HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-10-BOS-min
70-41
Summit Meeting 1
Board of Selectmen, School Committee, Appropriation Committee
and Capital Expenditures Committee
October 6, 2016
A Summit was held on Thursday, October 6, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. in the Public Services Building
Cafeteria, 201 Bedford Street. Board of Selectmen (BOS) Ms. Barry (chair); Mr. Kelley; Mr.
Cohen; Ms. Pato; Ms. Ciccolo were present along with Mr. Valente, Town Manager; Mr.
Addelson, Assistant Town Manager for Finance; Ms. Hewitt, Budget Officer; and Ms. Siebert,
Recording Secretary.
Also Present: School Committee (SC) members: Ms. Hurley, chair; Mr. Alessandrini, vice chair;
Ms. Crocker; Dr. Czajkowski, Superintendent of Schools; Mr. Dailey, Assistant Superintendent
for Finance and Operations. Appropriations Committee (AC) members: Mr. Parker, chair; Mr.
Bartenstein, vice chair; Ms. Colburn; Mr. Levine; Mr. Neumeier; Mr. Radulescu-Banu; Capital
Expenditures Committee (CEC) members: Mr. Kanter, vice chair; Ms. Manz; Mr. Lamb.
Ms. Barry called the BOS to order at 7:04 p.m. and introduced the Board members. Chairs of the
SC, CEC, and AC followed suit.
Procedure for Meeting Minutes
Ms. Barry explained that the BOS Recording Secretary will be taking the minutes for the
Selectmen and will share draft copies of those minutes with the chairs of the SC, CEC and AC
for review, prior to approval by the BOS.
Financial Indication Analysis and Revenue/Expenditure Projections
Mr. Valente said the Summit is intended to help frame policy discussions. Though conservative,
the following projections are nonetheless based on reasonable assumptions, although they should
not be seen as actual budgets. Mr. Valente emphasized that Lexington continues to be in a strong
financial position.
Referring to last year’s Summit 1, Mr. Valente said there was concern at the time about
balancing the FY19 operating budget. Today, in part because of steps taken by the
Boards/Committee’s present that limited program improvements, the current year/FY17
operating budget came in $1.4M less than what it could have, based on the revenue allocation
model. Positive results from those decisions equate to a lower projected FY19 shortfall. Mr.
Addelson will later expand on this theme.
Note that Summit 1 meeting materials can be accessed via the BOS webpage as well as the under
the “Budget” tab on the Finance department webpage.
The main focus of the evening’s business is divided into four parts:
70-42
Budget Summit #1 --- October 6, 2016
FY2018 Budget/Financial Overview
Presented by Mr. Valente, this segment was a high-level evaluation of the Town’s financial
condition intended to set the stage for the coming fiscal year budget.
Looking at Indicator 1: Revenues (page 11 of the Financial Summit 1 document), Mr. Valente
said the Town continues to experience positive revenue growth of about 3-3.5% a year. That
trend is favorable.
Moving to Indicator 7: Personnel Costs (page 17), the percentage of labor costs is stable at about
77-79%. This means that employee salary and benefits are not crowding out other things like
capital infrastructure maintenance; there is currently a balance between capital investment and
the operating budget. This is another favorable trend.
Indicator 8: Employee Benefits (p.18) is favorable as well. Employee benefit costs are
substantial but they are not growing as a percentage of wages. Health insurance costs are now
approaching $23M dollars a year and pension costs another $5M, making benefits 26-27% of
wages but this is a decrease from FY10 when benefits accounted for 33%. Mr. Valente said the
drop can be attributed largely to changes in State law re: health insurance which allowed
Lexington and other municipalities to join the State’s group health insurance (GIC).
Indicator 10: Pension Liability (p.20) is also trending favorably with 85.3% of employee pension
liability costs funded. This funding level puts Lexington among the top 5 communities in the
State. The average pension liability funding level statewide is around 57%.
Indicator 13: Reserves and Fund Balances (p.24) is, again, favorable and shows a strong and
growing position for Free Cash and the various stabilization funds.
On the less positive side of the overview, Mr. Valente identified one financial indicator in the
unfavorable category and three in the marginal category:
Unfavorable:
Indicator9:RetirementParticipants(p.19)showsanincreaseinthenumberofretirement
benefiteligibleemployeesfrom2,201(2012)to2,457(2016),anincreaseofabout250.The
pensionportionofemployeebenefitsisnotofconcern;however,alooming$190Minpost
retirementhealthcarecostsoverthenext30yearsisproblematic.Todate,$9Mhasbeenset
asidetowardthe$190M.Asyet,therehasbeennoLegislativereliefforthehealthcaresideof
OtherPostEmployeeBenefits(OPEB)astherehasbeenforthepensionside.
Marginal:
Indicator11:DebtService(p.21)hasbeenspokenofinpastyearsasanareatowatchclosely.If
itgrowstoofast,debtserviceputspressureonotherpartsoftheoperatingbudget.Thewithin
levydebtserviceiskeptatabout5%oftheGeneralFundRevenue
70-43
Budget Summit #1 --- October 6, 2016
which,Mr.Valentesaid,isconsistentwithrevenuegrowth.Atthatlevel,Lexingtoncanaccept
about$6.1Mofnewdebtperyearforcapitalprojects.However,theLHSmodularprojectwas
$8.3M.Itwasfundedwithinthelevybutitaddstothechallengeoflivingwithinthe5%goal.
administrationƩĻĭƚƒƒĻƓķĻķΓğƓķBoards/CommitteesƭǒƦƦƚƩƷĻķΓusingfundsfrom
Town
theCapitalStabilizationFundtooffsetthewithinlevydebtserviceuntilitdeclinestoamore
manageablelevelin2021.DrawsontheCapitalStabilizationFundareshownonLineEas
$919,000in2015and$620,567in2016.
Indicator11(a):ProjectedExemptDebtService(p.22)includesagraphcalledResidentialShare
ofNetExemptDebtServiceperHousehold.ItanticipatesaperhouseholdincreaseinFY19(to
$1,041)andshowsanalreadysteadyclimbfrom$472inFY13to$648inFY16,theresultof
impactsfromcapitalprojectdebtfortheBridge,Bowman,andEstabrookschools.Bridgeand
BowmanwereaplannedpartofthedebtmodelbutEstabrookbecameanearlierthan
anticipatedpriorityduetoPCBcontamination.Thedebtloadwas,therefore,notstaggeredas
originallyenvisioned.
Mr.Valentenotedthatmanagingexemptdebtservicewillcontinuetobechallengingwiththe
additionofpublicsafetyandschoolbuildingprojectsnowinthepipeline.
Indicator13(a):UseofCapitalStabilizationFund(p.25)modelshowdebtmitigationfromthe
CapitalStabilizationFundcouldbemanaged.Thisnewchart,unveiledatSpecialTownMeeting,
isanadditiontothefinancialplanningtoolkitandwillbeupdatedyearlyasdebtserviceimpacts
change.ThebalanceoftheCapitalStabilizationFundisnow$23,007,152butprojectedpressure
onthefund,usedasasafetyvalve,showsasteadydeclineinbalanceifdemandsareas
projectedandnonewfundsareadded.Mr.Addelsonwillspeaktothislaterinthe
presentation.
Mr. Kanter (CEC) asked why Indicator 14: Population (p.26) was considered marginal when
overall population numbers have steadily hovered around 32,000. Mr. Valente replied that while
overall numbers have stayed relatively the same, the school-age subcategory has increased by
23.8% between 2000 and 2016 with related financial impacts.
Mr. Levine (AC) asked about a 10.5% decrease in pension funding levels in 2012 in Indicator
10: Pension Liability (p. 12). Mr. Addelson explained that industry standards with regard to
mortality assumptions were revised at that time, causing the recalculation.
Mr. Parker (AC) referred to Indicator 7: Personnel Costs (p.17), noting that the graph shows
personnel costs going up, slowly but continuously. Mr. Valente said that staff numbers –largely
school-related—have increased due to enrollment. He added that reserve fund depletion and
deferred capital investment have not occurred due to personnel impacts to date but the potential
is something to be alert to.
70-44
Budget Summit #1 --- October 6, 2016
FY2018-2020 Revenue and Expenditure Forecast
To begin, Mr. Addelson said this year’s forecasting model has changed in the interest of
simplification. Instead of the former above the line/ below the line model, the report now
provides a single, projected bottom line figure, showing either a surplus or a deficit.
Mr. Addelson directed attention to Executive Summary: Projections (p. 28). The forecasting
methodology is a maintenance budget approach, containing increases to keep current levels of
service only. Again different from the below the line and above the line, this model factors in
inflation, assumed COLA and other negotiated contract increases as well as escalated costs in
purchased services agreements.
Mr. Addelson noted that the school spending forecast includes projected increases in wages and
benefits commensurate with enrollment trends plus other initiatives Superintendent Czajkowski
will expand upon in her presentation.
Debt service spending in the forecast reflects existing within-the-levy obligations as well as the
expectation of another $6.1M in debt for FY2018 due to capital requests.
Revenues are based on historical experience and the difference between expected revenues and
expected expenditures is shown as the available balance.
Mr. Kanter (CEC) asked what percentage increase was included in the level services budget to
accommodate inflation, assumed COLA, etc. Mr. Addelson said the percentage was intentionally
omitted but would be discussed at another time. He added, however, that percentage used was a
reasonable assumption.
FY2018-2020 Expenditure Projection for School Operating Budget
Turning to the “Lexington Public Schools FY2018-20 Three Year Budget Projections”,
Superintendent Czajkowski’s presentation focused on the impact of rising school enrollments on
the operating budget as well as infrastructure and program challenges. Included in the projection
are existing salaries/expenses as well as additional personnel costs to address enrollment growth.
Also included are other known impacts such as two middle school construction projects, the
proposed Hastings Elementary expansion, and initiatives involving the Central Administration
building.
Dr. Czajkowski cited six “Key School Policy Issues” that will continue to be addressed:
EnrollmentGrowth
TheEnrollmentAdvisorygroupforecastssignificantgrowthtocontinueintheschoolage
population.Projectedenrollmentsanticipateanadditional84studentssystemwideinFY18;131
inFY19;and124inFY20.
70-45
Budget Summit #1 --- October 6, 2016
BuildingCapacity/MultipleSchoolProjects
Thetwomiddleschoolsarecurrentlyundergoingexpansionsofclassroomandcorespace.Three
ofthemostcrowdedelementaryƭĭŷƚƚƌƭΓ.ƩźķŭĻͲBowman,andCźƭƉĻΓǞźƌƌeachreceive2
additionalclassroomsinspring2017.ConstructionofanewHastingsElementaryismoving
forwardandhasreceivedthegreenlightforMSBAreimbursement.However,whilethese
projectsareunderway,alternativespacefortheLexington/ŷźƌķƩĻƓƭPlace(LCP),additional
elementaryspace,andanewLHSarebecomingcritical.TheLHSpopulationisnowapproaching
2,200+studentsandcurrentmiddleschoolstudentswilladdpressuretothatnumber.Thereis
nocapacityatLHStoaddclassroomspace.
