HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-12-BOS-min
70-382
Summit Meeting 3
Board of Selectmen, School Committee, Appropriation Committee
and Capital Expenditures Committee
December 1, 2016
A Summit was held on Thursday, December 1, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. in the Public Services
Building Cafeteria, 201 Bedford Street. Ms. Barry, Chair, Mr. Pato, Mr. Kelley, and Mr. Cohen;
Mr. Valente, Town Manager; Mr. Addelson, Assistant Town Manager for Finance, Mr. Goddard,
Public Facilities Director, Ms. Hewitt, Budget Officer and Ms. McIntosh, Executive Clerk were
present.
Also Present: School Committee (SC) members: Mr. Hurley, Chair, Ms. Steigerwald, Ms. Jay,
Mr. Alessandrini, Ms. Crocker; Dr. Czajkowski, Superintendent of Schools; Appropriation
Committee (AC) members: Mr. Bartenstein, Ms. Garberg, Mr. Levine, Mr. Michelson, Mr.
Neumeier, Mr. Radeluscu-Banu, Ms. Yang; Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) members:
Ms. Hai, Chair, Mr. Cole, Mr. Kanter, and Ms. Manz.
Not Present: Ms. Ciccolo, Board of Selectmen, Mr. Parker, Chair, Appropriation Committee
Ms. Barry called the Board of Selectmen meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and called upon the chairs
of the School Committee, Appropriation Committee and Capital Expenditures Committee to call
their committees to order.
Proposed FY18 Revenue Allocation Model
Mr. Valente explained that this is the Summit to review the Town’s new revenue projections for
FY18 and allocate them into four buckets; fixed costs, capital, reserves and operating costs
which includes school and municipal operations. At Summit 1, Mr. Valente provided the group
with an overview of the Town’s financial condition and a three year revenue and expenditure
projection. FY18 looked relatively positive; however in FY19, while still in a strong position
without additional revenues, the stress of the increasing school age population is beginning to be
felt and in FY20 it gets more serious in terms of having a balanced budget. At Summit 2, FY18
revenue projections were presented and that will be the basis now for Summit 3, for a discussion
of how those revenues will be allocated.
Mr. Valente presented a 3-year revenue allocation history along with what is projected for FY18.
Overall there is relative strong revenue growth; 6.6% over FY17. However, there is starting to
be some moderation in revenue increases. Mr. Valente asked the group to keep this in mind.
Mr. Addelson, Assistant Town Manager for Finance, presented the FY2018 Revenue Allocation
model. He reported that the projected revenue for FY18 is approximately $209 million. He
pointed out that included in the list of fixed costs, is approximately $14 million recommended for
various set asides, of which $618,148 is set aside for unallocated needs. After fixed costs,
approximately $8.7 million in incremental revenue is left. That amount is allocated at 73.7% to
the school side and 26.3% to the municipal side. The school share of incremental FY18 revenue
70-383
Budget Summit # 3 – December 1, 2016
is approximately $6.4 million, a 6.6% increase over FY17, and the municipal share is
approximately $2.3 million, also a 6.6% increase over FY17.
Mr. Addelson pointed out that the $618,148 in Unallocated Needs could absorb a potential
increase in health insurance. The projected increase in health insurance is budgeted at 5% but
the consultants are projecting increases as much as 7%. Mr. Addelson pointed out the
recommendation that $5 million go in to the Debt Service/Capital Stabilization Fund. And last,
is the $983,000 in unallocated revenue, which can be used to balance competing operating and
capital demands.
Mr. Levine inquired as to the trends in building permits. In his observation, there seemed to be
less building activity than in past years. Mr. Addelson responded that building permits were a
tool used to project growth in the tax levy. Projections for FY17 were a 2.5% increase with
actuals coming in at about 3.3%. Projections for FY18 were also 2.5%.
Mr. Valente elaborated on the $618,148 in Unallocated/Unidentified Needs. This could go to fill
the gap for items where revenue projections have fallen short. Though revenue projections are
typically conservative, an example could be where actual state aid falls below the Town’s
projections. The second category could be for an expense that is not included in the
recommended budget, but should be. The third category could be an unknown increase in fixed
costs, for example health insurance, as has been mentioned previously.
Mr. Valente explained that a focus continues to be capital plan management to mitigate the
amount of debt service by increasing the capital stabilization fund and addressing some of the
capital needs through cash capital, limiting the need for further debt. By keeping budgets level
and increases modest more can be put into the stabilization fund that can subsequently be used to
limit the tax impact to tax payers for various capital projects/debt service.
Mr. Valente discussed some emerging policy issues including increased requests for
improvements to pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle safety. On that note, the Town recently
received good news around the Complete Streets Program. A $292,000 grant was received
through the program which would go directly to towards transportation safety initiatives. Also
of note, the increasing financial impact of complying with the federal and state stormwater
management requirements is being felt in both the capital and operating budgets. It is becoming
increasingly difficult to absorb without new revenue sources. The committees were invited to
pass along any other policy priorities they are seeing.
Confirm Date for Summit 4
The date for Summit 4 was set for Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. in the cafeteria at the
Public Services Building.
Update on Lexington Children’s Place (LCP) Site Options and High School HVAC
Mr. Hurley provided an overview on the site options that have been explored for the Lexington
Children’s Place (LCP). The School Committee has had numerous conversations in an effort to
70-384
Budget Summit # 3 – December 1, 2016
narrow the options down formally to two. The committee informally narrowed the options to the
20 Pelham site or a new facility at the Harrington site. Mr. Hurley discussed the relative merits
of the two sites. If the Pelham property could be purchased within the next 20 to 30 days,
DiNisco would be asked focus on developing plans for the Pelham site. The School Committee
took a formal vote at their November 29 meeting to support locating the LCP at a joint
municipal/school site at the Pelham location.
Mr. Hurley discussed the plans to improve the HVAC system at the high school. The initial
discussion related to the high school HVAC system estimated a cost of $12-13M, which has
increased to $20M. The question is whether to proceed with investing this level of funds for a
comprehensive HVAC plan at the high school or modify the scope and take a more targeted
approach. The question with the reduction in scope is the decision of where to prioritize the
improvements.
Ms. Czajkowski discussed a more targeted approach to the HVAC updates to include teacher
planning spaces which are also used for extra student help and would possibly include the
library. The incremental funding for the four education spaces would be $320,000. To include
the library the estimate would increase to $550,000.
Mr. Levine inquired if the $20M for the HVAC work was improvements to the existing system
or a new system. Mr. Hurley replied that the $20M would change out the entire system and also
include proper ventilation and roof top energy recovery facilities for 210,000 sq. ft. of the
building. The current system does not allow for individual temperature control in the
educational spaces. However, it does operate and it could be maintained until the next major
high school project. Suggestions were made to continue to look at ways to improve efficiency
and also to look at the school capital plan in a comprehensive way. Ms. Steigerwald reiterated
that it is a good time for the committees to look at the high school holistically and ask what is the
right thing to do right now. Direction from the school community is necessary to identify where
the most help is needed and what makes sense programmatically.
Mr. Goddard identified some of the challenges to the current systems. A number of renovations
and additions have happened over the years since the building opened in 1954. The part of the
building being discussed at this point is the original 1954 building. Some systems are still the
original steam system and some were updated in 2000 to hot water. The combination of all the
various systems makes it difficult to upgrade.
Ms. Barry thanked all the boards and committees for their hard work and wished them well over
the holiday.
Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn at 8:39 p.m.
A true record; Attest:
Donna M. McIntosh
Executive Clerk
Documents Presented
3.FY2018 Revenue Allocation Model
70-385
Selectmen’s Meeting
FY2018 Budget Presentation #2
December 1, 2016
A Budget Session meeting of the Lexington Board of Selectmen was held on Thursday,
December 1, 2016 at 1:15 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 as well as Mr. Valente,
Town Manager and Ms. Siebert, Recording Secretary.
FY2018 Budget Presentations
Land Use, Health, and Development
The department includes Building and Zoning; Administration; Conservation; Public Health;
Planning; and Economic Development. Staff presenting the FY18 budget include Carol
Kowalski, Assistant Town Manager for Development; Melissa Tintocalis, Economic
Development Director; Aaron Henry, Director of Planning; Karen Mullins, Conservation
Administrator; Gerry Cody, Director of Public Health; Lorraine Garrett, Office Manager; and
Fred Lonardo, Building Commissioner and Zoning Enforcement Officer.
Ms. Kowalski said Land Use, Health and Development has just finished its first year as a unified
Department. Through an exercise conducted in October, areas of improvement were identified in
which additional cohesion and collaboration is warranted, most notably in communication.
The FY18 budget projects a decrease of 0.04%, mostly due to the elimination of one-time
moving costs allocated in FY17 and adjustments to the Visitor Center budget. Compensation is
increasing 1.34% and Expenses is decreasing 8.41%. Of the sub-programs, the highest
percentage decrease is in Administration at 4.27% and the highest increase is in Planning at
2.78%, largely attributable to the need for Overtime staffing for after-hours meetings.
There are seven PIRs totaling $457,624:
Increase hours for part-time inspectors in the Building and Zoning department ($10,025).
Contract services and supplies for Public Health to address opioid abuse and prevention strategies
as well as prescription drug disposal services and public health seminars ($16,342).
Fund the cost of contract services, publicity, and supplies to develop an updated Comprehensive
Plan (CP) ($358,900).
Increase the Economic Development marketing budget ($5,500) to fund website content
improvements as well as digital and marketing initiatives.
Pilot a three-year Bike share program ($27,000).
Conduct a Market Study to understand what part of the Lexington economy is visitor-based.
($25,000)
Compensate a Revolutionary Revelry Event Manager to coordinate the month-long, yearly
program ($15,000.)
70-386
FY2018 Budget Presentation #2 - December 1, 2016
There are ten Capital requests. Listed below are the projects and FY18 impacts:
Bedford and Eldred street improvements/pedestrian crossing: $175,000
Transportation Mitigation to Replenish TSG project funds: $100,000
Muzzey Street/Clark Street Parking Lot: no impact until FY19
Willard’s Woods and Wright Farm Meadow Preservation: $40,480
Cotton Farm Conservation Area Improvements: $300,403
Hartwell Area TMOD Plan Update: no impact until FY19
Conservation Restriction/Trail Easement: no impact and likely to be withdrawn due to other
priorities
Wright Farm additional site assessment following the discovery and mitigation of soil
contamination: $70,000
Stone Building analysis to determine what use concepts will work for this historic building:
$25,000
Hill Street sidewalk design: $100,000
Mr. Kelley asked whether David George is still handling zoning enforcement. Ms. Kowalski
clarified that in Massachusetts, there is usually a Zoning Enforcement Officer who is also the
Building Commissioner/Inspector. Mr. George is the Zoning Administrator, delegated by the
Zoning Enforcement Officer to conduct zoning enforcement.
Ms. Barry asked Mr. Cody to explain a bit more about prescription drug collection. Mr. Cody
said that while the four collections held throughout the year are robust, Health wants to install a
“Take Back Box” to provide a safe, secure, and permanent location for drop offs. The receptacle
would be maintained by the BOH which would contract with a vendor to clean out the box’s
contents periodically. Usually, boxes of this type are sited near Police Stations.
Referring to one of the Capital requests, Ms. Barry noted the Transportation Safety Group will
host a public forum about the Hill Street sidewalk capital project on Tuesday December 6 at 7pm
at the Hastings School. Survey plans will be shown and the public will be asked for feedback.
Mr. Cohen said he believed a citizen’s petition will be filed for the Hill Street sidewalk project.
The $100,000 Capital request is for the design phase only. Mr. Valente said a revision has
recently been made to the projected engineering costs and he asked the Board to adjust the Hill
Street request from $100,000 to $150,000. The estimate for construction now appears to be in the
$1.3M range. Mr. Valente asked the Board to provide some direction on this project because
$1.3M represents almost 25% of the Town’s yearly $6M debt allowance. Should the Town spend
$150,000 on design if the $1.3M project is unlikely to happen the following year?
Ms. Barry asked if the $150,000 would come out of dedicated sidewalk funds. Mr. Valente said
it would not. The $800,000 the Board recently approved for that purpose targets repair of
existing sidewalks.
Mr. Kelley asked if the schematic design survey identifies which side of Hill Street the sidewalk
should be built on. He also asked if property rights would be affected. Mr. Henry said the survey
70-387
FY2018 Budget Presentation #2 - December 1, 2016
did look at where the sidewalk should go but public input is desired before staff makes a
recommendation. Asst. Planner David Kucharsky does not believe property takings are a factor.
Mr. Kelley asked if there is enough history after three years for how successful in-house
management of the Visitor Center has been and if there is an opportunity to create an Enterprise
Fund. Ms. Kowalski replied that there is indication that the Visitor Center will be successful but
it is not at the point of being self-sustaining. Ms. Tintocalis clarified that FY16 was the first full
year of in-house management and although the operation made a profit of $20,000 after
expenses, the margins are still slim. About 120,000 visitors are served by the Center every year.
Now, with point-of-sale tracking and a longer history, the Town will be better able to model
whether a larger profit can be expected in the future. She added that the retail landscape is
shifting so staff does not want to be too optimistic with regard to merchandise revenue.
