Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-09-13 SB-min Select Board Meeting September 13, 2021 A remote participation meeting of the Lexington Select Board was called to order at 6:31 p.m. on Monday, September 13, 2021 via Zoom remote meeting services. Select Board Chair Ms. Hai; Vice Chair Mr. Lucente; and members Mr. Pato; Ms. Barry; and Mr. Sandeen were present, as well as Mr. Malloy, Town Manager; Ms. Axtell, Deputy Town Manager; and Ms. Katzenback, Executive Clerk. EXECUTIVE SESSION VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 5-0 by roll call at 6:32 p.m. to enter into Executive Session under Exemption 3 to Discuss Strategy with Respect to Litigation. It was further declared that an Open Meeting discussion may have a detrimental effect on the negotiating position of the town. Following the close of Executive Session, the Select Board reconvened in Open Session at 7:12 p.m. Ms. Hai stated that the meeting was being conducted via Zoom as posted, with the agenda on the Town’s website. Ms. Hai provided directions to members of the public, watching or listening via the Zoom application, regarding the procedure for making a public comment. Ms. Hai reminded Board members, staff, and members of the public about Lexington’s Standard of Conduct regarding civil discourse during Town Government meetings. PUBLIC COMMENTS Bridger McGaw, Precinct 6 Town Meeting Member, thanked the Municipal and School staff for handling the Town’s business with diligence and transparency during the pandemic. He hopes this same spirit and forward thinking will prevail over the course of the upcoming Special Town Meeting as well as through other challenges on the horizon, such as building the new high school and police station; finding ways to attract more commercial development; maintaining a commitment to the Community Preservation Act and its matching State funds; developing a plan to pay for stormwater management; and discovering a solution for the Hosmer House. SELECT BOARD CONCERNS AND LIAISON REPORTS Ms. Hai reminded Board member to submit their drafts for the Annual Town Report to Ms. Katzenback in time for Board review. The report is slated to be approved during the September 27, 2021 Select Board meeting. Ms. Barry reported that she and Katherine Labrecque, Management Analyst, are working on two surveys in relation to Town committee processes. One survey is intended to be sent to comparable communities to gain an understanding of how they conduct committee and board appointments etc. The second survey is intended for members of Lexington’s non-elected committees. Ms. Katzenback will forward this second set of questions to the Board. Ms. Barry and Ms. Labrecque plan to present an update of their progress at the next Board work session. The data gathered from these surveys will be shared with Board members once it has been collated. ACTION ITEMS: Select Board members will send their Annual Report submissions to Ms. Katzenback to be distributed to all Select Board members for review and comment. Ms. Barry and Ms. Labrecque will send the survey questions to Ms. Katzenback to be distributed to all Select Board members. DOCUMENTS: Select Board Concerns and Liaison Reports—September 13, 2021 1 TOWN MANAGER REPORT Mr. Malloy reported that 78.3% of all Lexington residents are fully-vaccinated. 97.3% of all residents over the age of 12 have had at least one shot. The Town has hired a new Director of Public Health, Joanne Belanger, who is currently serving as Director of Health and Human Services for the City of Lowell. Her first scheduled day in Lexington is, Monday, September 20, 2021. Martha Duffield, Chief Equity Officer, has been accepted into the second annual International City/County Management Association (ICMA) Equity Officer Institute. The automated Water Meter installation effort has started. Residents will receive post cards from the Town about scheduling the work, which requires entry into residences to swap out meters. The Economic Development and the Center Streetscape reports have both been posted on the Town website. Three Police Patrol Officers have been promoted to Sargeant: Mitchell Caspe, Christiana Severe, and Michael Barry. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Water and Sewer Commitments and Adjustments To approve the following Water & Sewer Commitments: Water & Sewer Commitments Cycle 9 Billing $ 363,383.93 Water & Sewer Commitments July Finals $ 31,842.44 Water & Sewer Adjustments per WSAB 8/5/21 $ (5,269.20) Water & Sewer Adjustments per WSAB 6/10/21 $ (415.74) DOCUMENTS: CY 9 June 2021 363383.93; FY22 Finals July 21 31842.44; WSAB (415.74) 6/10/21; WSAB (5269.20) 8/5/21. 