Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-10-17 SB-min Select Board Meeting October 17, 2022 A remote participation meeting of the Lexington Select Board was called to order at 6:35 p.m. on Monday, October 17, 2022 via hybrid meeting services. Mr. Lucente; Vice Chair, 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. PUBLIC COMMENTS None at this time. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve and Sign Proclamations: Domestic Violence Awareness Month and Dyslexia Awareness Month To approve and sign a proclamation recognizing the month of October annually as Domestic Violence Awareness Month. To approve and sign a proclamation recognizing the month of October annually as Dyslexia Awareness Month. DOCUMENTS: 2022 Domestic Violence Awareness Month Proclamation, 2022 Dyslexia Awareness Month Proclamation 2. Select Board Committee Appointment To appoint Mark Connor to the Tree Committee for a three-year term ending on September 30, 2025. DOCUMENTS: 2022 Tree Committee Application - M. Connor VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, by roll call, the Select Board voted 4-0 to approve the Consent Agenda. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 1. Joint Meeting of the Select Board, Planning Board, School Committee and Vision for Lexington Committee - Presentation - 2022 Town-Wide Survey Results In addition to the Select Board, the Planning Board, School Committee and Vision for Lexington called their groups to order at 6:35pm. From the Planning Board (PB): Mr. Peter, Chair; Mr. Schanbacher, Vice Chair; Mr. Creech; Mr. Hornig and Ms. Thompson. From the School Committee (SC): Ms. Cuthbertson, Chair; Ms. Sawhney, Vice Chair; Ms. Jay; Ms. Lenihan \[7:46pm arrival\]; Dr. Hackett, Superintendent of Schools. From the Vision for Lexington Committee (VFL): Ms. Coppe, Chair; Mr. Manasas, Mr. Wang; Ms. Lenihan; Mr. Sandeen and Mr. Peters. Marian Cohen, Director of Social Research Framingham University, presented a topline summary of the Vision for Lexington Committee’s 2022 Town Wide Survey. She noted the goal of survey was to assess important issues to citizens, assess relative importance of issues and assess perception of Town responses to issues. Dr. Cohen stated that there were 2,404 responses to the questionnaire, which amounts to slightly under 10% of the eligible respondents in the community. This is two times the response rate from 2012, and almost 1.5 times that received in 2017. 46% of respondents were males. According to the census, the population of those male, 18+ in Town is almost 49%. 53% of respondents were female, and, according to the census, females account for about 51% of the population. The median age in the sample was between 50-59, and, according to the census, the median age of residents is between 45-54. Almost three quarters of respondents have at least a college degree, which is consistent with educational achievement in the population. There were some ways in which the sample differed from Town demographics, specifically 72% of the sample was white. According to the census, 62% of the population is white. 19% of the sample was Asian or South Asian. According to the census, 31% of the population is Asian, or South Asian. 2% of the sample was Hispanic and that is in line with the census 0.8% of the sample was black, and, according to the census, the population is 1.3% black. The sample had 4% of respondents who were multiracial or multiethnic, and, according to the census, that's 5%. 92% of respondents said the primary language spoken at home is English. The census says that's only 64%. 3.6% of respondents said the primary language spoken in their homes is one of the Asian or South Asian languages, and, according to the census, it's 21%. Dr. Cohen stated the following are the areas of interest/broad categories of the Survey: Economic Development; Public Education; Climate, Environmental Health, and Sustainability; Physical Character; Diversity Equity and Inclusion; Town Government and Town Services. Dr. Cohen explained that just over 70% of respondents said they are extremely to very satisfied with Lexington as a place to live. But approximately one quarter of respondents said life in Lexington is worse than it was five years ago. Those who responded life is worse cited these considerations: the character of the Town changing, too much construction, a lack of gathering places, insufficient economic diversity, too much focus on DEI, an intolerance of differences, loss of trees, restrictions on the handling of private property and open space, mansion-isation, lack of diversity in housing stock, too much traffic, too much noise, poor condition of the roads, declining educational quality, overcrowding in the schools, leadership issues in the schools, taxes make living here unaffordable, no local shopping options, lack of variety in shops, lack of vibrancy, leadership issues in Town government, receipt of fewer Town services, and a lack of planning in zoning. There are many issues that still need to be addressed, and several concerns expressed in 2012 and 2017 remain. These include the vibrancy and appeal of downtown, overcrowding in schools, students stress and mental health issues, house tear downs and mansion-istation, preservation of open space, road safety in terms of traffic lights road maintenance, taxes, affordability, and economic diversity. Mr. Creech (PB) asked if respondents were interested more in high-quality teachers or meeting the needs of all students. Dr. Cohen stated that both items received at least 85% on the survey. Ms. Lenihan (SC) stated that her concern is for resident who feel that they are in an ‘information desert.’ This seems to be a problem not only in Lexington, but across the entire country, regarding the death of traditional local media, such as a local newspaper. In response to a question from Ms. Sawhney (SC) regarding how many respondents used the survey in two Asian languages, Dr. Cohen stated that this was a very small percentage of respondents, approximately 30 paper copies were used. Ms. Sawhney noted that incoming families to Lexington may have more English language needs. Mr. Manasas (VFL) noted that the Vision for Lexington Committee completed a report on communication in Lexington. One of the recommendations made in that report was to combine the communications of the schools and the Town. Ms. Cuthbertson (SC) asked about age range specific data. Dr. Cohen stated that one of the dangers with parsing things out by different groups, is running the risk of pitting groups against one another, or having decisions made based on the needs and preferences of one group as opposed to another. If the school system is interested in that information, it might want to do a separate study. Ms. Jay (SC) asked if open-ended responses regarding concerns could be quantified to indicate what percentage of the respondents indicated the same concern. Dr. Cohen stated that analyzing qualitative data in that manner can be challenging and noted that they are available should anyone want to call them to discuss specifics of the report in further detail. Mr. Pato noted that responses to the open-ended questions aren't visible to readers of the report. This is a little challenging for policymakers. He communicated out to those viewers and respondents who have issues or concerns, that they contact the policymakers directly with those issues. The survey was not a vehicle to bring out the detail of those questions or issues to the Board’s attention. In response to a question from Mr. Pato regarding if the rate of participation in respondents regarding senior participation was relative to all respondents or relative only to seniors, Dr. Cohen stated that this was in relation to the whole, and respondents were asked whether they the respondent had participated or whether a family member had. Mr. Sandeen congratulated the team that the rate of response to this survey is almost double the response rate of previous surveys. Mr. Sandeen noted that most of the people who responded to this survey also voted in the most recent municipal election which only had 12% of registered voters voting. This means that the residents responding to this survey are residents who are highly focused on town government. Mr. Lucente suggested that one short term solution for the ‘information desert’ is for the Public Information Officer to be a recipient of communications from the Superintendent. Upon a motion duly made and seconded, by roll call, the Select Board voted 4-0 to accept the Vision for Lexington’s Report on the 2022 Town-Wide Survey. The Final Report on the Town-Wide 2022 Survey report can be found on the Vision for Lexington Committee Page on the Town of Lexington Website. At 7:46 pm the Planning Board, School Committee and Vision for Lexington Committee respectively adjourned. The Select Board continued with its regular meeting. 2. Update on Final Design of Battle Green Streetscape Project Ms. Barry recused herself from this item. John Livsey, Town Engineer, stated that the project goals are to improve the safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles; to improve vehicular operations, particularly at the three intersections; to improve connectivity to the sites on and around the Battle Green and to improve accessibility in the area; and to enhance landscaping, where appropriate. The goal is to have this project complete in advance of the 2025 th celebration of the 250 anniversary of the Battle of Lexington. No work in the Battle Green, beyond the inside of the sidewalk limits, is planned as part of this project. Scott Ridder, BETA, explained that one 20” tree, one 15” tree, and one 12” tree will be coming down as part of this roadway and site improvement work. The project plans to add to some of the existing stabilized stone paths around the Minuteman statue and along the connection along with Massachusetts Avenue. He showed the Board visuals of the proposed work of the project. He explained that there are five different lighting styles proposed, with a range of post materials and luminaires. There are 17 lights proposed within the current work area, five on the Battle Green side of the roads, and the other 12 outside. A candle level review found that, for the Battle Green streetscape itself, the tall poles came out to 2-foot candles, crosswalks came out to approximately 2.5-foot candles, and the main sidewalk came in at 0.5- 1.5-foot candles. The whole streetscape system is on controls to be dimmed and can modified as well. There are some issues with pedestrian safety due to lighting, for those going back and forth to the churches or other activities outside of