MaximizingExistingSpace/Capacity
Some redistricting of newly-enrolled elementary students took place last spring to best
utilize existing space as Estabrook. Another classroom was added at Hastings which
mitigated pressure on Bowman. Even so, there are currently 27 sections at Bowman, a
school built for 21 sections. Also, 2 LCP classrooms plus OT, PT and Speech were
moved into Central Office space that previously housed LABBB Special Education
Collaborative students.
Redistricting/BufferZones/CentralRegistration
TheSchoolCommitteeandadministrationaredraftingbufferzonepolicylanguage.Tothatend,
thePolicySubcommitteeheldtwopublicforums,eachattendedby4050parents.Subjects
discussedweregrowingschoolpopulationsandtheconceptofneighborhoodschools.
Maintainingneighborhoodschoolswhilealsorespondingtopopulationgrowthmaybedifficult.
OneoftheķźƭƷƩźĭƷƭgoalsistomorecloselymonitorresidency.Thisiscurrentlydoneatthe
buildinglevelbuttheadministrativeburdenisunwieldyandaccuracyisnotassured.Pending
SchoolCommitteeapproval,anewpaperless,onlineƭǤƭƷĻƒΓĻǣƦĻĭƷĻķtobelaunchedthis
WğƓǒğƩǤΓwillbeusedtobettertrackresidencyandtoinformenrollmentprojections.
PreservingandMaintainingPrograms
ThegoalofLexingtonSchoolsoverthenextthreeyearsistopreserveandmaintainexcellence.
Thereare,however,financialimplications.Dr.Czajkowskiidentifiedtheassumptionsthathave
goneintomakingbudgetprojections:
SalariesandWages:
Maintainlevelserviceswithnoprogramimprovements;
Increasesalarysteps2.5%;assume$1Moffsetinsavingsperyearforstaffturnover;
Include2%COLAforFY18foranumberofsettledcontractsandassumesufficient
fundingforunsettledcontractsFY1820;
AddstafftoaddressprojectedFY1820enrollmentincreases;
AddstaffforCentralAdmin,MSbuildingprojects,andnewHastings;
Includerecurringadditionalstaffrelatedcostsinclusiveofbenefits,ƚƩƉĻƩƭ
Compensation,etc.
70-46
Budget Summit #1 --- October 6, 2016
Expenses:
SpEdandOODtuitionandtransportationmakeup8088%oftheexpenseline,$1.15M
to$1.3Mor$1.3Mto$1.6M,dependingontheyear;
Adjustallotherexpenselinesbythe1.8%ConsumerPriceIndex;
Includeexpensesforpurchaseforpaperlessenrollmentsystemsoftwareplusfacilitiesfor
themiddleschoolsandHastingsschool.
The FY18 Base School Budget projection for Salary and Wages is $85,441,359 (see p. 6).
With the inclusion of enrollment-driven staff increases with steps, benefits, and COLA, the base
budget is increased by $1.6M and now totals $87,054,472.
On the Expenses line, the FY18 projected base budget is $17,000,315. With added costs due to
the Central Registration enrollment software, plus the middle schools and Hastings facilities
costs, the inclusive Expenses line item is $17,126,615.
The overall increase over FY17 is 6.6%. A similar level of increase is projected to continue
annually through the three-year period.
Dr. Czajkowski said the Schools are taking active steps to address the School budget’s impact on
the Town budget. One example is that the implementation of an elementary-level World
Languages program has been postponed. Staffing requests will also be closely examined to
ensure they are justified to maintain level services. The Schools’ budget managers are aware that
the School Committee will not be receptive to program improvements requests. Also, the district
will be vigilant to finding ways to mitigate OOD and transportation costs.
Finally, Superintendent Czajkowski addressed staffing projections by category (as shown on
p.7). Based on the enrollment projections noted earlier, an additional 17.77 FTEs will be needed
in FY18; 27.71 in FY19; and 26.23 in FY20. These positions include classroom personnel,
specialists, educational and social/emotional support and administrative/clerical.
Mr. Radulescu-Banu (AC) asked how many students have OOD placements and whether loss of
LABBB space will increase the district’s SpEd costs. Dr. Czajkowski said loss of the space will
not adversely affect costs. An entire wing at LHS is still used by LABBB.
Asst. Superintendent Dailey said there are 133 OOD placements in FY17 and annual increases
project an additional 7-8 students. As the base population grows, so does SpEd, even if the
percentage of the population remains constant.
Ms. Colburn (AC) asked if there would be cost savings associated with the online registration
th
process. Dr. Czajkowski said the shift from paper would start out slowly with only Pre-K to 5
grade at first. There will be some re-purposing of space associated with the change and there
might be somewhat less need for administrative assistant personnel. Mr. Dailey said that online
registration will help track residency and visa expiration, which could have an impact on
enrollment numbers, although it is hard to quantify.
70-47
Budget Summit #1 --- October 6, 2016
Mr. Kanter (CEC) asked if the enrollment increases projected for FY20 constitute a leveling off
of growth. Mr. Pato (BOS) said the projections are based on last year’s enrollment data. There
are increases and dips over time. The current projections will be revised later this year, when the
State finalizes the October enrollment data.
Mr. Kanter asked whether the $1M balance in the SpEd Stabilization Fund is enough to provide
the “flexibility and assurance” for which the fund was established. Dr. Czajkowski said she and
Mr. Dailey are comfortable with the amount because improvements have been made in how
SpEd is staffed. Mr. Dailey added that Lexington also has a $650,000 LABBB credit as another
source of funds to be used as an offset.
Mr. Kanter asked if there had been any progress on a multi-district SpEd transportation initiative.
Mr. Dailey said Lexington already participates in a LABBB/EDCO transportation procurement
collaborative but continues to look for additional ways to save on these costs.
Ms. Colburn (AC) asked why there are no cost projections for a new LCP space included in the
documents. Dr. Czajkowski said the first phase of the LCP project has been exploratory: looking
through the Central Office to assess space use. The findings of that exploration will be presented
to the School Committee on November 1 to see if programs now offered at the Central Office
can be moved elsewhere. The second phase will look at the Pelham property and other possible
spaces. A solution to the current problem is anticipated within the FY18-FY20 time period.
Mr. Radulescu-Banu (AC) noted that the Master Plan for the next 5 years does not include a new
or expanded LHS. Superintendent Czajkowski said the growth in the LHS population is
becoming a critical problem. Discussions about timeline and when to apply to the MSBA will be
a School Committee topic in the coming weeks, as will how to position the project into the larger
context of the other school building projects currently underway.
Mr. Hurley (SC Chair) said the only specific projects the School Committee has discussed are
the modulars and how to move ahead with the Hastings School. There is no plan underway, as
yet, for any other project. He suggested an interim solution might be necessary that could include
program adjustments.
Mr. Kanter (CEC) asked if the LABBB program housed at LHS could be relocated. Dr.
Czajkowski said this is something to be discussed. Mr. Alessandrini (SC) said as SpEd numbers
grow, it is even more critical to have LABBB as an in-house resource that fulfills students’ needs
at the same time as it saves OOD tuition and transportation costs. He emphasized that the
Schools knew LHS would have to be addressed but the middle schools became a higher priority.
FY2018 Budget and Shrinking FY19 Shortfall
Mr. Addelson then directed attention to p. 31 “Revenue and Expenditure Projections FY2018-
FY2020” of the Financial Summit 1 material, highlighting the bottom line “Available Balance”
figures. This shows a projected available balance in FY18 of $1,098,258 and projected shortfalls
70-48
Budget Summit #1 --- October 6, 2016
of ($3,547,673) in FY19 and ($9,915,155) in FY20. However, Mr. Addelson noted that the
outlook for FY19 has improved because, this time last year, the projected shortfall was a little
over $9M.
What is driving the improvement? Revenues are $4.8M higher than projected last year. This is
due to the ripple effects of higher New Growth in FY16 and FY17. The two together conspire to
increase the projected Tax Levy revenue by $821,000. State Aid is also projected to be $1.7M
higher, largely due to Ed Reform funds that were increased (from less than 15% to 16.8%) so
that Lexington received closer to the so-called target level of State contribution. Local Receipts
are also higher and there is $2M more in Free Cash over what was projected at this time last
year. $672,000 will be used from the Capital Stabilization fund to offset the impact of capital
projects on Debt Service.
On the Expenditure side, projected spending this year is $895,000 less for FY19 than it was a
year ago because Town government and Town administrators responded to the projected
shortfall with belt-tightening measures, holding the line on new or expanded programs. While a
problem remains in FY19, Mr. Addelson said it is not as dramatic.
Opting not to go into great detail at this point, Mr. Addelson highlighted two points of
significance:
FreeCashavailableforFY18use(from7/1/16certification)willbeabout$14M,$3.2ofwhich
willbeusedforfundingcapital.
BasedonthisrobustFreeCashposition,itappearsasthoughtheremaybetheopportunityto
recommendthatanadditional$5MbeearmarkedfortheCapitalStabilizationFundtomitigate
debtserviceimpacts.
Mr. Kanter (CEC) said he recognizes the importance of demonstrating that the Town is
cognizant of the OPEB funding mandate but he believes too much is being dedicated to post-
retirement health care liability as opposed to the pension fund.
Ms. Crocker (SC) said she does not see any reference to the Pelham Road property in the
projections. Mr. Addelson concurred that there is nothing in the model associated with the
operational side of a Pelham acquisition. The Town does, however, take into account in its
modeling the impact acquisition of the property would have on taxpayers.
Key Policy Issues Related to FY18 Budget
Mr. Valente highlighted policy issues that should be used in financial deliberations.
Continuingpolicies
LimitSchoolProgramImprovementRequests
FinancingPlan/PropertyTaxImpactforCapitalProjects(TownandSchool)
UseofCapitalStabilizationFundtomitigatetaximpactofcapitaldebt
70-49
Budget Summit #1 --- October 6, 2016
NewPolicies
Highlevelofcommunityinterestinaddressingpedestrian,bicycle,vehiclesafetyon
roadways,intersections,schoolproperties
Revenuesourcestoaddressfederal/staterequirementsforstormwater
management.
Of the $6.1M in debt issued every year, about $1M is for stormwater management. Many
communities are considering stormwater management fees for properties that are not managing
stormwater adequately. Options for how to address the impact of this on the Town’s capital and
operating budgets this will be presented to the Selectmen sometime this fall.
The three words Mr. Valente uses to describe Lexington’s financial challenges for the next five
years are “Capital. Capital. Capital.” But, he added: because of the financial policies that you
have endorsed to prepare for the Town’s anticipated capital impacts for the 5 year period—
specifically setting aside revenues now to mitigate the taxpayer impact—the Town should be
able to offset a significant portion of the property tax impact of these projects to our residents
and our businesses. But it is something we need to remain vigilant about.