2. Approve One Day Liquor Licenses—PULLED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION, see below 3. Vote to Update Select Board Policies and Committee Charges to Reflect Select Board Name Change –PULLED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION, see below 4. Approve Select Board Meeting Minutes To approve and release the Select Board meeting minutes of:  June 10, 2020  June 15, 2020  July 27, 2020  June 7, 2021  August 12, 2021 Joint BOH and Select Board Meeting 2 DOCUMENTS: DRAFT Minutes—Select Board June 10, 2020; DRAFT Minutes—Select Board June 15, 2020; DRAFT Minutes—Select Board July 27, 2020; DRAFT Minutes— Select Board July 27, 2020; DRAFT Minutes –Select Board June 7, 2021; Draft Minutes—Joint Board of Health/Select Board August 17, 2021 5. Approve Amendment to Fleet Electrification Policy To approve the amendment to the Fleet Electrification Policy as attached. DOCUMENT: Fleet Electrification Policy Amendment 6. Select Board Committee Appointment & Resignation To accept the resignation of Hema Gandhi from the Lexington Council for the Arts effective immediately. To appoint E. Ashley Rooney to the Lexington Council for the Arts to fill an unexpired term set to expire on September 30, 2022. VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 5-0 by roll call to approve Consent Agenda items 1,4,5,6. DOCUMENTS: Resignation Letter—H. Gandhi; 2021 Lexington Council for the Arts Application E.A. Rooney Pulled Consent items to be voted separately: 2. Approve One Day Liquor Licenses Based on information from the Spectacle Management, Ms. Barry believes the Robert Cray concert has been moved to a date in March 2022. Pending confirmation of the concert date, the Select Board elected to postpone approval of that license. Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 5-0 to approve one One-Day Liquor License for Spectacle Management to serve beer and wine in the lobby of Cary Memorial Building, 1605 Massachusetts Avenue, for the purpose of the following event: Al Di Meola on Friday, September 17, 2021 from 8:00pm to 10:30pm. ACTION: Select Board office staff to follow up with Spectacle Management regarding the Robert Cray concert date, and once date has been confirmed, the application for the One Day Liquor License for that event would be put on an upcoming agenda for Board review and approval. 3. Vote to Update Select Board Policies and Committee Charges to Reflect Select Board Name Change This item will come back on a future agenda with a revised motion in order to ensure that historical references to the “Board of Selectmen” (prior to 2019) will be preserved while improving clarity with a footnote that indicates the date of the name change to “Select Board”. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 3 1. Public Hearing: Noise Bylaw Special Permit—Night Work for Lining Sewer Services Within the Limits of the Center Streetscape Project Ms. Hai opened the Public Meeting at 7:23 p.m. John Livsey, Town Engineer requested a Noise Bylaw Special Permit for Center Streetscape work which would be disruptive to businesses if undertaken during the day. In particular, construction and repair to the sewer service lateral lining - if done during the day - would require a 3 – 4 hour shutdown of impacted businesses. The work is anticipated to take 4 - 6 consecutive nights in the area just east of the Town Hall to close to Cary Memorial Library and it is expected is that work will be done in the late- September to early October 2021 timeframe starting around 7:00 p.m. Per the Noise Bylaw, abutters have been mailed a notice of tonight’s public hearing. One letter of objection has been received from a neighbor. Mr. Lucente said he supports the request but wants the motion’s dates to be more specific. Mr. Lucente also noted that there is a start time stated for the work each night but no end time. Mr. Livsey said the reason the dates and hours are undefined is because of the difficulty of pinpointing exactly when work crews will be able to start the job, due to crowded work schedules, and it is also hard to estimate how late each session will run. Weather can also be a factor. He believes each session will require 8-10 hours. Notification of the specifics, when known, would be given via the Center Streetscape webpage on the Town’s website. Given this information, Mr. Lucente proposed including an end date for the permit in late October. Mr. Pato asked if the work crews would have to return to the staging area at the end of each session. Mr. Livsey reported that this work crew is not a Center Streetscape contractor so the crew would not have access to the project staging area at the corner of Woburn Street and Fletcher