the well-lit areas. There are a few options for the pedestrian light poles, some of which can be made dark sky compliant. There are also options for the roadway lights. He explained that, upon meeting with the Design Review Committee, the group liked the idea of continuing the lights used downtown, to make the project and the whole downtown more consistent. In response to a question from Mr. Pato, Mr. Livsey stated that the Historic Districts Commission did not weigh heavily on a light style. There was some mention of continuing with the current style that is in the downtown. The Design Review Committee’s recommendation was to carry the style in the downtown for both the high level and low-level lights, with the suggestion to have the low-level lights approximately 2’ lower. This would help to show the Battle Green as a separate space, while also lending to the ease of operations in maintaining and replacing parts and fixtures. Mr. Pato stated that he preferred option 3, as presented, and a stone wall for the belfry wall, depending on cost. He stated that he would like to see this effort coordinated with the independent ADA path project going up Belfry. He stated that he prefers the parking area as the location for the tour bus spot. Mr. Sandeen stated that the proposed single tour bus spot looks too small for the number of tour buses during tourist season when there are often 3 or 4 tour buses parked at the Battle Green. In response to a question from Mr. Sandeen, Mr. Livsey said that the public access to the Ye Olde Burial Ground would be maintained at its current width. Mr. Sandeen stated that he would like to make sure the sidewalk is wide enough for pedestrians and children walking their bikes who are not going to feel comfortable riding through the roundabout. Mr. Livsey stated that the sidewalk along Mass Avenue is proposed at 8’ wide, which is wider than a standard sidewalk. The short piece of sidewalk on Hancock Street is proposed to be kept at 5’ due to right of way issues. Along the Battle Green side, the sidewalk width will be limited to 5’. Mr. Livsey said that addressing the flow on/off the bikeway is being considered by the Town engineering staff, potentially as part of this project, or as a separate project. Mr. Sandeen noted that he would also support the stone wall, if it will not be a material change to the cost of the project. He requested that the lighting be compliant with dark sky standards and consistent with the existing street lighting color, as the existing streetlights are 2,700K soft white in color. He would support option 1 if implemented with the dark sky compliant version of those lights. He stated that he does not like the look of any of the Cobra-style lighting proposed and asked if the team would consider doubling up on the pedestrian style lighting to get sufficient lumens while keeping an appropriate look and feel. The Cobra-style lights seem jarring from a historical standpoint. Mr. Lucente stated that he believes the lighting should remain consistent with what was just completed as part of the Center streetscape project. The project should also focus on public safety, especially at crosswalks. His preference is for a stone wall for the Belfry wall. He would like to try to keep the tourist buses in the downtown area but does not see an option on Bedford Street or the Mass Avenue location directly in front of someone’s property. In response to a question from Ms. Hai, through Mr. Lucente, Mr. Ridder stated that a couple of new trees are proposed to be installed in the Mass Avenue/Harrington Road intersection area. In response to a question from Mr. Lucente regarding where project materials will be stored, Mr. Livsey stated that there will be no storage of equipment or materials on the Battle Green itself. Storage will be difficult. Some of the Depot lot and an area behind the temporary Police Station may be used. Mr. Livsey stated that, with the direction received tonight, a deeper design can be planned. The intention is to come before the Select Board in November for a final blessing for the project and bid the project in either December or January. In response to a question from Mr. Lucente regarding if other boards/committees need to be revisited to review this final design, Mr. Livsey stated that he will need to go back to the Historic Districts Commission, and potentially the Tourism Committee. Mr. Lucente asked that the project group reach out to the chair of each committee one more time to double-check on this. Dawn McKenna, 9 Hancock Street, explained that the Tourism Committee has studied the tourism bus location extensively. The only location to put the tour buses is along Massachusetts Avenue because there are usually 5-6 buses or more arriving during the height of the seasons. Massachusetts Avenue is the only road capable of handling that traffic. She would like to hear more about the ramp up to the belfry area, and the previously designed, accessible viewing area along Clark Street. She noted that the purpose of the lighting around the Battle Green was to have a park-like setting. She does not believe lots of lighting poles should be added to the Battle Green itself and she does not like any of the roadway options. Lisle Swanson, Hancock Church, noted that there is a significant problem historically with water runoff from