Ms. Barry asked if it is possible to track where visitors come from. Ms. Tintocalis said the
department expects to glean this information from visitors who opt in to provide zip codes at the
point of sale.
Ms. Ciccolo asked if there was is an appetite to fast-track the Hill Street project by offering a
betterment fund for Hill Street residents. Mr. Valente said this concept has not been discussed.
Ms. Ciccolo asked if transportation mitigation might be handled by one firm on an annual
contract rather than by different companies on a project-by-project basis. Having a single firm on
retainer would expedite services. Mr. Valente said the $100,000 transportation mitigation funds
are not only for engineering work but also, depending on the project, for traffic consultants or
other assistance. The funds are also intended to cover actual work, such as signage or curb bump-
outs.
Ms. Ciccolo said she is supportive of updating the Comprehensive Plan but the cost is
substantial. She asked if Planning had developed a detailed scope of work and if some of the
information from studies already done by other Town entities—like the 20/20 Vision survey and
the Economic Development Marketing Plan— could help keep down costs.
Mr. Henry said Planning has been working closely with 20/20 because of the synergy and timing
opportunities. The PIR was approached from a full-funding perspective even though Planning
acknowledges that the project could be scaled back if necessary. The scope of work will change,
depending on funding. Planning is thinking about priorities and how to create a tiered approach.
Ms. Ciccolo said she hoped that Health and Energy elements would be included in the Plan if full
funding is approved. Mr. Henry agreed, adding that Planning will approach the update differently
than in the past to achieve an integrated analysis rather than one that silos elements into stand-
alone categories.
Mr. Cohen referred to the need to improve transportation options to Lexington so that restaurants
are able to hire enough staff. Ms. Tintocalis said she has met with the owner of Lexx restaurant
70-388
FY2018 Budget Presentation #2 - December 1, 2016
so she can better understand the issue. The Lexx owner intends to set up a focus group with other
restauranteurs to try to collaborate on providing shuttle/van service from the city. Voucher and
Uber options might also be helpful. Ms. Tintocalis has reached out to Minuteman High School to
forge internship connections and will bring the Chamber of Commerce into the discussion.
Mr. Kelley asked if communities need to have a Comprehensive Plan to receive State or Federal
grants. Ms. Kowalski said there is no mandate for Massachusetts communities to have a Plan, as
there is in other states. However, communities that have CPs are awarded additional points when
applying for grants so it is advantageous for the Town to have one. Ms. Ciccolo added the
majority of grants she has submitted included a question about whether the grant project would
be consistent with a town’s CP. Bond rating agencies also look favorably on communities when
they have an up-to-date Plan. Location specialists companies use also like to see that a town has
a CP because it reveals local land use priorities.
Mr. Kelley asked if community engagement will be the starting point before consultants are
brought in. Mr. Henry said that public outreach is a prominent and ongoing focus throughout
development of the Plan. Mr. Pato said it is his understanding there would be facilitated
conversations during the process. Mr. Henry concurred, saying the idea is to hire a facilitator
rather than a professional planning firm because the department has planning expertise but is not
skilled in public facilitation.
Ms. Ciccolo said a State statute governs Comprehensive Plans, even though they are not
mandated, and the statute clearly spells out what is expected. Zoning reform has been moving
slowly through the legislative process and has passed the Senate. All of the discussions at this
level link a community’s current CP to zoning reform benefits, Ms. Ciccolo said. Typically, CPs
are updated every 10 years; by the time Lexington’s proposed update is complete it will have
been 17 since the Town adopted the current version.
Ms. Barry asked for more information about the Bike Share program, an item on the Capital list.
Ms. Tintocalis said that from the Visitor Center alone, her office fields numerous inquiries about
bicycle availability. In the program, she sees a natural intersection of tourism, public health,
recreation, and economic development. Arlington and Bedford have both indicated interest as
well and a regional sharing concept might work well. The $27,000 PIR funds 15 bikes for
Lexington’s specific use for one year and includes installation, service, marketing, app,
movement, repair, and replacement of bikes and insurance. There may be a corporate element as
well because companies like Shire might want to add the bike share program to their
transportation demand options. Bike share could also be beneficial to the regional transportation
management association.
Ms. Ciccolo said she is concerned about how the bike share would interact with Hubway,
Cambridge and Boston’s bike share program. Perhaps a transfer option would be possible. Mr.
Pato agreed but he said he also wants to get some kind of program going sooner than later. The
Town can gauge response and adjust from there.
70-389
FY2018 Budget Presentation #2 - December 1, 2016
Mr. Valente said the Comprehensive Plan is less an issue of management and administration and
more of a question of policy direction. It would therefore helpful if the Board could provide
direction. If it is a priority, Mr. Valente and Mr. Addelson will find a way to fit it into the
recommended budget, even if it means another project has to be postponed.
Ms. Barry canvassed her colleagues. Mr. Pato said the price tag was high but he wants the
community to have the kinds of conversations the Comprehensive Plan will prompt. Mr. Kelly
agreed and said that reaching out to the community was an important feature of the process. Ms.
Barry also agreed it was a high priority but she would want to know what might fall off the list if
CP was funded. Mr. Cohen also agreed to proceed, particularly because it has been so long since
the last update. Ms. Ciccolo agreed to move forward but believes the price is too high and that
other efforts—like the Open Space plan and the grant-funded Net Zero project—should be
integrated into the plan. She would like the CP to pull all these independent projects together
and she would like the funding split into two years to stagger the impact. As a final point, Ms.
Ciccolo said she believes a lot of the recent community turmoil and controversy can be attributed
to the fact that these kinds of public conversations are overdue.
Mr. Valente said for the last three years, the question of what to do with the historic Stone
Building has come up. The first issue to be addressed is what kinds of cultural programs the site
can accommodate. The second floor is envisioned to remain a lyceum, as it has been in the past.
Bringing in a consultant to advise on uses for the first floor is the next step as there is no internal
expertise to help answer these questions. The building has been preserved on the outside but
vacant for 9 years.
The project is on the list for potential Community Preservation funding but that committee may
not agree to fund it. If that happens, would the money come from the tax levy?
Mr. Pato said he supports the Stone Building project and notes that the Selectmen receive a lot of
inquiries about why the building is not being used. The types of uses the building can accommo-
date is constrained by the bequest to the Town. Additionally, Massachusetts Avenue will be
under construction in that area. At the moment, discussion is the right way to proceed.
Mr. Kelley supports using the building again as well, and recalls that a lot of discussion and
design took place nine years ago but was then stalled. He believes that the archives of those
discussions are available and added that the Library Trustees should be included in subsequent
conversations.
Mr. Valente said two engineering conceptual plans exist from the previous design work that
focused on making the building handicap accessible. A study was also done about the second
floor’s preservation as a lyceum. Both studies were done under the auspices of the Facilities
Department. If the new study goes forward, those results will be included in the new discussions.
Ms. Ciccolo said she hopes that CPC will fund the project and wonders if a public/private
partnership would be useful, particularly to help with operational costs. If the terms of the
70-390
FY2018 Budget Presentation #2 - December 1, 2016
bequest do not prohibit such uses, Ms. Ciccolo is aware there are a lot of non-profits in town
looking for space and potential for purposes such as co-working offices which are also worth
consideration.
Mr. Cohen said vacant buildings in town are of interest to him and he is glad to see progress on
the Stone Building.
Ms. Ciccolo said she hopes the apple orchards at Cotton Farm are part of improvement plan. Ms.
Kowalski assured her that they are. Mr. Kelley said he would prefer that parking lot additions to
the Cotton Farm be kept away from the road so that rural aspect of the property is maintained.
He also hopes that details of what would be done for $300,000 are more clearly spelled out
before the Selectmen have to vote on the project. Ms. Mullins said the $300,000 funding is for
design and there is always public input during the design phase.
Town Committees
Claire Goodwin, Management Analyst for the Town Manager’s Office, said that the overall
budget for 70+ Town Committees is decreasing in FY18 by 29.01% or $23,645. This is due to a
one-time $30,000 expense in FY17 for the 20/20 Vision survey. There is a 2% requested increase
for compensation for the financial committees’ part-time secretary; a 2 ½ % increase for supplies
for the Town Celebrations Committee; and a 5% increase to the budget for “Dance Around the
World”, held every other year.
The town-wide 20/20 Vision Committee has been preparing and editing a draft of its report
which is expected to be distributed more widely in January as a finished document.
Ms. Goodwin said it was brought to her attention just today that there will be an additional
request for Patriots Day funding but she has no details at this time.
There are two PIRs being submitted:
The Council for the Arts Grant Program wants to increase its budget to fulfil the Town charge
which is two-fold: to provide grants in the arts and culture and to encourage art in Lexington.
State funding for the Council is half what it was 30 years ago and the Council is only able to fund
about half of what is requested. The Council also wants to be able to commission artists to
develop interactive public art installations in commercial districts (East Lexington, Hartwell Ave,
the Center and other locations) to be displayed between May and November: $30,000
Getting to Net Zero project asks for funding for phase two of three that will help Lexington lower
carbon emissions from all buildings (municipal, commercial, residential) over the next 25-30
years. An evaluation of all buildings by a consultant has resulted in a baseline calculation for
future reference: $40,000.
Mr. Cohen asked if the Net Zero project would be a separate warrant article or part of the budget.
Mr. Valente said he anticipates it to be separate because the work will likely cross fiscal years.
70-391
FY2018 Budget Presentation #2 - December 1, 2016
Town Manager
Presenters Claire Goodwin, Management Analyst for the Town Manager’s Office and Denise
Casey, Human Resource Director, said the state of the department is strong. In the past year, the
office has recruited and hired several senior managers including Carol Kowalski, Assistant Town
Manager for Development and Tom Case, Chief Information Officer. The department is
currently recruiting for three positions due to retirements: Assistant Town Manager for Finance,
Recreation Director, and Human Resources Director. The Town Manager’s office has assisted
the Selectmen’s office as it experienced staff transitions and it has supported property acquisition
initiatives at 171 Bedford St. and the current negotiations for 20 Pelham Rd.
Ms. Goodwin pointed to two new department initiatives:
Work to support the high performance culture in the organization by providing directed team
building to the newly constituted Senior Management Team;
Develop new revenue sources to support the budget, particularly the Capital budget.
Ms. Goodwin noted that the recently presented cemetery fee adjustment is one example of new
revenues as is the stormwater management utility that will be presented in Budget Session III.
The overall FY18 budget will decrease by 3.99% due to a 17.39% decrease in Expenses for
Police and Fire assessment centers used in the promotion process. There is a 1.87% increase in
Compensation due to annual Step increases. No change in staffing is anticipation.
The Human Resources budget is decreasing 13.34% due to the one-time assessment center
request in FY17. HR is asking for an increase of $1,500 (37.5%) to advertise job openings at the
senior management level. Compensation is increasing 3.82% due to the reclassification of the
Human Resources Administrative Assistan position to a higher grade.
Ms. Casey presented the single PIR request on behalf of the person who will succeed her in the
job. This is a request that the department has made for some years to add an administrative
assistant for $69,406. Ms. Casey said although the office is keenly aware that the Town must be
careful about how many benefit-eligible positions are created, it notes that 150 benefit-eligible
staff have been added, which increases the work load of the current two staff in the office.
Ms. Casey thanked the Selectmen for the opportunity to serve the Town during her 9 ½ year
tenure.
Selectmen’s Office
Ms. Barry thanked Mr. Valente, Mr. Addelson and Ms. Hewitt for preparing the presentation due
to the Selectmen’s office staffing situation.
Jennifer Hewitt, Budget Officer, said the level service FY18 Selectmen’s budget incorporates a
number of changes to the budget that reflect office reorganization in the wake of two retirements.
Included in the budget is compensation for one full-time office manager, one full-time assistant,
and an as-needed Recording Secretary. A small 2.5% increase is seen on the Membership line
item due to the Massachusetts Municipal Association and the Massachusetts Area Planning
70-392
FY2018 Budget Presentation #2 - December 1, 2016
Council and a 2% increase in Contractual Services for the contract with LexMedia. The budget
for Legal Services is flat at $410,000 and the budget for contractual services for the Town Report
will increase 2.5%.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Upon motion duly made, it was voted 5-0 by roll call to enter Executive Session under
Exemption 6 to consider the purchase, exchange, lease or value of real property, Pine
Grove/Judges Road; and to also consider under Exemption 6, the purchase, exchange, lease or
value of real property, 20 Pelham Road; and also under Exemption 6 to consider the purchase,
exchange, lease or value of real property, Community Center Parking Lot; and to reconvene in
Open Session only to adjourn. Further, it was declared that an open meeting may have
detrimental effects on the litigating and negotiating positions of the Town.
Ms. Ciccolo will recuse herself from the Pelham Rd discussion due to conflict of interest.
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 4-0 to adjourn from Open
Session at approximately 3:45 p.m.
A true record; Attest:
Kim Siebert
Recording Secretary
70-393
Selectmen’s Meeting
FY2018 Budget Presentation #3
December 2, 2016
A Budget Session meeting of the Lexington Board of Selectmen was held on Friday, December
2, 2016 at 8:30 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room of the Town Office Building. Ms. Barry,
Chairman; Mr. Kelley: Mr. Cohen; and Mr. Pato were present as well as Mr. Valente, Town
Manager (late arrival) and Ms. Siebert, Recording Secretary.