Mr. Valente and Ms. Barry recognized the extensive staff contributions to the financial planning
sessions and process.
Establish Dates—Financial Summit 2 through 5
Summit 2: Wednesday November 9
Summit 3: Thursday December 1
Summit 4: Thursday January 12
Summit 5: Thursday February 16
Approve Letter of Support—Middlesex 3 Grant Application
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve and sign the
letter of support for the Middlesex 3 grant application.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to adjourn at 8:45 p.m.
A true record; Attest:
Kim Siebert
Recording Secretary
70-50
Selectmen’s Meeting
October 13, 2016
A meeting of the Board of Selectmen was held on Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 6:30 p.m., in
Estabrook Hall, Cary Memorial Building. Chairman Ms. Barry; Mr. Kelley; Mr. Cohen; Mr.
Pato; and Ms. Ciccolo were present. Also present were staff members Mr. Valente, Town
Manager; Mr. Addelson, Assistant Town Manager for Finance, Ms. Casey, Human Resources
Director; Mr. Pinsonneault, Director of Public Works (DPW), and Ms. Arnold, Recording
Secretary
Executive Session
Because Ms. Barry recused herself from this item, she was not in attendance when this vote was
taken. Ms. Ciccolo served as Acting Chair
Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 4-0 by roll call at 6:33 p.m. to go into
Executive Session under Exemption 3 to discuss strategy with respect to collective bargaining
related to the Lexington Municipal Management Association (LMMA) and to reconvene in Open
Session. Further, Ms. Ciccolo declared that an open meeting discussion may have a detrimental
effect on the bargaining position of the Town.
Open Session was resumed at 7:00 p.m. and Ms. Barry joined the meeting as the Chairman.
Public Comment
Mark Sandeen, Chair, Sustainable Lexington Committee, reported that 90% of Massachusetts is
experiencing severe drought conditions and over 50% of the state, including Lexington, is
experiencing extreme drought conditions. The Quabbin Reservoir is at 82% capacity; Quabbin
water is being diverted to help other communities with more severe conditions. State officials
are recommending conservation efforts. The Sustainable Lexington Committee has three
recommendations:
Raise awareness by working with the DPW on appropriate communications;
Provide municipal leadership by reducing water use by the Town;
Create a water/drought task force that develops recommendations before the 2017
irrigation season.
Town Manager Report
Mr. Valente reported on two events occurring on Saturday, October 15, 2016. At 9:30 a.m., the
library is holding a ribbon cutting ceremony as they celebrate the recent completion of renovated
spaces, with an open house until noon. All funds used for the library projects were donated.
Between 1:00 and 3:00 p.m. the Fire Headquarters is holding its annual open house with various
displays and exhibits.
70-51
Selectmen’s Meeting – October 13, 2016
20/20 Vision Committee Survey
Mr. Pato reported that the 20/20 Vision Committee, with support from the three elected boards,
plans to distribute a Town survey to seek citizen participation in identifying the aspects of our
town that are of greatest interest and concern. The results of this survey will be broadly shared
with the Town's decision makers to serve in guiding both their decision making and the 20/20
Committee in identifying areas deserving further review. Previous surveys were conducted in
2007 and 2012.
The Selectmen have received the 2012 survey for review. Suggestions for new or changed
questions are being solicited to assure that planning reflects the community’s shared vision.
Comments are due by the end of October.
In response to questions, Mr. Pato said that the survey will be available on-line; hard copies will
be available in the library, Town Offices and the Lexington Community Center; and hard copies
will be available in Mandarin. It was generally agreed that translating the survey into Indian
languages and Korean would be pursued. Also, names of buildings need to be updated.
Ms. Barry suggested including a section on communication to determine where people get their
information. Mr. Cohen suggested adding questions about the town’s open spaces to determine
awareness of the Town’s purchases and preservation efforts. Mr. Pato verified that he had
received Ms. Ciccolo’s written comments.
FY2017 Water and Wastewater Rates
Mr. Addelson reported that this is the third meeting with the Board on proposed water/
wastewater rates for FY2017. On September 12, the Board reviewed the results of FY2016
Water and Wastewater operations; billed usage and retained earnings histories; the FY2017
Water and Wastewater budgets as adopted at the 2016 Annual Town Meeting (direct and indirect
costs that serve as the basis for calculating FY2017 water and wastewater rates), and proposed
changes to the budgets adopted last spring; and, preliminary FY2017 water and wastewater rates.
On September 26, staff presented revisions to the preliminary FY2017 rates presented on
September 12, suggesting a 2.8% combined FY2017 water and wastewater increase based on
various assumptions. The Board took public comments.
Using a handout, Mr. Addelson reported that recently collected data for 2016 irrigation use by
some households indicates increases considerably greater than had been estimated. If the higher
use reflects town wide increases in irrigation use, the 2.8% rate increase would result in more
water revenue than originally estimated. Mr. Addelson identified three options for the Board’s
consideration,as described in his memo to the Town Manager dated October 11, 2016 and
distributed to the Board.
Option 1: Adopt the 2.8% increase with the understanding that the excess retained
earnings would be available for use at the 2018 Annual Town Meeting (ATM).
70-52
Selectmen’s Meeting – October 13, 2016
Option 2: Adopt the 2.8% increase with the understanding that, in anticipation of the
additional revenue being certified on July 1, 2018, staff would accelerate its use of
projected July 1, 2017 retained earnings for cash capital at the 2017 ATM.
Option 3: Revise the estimates and reduce the combined increase to 1.1%.
Options 1 and 2 potentially provide financial benefits related to funding capital projects and are
more likely to avoid spikes in future rate increases than Option 3. There was discussion about
the potential impact of a continued drought.
Mr. Bartenstein, Vice Chair & Secretary, Appropriation Committee, expressed opposition to
Option 1 because excess funds sit idle for too long. He supports either Options 2 or 3 but prefers
3 because it is not clear whether the Water Department will have the need for expanding its
capital projects to the extent funding would be potentially available at the 2017 ATM under
Option 2.
Mr. Kanter, Vice Chair & Clerk, Capital Expenditures Committee, expressed support for using
excess funds for capital projects and suggested that the water rate tiers be used to encourage
conservation.
Each Selectman expressed support for Option 2. Ms. Ciccolo noted that higher rates encourage
conservation. Mr. Cohen asked that the reference to drawing down the certified reserve account
at the 2017 ATM be removed from the motion.
Upon duly made and seconded, the Board voted 5-0 to approve proposed FY17 water and
wastewater rates shown as Option 2 on the memorandum, Proposed FY17 Water and
Wastewater Rates – Options for Consideration by the Board of Selectmen, from the Assistant
Town Manager of Finance to the Town Manager dated October 11, 2016, with the removal of
reference to accelerating the use of retained earnings at the 2017 ATM.
In response to a question about using Water Department funds to repair Bedford Street damage
caused by a water main break, Mr. Pinsonneault said that costs would be covered by either Water
Department funds or the road program. It is not clear whether this can be completed in this
construction season.
Center Streetscape Design Review Ad Hoc Committee (Center Streetscape Committee), Tier 1
Report
Mr. Pinsonneault reported that, from the perspective of the DPW, the Center Streetscape
Committee’s report was generally consistent with plans that had been previously developed or
considered, and the staff comments being presented are of a technical nature.
The handout Staff Comments, September 26, 2016 Tier 1 Report, Center Streetscape Design
Review Ad Hoc Committee identified 19 items. Mr. Pinsonneault highlighted the following:
70-53
Selectmen’s Meeting – October 13, 2016
Comment 1: Some of the recommended terminology is inconsistent with the way bid
specifications are generally written. Maintenance will depend on staffing and
financial resources.
Comment 7: It may not be advisable to require a new roughness index standard.
Comment 10: Staff suggests replacing existing ramps only where adjacent sidewalk
is being replaced.
Comment 15: Staff questions the identification of deficiencies in the Waltham Street
to Muzzey Street sidewalk project.
Comment 18: Illumination versus lumination terminology needs to be clarified.
He added that staff is currently preparing comments on Tiers 2 and 3, and throughout this
process DPW has been considering safety, aesthetics, and cost. These criteria need to be
balanced, and the Board’s input will be critical.
Board members expressed appreciation for the work that had been done and encouraged further
communication between staff and the Center Streetscape Committee to resolve the technical
issues. Mr. Pinsonneault reported that the staff and the Center Streetscape Committee have
engaged in an on-going dialogue. It was agreed to identify a block of time early on the Board’s
November 7 agenda to facilitate a more comprehensive discussion. Mr. Cohen hopes that this
process demonstrates to the public that the Board has not taken a position.
In response to questions, Mr. Valente reported that the DPW has submitted a capital request for
this project, and he will be working with staff in early December to finalize a capital plan for
submitting to the Board in January. Mr. Cohen noted that the funding process does not require a
position by this Board until closer to ATM.
Although he is a Center Streetscape Committee member, Mr. Himmel commented as a resident
and Town Meeting member because he had not been authorized to speak for the committee. He
suggested that the committee and staff are not as out-of-sync as it may sound and concurred that
they were engaged in a collaborative effort. He added that all of those involved need to continue
to work towards a consistent message and a plan that makes us proud. He suggested that since
the sidewalks in the center were constructed in 1990, they would have been Americans with
Disability Act (ADA) compatible; the Town needs to decide whether meeting those ADA
regulations is adequate. He also commented that construction costs are escalating.
State Mandate Determination Regarding Early Voting
Mr. Valente reported that the Town Clerk is asking whether the Board of Selectmen will support
a request to the State Auditor's Office to make a determination as to whether the new law
requiring early voting for state elections is a State mandate that would require legislative funding
under the State Mandates law. Lexington plans to join with other towns in asking this question.
The new early voting law requires that for 10 days prior to the election, election workers must be
available during office hours, which means incurring some additional cost. Lexington also plans
70-54
Selectmen’s Meeting – October 13, 2016
to allow voting two Thursday evenings and Saturday. It is anticipated that early voting will
expand in future years.
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted 5-0 to support the Town Clerk’s request
that the State Auditor determine whether the early voting for State elections is a State mandate.
Board of Selectmen’s Appointment to the Permanent Building Committee
Mr. Valenteasked the Board of Selectmen to appoint Robert Cunha and Joe Sirkovich to the
Permanent Building Committee for the Fire Station project.
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted 5-0 to approve Robert Cunha and Joe
Sirkovich to the Permanent Building Committee as user agency members for the Fire Station
project.
Selectmen Committee Appointments & Resignation
Ms. Barry noted that the Historic Districts Commission (HDC) has two unexpired full openings
for Lexington Historical Society designated nominees. One expires in 2017; the other in 2020.