the belfry hill, making the sidewalk totally impassable in the winter as it ices over. He is concerned that two different groups are working on the design for that area, because drainage will be critical to whether the sidewalk is usable. He stated that he is glad to see the plan includes more lighting on the south side of Massachusetts Avenue, leading from the Church toward the center of Town. He would like to make sure the proposed lighting adequately lights the sidewalks. He stated that there is a significant drop off between the sidewalk and the street, between the Church and the Minuteman statue, that he would like to make sure is reviewed as part of the plans. DOCUMENTS: Battle Green Improvements 3. Special Town Meeting 2022-3  Presentation - STM 2022-3 Article 12: Creation of Housing Trust Gretchen Reisig, Vice Chair of the Affordable Housing Trust Study Committee, explained that the intention is to garner support for Article 12, which will allow Lexington to adopt an Affordable Housing Trust at November's Special Town Meeting. An Affordable Housing Trust is a municipal, flexible, dynamic, funding entity used for creating and preserving affordable housing. The Trust allows communities to collect funds for affordable housing, segregate them out of the general municipal budget into a trust fund, and then use those funds for local initiatives to create and preserve affordable housing. I n the past decade, Lexington has created 41 affordable units and lost 41 group home units. Its subsidized housing inventory has been at 1,321 homes since 2011. In Lexington there are approximately 11,800 homes, and of these only 663 qualify as affordable. In 2016, 669 qualified, so this number has been recently reduced. Currently the Town’s affordable housing funds are available through the Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds and Town Meeting. The Town acts on CPA funding at the Annual Town Meetings. There is no quick way to take advantage of properties which may become available for an affordable housing project. For example, this year there were two properties that the Committee missed a chance to pursue, one on Lincoln Street and one on Woburn Street. There are 120 municipalities in the State with Affordable Housing Trusts, such as Arlington, Bedford, Belmont, Concord, Lincoln, Waltham, Woburn, and Winchester. Ms. Reisig stated that the funds in an Affordable Housing Trust can be used in a variety of ways, including creating affordable housing opportunities, such as new construction or converting market rate houses to affordable housing. Funds can be used to create housing assistance programs for down payments or rental assistance. Additionally, funds can be used to preserve affordable housing, such as preserving the affordability of rental units. Funds can also be used to create housing plans and assessments, and for advocacy with the Lexington Housing Authority and the Housing Partnership Board for Affordable Housing for Lexington. Ms. Reisig stated that the powers afforded to the Affordable Housing Trust by statute include selling, acquiring, and leasing property; entering into contracts with third parties; retaining ownership of revenue from any sources; and employing or contracting with advisor, staff, and consultants. Ms. Reisig stated that the sources of funding for Affordable Housing Trusts could be many, but primarily funds come from the Community Preservation Act funds and transfers. The Committee would recommend that the Affordable Housing Capital Stabilization Fund be directed to the trust. Additionally, Town Meeting appropriations from the general fund could be used, along with private donations of property or money, fees from resales, HOME funds, and ARPA funds. Most trusts are prefunded, and this can be used for things such as purchases or properties plus the holding costs, paying for consultants to help prepare RFPs for development, and housing needs assessments. Ms. Reisig explained the Trust Fund would be a municipal funds and overseen by the Town Finance Department. The trustees are appointed by the Select Board, and, by statute, a Select Board member must be a voting member of the Board of Trustees. The Trustees authorize payments. The Finance Department administers those payments and oversees any audits that are required. The trust statute requires that any CPA funds appropriated to the trust retain all CPA requirements and constraints. The Study Committee recommends that Select Board approval be required for certain transactions and borrowing above predetermined limits. The Committee recommends a minimum of five, maximum of nine, trustees and to look for members with affordable housing experience. Betsey Weiss, member of the Affordable Housing Trust Study Committee, asked for a straw poll of the Board on this item. She also requested that the Select Board consider the Committee’s request for a November 1, CPC placeholder. Rodney Cole, Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC), stated that the CEC would prefer that the Select Board appoint the Trustee members, as proposed. Ms. Kosnoff clarified a distinction between the Affordable Housing Trust and the Affordable Housing Corporation. The Trust’s members are appointed by the Select Board, but the intention of the Affordable Housing Corporation would be to have a different appointing