Chairman Barry called the meeting to order at 8:45 p.m. and noted this would be the final of
three FY2018 Municipal budget sessions.
FY2018 Budget Presentations
Finance Department
Ms. Barry introduced presenters for the Finance Department budget, Rob Addelson, Assistant
Town Manager for Finance; Arnold Lovering, Treasurer/Collector; Laurie Dell’Olio, Town
Accountant; Jennifer Hewitt, Budget Officer.
Mr. Addelson gave an overview of the Finance Department. It is comprised of the Assessor’s
Office; the Treasurer/Collector’s office; the Comptroller’s office; and Water/Sewer Billing.
Looking back at FY16, Mr. Addelson said the Assessor’s Office established values for about
12,000 accounts that make up the residential and commercial/industrial real estate and personal
property tax base. The team visited 2000 parcels to conduct the Town’s cyclical inspections as
directed by the State Department of Revenue, which mandates valuation visits to every property
at least once every nine years.
The department inspected over 300 dwellings as ownership changed during the time period.
Ownership transfer is the predominant methodology for determining value of residential
property, Mr. Addelson said. As for building inspections, the department visited over 500 sites of
new construction/renovation for the purpose of establishing New Growth. The department also
handled 130 residential and 49 non-residential applications for abatement. It granted 173
abatements based on findings.
The department also reviewed in detail federal tax returns and recorded trust documents attached
to 44 applications for tax deferral applications, 43 of which were approved. Staff processed
1,525 motor vehicle excise tax abatements and reviewed in detail tax returns and trust documents
for 134 applications for statutory personal property tax exemptions. They reviewed 166
Community Preservation surcharge abatement applications.
The Town Accountant/Comptroller’s office processed 46,090 purchase orders; 35,000 accounts
payable transactions; and payroll for 27,042 Town and School employees. The Town Accountant
also maintains the General Ledger which is comprised of about 8,600 accounts. The FY2018
70-394
Budget Presentation #3 - December 2, 2016
Comptroller’s office manages the competitive procurement for goods and services for all
municipal departments including the Public Facilities Department and it manages the annual
audit process. The department prepares the annual Operating and Capital budgets and monitors
them on an ongoing basis. It also manages the Town’s outstanding debt.
The office provided technical assistance to Boards and Committees in the form of general
support and financial analyses and it provided technical assistance to Town departments that use
Munis, the financial management software.
The Treasurer/Collector’s Office maintains property tax accounts (both real and personal) and
maintains all water and sewer accounts. It manages the paying of accounts and pursues
delinquencies; it manages the investment of funds on behalf of the Town and reconciles
approximately 70 Town bank accounts.
\[Mr. Valente entered the meeting at this point.\]
The FY18 overall Finance budget will decrease by $37,795 (1.99%). Much of the change is in
the Comptroller’s Division budget (due to retirement-based changes to the Compensation line
item) and a decrease in Expenses due to one-time costs affecting FY17. Mr. Addelson said there
was also a $5,700 truing up adjustment made between budgeted and actual, which accounts for
another part of the decrease.
The overall percentage change in the Treasurer/Collector’s office is minus 1.49% made up of
increases in wages due to Step adjustments and a 22.58% decrease in Contractual Services
($10,150 expended in FY17 for one-time Tax Title Foreclosure funding.) Utility Billing shows
0% change.
Mr. Cohen said he was impressed with the remarkable amount of work the department
accomplishes and by staff dedication and capability.
Mr. Cohen asked for a status report of the Appellate Tax Board case and asked if more funds
should be allocated for the purpose. Mr. Addelson replied that an outstanding Verizon case is
being brought to a favorable conclusion for all municipalities throughout the state, including
Lexington.
Ms. Barry expressed sincere gratitude on behalf of the Board for the Finance Department’s
endeavors during the budget season, particularly to Mr. Addelson for professionalism and steady
guidance throughout his tenure in Lexington.
Department of Public Works
DPW Director Dave Pinsonnault introduced other members of his management team who
presented their own division budgets: John Livsey, Town Engineer; Chris Filadoro, Public
Grounds Superintendent/Tree Warden; Ralph Pecora, Water/Sewer Superintendent; Robert
Beaudoin, Environmental Services Superintendent; Eric Gitshier, Highway Superintendent; and
Marc Valenti, Operations Manager.
70-395
FY2018 Budget Presentation #3 - December 2, 2016
Mr. Pinsonnault said the department provides critical services to the Town and comprises the
third leg of public safety. Public Works has had a number of advantageous staff changes in the
past year and has recently made several fortunate hires and in-house promotions.
The FY18 budget for the DPW Administration will see a 2.33% decrease from FY17, largely due
to senior management retirements and associated adjustments in the Wages category. Expenses
will increase 7.38% ($2,315), due primarily to mandatory drug and alcohol testing costs.
Mr. Livsey said the FY18 Engineering Division budget will decrease by 1.01% due to a senior
level retirement. Mr. Livsey noted a shift of $27,000 from Professional Services to Seasonal
Part-time Wages in response to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
MS4 Stormwater federal permit, which requires a significant increase in the frequency of water
sampling. Because this increase is beyond the capacity of department staff, Mr. Livsey looked at
several approaches and settled on expansion of the Town’s current, award-winning program with
UMass Lowell that he called both well-managed and cost effective.
Mr. Livsey said the Town recently received a bronze-level Engineering Excellence award from
the American Council of Engineering Consultants for the Willard’s Woods conservation land
project. Mr. Livsey thanked the Board and Town Meeting for supporting projects such as this.
Mr. Pinsonnault continued the presentation with the FY18 Street Lighting budget, saying it is the
Forestry staff that inspects and repairs bulbs and sensors on Town-owned street lights. An
outside contractor repairs all other electrical outages including new lights, arms, poles, and
fixtures.
The Street Lighting budget will see a slight 2.81% ($7,449) decrease in FY18. Electricity costs
have been decreasing 6.69% in an ongoing, downward electricity trend.
Mr. Gitshier reported that the FY18 Highway Division budget is level funded although there is a
noted $12,800 (6.3%) increase in Contractual Services for the EPA MS4 stormwater permitting.
The increase is for additional catch basin repair costs.
For the Road Machinery Division, Mr. Gitshier said there will be an $11,234 (1.75%) increase to
cover new vehicle/machinery replacement parts, which are generally more expensive.
For Snow Removal, a 4.81% increase is expected, due to Professional Services ($10,000 for
weather information); Catering and Meals ($1,000 to feed road crews working over time during
storm events); Lease Agreement ($12,750 for three snow loaders); Plowing Contractors ($85,000
to remain competitive with other communities); and Vehicle Parts and Supplies ($2,500).
th
Mr. Pinsonnault said because a 5 mechanic was added to the crew three years ago, more repairs
and services have been done in-house, saving Contractual Costs.
70-396
FY2018 Budget Presentation #3 - December 2, 2016
Mr. Pinsonnault noted that at the American Public Works Conference this past fall, the DPW
received an Adversity Award for its efforts during the winter events of 2014-15.
Ms. Barry took this opportunity to give Mr. Gitshier a Town Seal lapel pin to welcome him back
to Lexington upon his recent hire as Highway Superintendent.
Mr. Filadoro presented the FY18 Park Division budget and noted an overall 1.5% increase.
Landscape Maintenance will increase $7,300 (8.94%) to keep up with the addition of athletic
field inventory and park complexes in town. A $6,000 increase in the Water/Sewer line item is
directed toward irrigation for upgrades, additional systems, and meter replacement. The
department is trying to catch up with work that was postponed. Mr. Filadoro hopes that FY18 is
the last year for which an increase is requested.
Mr. Pinsonnault said that the DPW worked with Recreation to request Capital funds to develop
water system conservation strategies and efficiencies that will provide future benefits.
Mr. Filadoro continued with the FY18 Forestry Division budget that shows a $7.391 (1.66%)
increase, made up of a $5,491 increase in Compensation and a $1,900 (1.97%) increase in
Expenses.
Mr. Filadoro moved on to the Cemetery Division that will increase $7,864 (2.17%) over FY17.
Once again, a Water increase was noted ($5,400 or 81.82%) for the irrigation lines. A Capital
item to complete a final section of a cemetery irrigation system and to change out old meters will
help conservation and use measurement accuracy.
Mr. Beaudoin presented the Refuse Collection budget for FY18 which shows a $72,995 (9%)
increase due to an anticipated new refuse and recycling collection contract. The Town is
currently in the final year of a five year contract with JRM Hauling.Mr. Beaudoin bases the 9%
increase projection on comparisons to the price hikes other towns have experienced with newly-
negotiated contracts. Mr. Beaudoin is now finishing the specifications of the new contract and
the RFP will be released in a couple of weeks. The award will be announced in January 2017.
The Recycling budget shows a 10.61% increase, primarily due to the increase in debt service and
e-waste disposal costs. The department has just begun to use a new windrow turner to manage
organic waste. Training is involved in operating the windrow turner but it appears to be an
effective composting tool, although it does not eliminate the need for personnel at the facility.
Refuse Disposal will increase 2.49% which is also related to the disposal contract.
Mr. Pinsonnault said the Hartwell Ave. Facility solar farm is behind schedule but moving along.
The project has affected services at Hartwell Ave. that Mr. Pinsonnault said would be felt even
after the project is complete. One of the hazardous waste collections had to be moved to 201
Bedford St. which resulted in some logistical and financial costs. In the process of moving the
Hartwell trailer away from the site, the trailer fell apart and there is now a Capital request for a
70-397
FY2018 Budget Presentation #3 - December 2, 2016
new trailer. Temporary accommodations for staff have been provided in the meantime. As of
July, Lexington stopped taking Arlington’s compost, resulting in a loss of revenue and Mr.
Pinsonnault is not sure whether there will be the capacity to resume taking the waste when the
solar project is completed. The DPW was able to accommodate a request from one of the school
construction projects to take in materials—at a significant savings to the Town and the project—
but the department had to turn down a subsequent request due to a lack of room.
Mr. Beaudoin said this year’s drought set composting behind schedule and the contractual
services to turn the materials were postponed because it was not worth the cost. The flexibility of
having the new windrow turner will allow compost to be turned as the weather dictates.
Ms. Barry asked if Lexington would continue to take other communities’ Christmas trees. Mr.
Beaudoin said he had not planned to do so; only Arlington’s has been accepted in the past.
Mr. Pecora presented the Water/Sewer Division budget. The Sewer Enterprise Division
anticipates two increases and one decrease that make up an overall 2.59% increase, not including
debt service. Increases for Contractual Services ($10,000) and Professional Services ($5,000) are
due to higher maintenance costs for pump stations and generators. The decrease for electricity
($15,000) is due to new, more efficient equipment.
The Water Enterprise Division shows a budget increase of 5.7% (not including debt service), due
largely to drug and alcohol testing costs, postage and mailing, and professional development.
Mr. Valente clarified that the Town is required by federal law to do random drug and alcohol
testing on any employee who uses heavy machinery. The testing is not due to a perceived
problem in this area. Prior to the FY18 budget, the Town had been conducting the testing but it
had not accounted for the expense in the correct manner.
Mr. Livsey spoke to two of the four Program Improvement Requests (PIRs):
Bike Sharrows: $120,000
The Town currently has about 11 miles of bicycle accommodations but there are a number of
heavily used arterial and collector roads (42 miles in total) that remain unmarked. This PIR will
be an ongoing request because more roads need to be marked and currently marked roads need to
be re-painted and maintained. Some State funding has been received from the Complete Streets
program to repaint 3 of the roads (a total of about 2 ½ miles) and the Town will continue to
apply for the funds as long as the program exists.
Mr. Pato remembered that a funding request for street pavement markings had been withdrawn
last year late in the budget process. Mr. Livsey said that the department will prioritize bike
accommodations going forward and the FY18 requested funding will help expand how the Town
addresses the issue. He noted that biking is a health and recreation matter as well as increasingly
about commuting.
70-398
FY2018 Budget Presentation #3 - December 2, 2016
Senior Civil Engineer: $35,434
Currently there is one Senior Civil Engineer on staff who plays a major role in project
management. Multiple projects go on simultaneously in town; and the additional engineer will
enhance the ability of the Town to implement and monitor projects. Although the full
compensation for someone in this position is $79,134, a $60,000 reduction in Professional
Services for outside contractors offsets the expense. When outside contractors are hired, they
only focus on one project; the additional in-house engineer would handle multiple projects.
Mr. Filadoro addressed the third PIR:
Landscape Maintenance at Monroe Cemetery: $5,000
This request for additional contract services will allow the cemetery grounds to be mowed every
two weeks during the rainy months when grass requires more care.
Mr. Beaudoin presented the fourth PIR:
Heavy Equipment Operator at Compost Facility, from part-time status to full-time: $3,500
This employee would assist with the processing of additional yard waste materials, monitor
incoming yard waste and other recyclable materials from residents and contractors, operate the
windrow turner and perform a variety of technical tasks. The facility’s acreage has been reduced,
yet an increasing amount of materials must be handled in a diminished area.
With the windrow turner, the compostable materials should be ready in 6 months rather than a
year. The material must be screened and readied for distribution. Staff from other departments
has been borrowed to accomplish the work, although a part-time employee was hired to
minimize the impact to other Town staff. Upgrading this employee from part-time to full time
will help maintain and enhance the operations at the Lexington Compost Facility.