The Historical Society submitted four names for consideration: Robert Adams, Edward
Adelman, Mark Connor, and Jon Himmel. All are architects and their résumés were provided as
handout material. Board members have had the opportunity to talk with them.
Ms. Ciccolo, Mr. Cohen, Ms. Barry, and Mr. Pato expressed support for Mr. Adams and Mr.
Adelman. Mr. Kelly supported Mr. Connor and Mr. Adelman. Ms. Barry suggested that
because Mr. Adelman received more support than Mr. Adams, he be appointed to the term that
expires in 2020.
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted 4-1 (Mr. Kelley against) to appoint Mr.
Adelman to the HDC to fill the unexpired term of Lynn Hopkins (2020) and Mr. Adams to fill
the unexpired term of Paul Ross (2017).
Ms. Barry recommended approving Mary Haskell’s resignation from the Tax Deferral and
Exemptions Committee, effective immediately.
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted 5-0 to accept the resignation of Mary
Haskell from the Tax Deferral and Exemptions Committee.
Sign State Election Warrant: Ms. Barry reported that the Town Clerk is requesting approval of
the State Election Warrant for the November 8, 2016 election.
Upon a duly made and seconded motion, the Board voted 5-0 to approve and sign the State
Warrant.
70-55
Selectmen’s Meeting – October 13, 2016
Cast Vote – Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Mr. Valente explained that Richard
Canale, the Board's designee to the Boston Region MPO, recommends voting for the MPO
representatives from Framingham, Bedford, Somerville and Braintree. All are running
unopposed for re-election.
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted 5-0 to authorize the Chairman to sign the
Absentee Ballot for the MPO election for the representatives of the towns of Framingham
Bedford and Braintree, and the city of Somerville.
Consent Agenda
Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 5-0 to accept the Consent Agenda:
Adjustments of Water and Sewer Charges:
Approve Adjustments of Water and Sewer charges as recommended by WSAB ($34,723.12).
Approve Minutes and Executive Session Minutes:
Approve the Board meeting minutes of August 2, 2016, August 15, 2016, August 19, 2016 and
August 30, 2016; approve and not release the Executive Session minutes of August 2, 2016 and
August 15, 2016
Approve One-Day Liquor License – Wilson Farm:
Approve Wilson Farm’s request for a one-day liquor license to serve wine at their "Pumpkin
Floral Arrangement Workshop", which takes place at their location (Pleasant Street) on
Thursday, October 20, 2016 from 5:30 p.m. until 7:00 p.m.
Approve One-day Liquor License – Nellio’s Catering:
Approve Neillio's Catering request for a one-day liquor license to serve beer and wine at a "Sons
of American Revolution" event which takes place at The Depot on Thursday, December 8, 2016
from 6:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m.
Executive Session
Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 5-0 by roll call at 8:20 p.m. to go into
Executive Session under Exemption 3 to discuss strategy with respect to potential litigation
related to the property at 430 Concord Avenue and under Exemption 6 to consider the purchase,
exchange, lease or value of land at 20 Pelham Road and/or 171-173 Bedford Street, declaring
that an open meeting discussion may have a detrimental effect on the litigating position of the
Town and declaring that at the conclusion of the Executive Session, the board will reconvene in
open session only to adjourn. Ms. Ciccolo recused herself from the discussion on Pelham Road.
Open session reconvened at 10:17 p.m.
70-56
Selectmen’s Meeting – October 13, 2016
Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 4-0 to adjourn at 10:17 p.m.
Because Ms. Ciccolo had recused herself during the Executive Session, she was not in
attendance when this vote was taken.
A true record: Attest:
Sara Arnold
Recording Secretary
70-57
Selectmen’s Meeting
October 24, 2016
A meeting of the Lexington Board of Selectmen was held on Monday, October 24, 2016 at 7:00
p.m.in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room of the Town Office Building. Ms. Barry, Chairman; Mr.
Kelley; Mr. Cohen; Mr. Pato; and Ms. Ciccolo were present as well as Mr. Valente, Town
Manager and Ms. Siebert, Recording Secretary.
Selectman Concerns and Liaison Reports
Ms. Barry congratulated the Lexington High School football team for singularly securing the
Middlesex League Liberty Division title for the first time in 34 years. The team now proceeds to
the playoffs, starting with a competition against Andover on October 28.
Town Manager Report
Mr. Valente shared five items:
Today, the first day of the new Massachusetts Early Voting initiative, 460 individuals cast their
ballots in Lexington. The polling location is in the Cary Memorial Building. Reports from the
Town Clerk are that the process went smoothly and people were excited. Early voting will
continue leading up to Election Day on November 8 and include Thursday evenings and
Saturday, October 29. Early voters can use the dedicated parking spaces and tagged meters close
to the building for their convenience.
At the end of October, some pedestrian safety improvements will be made in the Center. Bump-
outs will be installed on both sides of Massachusetts Ave. at Meriam Street to shorten the width
of the road. This project follows a couple of accidents involving vehicles and pedestrians and
was recommended by the Transportation Safety group and supported by the librarians who park
at the Church of the Redeemer and then cross the street to get to work.
The roadway in front of the Public Services Building on Bedford St. will be resurfaced on
Friday, October 28, to address road damage caused by a water main break last winter. Bedford
St. will be closed at that point and detours will redirect the often heavy traffic around the work
site. Motorists are advised to seek alternate routes.
The town building roof-top solar project has yielded greater-than-estimated revenue from its first
year, bringing in $165,000, which includes income from energy generation plus taxes/PILOT
payments. This is approx. $16,000 more than projected.
Staff met last week with representatives from Hanscom AFB and the NBC/Universal weather
team of meteorologists to discuss a plan to install a 155 ft. Doppler weather tower on the base.
The tower would serve not only NBC but also the Air Force and Massport. This project is still in
the evaluation stage. Staff provided comments at the meeting; abutters are notified via this
evening’s announcement that the tower is under consideration.
70-58
Selectmen’s Meeting – October 24, 2016
Public Hearing—RCN Change of Ownership
Ms. Barry recognized the presenters for this hearing, Dave Buczkowski from the Communica-
tions Advisory Committee (CAC); Tom Steele from RCN; and Tara Corvo from Mintz Levin PC
representing TPG. Ms. Barry then opened the Public Hearing at 7:09 p.m. and read the Public
Hearing notice into the record.
Mr. Buczkowski said Mr. Steele and Ms. Corvo would explain TPG’s qualifications, proposed
transfer of ownership, and the benefits to Lexington consumers that will flow from the transfer.
Ms. Corvo guided the meeting through a Power Point presentation about the ownership transfer,
covering several main points:
How will the system ownership will change?
The local RCN franchise is an indirect subsidy of Yankee Cable Partners, an affiliate of
ABRY Partners VI, an investment fund. An entity affiliated with TPG Partners VI has
agreed to acquire control of local RCN franchises. After the transaction closes, Radiate
Holdings, a limited liability partnership owned and controlled by TPG, will control the
local RCN franchises. All local entities will remain the same as today so there will be
continuity of management.
Who is TPG?
TPG, like ABRY, is an investment company that was founded 24 years ago and is now
controlled by David Bonderman and James G. Coulter. Ms. Corvo called TPG one of the
most active private equity investors in the internet ecosystem with $73 billion in assets
under management. In the fund that will own RCN, there is currently over $8B available
to provide equity financing. TPG has created a fund specifically to invest in RCN and has
attracted investors to participate in that fund.
How the transaction will be financed?
The aggregate purchase price of RCN is approximately $1.6B, of which a certain portion
will be used to refinance RCN’s existing debt. An additional $1.825B of new debt will be
split between a seven-year senior secured term loan and eight-year senior unsecured
notes. Another $528M will come from TPG investors and a five-year, $150M credit line
has been made available for future investments and general liquidity.
Who will run and manage the system?
As stated above, the continuity of management will mean that current management and
labor force will remain at the local level. Additionally, two Patriot Media executives will
serve on Radiate’s board of directors and other board members will be appointed by TPG
and Google Capital, a minority partner.
What are the benefits of the transaction?
70-59
Selectmen’s Meeting – October 24, 2016
Continuity of service and relationships with the same people currently affiliated with
RCN locally will assure a seamless transition between owners. Additionally, service
upgrades planned by RCN will proceed as planned. Tangentially, TPG will
simultaneously acquire Grande, another cable/internet/wifi provider, and this acquisition
will expand and improve RCN programming and operating efficiencies. The entire
system will become faster due to an upgrade to DOCSIS 3.1.
Current status of the ownership transition is: approval by anti-trust authorities has been obtained.
FCC approval and the consent of several states and localities are required before closing; so far,
no concerns have been raised. The expected closing date is the first quarter of 2017.
David Becker of the Communications Advisory Committee (CAC) asked about the status of
tentative plans to rebuild RCN’s system. Ms. Corvo said the project will kick off in November,
even before the sale to TCP is final. She is unsure where in the queue Lexington falls so could
not give an exact date for the local rebuild phase.
Mr. Buczkowski asked for information about TPG managers David Bonderman and James G.
Coulter. Ms. Corvo said Messrs. Bonderman and Coulter are the directors of TPG; they control
the direction of the funds but they do not control the equity of the company which is controlled
by the investors. Patriot Management will play the ground-level role of day-to-day management.
The fund has been completely secured through legally binding investor commitments.
David Kanter, Precinct 7 Town Meeting member, asked if the increase in system capability will
be accompanied by an increase in cost to subscribers. Mr. Steele and Ms. Corvo explained that
RCN, with a smaller market share of customers, must keep subscription rates in line with other
providers to remain competitive. Rates are set every year but bill increases are driven largely by
voluntary programming options, seen on invoices as surcharges.
Mr. Buczkowski said further comments on the change of ownership should be submitted by
November 7.
Ms. Barry closed the Public Hearing at 7:30 p.m.
MassDOT Presentation—Proposed Solar Installation for Route 128 Noise Barrier Wall
Ms. Barry recognized Eric Wood from Ramboll Environmental; James Cerbone, project manager
for MassDOT Environmental Services, Aiman Alawa, NuWatt Energy; and Mohammed
Siddiqui, president of Solution Sales Management (SSM) to present information about a
proposed solar panel installation on noise barriers along a 3,300 ft. stretch of Route 128 near
Robinson Road in Lexington. A fifth team member, Ko-tech,was not in attendance. If this pilot
project goes forward, it would be the first of its kind in the Western Hemisphere, although the
technology has been applied in parts of Europe and Asia.
70-60
Selectmen’s Meeting – October 24, 2016
Mr. Wood said the assembled team presents a variety of necessary skill sets: comfort with
working in a highway environment, acoustics, understanding the design of the barrier itself, solar
energy technology, structural engineering, investments and financing, permitting, community
relations, and sustainable development.
