HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-10-12 SB-min
Select Board Meeting
October 12, 2021
A remote participation meeting of the Lexington Select Board was called to order at 6:30 p.m. on
Tuesday, October 12, 2021 via Zoom remote meeting services. Select Board Chair Ms. Hai; Vice Chair
Mr. Lucente; and members Mr. Pato; and Mr. Sandeen were present, as well as Mr. Malloy, Town
Manager; Ms. Axtell, Assistant Town Manager; and Ms. Katzenback, Executive Clerk. \[Note: Select
Board member Suzy Barry joined the meeting in progress, at 9:13 p.m.\]
VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 4-0 by roll call to adjourn the
Open Session of the meeting at 6:30 p.m. to enter into Executive Session under Exemption 3 to discuss
strategy with respect to collective bargaining related to the public safety dispatchers’ unit and building
maintenance union. Further, it was declared that an open meeting discussion may have a detrimental
effect on the bargaining position of the town.
Following the close of Executive Session, the Select Board reconvened in Open Session at 7:10 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.
SELECT BOARD MEMBER CONCERNS AND LIAISIN REPORTS
In addition to her previously submitted concerns and reports, Ms. Hai announced that the draft of the
State’s redistricting maps was released today. The proposal would take Lexington’s Precinct 6 from the
Middlesex 15 district and append it to Middlesex 21, which encompasses all of Bedford and part of
Burlington, represented currently by Ken Gordon. A public hearing will be held on Friday, October 15,
2021 and a vote on Monday, October 18, 2021 in what Ms. Hai termed a “short process”. Ms. Hai and
Mr. Malloy will attend this meeting on behalf of the Select Board and the Town to express displeasure
with the plan, stating that the Lexington should be kept together in Middlesex 15 and that the purpose
behind redistricting— to ensure minority representation— is already being accomplished as evidenced by
the diversity of people being elected to committees, boards, and Town Meeting.
Mr. Lucente said he would like to have a more in-depth conversation about this than it is possible to,
given that this item does not appear on tonight’s agenda plus the timeframe for response to the State is
very short. He is frustrated that the State has not given more opportunity for community feedback. He
cautioned the Board, however, not to jump to the conclusion that this redistricting would not be beneficial
in the way the State intends.
Mr. Pato said he agreed with Mr. Lucente and he is reluctant to make a counter argument to the State at
this stage. Having looked into Lexington’s precinct demographics, he believes removing Precinct 6 would
not dilute minority representation.
Ms. Hai clarified that her concern was that the people in Precinct 6 would have a much smaller base of
community if they alone in Lexington were attached to a collection of precincts outside of town. She felt
Precinct 6 would miss a larger base of support if any of these Town Meeting members decided to run for
higher office in the future. Mr. Sandeen said he concurred with Ms. Hai’s concerns.
1
ACTION ITEMS: Ms. Hai urged those who wish to comment on this issue to do so to the appropriate
State-level entities. She and Mr. Malloy will continue to gather information.
Aside from his previously submitted concerns/liaison reports, Mr. Lucente noted that the Town
Celebrations Committee will be asking Select Board members to confirm their intent to participate in the
Veterans Day Car Parade.
DOCUMENT: Select Board member concerns and liaison reports—October 12, 2021
TOWN MANAGER REPORT
Mr. Malloy welcomed new Town Clerk Mary de Alderete who started today. Ms. Alderete was sworn in
around noon by Deborah Brown, Town Moderator.
The Lexington Council on Arts intends to start painting some of the utility boxes around town this week
while the fine weather holds. Ms. Hai said that if any of the designated utility boxes were in front of
private homes, residents should be notified before painting occurs.
Mr. Malloy has sent Select Board Members an update re: the status of the Select Board goals. He asked
that comments be returned to him this week so that he can provide Select Board retreat facilitator Julia
Novak with up-to-date information.
The Lexington Police Department has been re-accredited. No action items were recommended by the
accreditation team.
ACTION ITEMS: Mr. Malloy to relay the message to the Council on Arts re: utility box notifications to
homeowners, if/where applicable.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Select Board Committee Appointment and Reappointment
To appoint Wendy Krum to the Permanent Building Committee as the Select Board's representative for
the Police Station Building Project.
To reappoint Prashant Singh to the Town Report Committee for a one-year term ending on September 30,
2022.