Mr. Kelley asked if there is a risk of not fulfilling revenue expectations if the facility cannot
contract to handle Arlington’s waste. Mr. Pinsonnault replied that he is working with Mr.
Addelson in the Finance office to calculate this loss and ascertain whether it affects the facility’s
ability to self-sustain. He will return to the Board with that analysis.
Mr. Beaudoin said there are creative ways to increase revenue, such as leaf mulch sales that are
now enabled by the windrow turner.
Mr. Pinsonnault and Mr. Livsey touched on a few of the Capital items:
#321 Center Streetscape: The ad hoc committee has presented Tier I findings to the Board and is
now working on Tiers II and III. Presentations for the second and third tiers have yet to be made
to the Selectmen. A placeholder for eventual funding has been carried forward in this Capital
request with an estimated price tag of $7.87M, although the exact request cannot be calculated
70-399
FY2018 Budget Presentation #3 - December 2, 2016
until the full scope of the project is determined. Mr. Pinsonnault said the DPW is very much
involved with the ad hoc committee.
Ms. Barry said her understanding from the Chair of the ad hoc committee is that Tier I was
preliminary and that revisions are being made. Ms. Barry emphasized that the Board has not yet
made any deliberations because all information has not been presented and a second public
meeting—expected sometime in January— must take place to fulfill the committee’s directive.
#644 Sidewalk Improvements: As the Board requested, the funding level was restored to
$800,000 per year for repair of existing sidewalks.
#966 Community Center Sidewalk: Mr. Pinsonnault and Town Manager Valente had a very
productive meeting with the Scottish Rite, whose facility shares the Community Center campus.
This is a major step toward siting and constructing a sidewalk that was originally estimated at
$200,000. The Town is in the process of getting updated costs estimates due to input from the
Scottish Rite about materials and lighting.
Mr. Kelley asked for an update about where the sidewalk would be located. Mr. Pinsonnault said
he would provide the Board with that information.
Mr. Livsey continued to highlight some of the Capital items.
#850 Hartwell Ave Infrastructure Improvements
As this project has evolved, it became clear that there were more complications than originally
perceived and therefor the price request has increased to $2,185,000. The conceptual plan is that
of a roundabout but there are very significant wetland impacts requiring a higher level of
permitting. Engineering has looked at 5 alternatives— two roundabouts and three signalized—
that would have various impacts and require various wetland mitigation strategies. An informal
meeting with Conservation is scheduled to review these options.
A second factor in cost increases is the need to relocate the utilities on the Hartwell Ave. bridge,
which is complicated by the fact that neither Hanscom AFB nor Lincoln Lab can risk being
without electricity for any length of time. Addressing this requires design changes and associated
cost increases.
The third cost driver is the age of the equipment and controls at the jug handle at Bedford and
Hartwell. A viable design for a pedestrian crossing had been identified and MassDOT is in
agreement with it.
Ms. Barry asked what the anticipated timeline is for the project. Mr. Livsey said if it is built as
one project—although there are opportunities of phasing the project into different pieces—it is
expected to take two whole construction seasons which will cause significant disruption of traffic
in the area. MIT and the Base have both been brought into the loop as has an affected business
group. There was a discussion with the Town of Bedford in the past about the potential
roundabout but nothing about this recent initiative has been shared as yet. Once Mr. Livsey gets
a better sense of the impacts, he will discuss the project with Bedford.
70-400
FY2018 Budget Presentation #3 - December 2, 2016
Mr. Livsey emphasized that the bridge on Hartwell is weight restricted, not failing.
Mr. Kelley said he was pleased to see that the Town is addressing safer pedestrian road crossings
and safe access to the MBTA bus stop at Eldred. He would like to schedule time into
Selectmen’s meetings to hear about the different design options, both with respect to
Bedford/Hartwell and Hartwell/Maguire. Knowing ahead of time what the trade-offs are is an
integral part of how the community sees the solution. Mr. Kelley said the options as described
seem to make sense but the cost also needs to be examined.
Hill Street Sidewalk
This project is listed under Land Use, not DPW, but Mr. Livsey spoke to it, saying the request
for design funds is $150,000. Next year, the request would be $1.3M for construction. The Town
has received inquiries about the sidewalk as well as a petition from Hill Street abutters. The total
sidewalk length would be 3,700 feet and there are 45 residences on that stretch of road plus the
Lexington Golf Club and nearby Town conservation land. The matter is going before the Trans-
portation Safety Group who will hold a public meeting on December 6 at 7 p.m. at Hastings
School. There is a large number of supporters of the project but also some who are not in favor.
On the matter of the Pump Station Upgrade Capital project, Mr. Livsey said the Town received a
rebate of over $16,000 from Mass Saves for installation of VFDs to reduce energy usage.
Mr. Kelley said there has been a lot of enthusiasm in recent years for installing sidewalks. As
more such projects are brought forward, it is important for the community to realize that there
has been some private support funding from one means or another. Mr. Kelley said that this
becomes a policy question and be believes that betterment charge option should be part of the
conversation—perhaps not for the whole cost but possibly for a percentage. This would help us
get more things done, which is what neighborhoods and communities want.
Mr. Livsey said there are three pieces to the stormwater-related Capital requests:
#523 Storm Drainage Improvements and NPDES Compliance
The storm drain improvement portion of the $340,000 project accounts for $270,000 of the
expense which is earmarked for installation of storm drains and catch basins where needed. The
NPDES compliance part of the request ties directly into detection of elicit discharge which
entails field work to sample water quality and searching for sources of illegal discharge.
#557 Comprehensive Watershed Stormwater Management Program
There are three watersheds in Lexington: the Charles, the Shawsheen, and the Mystic. Several
years ago, plans were developed for these areas and specific projects were laid out to improve
protection of the resources. The FY18 request is for $390,000 which will be repeated in
subsequent years to continue the work. Mr. Livsey noted that Willard’s Woods is an excellent
example of a comprehensive stormwater mitigation plan.
70-401
FY2018 Budget Presentation #3 - December 2, 2016
#683 Town-wide Culvert Replacement Program
There is some crossover between this project and #557 because some culverts are within the
stormwater management plan. Some projects could use funds from both #683 and #557. This is
also an ongoing, annual request of $390,000.
Management Analyst Claire Goodwin provided more information about stormwater management
and highlighted aspects of the NPDES Small MS4 Permit Requirements that will become
effective July 1, 2017. MS4 requirements, which are unfunded federal mandates, were originally
created by the Clean Water Act of 1972. The newest version has 6 minimum control measures,
each with several onerous requirements embedded within:
Public Education and Outreach
Public Involvement and Participation
Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control
Stormwater Management in New Development and Redevelopment
Good Housekeeping and Pollution Prevention
Yearly Capital allocation for stormwater management FY14-FY18 has been $1,120,000.
Operating budget allocations have varied between $408,100 (FY14) and $538,300 (FY18).
Additionally, the DPW allocates 1.7 FTEs to manage stormwater requirements. With new MS4
regulations, this may increase to 2 FTEs.
One other item Ms. Goodwin noted is that in FY22 the Vac truck used to flush drainage systems
will need to be replaced. ($400,000)
Mr. Pato asked what actions the Town should take and what funding it should allocate to address
the possible continuation of drought conditions. Mr. Pinsonnault replied that the DPW reduced
the tree planting program last season in order to pay more attention to a fewer number of new
trees to ensure they survive. In the landscape operations, efficiencies that will lead to water
conservation have been implemented, including better irrigation on athletic fields to ensure safe
play conditions.
Additionally, allocations from the Enterprise fund during FY18 will be dedicated toward water
conservation public outreach. The department may also propose a second season of voluntarily
shifting irrigation timing.
Mr. Kelley asked if water issues on Grove Street had been resolved and if the Town was able to
meet its water delivery commitment to the Town of Bedford. He asked if the same low water
pressure issues will occur next summer as they did in 2016. Mr. Livsey said there is a water
distribution model being developed now which will help the department understand the impacts,
what the causes are, and how to respond. Results of the modeling are expected this winter.
Ms. Barry asked if there is placeholder funding for potential infrastructure needs to address the
model’s recommendations. Mr. Livsey said the water distribution improvement funding now
70-402
FY2018 Budget Presentation #3 - December 2, 2016
before the Board makes allowances for this work, although the magnitude of improvements is
not yet known.
Ms. Barry thanked the DPW for all the work that was done on the North Lexington pump station
and the force main project. In terms of PIRs, Ms. Barry said she would continue to advocate for
mowing at the cemeteries.
About the Townwide Signalization Capital project (#688), Ms. Barry asked what the status is
with Worthen Road and Mass. Ave. because the Town hears concerns from residents at least
once a month about that intersection. Mr. Livsey said there are significant roadway changes that
need to be made and changing the signal timing would not be enough. Some conceptual plans
have been created and a design contract now pending will move the project forward.
Ms. Barry asked if Burlington had drawn water from Lexington during the summer drought. Mr.
Pecora said that Burlington drew water for 7-10 days—about 7.9M gallons. There was no loss of
pressure or any other significant impact to Lexington’s system as a result. Grove St. was
specifically monitored but no problems were detected.
Ms. Barry read comments from Selectman Ciccolo. Ms. Ciccolo enthusiastically supports the
pavement markings request which she said is essential for bicycle and motorist safety and has
been deferred too long. She endorses the request for the new position within Engineering
because the current staffing level is overburdened with Capital projects. Ms. Ciccolo is also very
enthusiastic about #644 Sidewalk Improvements and she supports #1002 Staging for Special
Events.
Ms. Ciccolo would like to know more about #544 Street Acceptance and #850 Hartwell Ave.
Infrastructure Improvements. Projects that she thinks the full Board should discuss are #321
Center Streetscape Improvements and #922 Battlegreen Streetscape.
Mr. Cohen asked if the stormwater mandates are statutes or regulations. Mr. Livsey said they are
statutory.
Mr. Pato asked about #520 Equipment Replacement and whether there has been any progress on
identifying quieter, lower emission leaf blowers. Mr. Pinsonnault said he has a couple of leads on
leaf blowers and hopes to have one to test out by spring. Low Emission large equipment is harder
to find because of the nature of the work the machine does. The meter reading vehicle, however,
is a hybrid and the Town is looking at smaller vehicles whenever possible.
Mr. Valente said the discussions this morning have touched on some of the areas which staff
wanted direction. However, a big picture issue is the increasing number of requests from
residents around pedestrian and bike safety. Many of the Capital projects before the Board are
responsive to those requests but the projects are expensive and have impacts on staff who deal
with other competing demands.
70-403
FY2018 Budget Presentation #3 - December 2, 2016
More specifically, Mr. Valente talked about the sidewalk issue and noted the importance of the
Board’s support for funding to maintain existing sidewalks. Requests for new sidewalks are
coming in, however. The budget request for Hill Street sidewalk construction next year, if that
project goes forward, will be about $1.3M and there are other sidewalks that will follow after
Hill St. The Transportation Safety Group has been working to establish criteria for evaluating
sidewalk requests which goes beyond who made a request first. Mr. Valente said he hopes to
bring a proposal before the Board that will help form a prioritization policy. A sidewalk
betterment fund has not yet been discussed but the statutory parameters should be explored.
Recreation and Community Programs
Karen Simmons, Director of Recreation and Community Programs introduced Peter Coleman,
Assistant Director of Recreation; Sheila Butts, Community Center Director; and Tyler Radicioni,
Recreation Supervisor who will be making the presentations.
Before moving to the presentation, however, Ms. Simmons said— as she ends her 21 year tenure
in Lexington— she has been blessed to work with a great management team, staff, and group of
volunteers. During the multiple peak seasons in the year, staff can put in 60 hour weeks. Ms.
Simmons said she is proud to be a member of the Lexington Recreation Department, a noted
leader in the state.
Mr. Coleman said the Recreation and Community Programs Department consists of three
divisions: the Community Center, Recreation, and Pine Meadows Golf Club.
The FY18 Operating budget request reflects a total increase of 3.68%. Mr. Coleman said that the
17 months since the Community Center first opened have been very active and programming has
grown to serve a total of 213,200 people in FY16, up from 111,376 in FY15. A total of 646 out
of 743 programs ran as scheduled. Besides 6 full-time and 275 seasonal staff, there were 292
volunteers in FY16 who donated over 7000 hours of service, up from 265 volunteers in FY15
who gave 4600 hours. The department operates as an Enterprise Fund.
A Community Engagement Strategic Plan conducted in 2013 identified 4 key organizational
priorities:
Community engagement and outreach;
Financial stability and resilience;
Preserving, protecting, and improving Lexington’s recreational infrastructure;
Operational excellence to exceed customer expectations.
Staff continue to use this strategic plan as they create, implement and refine recreational
opportunities. Access for all, regardless of financial status, is a priority. Requests for assistance
are consistent although donations have declined. In FY16, the department provided 24 families
with 82 individual program scholarships.
70-404
FY2018 Budget Presentation #3 - December 2, 2016
Ms. Butts said the budget request for the Community Center Division reflects an increase of
$39,126 or 5.38% over FY17. The driver of the increase is contractual obligations.