authority. Mr. Cole asked the Board’s opinion about a proposed threshold for the Affordable Housing Trust, that being the average sale price of a single-family home from the previous year, as certified by the Department of Revenue. Ms. Barry said the Board needed to have a conversation on the threshold, noting the importance of allowing the Trust to move quickly. Mr. Sandeen stated he would support the threshold set to be the average sale price of a single- family home for the previous year as established by the Department of Revenue. He said the whole point of establishing the Affordable Housing Trust was to be nimble and act quickly and if the Trust is not able to buy an average home, it would not be acting nimbly or quickly. Mr. Lucente said he agreed with that concept. He stated that the Trust's hands won't be tied for purchases under the threshold.  Updates - STM 2022-3 Financial Articles: o Article 2: Appropriate for Prior Years' Unpaid Bills o Article 3: Establish, Amend, Dissolve and Appropriate To and From Specified Stabilization Funds Ms. Kosnoff noted that she is expecting Article 2 to appropriate prior years’ unpaid bills to be indefinitely postponed. She is expecting Article 6- Appropriate for Authorized Capital Improvements to be indefinitely postponed. She is expecting Article 7- To Appropriate to Post Employment Insurance Liability Fund to be indefinitely postponed. Regarding Article 3 - Establish, Amend, Dissolve and Appropriate To and From Specified Stabilization Funds, Ms. Kosnoff explained that the proposal is to make appropriations into four funds, the TDM, the Transportation Management Overlay District, the Ambulance Stabilization Fund, and the Affordable Housing Stabilization Fund. The request is also to make one small appropriation out of those specified funds for debt service. $494.05 reflects the remaining balance in the Debt Service Fund. The intention is to close out that fund at Special Town Meeting. There will be one other appropriation into a fund, and that is the Capital Stabilization Fund. o Article 4: Amend FY2023 Operating, Enterprise and CPA Budgets Ms. Kosnoff reviewed the Article regarding amending certain items in the budget. She stated that, per two recent discussions, this Article involves one fiscal guideline, which is to move money into the Capital Stabilization Fund. Another, related to commercial developments in Town, is regarding unexpected growth in personal property related to equipment at Takeda. This discussion involved potentially setting that money aside and putting it into the Pension Fund. Thus, this amendment proposes to dedicate approximately $1.6M into the Capital Stabilization Fund, and $1.06M into the Pension Fund. She explained that appropriations are currently estimated at $4.45M. There is a deficit for this, meaning that the Town does not have enough new revenue coming in to cover everything that is being proposed at this Special Town Meeting. Thus, for the Center streetscape sidewalk extension, the estimated $700,000 will not be able to be financed fully with tax levy money, and the Town will have to propose part of that to be bonded or debt financed. Another potential funding source would be ARPA funds. Mr. Pato noted that the allocation of the personal property increase from the new growth from Takeda personal property is not a one-time thing. This is increasing the tax base, and it will be an increased tax amount going forward. He stated that he would like for this allocation to be completed similarly to the stabilization funds. Mr. Sandeen asked whether the Town would consider pushing some other projects out in order to handle the proposed shortfall instead of increasing bonding to cover the cost of the Center streetscape sidewalk extension. o Article 6: Appropriate for Authorized Capital Improvements o Article 7: Appropriate to Post Employment Insurance Liability Fund o Article 9: Opioid Settlement Ms. Kosnoff explained that that Massachusetts Attorney General entered into a nationwide settlement with three different opioid distributors, as well as one manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson. An agreement was reached this past spring, and Massachusetts is going to be receiving approximately $525M from the settlement agreement. The State will be distributing 40% of that directly to any municipalities that signed onto the settlement, including Lexington. Distributor payments will be distributed over at least 15 years, but the Town is awaiting a lump sum payment of $148,852 from the manufacturer settlement. This will be allocated at Special Town Meeting if it arrives in time. This will need to be placed into the General Fund and is supposed to be spent for specific purposes, mostly to address the impacts of the opioid crisis. The Health Director will be the person responsible for allocating these funds, and she will be working in conjunction with the Human Services Director to find the appropriate use for these funds. Mr. Lucente noted that he believes the community should be addressed as to how to spend these funds as well.  