DOCUMENTS: Permanent Building Committee Membership—Town General Bylaws; 2021
Permanent Building Committee Application—W. Krum; 2021 Town Report Committee
Application—P. Singh
2. Approve Select Board Meeting Minutes
To approve and release the Select Board meeting minutes of September 13, 2021.
DOCUMENTS: DRAFT Select Board meeting minutes 09.13.21
3. Approve Use of Corexcel Everything DiSC 363 for Leaders Profile Assessment Tool for Town
Manager 360 Review Process
To approve the use of Corexel Everything DiSC 363 for Leaders Profile Assessment Tool for the Town
Manager 360 Review Process.
2
DOCUMENTS: Product Overview—360 Feedback Assessment Corexcel Everything DiSC 363 for
Leaders
4. Battle Green Use Request—Lexington Minute Men 2021 Autumn Drill
To approve the request from Lexington Minute Men to use the Battle Green on Saturday, November 6,
2021 from 9:00am to 11:00am for the purpose of their autumn drill.
VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 4-0 to approve the Consent
Agenda
ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION
1. Public Hearing and Discussion—FY2022 Water & Sewer Rates
Ms. Hai opened the Public Hearing at 7:22 p.m.
Ms. Kosnoff, Assistant Town Manager for Finance, presented information in the first of two discussions
regarding FY2022 Water and Wastewater rates. The vote on this item will take place at a future meeting.
Highlights of the presentation included:
Total FY2021 Water Revenue came in $2.2M over projections, primarily due to surpluses in the
Irrigation category. The Water Enterprise Fund now carries an overall surplus of $2.3M. The
Retained Earnings balance went from $1.7M to $3.5M.
Sewer Revenue also outpaced expectations by $398,000 plus turn backs on the Expense side
equaled $563,000. Retained Earnings for Sewer/Wastewater Enterprise Fund are projected to be
$1.8M at the end of FY2021. Ms. Kosnoff noted that Retained Earnings balances have
historically be used for one-time Capital expenses. It is possible to use surpluses to offset rates
but this has not been Lexington’s past practice, however.
Ms. Kosnoff noted that the water and sewer rates are based on projected usage, which is reflected
in the amount budgeted. At Special Town Meeting there will be a request to decrease 2 line items
in the budget: 1) the MWRA Assessment and 2) Compensation.
The Water Enterprise budget is going up 7.7%, based largely on the MWRA Assessment, a
charge that the Town cannot negotiate. Ms. Kosnoff noted that Lexington’s rate is based on its
share of system costs plus its past year usage. She projected that next year’s MWRA Assessment
will go down 4.28%.
Cash Capital is being used, whenever possible, to avoid borrowing costs for Water and Sewer
maintenance/improvements. The FY2022 includes an additional $200,000 to be used for this
purpose.
For FY2021, the tiered rate Water usage came in significantly higher than estimated. As there is
not usually a great deal of fluctuation in these rates, Ms. Kosnoff believes the upticks on the
residential side are due to Covid-related changes in behavior, such as more residents working at
home instead of at an office. These behavior changes also affected commercial usage, which was
significantly lower, except for irrigation usage. The same pattern was noted on the Wastewater
patterns of usage.
Future usage patterns are particularly hard to predict, given weather and Covid-19 disruptions to
historical trends. Ms. Kosnoff said that budget projections have been made very conservatively,
with the exception of Irrigation projections which are higher.
3
On the Wastewater side, the budget as proposed will increase 4.1%, also largely due to an
MWRA Assessment increase of 3.2%.
Overall, the Water rates are proposed to go up 8% and the Wastewater rates are proposed to go up
5%. The combined rate is 6.1% over FY2021. For the lowest tier user, this would translate to an
increase of about $39/yr; the second tier would see an increase of $54.60/yr.
The wholesale/Municipal/Town of Bedford cost for Water is going up 1.9%. The wholesale
Sewer rate will stay flat.
Lexington’s FY2021 combined Water and Sewer rates are in the middle of the pack, compared to
the other member towns.
Mr. Lucente said that persistent rate increases are putting Lexington on an unsustainable path. He asked if
the Town should be contemplating a strategy change. Ms. Kosnoff agreed that the rate increases have
been unfortunate and they are also difficult to predict. Lexington’s MWRA assessment is based not only
on Lexington’s usage but also on the usage of the other member towns. She believes the installment of
automatic-read radio meters will help provide real-time data collection and allow for quarterly billing, as
well as take the guesswork out of consumption predictions. After all the automatic meters have been
installed, Ms. Kosnoff believes a full analysis of the system and a re-evaluation of the tiered rate system,
including commercial consumption, will be warranted.