In the current fiscal year, four of the full time employees—the director, office manager, Youth
and Family program coordinator, and the full time municipal clerk—are supported by the
General Fund rather than by the Enterprise Fund. In FY18, three of the four will again be
supported by the General Fund while the municipal clerk will transfer to the Enterprise Fund.
The remaining 2 FTEs, instructors, and seasonal employees will continue to be funded through
the Enterprise Fund. The goal, for the upcoming years, is for program fees to support all
positions and program operations.
Visits to the Community Center are on the rise and new participants of all ages people welcomed
regularly. Improvement of programs and services is ongoing. Sixty offerings formerly held at the
Muzzey Senior Center are being expanded due to the popularity of leisure programming.
Funding from the Dana Home provides “Forever Fit” classes 3 days a week that target the 60+
age group. Because of demand for programs and meeting rooms, the Community Center is
experiencing a space crunch.
The Center partners with the LABBB Collaborative to host monthly special event dances that are
open to current LABBB students and alumni. LABBB students come twice a week for yoga and
work out in the cardio fitness room. A new boxing program has been initiated for students on the
Autism spectrum. Ms. Butts noted that this program is fully subscribed. A partnership with
Public Facilities and LABBB has resulted in vocational programming to teach plant care and
recycling tasks. The Center offers programming in conjunction with the Special Needs Arts
Program to offer Saturday art classes and sing-a-long events.
The staff are taking Mandarin instruction to better serve that growing population.
The Town Universal Use policy team is continuing to refine the fee structure for room rental and
a second series of recommendations will soon be presented to the Board of Selectmen.
Ms. Butts addressed several questions that were forwarded to her by Selectman Ciccolo. About
weekend and evening expanded hours, Ms. Butts said that weekday evenings are already busy
with programs and meeting room requests. There is less activity on Saturdays when the Center is
open 9-5 and the Center is closed on Sundays. There are only occasional requests for extended
night and Sunday hours; Ms. Butts said the most requests are for earlier opening hours on the
weekdays so that patrons can use the cardio fitness room.
Mr. Coleman spoke to the Recreation Division budget request that will see an increase of
$55,641 or 4.1%, largely due to a Compensation increase of 7.9% driven by contractual
obligations, program instructors, and a minimum wage increase for seasonal employees. The
Operating budget supports staff that coordinate, manage, and deliver programs along with
supplies, equipment, and utilities needed to run programs and facilities. The Recreation Division
manages Town assets that include 429 acres of land and open space, 30 athletic fields,
70-405
FY2018 Budget Presentation #3 - December 2, 2016
11 neighborhood parks and play areas, 8 basketball courts, the Center Recreation Complex, the
Old Res swimming and picnic area, Lincoln Park, the Town pool complex, and 17 tennis courts.
Mr. Radicioni spoke about the Pine Meadow Golf Club budget that will see a $4.045 or 0.75%
budget increase in FY18 due to contractual adjustments. This past year was the last in a three
year contract with New England Golf, with an option to extend for 2 one-year periods. Because
the partnership with New England Golf has been successful, the contract will be extended for
another year at least. Overall, the golf course is in excellent condition and Mr. Radicioni said the
customer base is very loyal and happy with course conditions.
In FY16, a total of 37,178 rounds were played, up from an average of 35,000 per year. Pine
Meadows is also the practice facility for Lexington High and Minuteman Tech. USGA evaluates
the condition of the course twice each year.
Recreation Capital requests for FY18 totaling $1,860,000 include projects to protect and grow
recreational infrastructure: the Town pool renovation project ($1,620,000); upgrades to irrigation
systems at athletic fields, also referenced by DPW Director Pinsonnault ($125,000); replacement
of a greens mower and a rough mower at Pine Meadows ($55,000); and replacement of the
swing sets at Bow St. Park, Franklin Park, and Munroe Park ($60,000).
The Pine Meadows equipment would be paid for through the Recreation Enterprise Fund. The
other three projects have been submitted to Community Preservation. Mr. Coleman said the most
critical of these Capital projects is the Town pool which last had renovations done in 1980. The
filtration systems have far exceeded their life expectancy. The funds will also cover a
reconfiguration of the wading pool and the addition of spray park features. If approved,
construction would begin immediately after Labor Day 2017 and be completed in May 2018 with
no interruption to the 2018 season.
Mr. Cohen said Recreation programs and staff are very, very impressive and he thanked Director
Simmons.
Ms. Barry asked for an update on the Lincoln Field lighting project. Ms. Simmons said the
Lexington United Soccer Club has entered into a public/private partnership with the Town to
raise funds to install lighting on Lincoln #2. They have entered into the permitting process with
the Department of Environmental Protection and are working with the Town Engineer. A
company that specializes in landfills has begun to work on the design. A $500,000 fundraising
campaign has also begun.
Ms. Barry asked what field scheduling impacts are expected with the middle school renovation
and the modular classroom installation at the elementary schools. Mr. Coleman said Recreation
was able to operate all its summer camps and clinics this year. For 2017, there will be no access
to the Middle Schools’ fields during the summer months but Recreation is looking at
alternatives, like Estabrook. He anticipates minimal impact.
70-406
FY2018 Budget Presentation #3 - December 2, 2016
Ms. Simmons said there has been resident concern about the loss of the three tennis courts at
Clarke but the courts will be reconstructed and put back online as part of the school project.
Ms. Barry commented that the Mandarin lessons for staff are terrific. She asked if seasonal staff
could also take advantage as well. Ms. Butts and Ms. Simmons agreed this could be done.
Ms. Barry delivered a question from Ms. Ciccolo about the Center Track and Field Capital
project not due for funding consideration until FY19. How long will the track last once it is
built? If there’s a chance the area will be used for LHS rebuilding purposes, will the Town get
enough use from the $3M track project before the renovation to justify the expense?
Ms. Simmons said the existing track was built about 1980 and it has had approximately 10
resurfacings of sprayed rubber coating. The expected life span of a track is 25 years. The more
re-surfacing that are done, the faster the coating wears off. Technology has changed over time so
a new surface treatment would use different techniques and materials. As for the LHS building
project, the department needs more information. Ms. Simmons said it would be irresponsible to
bring this forward for FY19 if there is a decision to build the high school on that land.
Ms. Barry said this analysis should also to be directed to the attention of the School Committee.
Ms. Simmons said the decision about the track will affect the LHS track and field team.
Minuteman Tech is also about to construct a new school and during the building it will lose its
athletic facilities. Ms. Simmons said there could be an overlap or a partnership with Lexington in
the timing of these projects.
Ms. Barry asked if the track color could remain blue. Ms. Simmons said this request had already
been made by the LHS Athletic Director.
Another question from Ms. Ciccolo was about the cricket field construction project not slated
until FY22. Is there a space in mind and how much land would be required? Ms. Simmons said
the FY22 time frame was chosen to give the department time to consider questions like needs
level and location.
Ms. Ciccolo also put in a request for an Ultimate Frisbee team home field. Because there is no
cutting for this sport, a lot of kids participate. Lexington won the State championship twice in
recent years.
Mr. Kelley asked about how late the lights on Lincoln Field #2 will be kept on. Ms. Simmons
said there would be one light and the end time would be between 8 and 8:30 p.m. If LHS has a
late game, Recreation would come back to the Board for an extension.
Ms. Simmons said that the Lincoln Park lighting, once it is funded by public/private efforts,
would be gifted to the Town. Ms. Barry said the project has a website for those interested in
donating.
70-407
FY2018 Budget Presentation #3 - December 2, 2016
Ms. Barry thanked the Recreation Department and commended Ms. Simmons for making
Lexington a far better place in her 20 years of service.
Department of Public Facilities
Pat Goddard, Director of Public Facilities, introduced the seven members of his department who
were present.
Shawn Newell, Assistant Director of Public Facilities, said the department has three divisions:
Educational Facilities, Municipal Facilities, and Shared Facilities. The FY18 budget is for level
services; the All Funds budget includes the Buildings Rental Revolving Fund as well as funding
from the PEG Revolving Fund.
Although the budget is for level services, there is an increase of $413,514 or 3.95%, driven by
the educational facilities All Fund budget that is increasing by $423,901 (5.77%). This is due to
additional square footage and renovations of schools (Diamond, Clarke, modulars at Bridge,
Bowman, Fiske, 171 Bedford St, and Pelham Rd.). The impact is felt in compensation (3
additional FTEs) and energy costs.
Mr. Newell pointed out that an adjustment for an omitted staff vacancy in FY17 ($53,227) adds
to the perception of increase for FY18. Step and COLA increases for FY18 equal $99,863.
Overall utilities are increasing by $7,446 which includes a $66,088 reduction for natural gas due
to a lower contracted rate and an increase $55,834 for electricity. One of the main reasons the
utility budget is not growing more is cost avoidance from the rooftop solar array project plus
additional solar capacity now being installed at the Hartwell Ave. facility.
Total solar credits for 2018 are expected to be $316,000. Without solar cost avoidance, the
utilities budget for 2016 would have risen by $323,946—a 10.82% increase. The Solar PPA
contract identifies credits that will reduce payments to Eversource over the next 18-20 years for
electrical transmission services. Solar credits are also responsible for funding a portion of the
proposed 2018 appropriation to the Capital Stabilization Fund which will be tapped to relocate
solar panels when roof repairs are needed.
Priorities for the department for FY18 will be to support multiple Capital projects and perform
system upgrades and maintenance projects. Additional project management resources are likely
to be required through the Capital budget, depending on the number of projects that need to be
managed simultaneously. Operational priorities will be to support operations at the Community
Center, Cary Memorial Building, and Cary Library. Both Cary Memorial and Cary Library have
increased to a 7 day work schedule.
One PIR request is to add 2 FTEs to the Town custodial staff ($92,235) for a net increase of
$43,296, offset by replacement of the cost of contracted cleaning services.
70-408
FY2018 Budget Presentation #3 - December 2, 2016
Capital Projects presented by Mr. Goddard include #1022 Lexington Children’s Place (LCP) at
Pelham Road which is listed for $11M. Due to additional information, this estimate has changed
to $18.3M. When the next phase of planning begins, the Town will seek ways to lower that cost.
#564 LHS Heating Systems Upgrade is identified as totaling $20,829,000 over time. Mr.
Goddard said last year at this time the project was estimated at $13M.The School Committee is
discussing a postponement or deferral of this project until a new school is built (feasibility study
in FY22). For a stopgap HVAC project at LHS, Mr. Goddard said he will change the request to a
maintenance only level of funding if the School Committee votes to postpone the full
replacement.
Project #870 Hastings School Renovation/Replacement is in the preliminary design phase and
has submitted material to MSBA. The finished building would house 645 students in 110,000 sq.
ft., with existing students in the ILP program included in the count. This represents a 20%
increase in size over the number of students Estabrook was designed for. The full cost estimate
for the project is $58,500,000.
The next phase of this project will be to submit the schematic design. The State requires the
Town to submit a renovation option as well as a new building design but Mr. Goddard said, with
enrollment increases, a new school appears to be the better option. There will be a meeting with
the community on December 15at the Estabrook School to discuss Hastings options. The
submission is due to the MSBA by January 4.
Three more building projects--#306 Lexington Police Station Rebuild, #738 45 Bedford Street
Fire Department Rebuild and #1021 Fire Department Swing Space 173 Bedford St—now have
architecture teams working on designs. A meeting with those architects and Town staff will take
place on December 22. Some discussion has taken place about budgets for these projects; Mr.
Goddard hopes to be able to update the figures after 12/22.
For March 2018 Annual Town meeting, Facilities will ask for only $50,000 of the $1M for the
swing space project. As far as the Fire Station is concerned, there is a sense that the $420,000
request will need to increase.
Project #939 Public Facilities Mechanical/Electrical System Replacement is for the Cary Library
chiller and would be done next summer ($489,000). #647 Municipal Building Envelopes and
Systems would eliminate water infiltration into the Town Office Building ($194,713).
Ms. Barry asked if there will be an impact to revenues/cost avoidance because the Hartwell solar
project is behind schedule. Even though the project is late, it will be online by the time FY18
would be affected.
Ms. Ciccolo commented in writing about #835 Visitors Center, saying that another year of data
will help the Town make good space and programming decisions. She would not like to see the
project pushed off later than 2019, however.
70-409
FY2018 Budget Presentation #3 - December 2, 2016
Ms. Ciccolo wrote that, with the accelerated Fire station project, the Department of Public
Facilities has a lot on its plate.”
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 4 - 0 to adjourn at
approximately 11:28 p.m.
A true record; Attest:
Kim Siebert
Recording Secretary
70-410
Selectmen’s Meeting
December 5, 2016
A meeting of the Lexington Board of Selectmen was held on Monday, December 5, 2016, at
7:21 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. Ciccolo reported that Marilyn Fenollosa, former member of the Historic Districts
Commission (HDC), approached her with the idea to review the HDC’s enabling statute.
Lexington has its own particular act that governs the HDC, as do a handful of other
Massachusetts towns, but most of them—unlike Lexington’s—are organized under State law.
Ms. Fenollosa suggested it might be worthwhile to form a study group and explore whether using
the State law would improve consistency. Ms. Ciccolo said she recommended that Ms. Fenollosa
talk to Mr. Valente and Ms. Kowalski to explore the question.
