approval for the Annual Little League Parade on Saturday, May, 2, 2015 from 8:30 a.m. to approximately 11:00 a.m. as outlined in their letter dated February 4, 2015. Public Works, Town Manager and Police have approved the plans. 3. The Lexington Minute requested permission to use the Battle Green and fire muskets with six other local militia companies on Saturday, March 28,2015 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTED MOTION: Motion to approve the Consent Agenda. FOLLOW-UP: Selectmen's Office APPROXIMATE TIME ON AGENDA: 9:10 PM ATTACHMENTS: Description Type MiniLux Request for One-Day Liquor License Backup Material Lex. Little League Opening Day Request Backup Material Lexington Minute Men Request for Battle Green Backup Material 1 Lynne Pease From:Larry Conley <lconly30@aol.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 17, 2015 9:42 AM To:selectmen's Subject:Re: March 28 drill Lynne, it is from 9:00 ‐ 4:00    Sent from my iPad    On Feb 17, 2015, at 9:17 AM, selectmen's <Selectmen@lexingtonma.gov> wrote:    > What time does this event start and how long will it last?  >   > Lynne A. Pease  > Selectmen's Office  > Town of Lexington  > 1625 Massachusetts Avenue  > Lexington, MA 02420  > email selectmen@lexingtonma.gov  > phone 781‐698‐4580  > fax 781‐863‐9468  >   > ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  > From: Larry Conley [mailto:lconly30@aol.com]  > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:32 AM  > To: selectmen's  > Subject: Re: March 28 drill  >   > It is a militia drill with 6 other local militia companies, we have done this before. Part of our drilling exercising to to fire  muskets in a safe way, this prepares us for Battle Road  in April. The majority of drilling will be on the grounds of the  Buckman, that will be where we fire. Some drilling on the green also, we expect 60‐80 persons Hope this works, if you  need more let me know.   > Thanks for all your help  > Larry,LMM  >   >   > Sent from my iPhone  >   >> On Feb 11, 2015, at 9:24 AM, selectmen's <Selectmen@lexingtonma.gov> wrote:  >>   >> Mr. Conley,  >>   >> Could you please provide some additional information:  >>   >> i.    Nature of event.  >> iv.    Expected number of participants, spectators, and vehicles.  >> v.    Duration and time of event .  >> vi.    Statement of equipment and facilities to be used.  >> vii.    Section of the Battle Green desired.  >>   2 >> Thanks!  >>   >> Lynne A. Pease  >> Selectmen's Office  >> Town of Lexington  >> 1625 Massachusetts Avenue  >> Lexington, MA 02420  >> email selectmen@lexingtonma.gov  >> phone 781‐698‐4580  >> fax 781‐863‐9468  >>   >> ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  >> From: Larry Conley [mailto:lconly30@aol.com]  >> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 8:21 AM  >> To: selectmen's  >> Subject: March 28 drill  >>   >> Good morning Lynne, The Lexington Minute Men would like to request permission to do some volleys during our drill  on March 28th at the Buckman.  >> Should be a crowd pleaser!  >>   >> thank you  >> Larry Conley, Adjutant  >> for the Captain Commanding Barry J Cunha Lexington Minute Men, Co   >> Sent from my iPad