Several visual renderings of the barrier-mounted solar panels were shown. Mr. Alawa said that of
the identified 3,300 ft. barrier expanse, the proposed installation would encompass about 2,500
ft., involving 166 wall sections. The size of the system is 650 kilowatts with an annual
production value of 825,000 kWh, enough to supply energy to 120 homes and a gasoline
equivalent of 45,000 gallons. The solar panels would be seen from the highway but not from the
abutters’ side, with the exception of the back of the top panel. There might be the need for a
transformer on Robinson Road, which can be sited on property already owned by MassDOT.
Mr. Wood said this stretch of highway was chosen after an analysis of 20 sites in Massachusetts.
Qualifying factors include best orientation/compass heading; snow removal; reflectivity; acoustic
effects and other criteria. A first phase of site testing was completed that included acoustic
modelling to ensure no additional noise disturbance would result.
The team emphasized that this project is considered a pilot: everything will be closely monitored
and evaluated to ensure results are consistent with modelling. If not, the panels can be removed.
The project is a public/private partnership conducted with no expense to the taxpayer. Mass DOT
will get renewable energy credits and the Town can tax the panels as third party usage of State
property. Additionally, the assembled team’s presentation is conceptual, meaning it still has to
prevail in the RFP/RFQ process to be awarded the contract for installation.
Ms. Ciccolo asked for information about the noise modelling that was done and what sort of
testing would be done after the panel installation. Mr. Wood said the modeling was done by
professional acoustic engineers from the Ramboll UK offices. A set of criteria for successful/
unsuccessful outcomes will be developed based on decibel levels. Mr. Wood said the data so far
indicates a net (+ or –) 1 decibel change from current levels. Monitoring stations would be
established; if the readings did not match the modeling, the pilot would be considered a failure.
Mr. Cerbone said three hurdles of pre-approval regarding noise levels have been received from
Federal highway officials, the State and MassDOT. The monitoring software was developed by
Odeon in Amsterdam and is considered a well-established noise monitoring method. Included in
the noise modeling scope are multiple dates/times, weather conditions, and traffic counts. A third
party, VHB, reviewed the results to assure objectivity.
In case the neighbors object to the visuals, Mr. Kelley asked if it would be necessary to have the
top row of panels in order for the project to succeed. Mr. Alawa said the size of the system has to
be 650 kilowatts. The panels are planned to be oriented in portrait mode on some parts of the
installation and in landscape mode on other sections. The team is trying to get as much
production as possible out of a limited area but he suspected that the design could be altered so
70-61
Selectmen’s Meeting – October 24, 2016
that the panels were installed in portrait mode, on the face of the wall only. However, that would
result in reduced production.
Following a green light by the Selectmen, the next step would be public outreach in the form of a
meeting with abutters. The team expressed a preference to convene at the site itself. Mr. Cerbone
said MassDOT can work with the Town to coordinate a meeting in the next month or so. He
anticipates getting shovels in the ground in June 2017 because the RFP process will take several
months and the details of the revised renewable energy credit program have yet to be released.
Mr. Cohen said the Robinson Road neighborhood fought for years for the noise barriers to be
erected and the individuals active in that initiative would be good contacts for outreach.
Mark Sandeen, Chair of Sustainable Lexington, reported that his group voted unanimously to
support this project. To put it in context, the highway barrier project is about 60% of the size of
Lexington’s rooftop panel installation and it would generate the equivalent of Lexington’s
municipal demand. The group is enthusiastic about the location because it does not interfere with
how the site is already used and because success here would provide a beneficial model for the
rest of the country.
State Representative Jay Kaufman said he had heard an earlier version of this presentation two
months ago and he finds it exciting that Lexington is breaking new ground. He added he was
impressed with the quality of thought that has gone into the project.
Dawn McKenna, 9 Hancock St. and Town Meeting member, said her biggest interest is
monitoring the noise impact to the neighborhood.
In closing, Ms. Ciccolo and Mr. Pato both expressed enthusiasm for the project.
Preliminary Report of Town Manager’s Solid Waste Task Force
Ms. Barry recognized David Pinsonneault, DPW Director; Robert Beaudoin, Superintendent of
Environmental Services; and Larry Belvin, a member of the Solid Waste Task Force. Mr.
Beaudoin presented options for the new trash and recycling contract that will begin July 1. 2017.
The Board is being asked to comment on three possible options to be included in the RFP which
will be released in late November. The Task Force recommendations come after six weeks of
discussion among ten members: four Town employees, two Selectmen, and four citizens
representing groups such as Sustainable Lexington, the League of Women Voters, and the
Council on Aging. Beyond the main focus of the new contract, discussion topics included
education and outreach.
The current trash and recycling system is a weekly pick up for both. Bulky items, white goods,
electronic waste, scrap metal items are picked up by prearrangement and yard waste is collected
24 weeks of the year. For the new contract, added alternatives could include organic waste pick
up from the schools with an option for residential participation on a paid subscription basis.
70-62
Selectmen’s Meeting – October 24, 2016
Another possible change is adding another 11 weeks of yard waste collection. Manual single-
stream curbside recycling is another possible change; a second alternative would keep the dual
stream status quo recycling model as today but have the materials transported to a facility in
Wellesley rather than the current destination as determined by JRM, the recycling hauler. The
vendors are bidding to take the recycling where they wish to take it.
The Wellesley option is of interest because Wellesley is one of the only municipalities that has
its own baler and separator to manage recyclables. Keeping the current dual stream recycling
system—as opposed to changing to single stream— means that materials stay cleaner and are
therefore more manageable and marketable. If the Wellesley option for recycling is adopted,
solid waste refuse would continue to be transported to Wheelabrator North Andover.
Other options the Task Force discussed were automated collection (one driver/no other laborers)
which would necessitate standardized toters of dimensions from 32 to 96 cu. gallons. Currently,
there are two trucks that manage trash with a driver plus one/two assistants, and two recycling
trucks with one driver and one/two assistants. One bulky item per week on a pre-arranged basis
would be included in this format; in this scenario, manual pick-up of single-stream recycling
would be transported to whatever facility the hauler chooses.
Another option discussed was weekly automated curbside collection with a toter and weekly
automated single-stream recycling. Bulky items and other special collection management would
remain the same as the current format. A second version of this option would provide weekly
automated refuse collection but biweekly recycling. The Task Force does not recommend this
final option. It was noted that Lexington adopted weekly recycling 13-14 years ago.
Other action items identified by the Task Force were: education outreach (that would be spelled
out specifically in the RFP); current trash limit of 6 bags/barrels reduced to 3 or 4 per week;
enforcement of the mandatory recycling bylaw; and requiring haulers to use alternative fuel
vehicles. The last time Lexington posted a refuse contract RFP, 7 companies submitted bids.
Ms. Ciccolo asked for more information about optional residential organic waste collection. Mr.
Beaudoin explained that the schools are currently served by an organics/compost collection
program. If residents want to participate, they could be offered subscription rates for curbside
household pickup. A 12-gallon container would be collected weekly. The kinds of foods
included are not only fruits and vegetables but also meats and cheeses.
Mr. Pato said he and Mr. Kelley were the selectmen involved in the Task Force and he was
impressed by the amount of research the group did on the various options under consideration.
Discussions focused attention on community education, ways to make recycling more effective,
and ways to minimize recycling contamination to yield a better product for the service providers.
Elaine Ashton, 32 Cliff St., asked the Task Force to consider getting the schools involved in
composting and/or re-purposing food (as appropriate), citing Food Link as an example.
70-63
Selectmen’s Meeting – October 24, 2016
Mr. Kanter, Precinct 7 Town Meeting member, said he was supportive of the automated pick up
method but asked how it would work in multi-unit complexes that each have their own particular
logistics. Mr. Beaudoin said the toters would probably have to be wheeled to a central pick-up
area(s) within the complex. The vendor might be able to suggest how to manage this change.
Diane Bigelow, 15 Bellflower St., said there are groups willing to come to homes and schools to
collect food that should not be tossed. Mr. Beaudoin said it can be difficult to ensure the hygienic
integrity of that type of food. The State, through the EPA, is moving toward food and organics
collection but is first focusing on large food waste generators, such as cafeterias. Mr. Beaudoin
said he would bring up the matter with the Town’s Facilities Department.
Mr. Sandeen, Chair of Sustainable Lexington, asked if the Task Force had a preference among
the options identified. Mr. Beaudoin said there was no preference but added that it will be
interesting to see how the options play out in contract pricing. The contract award will consider
factors such as delivery of service, references, and company track record.
Ms. Ciccolo encouraged inclusion of the clean fuel vehicle element in the RFP, as long as doing
so did not add substantially to the cost.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to authorize the DPW to
include in the Trash and Recycling Collection Request for Proposals Options 1, 2, and 3 as well
as the addition of a clean fuel vehicle request.
Preliminary Review—FY18 Capital Plan
Ms. Barry recognized Assistant Town Manager for Finance Rob Addelson, to address the
preliminary list of Capital projects. Mr. Addelson cautioned that inclusion on the list does not
ensure a project will go forward and he noted that School projects on the list have yet to be
approved by the School Committee. All projects were submitted to the Capital Expenditures
Committee on October 21 and, where applicable, also to the Community Preservation
Committee. CEC will begin its review process this week and, per usual, departments will meet
with CEC to discuss their submissions. CPC will follow a similar procedure.
The preliminary list is being presented now to the Selectmen for questions and comments. Mr.
Valente provided background detail for several items on the list that may be less familiar to
Board members.
Project #1030—Wright Farm additional site assessment
CPA funding was committed a couple of years ago to purchase a second parcel at Wright Farm
that included the house and the barn. Subsequent discovery of pesticide contamination around
the barn necessitated mitigation and the cost of that mitigation has exhausted funds intended for
re-use/conservation purposes. Another $70,000 (CP) is requested for FY18.
70-64
Selectmen’s Meeting – October 24, 2016
Project #1032—Stone Building Analysis
This is the former East Lexington Library. Every year, the question is asked whether a new
purpose for the building can be found. Staff has been meeting/discussing the matter and there
have been exchanges of ideas with the Historical Society. This proposal asks for $25,000 (CPA)
in FY18 to hire a consultant to analyze the building and present a list of potential cultural uses
(such as a museum, arts space, etc.) while keeping the second floor as a lecture venue.
Project #564—Lexington High School Heating Systems Upgrade
This project has been on the list for several years and the amount has grown over time. Now, the
high school question is larger than it was originally and Mr. Valente said it may be time to step
back from a piecemeal approach to addressing LHS needs. The Selectmen will engage with the
School Committee about what direction to take but, for the time being, the project is on the
Capital list for $200,000 (levy) in FY18 and $20,629,000 (levy) in FY19.
Project #835—Visitors Center
Mr. Valente said this project will stay on the list but it is difficult to see how it will be funded in
this round. Currently, the project is shown as a two-year request: $118,000 (levy) in FY18 and
$3,815,000 (levy) in FY19.