Ms. Barry recommended that the number of members of such a study group be small, if one is
formed. Ms. Ciccolo said she will pass that comment on to Ms. Fenollosa.
Town Manager Report
Lexington will receive a $292,000 Complete Streets grant that the Town applied for last fall. It
will be used for these purposes: flashing school zone devices for five of the elementary schools
and Diamond Middle School as recommended by the Transportation Safety Group (each device
is in the $32,000-$50,000 range); bike accommodation striping/sharrows for Bedford St, Hayden
Ave., and Mass. Ave; handicap ramps at three of the elementary schools; a sidewalk on Outlook
Dr; bike racks at conservation land sites. Mr. Valente said the Town is thrilled to receive the
award which will help achieve the Board’s goal of improving pedestrian and bicycle safety.
The Center of town will experience a brief period of nighttime sewer maintenance work, starting
tonight from 9:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. and ending Thursday, December 8. The crews will be in the
middle of Mass. Ave. but traffic will not have to be detoured.
Over the weekend, there was a significant water main break on Bedford St. near the Boston
Sports Club. This portion of the road is State highway. Report of the break came in at about 5:00
a.m. on Saturday. Crews were onsite in about an hour and worked until about 6:00 p.m. to make
the repairs. Mr. Valente read aloud a portion of the incident report from Water Superintendent
Ralph Pecora, saying he was impressed with how departments worked together to make repair
work and traffic disruption as undisruptive as possible.
Some establishments such as the Quality Inn, Margarita’s restaurant, and the veterinary hospital
were affected, but Beth Israel hospital was not. About 10 feet of 12-inch pipe was replaced; the
leakage rate was measured as 5000 gal. per minute. Over 1.6M gallons of water was lost in the
5½ hour event but all the water drained into the storm drain system and no businesses were
damaged. Mr. Valente said the pipe break was along the top and bottom, not along a seam. The
pipe will be sent for testing to see if the cause of the failure can be determined.
70-411
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 5, 2016
It was noted that at approximately the same time, Hanscom AFB experienced two water main
breaks. Water system instruments registered a spike in water pressure in the line, which may
have had a connection to in the Bedford St. failure.
Ms. Barry said it was fortunate the break happened on a Saturday morning rather than during a
weekday when traffic volume is high. Also fortunate were the logistics of the break—10-12 feet
below the surface of the road— with no impact to either worker safety or damage to adjacent
properties. Ms. Barry applauded the cooperative efforts of the Town’s staff.
Appoint Town Comptroller
With the pending retirement of the Assistant Town Manager for Finance/Comptroller, Rob
Addelson, recruitment for his replacement was undertaken with Mr. Cohen and Ms. Ciccolo
participating in the interview panel. Following that process, Mr. Valente reported that he
recommends the appointment of Carolyn Kosnoff to the position. Under the Town’s charter, the
appointment of the Comptroller is made by the Selectmen and the appointment of Assistant
Town Manager for Finance is made by the Town Manager.
Mr. Valente provided some details about Ms. Kosnoff’s qualifications which include 11 years of
experience in corporate finance at a global financial institution. In her role as Assistant Town
Manager for Finance and Comptroller, Ms. Kosoff’s responsibilities will include serving as the
CFO for the Town; planning, coordinating and directing the activities of the Finance Department
including accounting, financial reporting, budget preparation, treasury, and the collection of
taxes, fees and receipts. In her role as Comptroller, she will exercise supervision over all
accounting records and will establish standard practices.
Ms. Kosoff’s estimated start date is January 3, 2017 which will allow a two-week overlap with
Mr. Addelson.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to appoint Carolyn
Kosnoff as Town Comptroller, effective by a date to be determined by the Town Manager.
Ms. Kosnoff was present in the audience for the confirmation vote. She introduced herself and
noted that she is a Lexington resident with two children who attend Hastings Elementary. She
thanked the Board and Mr. Valente, saying that although the interview process was long, she
enjoyed meeting so many people and understanding the variety of perspectives throughout the
Town.
Establish FY17 Tax Rate/Minimum Residential Factor
Mr. Addelson and Mr. Johnson, Chair of the Board of Assessors, presented the third and final
installment of the tax rate setting process. The first and second installments took place on
November 7 and November 21, respectively.
Tonight’s goals are to take votes on the following:
70-412
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 5, 2016
Establish a residential factor;
Determine whether to adopt an Open Space Discount;
Determine whether to adopt the Residential Exemption and, if so, at what percentage;
Determine whether to adopt the Small Commercial Exemption.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted 5-0 to establish the residential factor as
1.75, the same as in FY16.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted 5-0 not to adopt the Open Space discount.
Mr. Pato noted there are currently no properties to which this would apply.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted 5-0 not to adopt the Residential Exemption
as this time. Prior to the vote, Mr. Pato confirmed that he has convened a working group, as
directed by the Chair, to look into the matter of establishing a residential exemption for next
year. For this reason, he recommended that an exemption not be applied this year; his colleagues
unanimously concurred.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted 5-0 not to adopt the Small Commercial
Exemption.
Mr. Addelson said, now that the votes have been taken, the Town will submit data to the
Department of Revenue in order to certify the tax rate which will then allow the Town to issue
tax bills.
Update—Cell Tower RFP Planned for Police Station Site
Mr. Addelson updated the Board about an RFP being prepared for the lease of space behind the
Police Station for the construction of a cell tower by a private entity for cellular service. One
requirement of the RFP is that a portion of the tower be reserved for development of so-called
redundant pathways for municipal communications, particularly public safety communications,
but also for wireless communication for the Town’s computer network.
Mr. Addelson said the development of the RFP has been assisted by the Communication
Advisory Committee (CAC) in consultation with the Historic Districts Commission (HDC). The
successful telecommunications bidder will be required to sign a lease agreement which will
include annual lease payments to the Town. The lease term will be 10 years with an option to
renew for an additional 10 years.
Mr. Addelson provided some background about what brings the Town to this juncture: When
AT&T was told that their contract to lease space in the Muzzey Condominium building to house
cellular equipment would be terminated in December 2016, the company approached the Town
to ask if a nearby replacement location could be negotiated for the purpose of constructing a cell
tower. The timing of this request dovetailed with the results of a study of Police and Fire
70-413
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 5, 2016
communications that identified the need to address deficits in communications and to establish
redundant pathways. Consequently, the Town viewed the request by AT&T as an opportunity to
solicit competitive proposals for a third party to lease land behind the Police station for the
purposes of constructing a 120 foot mono-pole cell tower.
The terms of the lease would require the successful bidder to reserve the top portion of the pole
for Town use for the purposes specified above. A benefit of the initiative will be to strengthen
cell signals in the area that will ensure dependable emergency 911 calls in the downtown area.
Both the CAC and the HDC are supportive of the initiative, with the HDC advising that the
location of the pole should be one that will be visually shielded from Mass Ave to the greatest
extent possible. Mr. Addelson showed photographs taken during a so-called balloon test that
provide a sense of the tower’s visual impact to the land/skyscape.
In early September. Mr. Addelson, Police Chief Corr and Assitant Fire Chief Fleck attended a
meeting of the HDC to determine which of two proximal location was more favored. The HDC
preferred the location nearest the bike path; this is the site that is reflected in the current iteration
of the draft RFP which Town Counsel will review. The hope is to issue the RFP later in
December or in January.
Ms. Ciccolo asked if a gray or blue pole might blend into the background better than a white
pole. Mr. Valente said the successful bidder will have to go before the HDC for permitting and
this is the best way to channel that specification.
Mr. Kelley asked if the communication devices would be external or internal to the pole itself.
Mr. Addelson said the majority of equipment would be inside the pole but the Town’s additional
communications devices would be external such as a whip antenna and a girdle-type attachment
below the 120 foot mark containing multiple wireless devices. Mr. Kelley said he is not pleased
to see this happen but he is also not adamantly opposed, given the benefit to the Town.
Mr. Addelson said the 120 ft. height of the pole was not determined by a request from AT&T but
determined instead by the Town’s needs. Mr. Kelley asked what alternatives to the mono-pole
tower there were. Chief Corr replied that the study made it evident that Lexington needed a dual
or redundant system so that there was a wireless pathway above the trees for emergency calls and
a fiber optic system below ground to carry data. The advantage of the redundant system is that if
one fails, the other ensures connectivity. The 120 ft. height is necessary to provide an
unobstructed signal to all reaches of town.
Mr. Pato said he had the opportunity to see the balloon test when it was conducted and he is
comfortable with the proposal.
70-414
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 5, 2016
Review and Approve New Contract for Lexpress Service
Transportation Coordinator Jeanette Rebecchi and Chair of the Transportation Advisory
Committee Hank Manz presented their recommendation for the new Lexpress bus service
contract, effective July 1, 2017. Every few years, the Lexpress contract must be renegotiated.
There are two basic parts to the negotiations: standards for the fleet of vehicles must be
determined and the providers who bid on the contract must be evaluated.
The most recent RFP was issued in early November and two bids from local companies were
received. The evaluation committee was composed of Ms. Rebecchi, Mr. Manz, Charlotte
Rodgers, Director of Human Services, and Michelle Kelleher, Human Services Assistant.
Mr. Manz said there are not many affordable offerings for the type of bus needed and there is a
limited number of providers. Nevertheless, the committee is confident it received competitive
bids. A number of different models of bus were ridden to determine the range of options. One of
the most important factors was finding a model with a floor low enough to enable easy access for
wheelchairs and for others with mobility constraints.
After evaluating the two bidders, the committee recommends awarding the contract to M & L,
although both companies were recognized as viable options. Mr. Manz said the Ford vehicle
offered by M & L is known to be easy to maintain because of greater parts availability and there
is evidence that the vehicles last longer. The van can also accommodate one more standee than
the alternative offered by the second company. M & L will provide a heavier wheelchair lift at
no extra cost.
Mr. Manz said there are four vehicles in the proposal, even though Lexpress runs a three-bus/six-
route plan. The fourth bus is back-up to cover inevitable breakdowns. The spare bus will also
reduce the wear and tear on the fleet, increase longevity of the vehicles, and ensure uninterrupted
service.
Ms. Rebecchi said the cost for the service will increase from $55.29 per hour to $65.42 in the
first year of the contract. The contract term is 4 years with options for two additional years at
which point the hourly rate would be $73.96. The cost for the initial year of the contract
constitutes a budget increase of 17½ %; each year after, the budget line will increase
approximately 2½ %. The RFP was written with a level services budget in mind but the cost of
doing business has increased from the time the previous Lexpress contract was negotiated. Ms.
Rebecchi said that security cameras, that have become an industry standard, are an addition to
this contract. If the Board approves M & L as the service provider, Ms. Rebecchi will prepare the
paperwork and order the new buses.
Mr. Pato said he hopes in the future hybrid or electric passenger vans of the type needed will be
more widely available. He understands that no suitable proposals using these vehicles were
received this round but he hopes incentives can be provided in the RFP to encourage the market
to change accordingly. Ms. Rebecchi said the vehicle model chosen is one that can be converted
to alternative fuel types.
70-415
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 5, 2016
Mr. Kelley asked about the seating capacity of the chosen vehicle. Ms. Rebecchi said if there are
no wheelchairs, the bus seats 20. With two wheelchairs, the capacity is 16 because each if the
two wheelchair accommodations converts from two regular seats. The present fleet has 23 seats
when no wheelchairs are on board but ridership data indicates this reduction in capacity will not
present a problem. The number of standees is legally limited to 20% of the seating capacity,
meaning that a completely full vehicle will accommodate as many as 26 passengers.
Ms. Ciccolo noted that the effort to put together the RFP and to field applications is large. She
thanked Ms. Rebecchi, Mr. Manz, other staff and Transportation Advisory Committee
participants for their diligence. She also asked about bike racks for the vehicles. Ms. Rebecchi
noted that bike racks were included as a standard feature in this RFP.
Mr. Kelley asked if there would be a Lexpress logo on the buses, as there is now. Ms. Rebecchi
said branding would be much the same with some slight alterations due to the position of the
new vehicles’ windows.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to authorize the Town
Manager to award the Lexpress contract to M & L Transit for a period of four years, with two
one-year options to extend.
Update—Parking Management/Parking Permit System
Presenting a year-end update on the implementation of the Parking Management Plan were
Economic Development Officer, Melisa Tintocalis and Management Analyst, Claire Goodwin.
The Parking Management Working Group, under the Town Manager’s office, has been working
to implement and measure the success of the 29 recommendations that form the management
plan since it was first implemented in December of 2015. A mid-year update was provided in
July; the most recent update was presented in September.
Ms. Tintocalis said there was little change at year-end from findings reported at mid-year. The
greatest parking shortage in the Center still occurs during weekday lunch hours but businesses
continue to report that the employee sticker program has been successful. Police have noticed
that meter compliance has improved and there has been an improvement in interactions with the
public as they adjust to the new Smart meter technology. Ms. Tintocalis added that so-called
converted spaces that were once under-utilized— due to their peripheral location— are now used
more regularly.
As the Parking Management program moves into its second year, the noontime crunch time will
be addressed by considering additional changes and projecting what the impact of those changes
would be.