Ms. Hai asked if using some of the Retained Earnings to shave off rate increases would be a way to
mitigate user costs. Ms. Kosnoff said this is possible to do at Special Town Meeting and would be
tantamount to pausing the transfer of surplus to Cash Capital for a year ($2M for Water and $1M for
Sewer). Mr. Malloy cautioned that the purpose transferring these funds is to avoid borrowing for what are
ongoing/maintenance expenses. Over time, the costs would become part of the yearly budget instead of
being borrowed for, and thus incurring debt and interest payments.
Mr. Sandeen asked if there is a breakdown of residential versus commercial usage so that programs to
reduce usage can be tailored to each category of consumer. Ms. Kosnoff said that accounts are currently
not flagged as residential or commercial but the radio meters should improve the Town’s ability to
distinguish one category of user from the other.
Mr. Kanter, Vice Chair of the Capital Expenditures Committee, asked if it would make sense to install a
sewer meter for the six or so customers that do not have a water meter because they use their own well
water. Dave Pinsonneault, DPW Director, said he has looked into doing that but the technology is not
available. The Department is keeping an eye on advances in the field.
Ms. Hai closed the Public Hearing at 7:52 p.m.
ACTION ITEMS: The Water and Sewer rates will be voted at an upcoming meeting.
DOCUMENTS: FY2022 Water and Sewer Proposed Rate Memo; FY2022 Water and Sewer Rate
Presentation; Legal Ad published on 9/30/21
2. Update of Police Station Building Project Design
Mr. Cronin, Director of Facilities stated that multiple Town committees, as well as members of the
public, have provided input and critiques about the Police Headquarters design. Architect Jeff McElravy
of Tecton Architects shared two schematic designs plus an overview of the community conversations
about the design and policing.
4
Design Option A is a slight modification of the original design that was approved by the Select Board but
sidelined because of the pandemic. Design Option B incorporates more of the committee and community
input but it also adds square footage which will increase the overall cost of the project. Some of the
changes/additions shown in Option B included non-gendered restrooms and locker rooms; flexible floor
plans versus fixed program space; mental health service offices sharing police department space;
inclusivity and accessibility concerns; providing a welcoming, inviting atmosphere; providing community
gathering spaces; providing transparency between spaces but also providing soundproofing for
confidential/sensitive conversations/interviews.
Mr. Lucente said he appreciated the attention paid to the community feedback in the design of Option B.
One element of that plan he is less supportive of is the multi-purpose room which he said seems overly
generous given the number of other meeting rooms and conference spaces.
Mr. Pato also prefers Option B for its future growth potential but he noted that Option A also addresses
much of the community needs. For him, a big question is how much more Option B would cost than
Option A and if the differential manageable.
Ms. Hai expressed similar reactions, noting that the project was downsized at one point due to cost and
then put on hold. Now some of what was engineered out has been returned to the design. Before a final
choice is made, cost must be assessed.
Mr. Sandeen asked if the locker rooms could eventually be adjusted to be the same size if staff ratios
shift. If not, he would prefer Option A in which the ability to adjust the locker rooms has been made
evident. Cost is also important to him. Mr. McElravy said he is confident that additional flexibility can be
built into the design of Option B’s locker rooms.
Interim Police Chief Michael McLean stated that the reason the multipurpose meeting room was added to
Option B is that the future of policing is unknown and the space allows flexibility for change. Without a
doubt, he projected the need for additional training and simulations in the future plus the high likelihood
that social services will become more embedded within the department.
Mr. Cronin said the original plan—nearest in square footage to Option A—carried a working total of
$25M before Covid. Since that time, raw materials, changes in labor, and competing regional projects
have altered the construction landscape. Right now, Mr. McElravy estimated costs for Option A to be
$30M and $32.8M for Option B but he emphasized that he is unsure which way the market will swing
given all the unknowns. The modest modification costs for to the temporary swing space are not included
in this cost estimate but there is $250,000 included for the relocation of the Hosmer House.