Project #898—School Traffic Safety Improvements
The Transportation Safety Group and the Schools brought forward a multi-year, multi-million
dollar phased project to improve school traffic safety: $183,000 in FY18; $1,311,200 in FY19;
$2,122,200 in FY20; $1,472,300 in FY21; $1,220,200 in FY22 (all from the levy). Because of
the significant investments being made in the schools and the burden those will place on the
taxpayers, Mr. Valente expressed concern that these additional investments may be difficult to
embrace.
Project #850—Hartwell Ave. Infrastructure Improvements—Supplemental
About $4.3M was previously approved by TM to address the area around the Maguire Road/
Hartwell Ave. intersection. However, a small bridge over a stream/culvert now needs to be
replaced, adding another $2.185M (levy) to the price tag. There is significant utility
infrastructure in that area, complicating how the road and bridge must be engineered.
Project #940—Westview Cemetery Building Assessment
The most likely option for this building is a totally new construction rather than a renovation.
New construction would allow improvement/expansion for staff work space as well as
accommodation for families needing to consult on burial arrangements. Relatedly, the Town has
looked at its cemetery fees and discovered its fees are far less than surrounding towns; increased
rates could help fund the project. A proposal for rate changes will be forthcoming at an
upcoming Selectmen’s meeting. For now, the project is included on the Capital list for $270,000
for FY18 (levy) and $2.66M for FY19 (levy.)
70-65
Selectmen’s Meeting – October 24, 2016
Mr. Pato noted that project #732—Center Track Field Reconstruction— might be best postponed
until after the probable high school reconstruction. Mr. Pato also wondered if project #1014—
Cricket Field Construction—currently scheduled for FY22, could be moved up since he, and
presumably the Town as well, receives a lot of inquiries about the project’s status.
Mr. Kelley said he would like to encourage the Board to have a conversation about the Visitor’s
Center and the relatively low cost compared to the benefits it would bring to the town.
Ms. Barry asked about project #980—Bedford St. at Eldred St. Safety Improvements. Mr.
Valente said the Transportation Safety Group has had this area in its sights for some time
because there is a bus stop at the intersection that is used regularly but dangerous to access.
MassDOT would have to approve any improvements because Bedford Street at that juncture is a
State road. Initial discussions with MassDOT have been positive with the result that the State is
amenable to adding a “hawk” on-demand traffic control device. The hawk is more expensive
than the $50,000 flashing light originally planned for the site, so this line item will be amended
to $175,000 (funding source listed as Other).
Ms. Barry questioned the dollar amount associated with project #644—Sidewalk
Improvements— saying she remembered $800,000 as the yearly set-aside for sidewalks instead
of the approximate $600,000 (levy) shown on the list each year through FY22. Ms. Ciccolo
remembered the $800,000 figure as well. Ms. Barry also clarified that project #645—Dam
Repair—was the dam at the Old Res and project #883—Bikeway Bridge Repair—was the bridge
on Grant Street.
Mr. Cohen asked whether the yearly $100,000 (levy) listed for project #981—Transportation
Mitigation— was associated with any specific project(s). Mr. Valente said there is $30,000 in the
current year allotted for Transportation Mitigation that has already been committed but there
remains a long line of mostly neighborhood projects (signage, bump outs, flashing beacons at
school crossing, etc.) still to fund. He explained a yearly $100,000 is being recommended
because, currently, if a neighborhood requests a relatively minor improvement, funding must
wait for a year. If this item is approved, the Town will be able to respond more quickly to
pedestrian and bicycle safety issues that have become a community priority.
Mr. Cohen asked whether project #1009—Munroe Window Study for $720,000 (CPA) is for the
windows themselves rather than for a study. Mr. Addelson confirmed that it is for the windows;
the word “study” will be removed from the project title.
Project #554—Street Acceptance for $147,000 in FY18 (Other) has to do with Harbell St. Mr.
Pinsonneault said a presentation about this project will be made at an upcoming Selectmen’s
meeting.
Mr. Cohen noted project #966—Community Center Sidewalk— for $200,000 (CPA) in FY18.
Mr. Cohen said more study should be done before funds are committed to this project.
70-66
Selectmen’s Meeting – October 24, 2016
Ms. Ciccolo said she would like to schedule a presentation on the Cotton Farm Conservation
Area Improvements— listed as project #1037 for $300,403 (CPA) in FY18.
Noting that there is no funding listed for project #1033— Affordable Units Preservation— Ms.
Ciccolo asked if the Town has a strategy to purchase deed restricted affordable housing so as not
to lose it from the inventory. She is aware that some communities create an Affordable Housing
Trust for this purpose. Mr. Valente said there would be a discussion on the subject of affordable
housing later in the meeting.
Ms. Ciccolo commented on project #738— 45 Bedford St. Fire Station Replacement— saying
that the setback of the building and turning lane configuration warranted careful consideration at
that already complicated intersection.
On project #554—Street Acceptance— Ms. Ciccolo wants to make sure streets that the Town
plows/maintains are all officially part of the street inventory to ensure that Ch. 90 monies are
maximized.
Rob Pressman, 22 Locust Avenue and CPC member, said the Committee has received a large
number of funding requests for this round of Capital projects and it would be helpful to know the
Board’s positions, particularly on the multi-million dollar, multi-year Center Streetscape
proposal. CPC is still retiring a substantial amount of debt for Cary Memorial Library, the
Community Center and Wright Farm.
Mr. Pressman says he counted over $13M earmarked for Historic Preservation through FY22 and
$6.8M for Recreation. However, for Affordable Housing, there is zero. He hopes this year there
will be some progress on the Leary parcel, set aside by Town Meeting 8 years ago for affordable
housing.
Dawn McKenna, Tourism Committee Chair, applauded Mr. Kelley’s support for funding the
Visitors’ Center and hoped staff time will be allocated to identifying alternative sources of
funding for the project. Investing in the Visitors’ Center, like investing in Hartwell Avenue, is a
strategic element of Lexington’s economic development, Ms. McKenna said. She also noted that
the Tourism Committee recommended value engineering for the $3.8M project but that it has not
yet been done.
Ms. McKenna said Lexington co-sponsored a listening tour in conjunction with the State and
Rep. Corey Atkins, Chair of the Legislature’s Arts, Cultural, and Tourism Council. One of the
things learned from this initiative is that the Massachusetts Cultural Council has a Facilities Re-
investment Fund and Lexington might be eligible for a $300,000 grant. Additionally, the
Tourism Committee is considering funding a study that would demonstrate the positive impact of
investing in visitors’ centers.
Ms. McKenna asked what the $118,500 listed for the Visitors’ Center project was for. Mr.
Addelson said the funds were for the design and engineering phase that precedes construction.
70-67
Selectmen’s Meeting – October 24, 2016
Ms. Kenna said the Tourism Committee was under the impression no additional funding would
be needed before the construction phase.
Mr. Kanter, CEC, thanked the Town’s budget officer, Jennifer Hewitt, for coordinating the
upcoming project presentation meetings with proposal submitters. He asked that the revisions
made to the list this evening be made available electronically as soon as possible.
Miranda Clarke, 18 Hill St, reported that a new sidewalk project has begun to formulate based on
the condition of Hill Street. The Transportation Safety Group has sent out a survey of residents
and is awaiting responses, with the idea of adding Hill Street to the sidewalk waiting list. Mr.
Cohen said he had spoken before the meeting with Ms. Clarke and hoped this project could be
addressed as soon as possible.
Update Charge –Tax Deferral and Exemption Committee
The discussion of this item was deferred to a later date as there are more revisions to be made.
Authorize Town Manager to Sign Closing Documents—171—173 Bedford Street
The closing of the sale to the Town of 171-173 Bedford Street is scheduled for October 27. Mr.
Valente asked for the Board’s approval to move ahead with the purchase by authorizing him to
sign the necessary closing documents.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to authorize the Town
Manager to take all actions on behalf of the Town that are reasonably necessary, in the judgment
of the Town Manager, to complete the purchase of the Property in accordance with that certain
Purchase and Sale Agreement by and between the Town, as buyer, and Liberty Mutual Insurance
Company, as seller, and the applicable Town Meeting vote, including without limitation
delivering closing funds and signing deeds, leases, closing forms, closing documents, and
settlement statements.
Town Manager’s Appointment—Commission on Disabilities
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted 5-0 to approve the Town Manager’s
reappointment of Michael Martignetti to the Commission on Disability. Mr. Martignetti has
been a member of the Commission since 2003. The reappointment is contingent upon receiving a
copy of Mr. Martignetti’s Ethics Training certificate.
Selectmen Committee Appointments & Resignations
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted 5-0 to appoint Pamela Joshi as a member
of the Tax Deferral and Exemption Committee with a term ending September 2018; and further
to appoint Mark Ferri as a member of the Council for the Arts for a term to expire September
2019; and further to accept the resignation of Susan Hammond from the Council for the Arts.
70-68
Selectmen’s Meeting – October 24, 2016
Consent Agenda
Approve Minutes and Executive Session Minutes
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve the minutes of
March 2, 2016; March 7, 2016; March 8, 2016; March 14, 2016; March 16, 2016; March 21,
2016; March 23, 2016; March 28, 2016; and March 30, 2016. And further, to approve and not
release the Executive Session minutes of March 7, 2016; March 8, 2016; March 28, 2016; and
March 30, 2016.
Mr. Pato noted several non-substantive spelling and clarity revisions in the open meeting minutes
prior to acceptance. He will submit his edits to the Executive Clerk’s office.
Executive Session
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted 5-0 by roll call to enter Executive Session
under Exemption 6 to consider the purchase, exchange, lease or value of real property, Belmont
Country Club/Hanover Development Parcel and to reconvene in Open Session, only to adjourn.
Further, it was declared that an open meeting discussion may have a detrimental effect on the
negotiating position of the Town;
And further, on motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted 5- 0 by roll call to enter
Executive Session under Exemption 3 to consider potential litigation and under Exemption 6 to
discuss the purchase, exchange, lease or value of real property, Pine Grove/Judges Way
Affordable Housing complex, and to reconvene in Open Session only to adjourn. Further, it was
declared that an open meeting discussion may have a detrimental effect on the litigating position
of the Town;
And further, on motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted 5-0 by roll call to enter
Executive Session under Exemption 3 to discuss strategy with respect to potential litigation
related to the property at 430 Concord Avenue and to reconvene in Open Session only to
adjourn. Further, it was declared that an open meeting discussion may have a detrimental effect
on the litigating position of the Town;
And further, on motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted 5-0 by roll call to enter
Executive Session under Exemption 6 to consider the purchase, exchange, lease or value of real
property, 20 Pelham Road, and to reconvene in Open Session only to adjourn. Further, it was
declared that an open meeting discussion may have a detrimental effect on the negotiating
position of the Town;
Ms. Ciccolo will not participate in the Pelham Road conversation.