Select Board Article Presenters, Discussion and Positions Select Board members, Mr. Lucente, Mr. Pato, Ms. Barry and Mr. Sandeen reviewed their respective positions on the proposed Special Town Meeting 2022-3 warrant articles. Article 2 Appropriate for Prior Years’ Unpaid Bills: all in support of Indefinitely Postpone (IP) Article 3 Establish, Dissolve and Appropriate To and From Specified Stabilization Funds: all in support Article 4 Amend FY2023 Operating Enterprise and CPA Budgets: all in support Article 5 Appropriate for Center Playground Bathrooms and Maintenance Building: all wait Article 6 Appropriate for Authorized Capital Improvements: all in support of IP Article 7 Appropriate to Post Employment Insurance Liability Fund : all in support of IP Article 8 Appropriate for 250th Anniversary of The Battle of Lexington Celebration: all in support Article 9 Opioid Settlement: all in support Article 10 Appropriate for Public Facilities Capital Projects (Town Pool Domestic Hot Water Heater): all in support Article 11 Creation of Housing Trust Appropriate for Center Streetscape Sidewalk Extension: 3 in favor, 1 wait(Mr. Sandeen) Article 12 Creation of Housing Trust: all in favor Article 13 Technical Correction-General Bylaw (Fossil Fuel): all in favor Article 14 LexHab Reorganization: all in favor The Board discussed the presenters for each article. DOCUMENTS: Motion - Article 12 - Creation of Housing Trust, Presentation - Affordable Housing Trust Study Committee, Housing Trust FAQs, Town Control Over Housing Trust Activity, DRAFT Declaration of Lexington Housing Trust, DRAFT Affordable Housing Trust Bylaw, Motion - Article 1 - Reports of Town Boards, Officers and Committees, Motion - Article 13 - Technical Correction-General Bylaw (Fossil Fuel), Motion - Article 14 - LexHAB Reorganization, Preliminary FY2023 Budget Adjustments, Opioid Payment Schedule - JJ and Distributor, Distributor Payment Schedule for Opioid Settlement, MaxOpioid Payment Schedule, State Subdivision Agreement for Opioid Settlement, STM 2022-3 Select Board Position Working Document 4. Request for Approval - Pave Additional Section of Massachusetts Avenue Outside the Center Streetscape Bounds rd Mr. Malloy stated that, as included in the October 3 weekly update, two Select Board members asked for a review of costs and budget options for paving the section of Massachusetts Avenue from the where the Center Streetscape Project ends (in front of the Police Station) to approximately the Massachusetts Avenue/Hunt Road intersection, and the initial part of Woburn Street. John Livsey, Town Engineer, was asked to measure the area and provided a cost estimate of $70,000 which would include a short-term shim coat. John Livsey also indicated there are 12 manholes that will need to be raised in the area. As reported at the last Select Board meeting, the plan was to pave this area after any cuts into the roadway were completed for the Police Station project. In follow up conversations with Mike Cronin, Director of Public Facilities, and Mr. Livsey, it was indicated that the timing for cuts into Massachusetts Avenue for utilities should be completed by next Summer, with paving planned for late next construction season. The planned work would be a full-depth reclamation, which would still be done should the Town go forward with a shim coat at this time. The Board needs to make a decision regarding moving this forward in order for staff to have a chance to get the project completed before the seasonal shut down of asphalt plants. At this time, it is too late to put in for a Chapter 90 request to the State, as that would take time to process and there are not sufficient funds available in the Center Streetscape Project. The two funding options would be either to use the local appropriation for street maintenance within the Public Works Budget or to potentially use ARPA funds, if the Board chose. The only nexus would be that it would make the Center more attractive to visitors by having a smoother road surface coming into the Center. The $70,000 figure is an estimate based on current costs. The short timeframe and other issues could increase this cost. Mr. Lucente, Ms. Barry, and Mr. Sandeen expressed their support for this proposal. Mr. Pato stated that he does not support this proposal to expend funds for a temporary project. He stated that it does not make sense to smooth this area now, only to cut into it again as part of the Police Station project in the spring of 2023. All Board members expressed their interest in funding for this proposed project coming from the existing budget, if approved. Upon a motion duly made and seconded, by roll call, the Select Board voted 3-1 to approve paving the section of Massachusetts Avenue at the southerly terminus of the Center Streetscape Project to the approximate location on Massachusetts Avenue where the pavement was recently improved (near the intersection with Hunt Road) and the initial area of Woburn Street and the intersection around Fletcher Avenue and to pay costs associated with this project from the existing roadwork budget. Mr. Livsey noted that, regarding the Center streetscape project, crews will be back to complete the paving in the Center next week. Approximately a week after that new pavement markings, line striping crosswalks, parking stalls, etc., will be completed. As of this afternoon, there are 15 trees left to plant. ADJOURN VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, by roll call, the Select Board voted 4-0 to adjourn the meeting at 10:26pm. A true record; Attest: Kristan Patenaude Recording Secretary