Avenue. The vehicles used for this work are not of the heavy equipment variety. Ms. Barry asked how many lateral lines there are and whether customers will be notified how to contact the Town should problems arise after this project is finished. Mr. Livsey can provide that information. Mr. Sandeen ascertained that there is no actual groundbreaking involved and that the loudest piece of machinery is an air compressor used to cure lateral piping. Seeing no questions from the audience, Ms. Hai closed the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 5-0 by roll call to grant a Noise Bylaw Special Permit to the Lexington Department of Public Works and/or contractors working under the Department of Public Works for sewer lateral work in September and October 2021, the boundaries of which are from the Massachusetts Avenue/Meriam Street intersection to the Massachusetts Avenue/Woburn Street Intersection on Sunday through Thursday evenings after 7:00 p.m. DOCUMENTS: Public Hearing Notice; Request from Contractor; Objection Letter #1. 2. Review and Approve Old Reservoir Bathhouse Renovations Bids for renovations to the Old Reservoir Bathhouse came in higher than expected. Therefore, the Department of Public Facilities and the Recreation Department have collaboratively developed an 4 alternative solution. Town Counsel has confirmed that this alternative is within the intent of the original appropriation and it is therefore believed this is within the scope of what Town Meeting authorized. Mike Cronin, Director of Public Facilities; and Melissa Battite, Director of Recreation and Community Program provided an update, including the reasons a pre-fab building is recommended. Ms. Battite said she and Mr. Cronin first met with the lowest bidder to try to understand why the costs were higher than anticipated. Additionally, staff reached out to other communities doing similar projects. Other towns have recently warmed to the idea of using pre-fabricated structures. A prefab concept would serve programmatic needs but no specifics as to type, model, fixtures, layout etc. have been selected. Town Counsel and the Finance department have confirmed that the proposal can legally and financially be accomplished. Mr. Cronin and Ms. Battite have also discussed the concept with Mr. Malloy, the Conservation department, and the Community Preservation Committee. Ms. Hai reported that a public comment has been received, asking to be sure the bathhouse design ultimately chosen is accessible and ADA compliant. Mr. Lucente said he approves highly of moving forward with the concept because, in his experience, the quality of these prefabs is high and the proposal solves a problem with financial ingenuity. Mr. Pato asked that the Commission on Disabilities be included in upcoming discussions. Ms. Hai asked if the project would need to be re-bid. Mr. Cronin said it would require re-bidding because it is not the same project as before, and the bid itself would be very different. A separate process means the project will not be completed this fall, as previously scheduled, but the building would be ready by the next summer season. The RFP would go out early in 2022. However, Mr. Cronin said he cannot eliminate the possibility of a Covid-related supply chain delay. Mr. Sandeen is glad to learn the proposed new bathhouse site makes the facility more accessible than the current building. Suzanne Lau, Precinct 9 Town Meeting Member, agreed the shower rooms are non-gendered in the provisional design chosen but the bathrooms in the design are labeled “Men” and “Women”. She pointed to a preferable design from the same company that combines shower and bathroom facilities that are not gender labeled and also suitable for families. She asked when design decisions such as these would be made and by whom. Valerie Overton, 25 Emerson Gardens, asked if some if some or all of the bathhouse facilities would be all-gendered. Ms. Hai noted that although details are not finalized, the current plan has 4 non-gendered individual shower rooms. David Kanter, Vice Chair of the Capital Expenditures Committee, reported that CEC was not aware of all the details of the project that have been shared this evening. He asked that an updated packet of information be forwarded to the CEC for review and discussion. Ms. Battite said all style decisions, such as non-gendered/all-gendered facilities, are still pending and can be tailored to Lexington’s preference. Her plan is to have the Recreation Committee make the final approval on the project but if additional reviews are desired, those can take place. Mr. Cronin said that the Permanent Building Committee would discuss the project and the public could bring their questions and concerns to that meeting. 