And further, on motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted 5-0 by roll call to enter
Executive Session under Exemption 2 to discuss Negotiations with Non-Union Personnel and to
reconvene in Open Session only to adjourn. Further, it was declared that an open meeting
discussion may have a detrimental effect on the negotiating position of the Town.
70-69
Selectmen’s Meeting – October 24, 2016
Ms. Barry will not participate in the negotiation discussion with Non-Union Personnel.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted 4-0 to adjourn at approximately 10:00 p.m.
following the close of Executive Session.
A true record; Attest:
Kim Siebert
Recording Secretary
70-70
Joint Meeting
Board of Selectmen and Planning Board
October 26, 2016
A joint meeting of the Board of Selectmen and Planning Board was held on Wednesday, October
26, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. in Estabrook Hall of the Cary Memorial Building, 1605 Massachusetts
Avenue. Board of Selectmen (BOS) Ms. Barry (chair); Mr. Kelley; Mr. Cohen; Mr. Pato and
Ms. Ciccolo; were present along with Mr. Valente, Town Manager; and Ms. Siebert, Recording
Secretary.
Also present were Planning Director Mr. Henry and Assistant Planning Director Mr. Kucharsky;
and Planning Board (PB) members Mr. Dunn (Chair); Mr. Canale (Vice Chair); Ms. Corcoran-
Ronchetti; Mr. Hornig; and Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Barry called the BOS meeting to order at 7:01p.m. and introduced the Board members. Mr.
Dunn called the Planning Board meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and introduced the PB members.
Ms. Barry welcomed the audience but noted there would not be time for public comment this
evening as it was a working meeting.
Procedure for Meeting Minutes
Ms. Barry explained that the BOS Recording Secretary will be taking the minutes for the
Selectmen. Draft copies of those minutes will be shared with the PB for review, prior to approval
by the BOS.
Balanced Housing Development Zoning Bylaw
Ms. Barry started the discussion about Balanced Housing Development (BHD) by saying the
BOS has received significant public comment on the subject and the Selectmen have increasing
concerns about the bylaw. Ms. Barry invited BOS members to express their individual views.
Mr. Pato said the topic of Balanced Housing Development is an important one that has been
discussed at BOS goal setting sessions. A number of controversial residential developments have
come forward recently, seeking approval under the BHD bylaw which has caused concern
among residents. Mr. Pato said BHD was intended to trade off denser housing with an affordable
housing public benefit but it has met with little success and the goal of housing diversity has not
been achieved. Mr. Pato hopes revisions can be made to the BHD bylaw so that density is
accompanied by a generous affordable housing component.
Mr. Kelley said he has received a number of complaints about BHD because residents object to
increased density that is sometimes twice what is allowed by-right. One of his problems with
BHD is that it doesn’t protect Lexington’s 10% affordability status that insulates the town from
hostile 40B projects. Mr. Kelley believes any development that exceeds by-right density should
have a documentable, affordable element. He wants to look into other methods by which the
Town can achieve its goals.
70-71
Joint Selectmen and Planning Board Meeting – October 26, 2016
Ms. Barry noted that Planning/Housing is the fifth most important goal on the BOS high priority
goal list. She affirmed that BOS members hear daily from concerned residents regarding
development and its impacts on the town. Ms. Barry said she does not generally support density
or destroying trees and she is struck that parcels of land that have been passed over for years are
now being developed. Ms. Barry said the BOS wants to examine what the Town can do to
change the bylaw so that results are more in line with desired goals.
Mr. Cohen said he, too, has been contacted almost daily about new development and he shared
Ms. Barry’s observations about land formerly passed over that is now considered developable.
He believes that meeting with the PB is an important step toward resolving issues and
responding to public concerns.
Ms. Ciccolo said it is important to understand that, jurisdictionally, only Town Meeting(TM) can
change bylaws. As it stands, BHD allows for a density bonus and greater density often means
smaller-than-conventional units. Ms. Ciccolo said the question for her is whether the density
bonus should be granted without the Town receiving something in return. She suggested that
Public Benefit Housing and BHD be merged but whatever modifications are made, the bylaw
should achieve the goal of housing diversity so there are options in town for downsizers as well
as those seeking starter homes. Ms. Ciccolo believes there should be a disincentive for raw land
use and an incentive to site denser development near public transportation.
Ms. Barry asked Mr. Dunn where a proposal to modify BHD might fit into the PB work flow.
Mr. Dunn reported a sizable uptick in high density residential development applications, saying
that in the past 12 months, the PB has received applications for over 88 units— more than have
been approved in any prior year. In his 2 ½ years on the board, Mr. Dunn said the PB has
approved a total of 18 units.
Mr. Henry summarized the PB’s discussion about the BHD bylaw: The PB has also received a
substantial amount of public comment recently but even before that, the Board had already
started looking into how to amend/improve the 2008 BHD bylaw. Planning is contemplating a
merge of the Public Benefit bylaw with BHD which would, in effect, eliminate the Public
Benefit category but fold its inclusionary elements into Balanced Housing.
Mr. Henry added that the PB is contemplating an adjustment to gross floor area limits—likely
that would move downwards—and the Board might also require a greater number of smaller
units in new developments. The creation of one-story “flats” might be encouraged, which would
appeal to seniors. The Board might also entertain the idea of payment in lieu of affordability. A
draft bylaw including these concepts has been put together so it may not take too much time to
prepare a Town Meeting-ready article.
Mr. Canale said the PB agrees with many of the points made by the BOS. He added that the PB
has always wanted to avoid conventional subdivisions because they destroy more land than
denser developments. Therefore, the PB has tried to give incentives to other-than-by-right forms
of housing and has, in the past, even required Special Permits for conventional subdivisions,
70-72
Joint Selectmen and Planning Board Meeting – October 26, 2016
although case law now prohibits that approach. Mr. Canale said the BHD bylaw should meet the
needs of what Lexington wants to achieve but added that several years ago, TM soundly defeated
an initiative for inclusionary housing in all subdivisions. To move forward again on an article of
this nature, the PB would want the assurance of Town leadership support.
Mr. Canale added that, if a moratorium was declared on BHD or Special Development housing,
he believed it should apply to all types of subdivision.
Ms. Johnson said that the devil is in the details. Conceptually, a bylaw can be well-intentioned
but, when it’s applied to a specific piece of land, it does not necessarily play out as envisioned.
Multiple factors and multiple requirements can make it hard to apply the bylaw, particularly on
land with wetland and ledge constraints that is not easily developed.
Ms. Barry asked Mr. Dunn if the PB would bring a BHD bylaw revision proposal to spring TM.
Mr. Dunn said it was on the PB work plan to try to do so but whatever was brought forward had
to be able to garner the support of 2/3 of TM and be of good enough quality that there would not
be unintended consequences.
Mr. Henry said that while the changes discussed could be easily drafted, the question is whether
or not enough TM members would support it. He is not sure what has been discussed would be
enough to mollify the residents who are exercised about the issue.
Ms. Barry said the BOS would support nothing less than 10% affordable in any BHD
development. Mr. Henry concurred with this percentage but added that there is a careful
calibration in order not to dis-incentivize BHD altogether. If developers do their calculations and
find they will profit even a little more for a conventional rather than a BHD, they will opt for
conventional.
Mr. Canale said the PB’s hesitation to commit to the spring timeframe has to do with how
comprehensive the proposal will be. He said there are definitely fixes that will be proposed to
address the most blatant problems but the PB is unsure how far and how comprehensive the
initiative can be and still be assured of buy-in from Town Meeting.
Mr. Hornig agreed with Mr. Henry’s comment about maintaining the weight of incentives on the
BHD side and added if the requirement for affordable housing is increases, the density bonus
would have to increase as well.
Ms. Ciccolo said perhaps a BHD Overlay District near public transportation was worth
consideration. Mr. Hornig replied that the Overlay concept might be useful in other ways. He
added that if there was no BHD incentive, all new residential development would be
conventional $1.7M-$2M homes.
Mr. Henry said there have been discussions at the staff level—but not yet with the PB— about
context calibration meaning that density would be in relation to surroundings.
Mr. Kelley said he did not believe it was possible to put a moratorium on by-right subdivision.
70-73
Joint Selectmen and Planning Board Meeting – October 26, 2016
Mr. Canale said a moratorium for by-right could only be brought for a compelling reason and he
does not foresee one in this case. Ms. Ciccolo said she believed it was possible to limit the
number of building permits approved in a year but it was doubtful an outright moratorium is
allowable. Mr. Hornig agreed that a limit on buildings rather than subdivisions was possible but
there has to be a strong reason to limit growth, such as sewer or water system capacity.
Parking Table Bylaw and Payment in Lieu of Parking (PILOP) Policy
For the benefit of the audience, Town Manager Valente gave a brief synopsis of the PILOP.
Essentially, it is a mechanism by which businesses in the Center Business District can meet their
parking requirement by contributing to a fund. The fund would be used by the Town to offset the
cost of creating additional parking or otherwise improving parking management.
Mr. Valente said it may not make sense to continue to operate with the same parking quota
requirements that were established in the 1980s, before the concepts like shared parking were
developed. However, businesses and property owners in the Center should bear some
responsibility to contribute to a solution to a shared problem.
Parking management is under the BOS but the PILOP would be administered by the Zoning
Board of Appeals (ZBA) who is in a position to apply or waive parking table requirements. The
long term plan is to codify the PILOP under general or zoning bylaws so that it becomes less a
matter of discretion for the ZBA. As the codification process takes a long time, the PILOP
would in the meantime be a policy of the BOS and a procedural recommendation to the ZBA.
Ms. Barry said the PILOP ranked third (in a tie with Planning/Housing) for BOS goals this year.
Additionally, Parking Requirements in Zoning Bylaw ranked twelfth.
Mr. Henry said the parking table has risen to the top of the PB’s high priority list as well. To that
end, bylaw revisions were drafted last summer in what Mr. Henry called a town-wide PILOP.
But, given the depth/breadth of changes under consideration, Mr. Henry said he now thinks it
would be prudent to slow down the larger scale and focus on the Center which would provide
time to create a stakeholder working group. If we get the Center right, the town-wide policy falls
into place, Mr. Henry said. The strategy would be to focus on establishing clear guidelines for
shared parking, revising the parking table, and to create better opportunities for parking and
transportation demand management techniques, similar to the Hartwell Ave. area model. Mr.
Henry added that Planning views PILOP as a last resort to be used after all other strategies have
been exhausted.
The complicated process of crediting or grandfathering that currently happens in the Center also
needs to be addressed. Mr. Henry said it would be better to apply a more detailed, data-driven
approach to parking in the Center.
Planning’s recommendation is to finalize the PILOP in the short term and continue to work on
the zoning changes until the 2018 Town Meeting.