Select Board members unanimously expressed their preference for Option B, reasoning that the cost
differential was low enough in exchange for the added benefits, at least as calculated at this early stage of
design. Mr. Sandeen cited the Permanent Building Committee’s philosophy about the project, saying the
cost would never be lower and waiting only adds to the price tag. Mr. Malloy stated that, for the average
household, the additional cost of Option B, given the 20-year loan timeframe, would add an additional
$36 a year in taxes. Over Option A Ms. Hai noted that authorization for this project will require a debt
exclusion vote and the timing will need to be discussed.
Mr. Himmel, 66 Hancock Street, said he believes it is important to move quickly to nail down the
specifics of this project.
Ms. Overton, 25 Emerson Gardens, offered her assistance to further the conversation about the gendering
of the locker rooms. She was please that Option B is going forward.
5
Mr. McGaw, Precinct 6 Town Meeting member, applauded the decision to move forward with the more
flexible Option B but added that flexibility can be achieved without using walls to delineate spaces. He
would like to see a comprehensive overview of what taxes would be if the Police HQ debt is added to the
other added costs from Community Preservation, Water Stabilization, and the projected high school debt.
Mr. Shiple, Precinct 9 Town Meeting Member, asked how many bicycle-mounted patron officers can be
accommodated in Option B. Mr. McElravy said there is a good amount of space on the garage for
bicycles but he will have to look again at exactly what the count is. Interim Chief McLean added that all
new officers are now being trained in Police Academy for bicycle patrol but the count would never be so
high that space would become an issue.
ACTION ITMES: The plans will be further refined prior to Special Town Meeting requests for design
and swing space allocations.
DOCUMENTS: Tecton Architects Police station presentation
The Select Board took a five- minute break at 9:07 p.m. and resumed the meeting at 9:11 p.m.
Ms. Barry entered the meeting at 9:13 p.m.
3. Grant of Location for Eversource—Reed Street
Ms. Hai opened the Public Hearing at 9:15 p.m., seeing no hands raised to speak, Ms. Hai closed the
Public Hearing at 9:15 p.m.
VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 5-0 to approve a Grant of Location
to NSTAR Electric Company d/b/a Eversource Energy to construct a line of conduits and manholes with
the necessary wires and cables to be located under the following public ways in the Town of Lexington as
follows: Reed Street – Northeasterly from pole 82/5A, approximately 208 feet east of Vaille
Avenue, install approximately 45 feet – conduit as shown on the plan made by T. Thibault revised
date September 1, 2021 for the purpose to provide underground electric service to 186 Bedford
Street.
DOCUMENTS: Eversource Grant of Location Petition—Reed Street
4. Grant of Location for Verizon and Eversouce—Installation of New and Relocation of Existing
Poles on Massachusetts Avenue and Worthen Road
Ms. Hai opened the Public Hearing at 9:16 p.m.
Mr. Sandeen noted that although the submitted plan seems to make approval of this pole relocation
advisable, a recent visit to the site revels that the intended relocation would potentially harm/kill an
existing large tree’s root structure. Mr. Sandeen said he could not support the request if the tree would be
harmed. He further recommended that future requests of this nature include the location of existing trees.
Dave Pinsonneault, DPW Director, said his understanding is that the pole placement has been thoroughly
vetted; there are no other trees in the area that would be affected. He will look at the site closely to
ascertain the best pole re-location. Mr. Pinsonneault stated that, if at all possible, nothing would be done
to damage the tree.
Ms. Hai suggested rewording the motion so any relocation would not adversely affect the tree. Mr.
Sandeen was agreeable to this revision.
6
Ms. Hai closed the Public Hearing at 9:22 p.m.
VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 5-0 by roll call to approve a
Grant of Location to Verizon new England, Inc and NSTAR Electric Company d/b/a Eversource
Energy for a Grant of Location to locate poles, wires, cables and fixtures including the necessary anchors,
guys and other such sustaining and protecting fixtures to be owned and used in common by the
petitioners, along and across the following public way or ways:
Massachusetts Avenue:
Place one (1) JO pole, P.17-2 on the northerly side of Massachusetts Avenue at a point approximately
73’ southeasterly from relocated pole, P.17-1. Said pole being located on Worthen Road.
Relocate two (2) JO poles, P.153 and P.154 on the southerly side of Massachusetts Avenue at a point
approximately 4’ and 7’ southeasterly from existing pole locations such placements not to adversely
affect any existing trees.
Relocate one (1) JO pole, P.17A from the northerly side of Massachusetts Avenue at the intersection
of Worthen Road to a point approximately 92’ in a southeasterly direction to the easterly corner of
Massachusetts Avenue.