5 Bridger McGaw, Precinct 6 Town Meeting Member, asked if a second RFP could be issued for a similar Pre-fabricated structure for the bathrooms at the high school track. Ms. Hai noted there has, as yet, been no appropriation for the track bathroom building so the timelines for the two projects are not synchronous. Mr. McGaw said, given the discovery that a less-expensive, pre-fabricated building solution appears to be appropriate, the track facility, when considered, might be a less expensive alternative. ACTION: Further meetings with a variety of stakeholder to determine/narrow down specifications will be scheduled. DOCUMENTS: Memo; Building Specifications 3. Update on MIT Lincoln Lab Expansion Project (Postponed to a future agenda) 4. Review and Approve Sunwealth Power Letter Regarding Virtual Event for Community Solar Stella Carr, Sustainability Director, submitted a request to the Select Board to approve sending out a letter to eligible low-income residents regarding a meeting to be scheduled that describes a possible payment for those eligible from community solar installations. The letter has been vetted by Sustainable Lexington and Town Counsel. It would be mailed to approximately 300 individuals who would most likely benefit from this opportunity. VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 5-0 to approve the mailing of this letter to income-eligible individuals in the community. DOCUMENTS: Community Solar Event Letter 5. Update on Stormwater Enterprise Fund John Livsey, Town Engineer; Emily Scerbo of Tighe & Bond; Jennifer Tavantzis and Christina Conchilla of Raftelis presented specifics of the stormwater management evaluation that was initiated several years ago, including a feasibility study now completed. Tonight, the group is looking for feedback regarding the potential rate structure to establishment a stormwater management Enterprise Fund. Mr. Livsey said the General Fund now covers two categories of stormwater management cost: 1) operation (labor & contractual services; MS4 compliance) and maintenance (catch bason and culvert cleaning; street sweeping); and 2) capital (culvert replacement; rehabilitation of storm drainage systems; stream management). Together, operation and maintenance cost $2.6M, each requiring about 50% of the total outlay. Over time, Mr. Livsey said these costs are expected to rise as compliance becomes stricter and more difficult due to the impacts of climate change. Capital needs are also expected to increase due to improvements to stormwater management systems. Mr. Livsey said stormwater management will be the most significant challenge he will face in his career as Town Engineer. He anticipates a requirement to remove large amounts of phosphorous from Lexington’s watershed area— which feeds the Charles River—and compliance will require building very large facilities at high costs. Current technology is not very successful in removing phosphorous from stormwater systems. Jennifer Tavantzis presented a proposed fee valuation that would send funds to a Stormwater Management Enterprise Fund. Big picture elements include: 1) developing the data that would underpin a 6 stormwater fee; 2) thinking about the key rate structure components and associated billing policies; and 3) looking at resultant units of service and rates, especially how preliminary rates impact sample properties differently. The most common basis for billing for stormwater Enterprise Funds and stormwater fees across the country is the amount of impervious surface area, which prevents water from infiltrating into the ground. Impervious surface increases the volume of runoff entering receiving bodies of water and also the amount of pollutants, like phosphorus. As an important data point, Town staff measured, by hand, impervious surfaces across all individual properties throughout Lexington. The recommended stormwater fee rate structure distinguishes between two different types of properties: single-family residential properties, and all others. Single-family properties are divided into three fee tiers, depending on the amount of impervious surface present. Targeting an FY2024 budget timeframe, the estimated fee for the lowest tier of single-family residences would be $98 (25% of residential properties); the middle tier would $163 per year (50% of residential properties); and the highest tier would be $278 (25% of residential properties). For all properties which are not single-family residential properties, the charge would be $163 per 3150 square feet of impervious area. The same rate structure applies to tax-exempt properties, such as churches and institutions. Using