70-74
Joint Selectmen and Planning Board Meeting – October 26, 2016
Mr. Kelley said it is inherently unfair to require new businesses to come up with additional
parking when they take over retail space in the Center. In the last 10 years, Mr. Kelley said the
ZBA has granted waivers to change-of-use applications because its position has been to allow the
ebb and flow of the marketplace to play out. This being the case, Mr. Kelley sees the current
parking requirement as something that can be eliminated since it is not being applied.
However, 21 Muzzey Street has altered the conversation because instead of changed use of
existing sq. footage, 21 Muzzey is an expansion of sq. footage that adds to the Center’s total.
Uncertain what to do in this case, the ZBA asked the Selectmen how to proceed and this is why
the PILOP was developed. Mr. Kelley welcomes recommendations from the PB but said the
BOS would probably move to adopt some version of PILOP soon.
Mr. Hornig said the PB sent a list of recommendations about PILOP to the BOS and he hoped
they would be considered. Mr. Henry confirmed that Ms. Tintocalis’ memo did incorporate those
recommendations.
Ms. Johnson said the PILOP would benefit from further study and advocated including adjacent
homeowners in the discussion since they are affected by parking problems in the Center. She
supports a complete revision to the parking bylaw, including some of the suggestions made
tonight, and she recommends waiting to implement a new policy, even if waiting means a
moratorium on ZBA parking waivers. She added that PILOP should not be an end run around the
zoning bylaw but a part of the zoning bylaw voted on by TM.
Ms. Johnson said she sees the PILOP as one approach to a larger parking issue that needs to be
looked at and gotten right by creating guidelines that promote the vision for how the Center
should look and function.
Updating Comprehensive Plan
A $360,000 Program Improvement Request (PIR) for FY18 has been submitted by Planning to
fund an update of the 2002 Comprehensive Master Plan. Since the 2002 revision, Lexington has
changed and Mr. Dunn said, given these changes, it is important for the Town to hold public
conversations about its values and its vision.
Mr. Henry described the Comprehensive Plan (CP) as a multi-year planning process.
Traditionally, CPs cover housing, transportation, open space, public facilities and includes not
only goals but also implementation steps. Given some of the issues facing the town, Mr. Henry
sees embarking on the CP process as timely but he believed a somewhat different process should
take place this time around that will make the end product more valid and useful. Rather than
farming it out to a consultant, Planning staff will have a deeper involvement. Consultants would
be hired to play the role of facilitators. Mr. Henry said Planning sees a compelling need for
embarking upon the CP process but it remains to be seen if the community will support the
budget request.
Ms. Ciccolo agrees with best practices that say CPs should be updated every 10 years. Having
overseen the process in Hudson, MA, she recommends adding two categories—Public Health
70-75
Joint Selectmen and Planning Board Meeting – October 26, 2016
and Environment—since these were also areas of interest to Lexington. Ms. Ciccolo added that
the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (MAPC) is embarking on its own long-range plan
about the future of the metro area and some of that synergy and data collection could be useful to
Lexington. She cautioned Planning not to take on too much of the actual writing of the Plan itself
as that can be overwhelming.
Mr. Cohen agreed with Ms. Ciccolo’s comments and said he looked forward to hearing greater
detail during the budget process.
Ms. Barry asked if the funding request was for a single year or over multiple years. Mr. Henry
said, at the moment, he expects to request all the funding in a single year but the CP process will
take 2-3 years. He has to be certain on the funding before contracting with outside consultants.
Mr. Valente said CP funding would compete against all other Town department-submitted PIRs
in the budgeting process so this request would be viewed within a context. Mechanically, at
Town Meeting, it would be a separate article from Planning’s FY18 budget.
Mr. Kelley said he cautions the Town to first take a look at the Vision 20/20 Committee before
embarking on a multi-year, $360,000 project. He recommended starting with the many
intelligent citizens who are willing to contribute time and effort to a worthy visioning process
that addresses important issues. He believes the work can be done in a year and a clerk can be
hired to write up the results, rather than dedicating funds to an expensive and lengthy exercise.
Mr. Pato said he looks forward with interest to seeing the PIR proposal. His previous
conversations with Planning have touched on some of the elements to be included in the CP
process such as establishing “cafés” and other facilitated discussions in a way that yields
effective results.
Mr. Canale said the last time the CP was updated in 2002, it was wrapped around 2020. The
Committee did the outreach and helped inform the process and he assumes the Committee will
again be an important part of the process. However, Mr. Canale added that input is only part of a
Comprehensive Plan; implementation is a vital piece of the outcome.
Ms. Ciccolo said she sees a level of acrimony in the community that could be mitigated by a
process such as CP that brings people together and provides resident education to develop a
common understanding and a pathway to learning how Town government works.
Updating Zoning Bylaw—CRO District
Mr. Dunn said updating the CRO district zoning bylaw is something that may be brought
forward at the spring Town Meeting. It is included on tonight’s agenda to gauge Selectmen
support.
Mr. Hornig said that economic development is one of the tracks of Planning’s work plan for the
year. Recently, Planning took six ideas to the public and, on a separate occasion, to the
Selectmen’s Economic Development Committee. In both instance, good feedback was received.
70-76
Joint Selectmen and Planning Board Meeting – October 26, 2016
One of the ideas—taking reforms implemented on Hartwell Ave. and applying them to the
Regional Office districts—garnered strong support. The Regional Office districts are along
Bedford St, on Forbes Rd, and in the Hayden Ave./Spring St. area.
The four categories of proposed change are:
Allowbroaderusessuchasamenities/conveniences;allowstandingsignswithouttheneedfora
ZBAspecialpermit;allowbiotechmanufacturing;allowgroundmountedsolar.
Changedimensionalstandards,mostsignificantlythebyrightfloorarearatio(FAR)would
changefrom.15to.35,matchingtheFARonHartwell.Therewouldalsobetheabilitytovary
dimensionalstandardsbyspecialpermitwhenaparticularstandarddoesnotmakeanysense.
CreatetwonewTransportationManagementOverlaydistrictsintheForbesRd.areaandthe
HaydenAve./SpringSt.area.Eachwouldhaveitsownuniqueplan.
Makeappropriatezoningboundaryadjustments.Thestatusofresidentiallyzonedareasnear
industrialzonesshouldbereevaluated.
Mr. Hornig said the net effect of these changes is not huge but the biggest opportunities for large
scale expansion are Forbes Rd. and 181-201 Spring St.
Ms. Ciccolo said she would not like incentives for ground–mounted solar that resulted in trees
being cut down. Also, as there are few remaining large land parcels available, she would like
some thought given to ideas like trading off height and setback limits with preservation of open
space.
Ms. Barry said she liked everything Mr. Hornig listed. She said the discussion about these
initiatives is also timely as the tax rate decisions that are scheduled for discussion in the next few
weeks always bring questions from residents about what can be done to promote commercial
growth in town to help lower residential rates.
Mr. Kelley and Mr. Pato agreed these changes were a good direction to move toward.
Mr. Dunn said the next step for the Planning Board is to hold public meetings with abutters of
these areas in the December/January timeframe.
MassDOT TIP Project—Bedford Street/Hartwell Avenue Area
Mr. Canale said Planning convinced Town Meeting a number of years ago to increase
development opportunities on Hartwell Ave. At that time, infrastructure improvements in the
Hartwell Ave./Bedford St. area were identified as needing attention and, to that end, the matter
70-77
Joint Selectmen and Planning Board Meeting – October 26, 2016
was studied. Planning now proposes the infrastructure improvement project be considered for the
State’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) funding.
Mr. Canale said the MPO has evaluated 38 large proposals that would be funded between now
and 2040 and the Hartwell Ave./Bedford St. project is in the top five. It would be done sometime
between 2021 and 2025 but the 2021 TIP funds are already allocated. MassDOT estimates the
project at around $23M, of which it would pay 20% and the Feds would pay 80%. To be put on
the TIP list, the Town must commit design funding which is estimated around 10% of the project
or approximately $3M. Specifically, the parameters of the project are from the Route 95
interchanges on Bedford St. to the jug handle near Drummer Boy and then south down Hartwell
Ave. possibly as far as Wood St.
Mr. Canale said the Town is currently spending millions of dollars on a variety of infrastructure
improvements, none of which are reimbursable.
Mr. Valente said the Maguire Rd. intersection improvement project that was approved two years
ago has met with a complication that requires an additional $2.5M to repair the bridge over Kiln
Brook. He envisions this project will start during the 2018 construction year.
Ms. Ciccolo said the Town is lucky to have Mr. Canale attend MPO meetings on its behalf. She
added she is struggling to see how the several separate smaller projects the Town is paying for
on its own should go forward in light of the TIP project that would pay for a single, larger fix.
Perhaps the $4M allocated for Maguire Rd. improvements could be diverted to funding the
design component of the TIP project.
Mr. Kucharsky said the Maguire Road funding includes pedestrian accommodations at the jug
handle intersection: handicapped ramps, crosswalks and new light signals. Town engineers are
moving forward with this project as well as crosswalk and crossing light upgrades at Eldred/
Bedford St. A Capital request for a “hawk” light apparatus for the Eldred intersection is planned
as is an FY19 request for $50,000 to update the 2010 transportation plan, of which this project
was a part.
Mr. Hornig said he is happy the Town has decided to address some of the worst safety hazards
on this stretch of road without waiting. The opportunity to get TIP funding, however, is an
important one not to miss.
Mr. Canale said that every year, the MPO develops a 5-year TIP plan so next year’s plan will go
through 2022. If the Town is ready to fund 25% of the design, it is conceivable that the project
would be included in the 2022 TIP list.
Ms. Barry said, due to all the other pressures on the budget and known Capital imperatives, it is
important for the Town’s financial forecasting to know in which year the design funds would be
requested. Mr. Valente said the Town should be able to cover the impacts of school enrollment
increases in FY18 but FY19 will be more difficult. With “Affordability for Residents” ranked as
#2 of the Selectmen’s goals, financial impact has become a big concern. Mr. Valente said a
70-78
Joint Selectmen and Planning Board Meeting – October 26, 2016
review of the 2010 transportation plan would be a first step before committing design funds
towards the $23M project.
Ms. Ciccolo asked if there would be value in talking to Hanscom AFB and Lincoln Labs about
helping with these improvements. Mr. Canale said that the State should be funding infrastructure
projects that would help the base stay open. Mr. Pato said that HATS is aware of this project
because it relates to the accessibility and well-being of Hanscom. The Town of Bedford is also
interested because such a project would have an effect on traffic flows to and through the town.
Ms. Barry closed the meeting by saying she would like to extend the offer to the PB to continue
joint meetings with the BOS. The BOS would particularly like to hear about any TM articles that
Planning will be bring forward and she suggested another stand-alone meeting for that purpose
might be beneficial.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to adjourn at 8:35 p.m.
A true record; Attest:
Kim Siebert
Recording Secretary