Worthen Road:
Relocate one pole, P.17-1, from the easterly side of Worthen Road to a point approximately 4’
easterly from existing pole location.
in accordance with the plan marked-VZ N.E. Inc. Plan No. 1A3W2TM Dated August 27, 2021.
ACTION ITEMS: Mr. Pinsonneault to examine the proposed pole relocation.
DOCUMENTS: Petition Map/Abutters list; Order
5. Vote Update of Town Reprecincting Map
Ms. Sperber, Assistant Town Clerk, presented a reprecincting plan based on the 2020 Census. This
process is required by law to fairly represent increases/decreases in population. Ms. Sperber stated that
the 2020 census cites Lexington’s population as 34,454 residents. The plan preserves nine voting
precincts while making adjustments to evenly distribute the population and bears the least impact while
meeting both deviation restrictions and maintaining allowable configurations.
Asking for Select Board approval, Ms. Sperber stated that once this approval is received, the plan must be
submitted to the Local Election Districts Review Commission (LEDRC) by October 30, 2021. Once
approved by the LEDRC, precinct boundaries will become effective on December 31, 2021. Notifications
of the change will be made to the media and effected households. Two Town Meeting Members will be
affected by this redistricting and both have been notified.
Mr. Sandeen said he will forward the name of a third Town Meeting Member who may also be affected
by this plan.
Mr. Kanter, 48 Fifer Lane, asked what the affected Town Meeting Members have to do, now that their
precinct number has changed. Ms. Sperber said the members will have to run again for a seat in their new
precinct.
7
VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 5-0 to approve and accept the
2020 Reprecincting Plan for the Town of Lexington, including the map, legal description, and block
listings as presented by the Acting Town Clerk.
ACTION ITEMS: Select Board members will sign the necessary document; the Town Clerk’s office will
then file that document with the LEDRC.
DOCUMENTS: Memo to Select Board outlining process and request for review/approval at the Oct 12
meeting; Map as provided by State showing new precincts; Block List; Legal boundary description; Form
for Board approval signatures; Ma with current precinct lines overlay on mew precinct (comparison only)
6. Community Feedback on Police Station Project and Policing in Lexington Part 2: Feedback on
Policing
Ms. Barry recused herself from this item as her husband is employed by the Police Department.
Mr. Pato and Mr. Lucente provided highlights of the community conversation on Policing and Public
Safety that they facilitated following the killing of George Floyd in May of 2020. The report presented
tonight is Part 2 of two; Part 1 covered feedback pertaining specifically to the Police HQ building.
Highlights of Part 2 included:
In general, community members were generally supportive of the Lexington Police Department
and of proceeding with the new HQ construction.
While preserving respondent confidentiality, Mr. Pato reported that comments included both
positive and negative descriptions of encounters with Police. In some cases, action has already
been taken to address concerns.
Collected feedback has been organized alphabetically into 10 categories: bias; effectiveness;
engagement; governance; miscellaneous (an assortment of comments that did not fit cleanly into
the other categories); politics; process; possible improvements; staffing; training.
Ms. Hai and Mr. Sandeen believe there is a lot to be learned from this report and that the responses can be
used to inform future decisions regarding policing in Lexington.
Mr. Shiple, Precinct 9 Town Meeting Member suggested providing copies of this report to candidates for
the job of Police Chief so that their perceptions can be noted in the hiring process.
Mr. Malloy reported that he and Interim Chief McLean went through the report and submitted a response
document which has been posted online. He asked the Board to review that document prior to approving
the report at a future meeting. He emphasized that the Town is using the report as a framework. Response
to the community comments will be ongoing. Interim Chief McLean added that he looks forward to
working with the Chief Equity Officer on these measures going forward.
ACTION ITEMS: The completed, compiled report will be approved at a future Select Board meeting and
held on file for future reference.
DOCUMENTS: Policing Feedback Report (Part 2); Policing Feedback Report Response from Staff
Ms. Barry returned to the meeting.
7. Special Town Meeting 2021-1:
Approve Special Town Meeting 2021 Warrant
8
VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 5-0 to approve and sign the
Special Town Meeting Warrant 2021-1 and authorize staff to make non-substantive edits as necessary or
as recommended by Town Counsel or Bond Counsel.