this formula, one of MIT/Lincoln Lab’s parcels (756 x 3150 sq. feet of impervious surface) would result in a yearly fee of about $123,000. Emily Scerbo reported that the Town working group tasked with the impervious surface evaluation has made some tentative policy decisions but many more decisions remain. One question the group asks the Board to consider is whether or not a fee should be levied for municipal properties since that would require a transfer to the Enterprise Fund from the General Fund. Another question is about a credit program that would allow users to reduce fees by reducing demands on the system. The credit program would require administrative oversight. Ms. Scerbo said there is momentum in Massachusetts for creating stormwater management utilities. The working group is keeping an eye on other municipalities that are moving in this direction. Ms. Scerbo said meetings would be scheduled to inform the public and to solicit feedback. Work also needs to be done to refine rates and procedures, including the credit program (if approved) plus an abatement mechanism. The group hopes to bring the matter before Annual Town Meeting 2022 and then to approve the addition of a line item for fee revenue in the 2024 budget via Annual Town Meeting 2023 approval. Ms. Barry asked if the rate would be set every year and if costs would go down if properties took advantage of the credit program. Mr. Livsey said that, like Water and Sewer rates, the stormwater rate would be calculated every year. Ms. Barry asked how non-residential property owners would be included in the public information and feedback sessions. Mr. Livsey said once the Board has confirmed going forward with the fee/Enterprise Fund, an outreach plan will be developed. Ms. Barry asked if non-Town government entities would also be exempt from the fee. Ms. Scerbo said these entities that would include Hanscom AFB would not be exempt under the current model. It was also noted that the Town of Westford has a well-developed stormwater fee program, created also by Ms. Scerbo and Ms. Tavantzis who are now working with Lexington. 7 Mr. Pato noted that stormwater management is now being paid via property taxes. He sees this separate fee structure as a way to more directly tie the cost to a fee. He asked the Board to consider reducing property taxes once the fee has been approved. Mr. Pato approved of the tiered system and the credit incentive, which could encourage property owners to install pervious as opposed to impervious surfaces. He agrees that exempting municipal properties makes sense given that charging fees to the Town would merely be an accounting exercise. With respect to those non-profits, such as those currently paying PILOTs, he would like to take more time to consider how it would work. Mr. Lucente said he is not a fan of added fees but he does agree with many of Mr. Pato’s points. Mr. Lucente fears that residents will see a stormwater management fee as another tax and he asked if the fee would have unintended consequences that burden residential land owners more than the commercial land owners. Mr. Malloy said that businesses, because they generally have more impervious surfaces than residences, would pay more fees per property adding that the fee enables the Town to meet regulatory requirements through a dedicated funding mechanism, while incentivizing property owners to lessen their impact on the environment. Mr. Sandeen said the fee concept is new to him and he will need more time to consider. Like Mr. Lucente, he worries that residents will see a fee as an additional tax but hopes it can be made clear it would constitute a trade-off rather than an increase. He asked if the fee would be expressed as a line item on the tax bill. Mr. Malloy said costs are now covered in ways that will become unsustainable once costs for stormwater management rise as expected. The Town’s ability to maintain municipal and school programs/services will be impacted. Removing stormwater management costs from the tax levy eases the constraints of Proposition 2 ½ and the new fee will mirror how water and sewer bills work now, outside the tax base. Mr. Sandeen said he is uncomfortable with an inflexible tier structure that, depending how close to the next tier a property is, may not provide the desired incentive to eliminate impervious surface. He also foresees push back from property owners on measurements and how they were calculated. Mr. Sandeen believes the municipality should not be exempt from the fee to encouraged a decrease in impervious surfaces. Ms. Hai said she is in favor of establishing an Enterprise Fund, given that costs for stormwater management are expected to