Ms. Goodwin reported findings from vacancy counts in the Center area lots as was done in
previous updates. To date, the parking group—working with Police department staff— have
done two full-day parking counts in April, July and October to gather data. Off-street parking
totals 619 of the 826 spaces available in the Center. This number includes Town, Library, Depot,
Waltham, Edison, NStar lots. The goal, as identified by Nelson-Nygaard consultants, is to
70-416
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 5, 2016
maintain a consistent par of at least 10% availability throughout the day. Ms. Goodwin reported
that this goal has been achieved at all times except the weekday noon hour. On a positive note,
Police report there is less so-called stacking in the Depot lot.
Ms. Tintocalis said it is clear that the successes achieved so far should be maintained. The
Parking Management group will continue to meet and to implement next steps that have been
identified. Besides continuing successful strategies, this includes increasing the parking supply to
address crunch times and, in the short term, exploring existing areas to mark that will allow for
improved public parking availability. A review will also be conducted of Depot lot capacity.
Ms. Ciccolo said things appear to be on track but she remains interested in the Nelson-Nygaard
recommendations for how the parking supply can be increased.
Mr. Cohen said, from his observation, the Parking Management Plan seems to be working well.
He asked why the Smart meters sometimes have red, blinking lights. Ms. Tintocalis said that the
meters have blinking green or red lights during the hours they are in effect. They blink either red
or green, depending on whether time has expired or not and the lights serve as a visual
enforcement cue. This is more observable in the dark, winter months.
Ms. Barry asked if the sticker program cycle was based on the calendar year. Ms. Tintocalis
replied the cycle is March 1 to March 1. Renewal letters go out in January to all employees and
current sticker holders who have until the end of February to submit renewal paperwork.
However, the program is new and still a work in progress so a rolling enrollment is allowed.
Review Revised Draft—Payment in Lieu of Parking Policy
Ms. Tintocalis, Ms. Goodwin, and Planning Director Aaron Henry presented changes to the
proposed Payment In Lieu Of Parking policy that were requested by the Board at a September
presentation. Specifically, the requests consisted of elimination of the change of use provision
and reconsideration of the PILOP payment, originally proposed at $8,000. Overall changes to the
policy reflect input from Center property owners, the Center Committee, the Chamber of
Commerce, and the Planning Board.
Ms. Tintocalis said that change of use is no longer applicable under the latest PILOP proposal.
There are now three triggers for when the policy would be applied:
When there is an increase in new construction of more than 35% of the existing new net
floor area;
When there is new construction on formerly vacant lots;
When there is demolition and construction of a new building.
The PILOP does not apply to projects that are solely internal reconfigurations or for changes of
use within an existing building.
Anytime one of these three scenarios occur in the Center district, a $10,000 per space mitigation
fee would be assessed. Parking space calculations would be based on proposed use (as deter-
70-417
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 5, 2016
mined by current zoning bylaws and the parking table); previous use (what type of parking
demand that use required); if any on-street parking will be provided; and if there are other ways
that parking can be provide (such as leasing space within a quarter mile radius.) If any
alternatives can be identified, discounts to offset the total parking calculation may be given. At
the discretion of the Assistant Town Manager for Development, there may also be small
allowances made if Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies are implemented.
Once any of these discounts are applied, the total number of remaining unmitigated spaces would
be multiplied by $10,000.
Ms. Tintocalis said this process is intended to lay out a consistent, transparent criteria for any
project to come before the ZBA. A case-by-case analysis would be sent in writing to the ZBA by
the Assistant Town Manager for Development’s office after review by Planning staff.
Mr. Pato expressed concerns about managing changes of use over time. He would like to see a
provision added that clarified at what point—perhaps 5 or 10 years— a new building’s change of
use would be subject to a PILOP. Similarly, the need to demonstrate a proof of lease agreement
is complicated by lease volatility. He wants to make sure there is a provision to verify lease
agreements over time. If lease agreements don’t exist, the policy’s stipulations would not be met.
He would also want to retain the ability to change the policy without triggering the need to
amend zoning bylaw requirements as specified in Section VIII Use of PILOP Mitigation Funds,
particularly since this program is new and subject to revision following implementation.
Mr. Kelley asked if there is any grandfathering of parking counts included in the policy. Mr.
Henry said there was a type of grandfathering in Section IV b. Prior Use in which the new
business is credited a certain number of spaces.
Ms. Ciccolo asked what feedback led to choosing the $10,000 figure. Ms. Tintocalis said that the
original $8,000 per space figure was found to be difficult when coupled with the now-eliminated
change of use clause. Once the change of use clause was removed, the cost of parking for the
Town was examined using a methodology adopted by the group.
Jerry Michelson, Center business owner and Chair of the Center Committee, said he has watched
the PILOP policy as it has developed. He said that the Center Committee has not yet seen this
iteration of the plan and he is therefore not in a position to speak about it for the group. Past
opinions, however, have been that PILOP payments should be large enough that the first choice
would be to create on-site parking rather than pay the fee. He questioned whether increasing the
PILOP by $2,000 was enough. He agreed that grandfathering spaces for new use makes sense,
given that the former business’ parking needs had already been absorbed but he added that, over
time, the use of commercial space was unknowable and fluid. He will take the information about
the new draft to the Center Committee and report back.
David Kanter, Precinct 7 Town Meeting member, said he finds it difficult to accept that the
policy has been created to work around a zoning bylaw. He wished, instead, that the zoning
bylaw had been revised so that it provides updates to the parking table and added that the
70-418
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 5, 2016
proposed policy does not address the need to increase the parking capacity. In his opinion, the
$10,000 mitigation fee is not large enough.
The revised PILOP will be discussed at an upcoming Center Committee meeting and the new
version has also been circulated to the Planning Board, business owners, and the Chamber of
Commerce. The only changes reflected in the most recent draft are in response to the Board’s
September directives. Mr. Valente said the goal is to have the Board of Selectmen approve the
policy and at some point input will need to be curtailed. Wording clarifications have been noted
and will be changed. The Center Committee will take another look at the document and then the
policy will return to the Board for a vote.
Consider RCN License Transfer of Ownership
The Communications Advisory Committee presented the specifics of this license change to the
Board of Selectmen in November and afterwards voted unanimously to approve the transfer.
CAC now recommends that the Board of Selectmen, in their role as cable television Issuing
Authority for the Town, approve the transfer of control to RCN from ABRV Partners VI, LP, to
TPG Capital, LP. All available information on the proposed transfer has been reviewed by the
License Negotiation Working Group of the CAC. The primary sources of that information are:
FCC Form 394 sent to the Town by RCN on September 7. 2016;
Application to the FCC for Authority Pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, to Transfer Control, dated September 1. 2016;
Presentation by representatives of RCN and TPG at a public hearing held on October 24, 2016;
Publications by business commentators on the rationale for, and consequences of, this transaction.
Although the Board of Selectmen agreed to accept public comment in writing for two weeks
following the public hearing, it was noted that no comments were received.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve RCN’s
application to transfer the Cable Television License in Lexington to TPG Capital, LP.
Pelham Property—Consider Eminent Domain Taking
Ms. Ciccolo recused herself from the Pelham property discussion due to a conflict of interest.
Mr. Valente reminded the Board that at the December 1, 2016 financial summit, the School
Committee stated they believe the 20 Pelham Rd property, the former Armenian Elementary
School, is the best location for the Lexington Children’s Place should the Town wish to acquire
it. The School Committee is interested only in the classroom section of the building and will not
have a need for the full-sized gym or cafeteria. These spaces would be available for Town use
and the property would therefore benefit both school and municipal programs.
The Town Manager and Town Counsel have been in negotiations with the Armenian Sisters for
quite some time but have not come to an agreement for the purchase of the property. Because the
70-419
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 5, 2016
School Committee wants to move ahead and begin work on the former school, Mr. Valente
recommends that the Selectmen vote to take the property by eminent domain at the December
19, 2016 Board of Selectmen meeting.
If the Board votes to take the property by eminent domain, the Town will need to compensate the
Armenian Sisters and Mr. Valente recommends that the compensation equal the property’s
appraised valuation, $7.4M. The Armenian Sisters will have 2 years to decide whether this is fair
compensation or whether they want to litigate. Even if the Board votes to take the property by
eminent domain, negotiations between the parties can still continue; in fact, negotiations can
continue until a court decision is handed down if the case goes to trial.
Both the Town and the Armenians Sisters need to bring closure to a many months-long process.
The Sisters want to sell the property which has been vacant for 16 months and use the proceeds
to continue the international work of their congregation. The Town is an interested and willing
buyer that can move quickly to purchase the property, whether the purchase occurs through
negotiations or through eminent domain.
If the Board agrees with the eminent domain approach, Mr. Valente will have Town Counsel
prepare the necessary documents.
Mr. Pato said the matter has been discussed at length during multiple Executive Sessions. He is
pleased to see the initiative reach this stage.
Mr. Kelley said he is fundamentally opposed to an eminent domain taking. In this case, there is a
willing buyer and a willing seller and the two parties should be able to come to terms. He
remains hopeful this will happen, although the price is certainly the sticking point.
Mr. Cohen said that the Town has been negotiating for a long time and will continue to
negotiate. He believes the appraisal was well done and that it resulted in a realistic valuation. He
supports drawing up the necessary papers but hopes a settlement can be reached.
Ms. Barry thanked Mr. Valente and those who have represented the Town throughout the
extended process. Mr. Valente confirmed that there is consensus to move toward a taking by
eminent domain.
Ms. Ciccolo returned to the Board room.
Approve Lexington Municipal Management Association Collective Bargaining Agreement,
FY17-19
Ms. Barry recused herself due to conflict of interest as her husband is an employee of the Town.
Ms. Ciccolo assumed the role of Chair.
Mr. Valente said the Town and the Municipal Management Association, which are the
supervisory employees of the Town, have reached a three-year collective bargaining agreement
for the period of FY17-19. The Board of Selectmen previously approved this agreement in
70-420
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 5, 2016
Executive Session on October 13, 2016. The LMMA membership has recently voted to accept
the settlement:
A 2% COLA adjustment in FY17;
A 1% COLA adjustment effective 7/1/17 and a 1% COLA adjustment effective 1/1/18 in FY18;
A 2% COLA adjustment in FY19;
Change to the Recognition Clause to reflect positions that have been added or removed from the
Association;
Change to the vacation leave article to allow new hires to use accrued vacation leave before
completing the probationary period;
Clarification that time granted from the sick leave bank is on a “rolling calendar” basis;
Clarification that clothing provided by the employer and tuition reimbursement paid to the
employee is for work purposes only and not subject to income taxes;
Change the Massachusetts Maternity Leave Act to reflect the new Parent Leave Act;
Create means by which employees who are promoted within the organization can discuss starting
salary with the Town Manager; and
Create means by which the Town Manager can determine the percentage given to an employee
who is working in a higher job category.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 4-0 to approve and authorize
the Town Manager to sign the collective bargaining agreement between the Town and the
Lexington Municipal Management Association for the period of FY17-19.
Ms. Barry returned to the Board room.
Annual License Renewals
Under all-alcohol licenses, there are 14 renewals; under Class I licenses, there is one; under
Class II licenses, there are 8; under Class III licenses, there is one; and under Common
Victuallers Licenses, there are 27.
Mr. Cohen noted that there are a number of institutions known to have licenses that are not
listed. Ms. Barry said those that are listed are in full compliance with their paperwork, payments,
training, and insurance. Some establishments are still gathering their documentation and those
renewals should be ready to approve at the December 19 Selectmen’s meeting.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted 5-0 to approve the license renewals for
2017 as presented.
Consent Agenda
Water & Sewer Commitments
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve commitments
of Water & Sewer charges October Finals for $18,143.72 and to approve the commitments of
Water & Sewer charges Special Billing November for $19,928.00.
70-421
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 5, 2016
Approve Property Tax Bill Insert
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve the Property
Tax Bill insert requested by the Tax Deferral and Exemption Committee.
Approve Free Holiday Shoppers Parking at Depot Lot
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to suspend Saturday
parking fees for the Depot parking lot between Nov. 26, 2016 and Dec. 31, 2016.
Sign Eagle Congratulations Letter—Dylan Jackson
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to sign a letter of
commendation congratulating Dylan Jackson for attaining the highest rank of Eagle in Boy
Scouting.
Approve One Day Liquor License—Cantata Singers
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve a one day
liquor license to sell wine in the lobby of Cary Memorial Building on Friday, December 16, 2016
from 8:00 p.m. until 11:00 p.m.
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5 - 0 to adjourn at
approximately 9:00 p.m.
A true record; Attest:
Kim Siebert
Recording Secretary
70-422
Joint Meeting
Board of Selectmen, School Committee, Appropriations Committee
and Capital Expenditures Committee
December 12, 2016
A Joint Meeting was held on Monday, December 12, 2016, at 8:00 p.m. in Estabrook Hall of the
Cary Memorial Building, 1605 Massachusetts Avenue. Board of Selectmen (BOS) Ms. Barry,
chair; Mr. Kelley; Mr. Cohen; Ms. Pato were present along with Mr. Valente, Town Manager;
Mr. Addelson, Assistant Town Manager for Finance; Ms. Hewitt, Budget Officer; and Ms.
Siebert, Recording Secretary. Selectman Ciccolo was absent due to her recusal from all
discussions relating to 20 Pelham Road.