Presentation—STM-1 Article: Appropriate for Community Preservation Projects
Ms. Fenollosa, Chair of the Community Preservation Committee, presented details of three time-sensitive
projects coming before Special Town Meeting, noting that Community Preservation projects generally
come before Annual Town Meeting only. These projects are: 1) supplemental funding for the Sutherland
Playground; 2) Parker Meadow Accessible Trails Construction; 3) Old Rez Bathhouse Reconstruction (a
revised plan).
Mr. Lucente asked that there be more contextual information about the playground project which is
focused on children 5-12 instead of the younger children usually served by playground infrastructure.
Mr. Sandeen recommended that additional context also be provided for the Old Reservoir Bathhouse.
Ms. Axtell said that type of information will be included on the Special Town Meeting webpage.
Presentation—STM-1 Article: Appropriate for Westview Cemetery Building Construction
Mr. Pinsonneault stated that all of the five bidders for this project came in over the $3,290,000
appropriated by Annual Town Meeting 2020. As with the Police Station estimates, the estimate for the
Westview Cemetery building construction has increased due to postponement, materials costs, labor
shortages, and regional competition for contractors. The project has been value engineered to refine as
much as possible but Mr. Pinsonneault reported it is believed another $770,000 will be needed. The hope
is that if Special Town Meeting approves this appropriation, the bid will go out in early 2022 and the
project will commence after a bidder has been chosen.
Ms. Barry asked if the cost estimate would change if the building is not made “crematory ready” to allow
for that addition at a later date. Mr. Pinsonneault and Mr. Cronin concurred there would be some cost
savings if the crematory-related additional square footage, plumbing, and HVAC systems were taken out
of the design but Mr. Cronin stated that a re-design would cause additional delays and related costs
increases and another bidding cycle would be lost.
Ms. Sandeen asked if the list of alternate elements will be part of the Special Town Meeting presentation
for Westview. Mr. Pinsonneault said they would be included. Mr. Cronin said that demolition of the
existing building, once an alternative, is now part of the base price.
Mr. Kanter, Vice Chair of the Capital Expenditures Committee, reported that CEC believes the project
should be built as proposed. not reduced or altered at this stage.
Presentation –STM-1 Article: Appropriation for Police Station Architectural Design and
Swing Space Construction
Mr. Cronin, Facilities Director, said that minor alterations are required to turn the temporary Fire swing
space into a temporary Police HQ swing space. The current estimate is $615,000, including vital
equipment replacement which has aged out of useful life during project delays.
With addition of $254,000 for Historic District-sensitive solar paneling infrastructure, plus other costs for
the main HQ building, Mr. Cronon said the full request for this warrant article will be $870,000.
9
Ms. Barry asked if it has been decided that solar paneling will go on the roof of the new HQ and if the site
is big enough for solar paneling to go elsewhere. Mr. Cronon said the only thing that has been determined
if that the building is designed to be as close to Net Zero as possible. The site is believed to be big enough
to locate paneling somewhere other than the roof.
Ms. Barry asked if solar panels would be depicted in the architectural renderings that go out to the
community prior to appropriating funds for building construction, even though panel installation would
occur as a separate project after the fact. Ms. Barry said that, given the high-profile location of the Polce
Station, the Board should discuss how to be clear with the community about what is— and what is no—t
included in the project. The other Select Board members concurred.
Mr. Kanter, Vice Chair of the Capital Expenditures Committee, commented that some of the additional
elements included in the HQ plans seem to go beyond the scope of the original project.
Ms. McKenna, Precinct 6 Town Member, said this is the first she has become aware of the potential to put
a solar installation in Fletcher Park. She believes this is a sensitive issue, given the aesthetics plus the
controversy over the Hosmer House relocation, and she would like a more in-depth discussion to take
place.
Mr. Himmel, 66 Hancock Street, said that these types of discussions can only take place as projects move
forward.
Article Discussion, Positions, and Presenters
Due to the hour, this topic was tabled until the October 18, 2021 Select Board meeting.
DOCUMENTS: Special Town Meeting 2021-1 Warrant FINAL; STM-1 Article 5 Police Station Swing
Space and Architecture Fees; STM-1 Article 6 Presentation—Appropriate for Community Preservation
Projects; STM 2021-1 Old Res Presentation (along with CPA)
ADJOURN
Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 5-0 by roll call to adjourn the meeting at
10:36 p.m.
A true record; Attest:
Kim Siebert, Recording Secretary
10