increase and potentially cripple the budget. She agreed the property taxes should be lowered in the first year of the fund, when the costs of stormwater management are removed from the operating budget and transferred to this new funding mechanism. However the point of the Fund is that ongoing costs are expected to increase, so it will not be a long term reduction, but a first year “net out”. She would like to see a financial model that illustrates this shift. Ms. Hai asked if the Economic Development staff has been solicited for feedback about how this will affect commercial property owners. Ms. Hai also has concerns about the impact on non-profit entities and whether elements like town-owned sidewalks have been attributed to individual residential properties or to the Town. ACTION: Mr. Livsey will provide the Board with updates about public feedback and what other municipalities have done with their enterprise funds as this effort goes forward. A financial model demonstrating the property tax shift will be developed and presented to the Board. DOCUMENTS: Presentation The Board took a short break at 8:54 p.m. and resumed business at 9:00 p.m. 8 6. Approve Affordable Housing Trust Committee Charge VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 5-0 by roll call to approve the Affordable Housing Trust Study Committee Charge as presented. DOCUMENTS: Affordable Housing Trust Committee Charge; Lexington Housing Partnership Board Letter of Support. 7. Accept and Sign Conservation Restriction—181, 191, and 201 Spring Street A Conservation Restriction (CR) for 181, 191, 201 Spring Street was required as part of a special permit granted by the Board of Appeals in 1988 but it was never recorded. Conservation and Town Counsel have worked with the attorneys representing the property owner to have this taken care of and filed at the Registry. The Conservation Restriction requires the Select Board's approval. VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 5-0 by roll call to approve the attached Conservation Restriction from the Trustees of 191 Spring Street Trust to the Town of Lexington, acting by its Conservation Commission, in the public interest pursuant to Section 32 of Chapter 184 of the Massachusetts General Laws. DOCUMENTS: Conservation Restriction; Conservation Restriction Plan; Special Permit Decision; Memo Requesting CR Approval. 8. Approve and Sign Proclamation—Suicide Prevention Month The Lexington Human Services Department requests that the Select Board approve and sign a proclamation annually recognizing the month of September as Suicide Prevention Month. VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 5-0 to approve and sign a proclamation annually recognizing the month of September as Suicide Prevention Month in the Town of Lexington. DOCUMENTS: 2021 Suicide Prevention Month Proclamation. 9. Special Town Meeting 2021-1  Call for Special Town Meeting 2021  Approve Letter from Town Moderator for Inclusion in Special Town Meeting 2021- 1 Warrant  Review Draft Article list for Special Town Meeting 2021-1 The Select Board was asked to approve the call for a 2021 Special Town meeting (STM 2021-1) that would begin on Monday November 8, 2021. The dates currently set aside are November 8, 9,10 16,17,18, 2021. The Town Moderator has submitted the letter of request to hold the Special Town Meeting through remote participation. It was noted that Citizen Petitions are due by 1:00 pm on Friday, September 24, 2021to the Select Board office. Official article petitions can be obtained from the Town Clerk's office during regular business hours (100 signatures are needed for Special Town Meeting). 9 Per the attached memo dated August 26, 2021, the Planning Office requests that the Select Board refer the zoning articles listed to the Planning Board so public hearings can be held per Massachusetts General Law (MGL) Chapter 40A, Section 5. Other Pertinent Dates: Draft Warrant to be reviewed by Select Board on September 27, 2021 Final Warrant to be approved and signed by Select Board: October 12, 2021 Ms. Axtell reported that the Noise Committee is expected to move forward with an article to reduce noise from landscaping maintenance machinery. Ms. Barry asked if the Noise Committee would be presenting to the Select Board prior to publication of the warrant. Ms. Axtell said that, due to the tight time frame, articles for Special Town Meeting are not slated for Board review as they traditionally are for Annual Town Meeting. Additionally, in this case, the article was “Indefinitely Postponed” (IP’d) from Annual Town Meeting 2021. Newer articles are more closely vetted in order to be included on the STM warrant. Ms. Barry expressed concern about the number of items on the STM 2021-1 draft warrant and asked for a conversation to take place re: whether fall Town Meetings should continue to be called “special”, given that, increasingly, regular and non-time sensitive business is being addressed at these meetings. Mr. Pato noted that “annual” and “special” are terms of art used in Massachusetts General Law to set aside Annual Town Meeting for a March-June timeframe and Special Town Meetings for other times of the year and for specific purposes within Annual Town Meeting. Ms. Barry also asked if the Westview Cemetery building might be eligible for ARPA Covid-relief funding. Ms. Axtell described all the draft articles and what their statuses are. As many articles as possible will be considered for the Consent Agenda. Ms. Hai asked Board members for feedback about whether or not to include the appropriation of funds for the temporary Police Station swing space on the STM warrant. Mr. Malloy recommended addressing it now rather than at Annual Town Meeting 2022 due to bidding and construction cycle timing. Mr. Malloy further clarified that the article seeks both additional design funding for the new Police Station and Temporary Police Station renovation funding Ms. Barry expressed concern over going ahead with the temporary space renovation funding and actual renovations separate from and prior to the request for the new police station construction funding. Ms. Barry reminded the Board that for the new Fire Station, both requests appeared at the same Special Town Meeting so as to not pre suppose the vote of Town Meeting or the eventual debt exclusion vote of the Town. Mr. Pato indicated he would need time to think about it. Mr. Lucente, Ms. Hai and Mr. Sandeen generally supported the article as presented by Mr. Malloy. David Kanter, Capital Expenditures Committee Vice Chair, reported that the CEC had voted unanimously in support of the original temporary swing space project, meaning that the scope should be confined to the Police Department’s temporary needs, and should not include the building’s projected future uses. Dawn McKenna, Precinct 6 Town Meeting Member, said that only the Select Board can determine what is on a town meeting warrant. She urged the Select Board to identify for staff what the limits of Special Town Meeting inclusion are. She disagreed with certain articles being suggested that would require taking up budget-related questions outside the regular budget cycle. 10 VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 5-0 by roll call to: Call for Special Town Meeting 2021-1 to begin on Monday, November 8, 2021 at 7:30 p.m. Further, to approve the request of the Moderator that Special Town Meeting 2021-1, scheduled to commence Monday, November 8, 2021 at 7:30 p.m., be held through remote participation using a combination of: (1) the Zoom videoconferencing platform, (2) the online Vvoter module provided by our electronic voting vendor, Option Technologies OR comparable online voting tool developed by Select Board Member Joe Pato, and (3) an online queuing function developed by Select Board Member Joe Pato to facilitate the process of debate. Further, to open the Special Town Meeting 2021-1 Warrant for citizen petitions through Friday, September 24, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. Further, to refer the zoning articles to the Planning Board, identified in the August 26, 2021 Planning Office memo, for the Special Town Meeting 2021-1. ACTION: Ms. Axtell will bring the draft warrant before the Board at the September 27, 2021 meeting and the final warrant will be approved at the October 12, 2021 Select Board meeting. Ms. Axtell will edit the text of the temporary swing space warrant article to clarify that the appropriation is for renovation at the sing space and additional architectural work on the new police station. Ms. Axtell will schedule presentations to the Board for a number of warrant articles. Ms. Severance will send corrected meeting calendar dates to Board members. DOCUMENTS: August 26, 2021 Planning Department Memo to Select Board; Moderator Request Remote 2021; Special Town Meeting 2021-1 Potential Warrant Articles (draft) 10. Review Tourism Committee Request for Alternative Benches—Battle Green Master Plan Dawn McKenna, Chair of the Tourism Committee, noted that although the Commission on Disabilities was consulted on much of the Battle Green Master Plan, the benches in question were not specifically reviewed by the Commission. She noted that the Commission had expressed a preference for benches with backs and those have been included on the Massachusetts Avenue side of the Battle Green. Also, the Historic Districts Commission has asked for the benches to be 8 feet long rather than 6 feet. Ms. McKenna said that, if the bidding process results leave room for the additional expense, as many eight- foot benches will be installed as possible. Mr. Pato said he is concerned that the Commission on Disabilities was not included in the final bench design decisions, especially given that Town Meeting has determined that disability concerns will be included in all Town decisions. ACTION: The proposal will be vetted by the Commission on Disabilities which will generate a letter of approval once matters have been resolved. This item will re-appear at a subsequent Select Board meeting. DOCUMENTS: Document Presented at 2021.09.09 HDC Meeting—Battle Green Master Plan Bench Request; 2021.09.10 DRAFT HDC Certificate of Appropriateness—Battle Green District Bench Request 11. Review and Approve Select Board Goal Setting Contract Jim Malloy, Town Manager, provided answers to Select Board questions posed at previous meetings regarding the contract for Goal Setting. The Board discussed whether to hold the goal-setting meeting in- person or virtually. There was no unanimity about whether to meet inside or outside, virtually or in- 11 person, although Battin Hall and an outdoor tent at the Community Center were put forward as possible in-person locations. VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board vote 4-1 (Mr. Sandeen voted no) by roll call to approve the contract between the Town of Lexington and Julia Novak, Raftelis, for Goal setting facilitation with $12,575 coming from the Select Board/Shire/Takeda Gift Account and the remainder being split between the Select Board and Town Manager Expense Accounts. Mr. Sandeen provided the dissenting vote. ACTION: Mr. Malloy will provide ventilation testing results from a prior survey done of Battin Hall. DOCUMENTS: Proposal to use Julia Novak, Raftelis, Facilitator for Select Board Goal setting session 12. Hosmer House Request for Proposal Approval This draft version incorporates comments received from the Select Board from the last public discussion. Ms. Hai clarified that the RFP does not pre-determine any judgement regarding any submission which may be offered. All submissions must meet the requirements of the RFP to be considered. Mr. Pato referred to an email received by the Select Board from Jon Himmel who noted that while drawings were requested in the RFP, they were not integrated into the evaluation criteria. Mr. Malloy said that if drawings are included in the evaluation criteria, the process would become highly subjective. Mr. Malloy noted that the Historic Commission and the Historic Districts Commission will have final say via the Certificate of Appropriateness. Reprising his comments submitted by letter to the Board, Tim Jacoby, 78 East Street, asked that text in the RFP be stricken which bars any previous RFP applications from re-consideration. He asked that experts on historic structures be included in each step of the process. In addition to his emailed comments, Jon Himmel, Precinct 6 Town Meeting Member, noted some counterintuitive aspects of the RFP and said it would be fairer to the applicants if they knew the Town was endorsing pre-schematic level designs. Dawn McKenna, 9 Hancock Street, said she is aware of two potential lots that appear to be appropriate for the Hosmer House and easy to access. She asked the Board to consider enlisting the services of the House Whisperer to find the best re-location site. Ms. McKenna believes it is important to assert the Town’s preferences for what the Hosmer House becomes and what it winds up looking like. She disagrees with removing past applications from reconsideration. She called on the Board to work with historic structure experts prior to release of the RFP. The Board unanimously supported moving forward with the draft. Mr. Lucente asked if the process of reviewing the RFP submissions might benefit by having a potentially a wider group of stakeholders. Mr. Malloy and Ms. Hai pointed out that the current configuration of stakeholders authored the original RFP(which is essentially the same as the one now being approved) as well as the historic restriction included therein and reviewed the members of the working group. VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 5-0 by roll call to approve the Request for Proposal, as presented, for the Hosmer House and authorize the Town Manager to advertise for bids. 12 DOCUMENTS: Draft Hosmer House Request for Proposal ADOURN Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 5-0 by roll call to adjourn the meeting at 10:32 p.m. A true record; Attest: Kim Siebert, Recording Secretary 13