Also Present: School Committee (SC) members: Mr. Hurley, Chair; Mr. Alessandrini, Vice
Chair; Ms. Crocker; Ms. Jay; Ms. Steigerwald (late arrival); 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. Garberg; Mr.
Levine; Mr. Michelson; Mr. Neumeier; Mr. Radulescu-Banu; Ms. Yang. Capital Expenditures
Committee (CEC) members: Ms. Hai, Chair; Mr. Kanter, Vice Chair; Mr. Cole; Mr. Lamb; Ms.
Manz.
Ms. Barry called the BOS to order at 8:03 p.m. and introduced the Board’s 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 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.
Ms. Barry said the format of the meeting would not allow for Public Comment, Selectmen’s
Comments, or a Town Manager’s Report.
Lowering the Flag in Honor of Edith Sandy
Ms. Barry said that long-term Town Meeting member Edith Sandy passed away suddenly on
December 10. Ms. Sandy’s husband told Ms. Barry he has been greatly comforted by the
outpouring of sympathies he has received on the TMMA discussion list. Ms. Barry noted that
Ms. Sandy was able to connect with people of all ages and that she always welcomed new
members warmly. She was never afraid to ask questions at Town Meeting and those questions
were frequently those that were on the minds of everyone else.
Given the fact that Ms. Sandy was a Town Meeting member for 46 years, the Board feels it
appropriate to lower the Battle Green flag in her honor for the day of her funeral service.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 4-0 to lower the Battle Green
flag to half-staff in memory of Edith Sandy on Tuesday, December 13, 2016.
A moment of silence was observed by those present.
70-423
Joint Meeting – December 12, 2016
20 Pelham Road—Consider Use of the Property for Lexington Children’s Place and Municipal
Purposes
At the last summit meeting on Thursday, December 1, the School Committee reported that 20
Pelham Road was its first choice location for the Lexington Children’s Place. Based on that, Mr.
Valente recommended on December 5 that the Board of Selectmen move toward taking the
property by eminent domain because negotiations between the Town and the Armenian Sisters,
who own 20 Pelham, had failed to reach an agreement on the purchase price. Also at that
meeting, The Board reached consensus to move ahead with Mr. Valente’s recommendation and
to hold a formal vote at a subsequent meeting. Since that date, Ms. Barry learned that members
of the Capital Expenditures Committee had reservations about whether Pelham was the best
place for LCP.
Ms. Barry asked Ms. Hai, Chair of CEC, to elaborate on her committee’s thinking. Ms. Hai
began by emphasizing that CEC is unanimously in support of the need for LCP to expand. The
concerns are specifically about the Pelham location. As CEC looked at the totality of the Town’s
capital assets, they questioned how those assets can best be deployed in the fulfillment of the
Capital Plan.
Ms. Hai then listed the questions CEC raised and said the committee had met earlier in the day
with School Committee Chair Hurley to express these concerns directly:
Is Pelham Rd a long-term, permanent location for LCP?
Is the $18.3M price tag for renovation costs for Pelham (the estimate quoted at the Summit) the
amount needed to bring the building up to code (safe and useable) or to renovate “as new”?
If the use of Pelham for LCP is temporary and the renovation goal is “as new”, are there a ways
to lower costs?
What are the long-term expectations for the location of the Central Office?
Ms. Hai said that as CEC looked at the cost of all possible LCP location projects identified, it
would be fairer to include the cost of acquiring Pelham in the total cost of that option. Doing so
makes the cost of Pelham significantly higher than the other options.
One of the strongest arguments for not keeping LCP at its current location on the Harrington
School campus is that the site is overburdened. Currently, the Central Office, LCP, and the
elementary Harrington program all occupy the campus. If a new LCP building were to be built
there, the site would hold three buildings instead of two but if the Central Office moved to
another location in the future, a third building for LCP might not be necessary. As other
municipal building projects are completed, there could be alternative options for the Central
Office, such as the current Police Station or 171 Bedford St.
CEC raises these questions because it wants to be sure all of the options are being considered and
weighed before the Pelham initiative moves forward. Using Pelham for LCP would preclude
other uses that might be advantageous to the Town.
70-424
Joint Meeting – December 12, 2016
School Committee Chair Hurley prefaced his response to these questions by saying that the SC
has been engaged in discussions for some time with the Board of Selectmen and Town Manager
about Municipal and School joint sharing of Pelham. Then, in response to CEC’s questions he
said that:
The $18.3M price tag reflects a building as new scenario for LCP use only. Additional funds
might be needed to renovate the cafeteria and the gym for Town use. At its last meeting, the
School Committee asked Facilities Director Goddard to work to lower the LCP space cost
estimate.
The School Committee fully anticipates that LCP will be housed at Pelham permanently. There
has been no discussion about the move being less than permanent.
Mr. Hurley said the School Committee is concerned about having three operations at Harrington.
A new registration system the Superintendent has proposed is expected to operate from the
Central Office, adding an additional burden to the building’s operational capacity. However, if
available space is found at another location at a later date, the School Committee would be
interested to consider alternatives.
Appropriation Committee Chair Parker said that although members of Appropriation are not
elected, he sees the committee as playing the role of Town Meeting in these discussions because
AC must make a recommendation about the issue to Town Meeting. With that in mind, he
reported that the most recent committee meeting had seen a wide range of opinions expressed
about Pelham, including some of the questions raised by CEC.
One of CEC’s questions concerns why so small a part of an 8 acre property would be used for a
single purpose. If the property is acquired, what other purposes—like elder housing or an
elementary school— might it be used for? Additionally, Mr. Parker noted that the desire to put
LCP at Pelham conflicts with the previously expressed philosophy of keeping LCP near an
elementary school. CEC hopes that this initiative is part of a larger, 10-year coordinated capital
plan. Mr. Parker said CEC would be more comfortable if members knew the big picture.
Mr. Hurley said that discussions about these questions have been happening openly for quite
some time. The major concern that the SC has, related to Pelham, is cost but he noted that the
cost of the second choice—a free standing LCP at Harrington—is more expensive ($20.7M) than
Pelham ($18.3M).
Both the “as new” renovation at Pelham and the new construction at Harrington carry large price
tags. Cost is also of concern to the School Committee. The Committee has asked Facilities
Director Goddard to provide an estimate for a scaled-down renovation.
Superintendent Czajkowski noted that the School Committee recommended a year ago to the
Board of Selectmen that the Town pursue the purchase of Pelham for the public schools,
particularly for LCP. Supervisor of Early Childhood Education, Elizabeth Billings-Fouhy—
present in the audience— has worked for the district for 20 years and has expressed concerns
about continually moving the LCP program from place to place.
70-425
Joint Meeting – December 12, 2016
Dr. Czajkowski said the children served have special needs and are young; they should be
educated in an appropriate space, just like any other child in the district. The value in putting
resources into the LCP program is that doing so will avoid higher future costs.
Additionally, the proximity of the Pelham site to the Community Center creates an opportunity
for an intergenerational partnership and the potential for internships for teens.
Ms. Hai emphasized that CEC is in favor of finding a permanent home for LCP. The committee
is, however, asking how the available options have been narrowed; could there be a less
expensive way to achieve the same permanent home and still give the Town flexibility for other
operations?
Mr. Alessandrini (SC) addressed the question of putting LCP in proximity to an elementary
school by saying that Ms. Billings-Fouhy supported the Pelham site because of the
intergenerational opportunities.
With respect to moving the Central Office to Bedford Street or another location away from
Harrington, Mr. Alessandrini said there was a lot of uncertainty in that plan. At one time, the
School Committee considered Bedford St for LCP but was told the Town had other uses in mind
for the property.
Mr. Kanter (CEC) said his concerns centered on total asset use. He asked that the School
Committee provide insight about what other uses it envisions for Harrington in order to be able
to understand why moving the Central Office to Pelham does not make better sense. Without
information to the contrary, it appears to him that it would be less expensive and more expedient
to bring Pelham up to code for offices than it would be for educational purposes. Also, as was
expressed earlier, CEC does not want to commit to Pelham if the Central Office could be located
at a future date on another property already owned by the Town. Off-loading one of the
operations now at the Harrington site will alleviate some of the burden on that campus.
Mr. Kanter asked for information about the long term vision for the Central Office, saying that
there seems to be a legitimate, less expensive way to achieve the goals as they have been laid out
by the School Committee.
Mr. Kanter asked when Mr. Goddard will present a new estimate so that the cost burden of
Pelham is known. Mr. Hurley said Mr. Goddard had expressed concern that the Harrington
option timeline was longer than the Pelham option because construction at Harrington would
have to wait until the Central Office moves out. School Committee believes there is more interest
among Town leadership in locating LCP at Pelham than in housing the Central Office at Pelham
but the School Committee would not be opposed to keeping LCP on the Harrington site because
of proximity to the elementary school. Although the School Committee has not taken a formal
vote, he believes if there was strong support, the School Committee would look favorably upon
an LCP at Harrington plan but he does not want to raise hopes that this course of action would
save substantial money. Both scenarios are costly. Old Harrington would have to be torn down
and a new building built on the site.
70-426
Joint Meeting – December 12, 2016
Mr. Kanter said he wanted to know what the cost differential would be. Mr. Hurley said a
recommendation about the two top choices—Pelham or Harrington—is expected from DiNisco
consultants in February. Mr. Kanter asked if connecting road costs are included in the Pelham
estimate. Mr. Hurley replied that they are not. The estimate does include renovation to new and
site work for parking. Mr. Kanter said, since this is the case, he would like to know if road
improvements would be necessary, adding that the price of that work should be considered as
part of the overall cost.
Ms. Crocker (SC) responded to some of the questions that had been posed. She said the shared
use of the full-sized gym at Pelham fits well with the overall master plan of having such a facility
near the Community Center. If LCP is removed from Harrington, it would liberate classrooms
there for elementary expansion. She added that the Central Office question has been ancillary to
educational discussions because the SC is concentrating on what is best for the children’s
educational needs. However, if the Central Office eventually leaves the Harrington site, half of
the campus would open up for an expansion of Harrington or for an additional building.
Mr. Pato noted that the cost of purchasing Pelham for LCP has not been added to the project
estimate but neither has the cost of renovating Pelham for the Central Office or for any other
purpose. Renovation costs are not avoidable for any of the models. The cost comparison should
be a stand-alone LCP at Harrington versus a stand-alone LCP at Pelham.
Mr. Pato said he is concerned about the enrollment trends. There is no expectation that growth
will slow, so delaying a decision on LCP will only exacerbate the problem. Moving LCP to
Pelham creates the greatest amount of flexibility for the future.
Ms. Steigerwald (SC) said that Mr. Goddard has long been of the opinion that the Central Office
should be moved from its current Harrington location because of aging building systems and the
need to replace the roof. Speaking to Mr. Kanter’s point, she said there would have to be a
comparative estimate done on the cost to renovate the old Armenian Sisters’ school on Pelham
into office space. DiNisco has already indicated that Pelham is a good pre-school building but it
is not configured for office space.
Mr. Kanter said he has no sense what it would cost to renovate Pelham for office space. He
agreed it would cost a substantial amount; however, he does not believe that putting a second
elementary school on the Harrington site would achieve the goal of decompressing the site
burden. If the old building is removed, the area could be used for playing fields or for additional
parking. He hopes that, whether Harrington or Pelham is chosen, the initiative will move forward
in this cycle. He asked whether there is a plan in the next ten years to move the Central Office to
another location.
Ms. Steigerwald said that if the Central Office were to move from Harrington but LCP remain,
the Central Office building would continue to house four LCP classrooms. If a new building
were built for LCP at Harrington, the four classrooms full of kids would have to go to a swing
space somewhere else, which would cause substantial upheaval.
70-427
Joint Meeting – December 12, 2016
Dr. Czajkowski said that if the Central Office operation was moved out of old Harrington, the
entire building would have to be sprinklered, which Mr. Goddard said would cost about $1M.
She is also not confident the Central Office operations would fit, square footage-wise, into the
Pelham building. This is a question DiNisco would have to answer. The interior of Pelham is
more suitable for school purposes than for office purposes.
Additionally, if the Central Office moves out of Harrington to Pelham, Mr. Goddard told Dr.
Czajkowski a new building would not be ready for occupancy until 2021 and in the meantime,
the four classrooms currently in old Harrington would have to go somewhere. With so many
school projects currently in the pipeline, it is hard to see how an additional new building will fit
into the larger scheme. There has not been a discussion to date about moving the Central Office
because there are so many other moving parts to deal with.
Dr. Czajkowski said she has met with the Town Manager about consolidating departments and
looking more closely at moving Central Office operations to somewhere on the Town Hall
campus. However, she does not see a sense of urgency with regard to the Central Office, unless it
saves money and allows the Schools to address LCP for a lower cost.
Mr. Hurley said it would be helpful for the School Committee to hear how the people present
would vote on how to address LCP.
Mr. Levine said the timing of when decisions are made is important because of the upcoming
debt exclusion votes in 2017 on the Hastings School and the Fire Station. He believes it is not
advisable to add LCP to that list, which means that LCP would have to wait. He does not believe
the LCP project is unimportant; this is a process concern. If the money is not requested to
renovate Pelham for two or three years, there would be time to assess and look at the matter
more closely. He asked what the timing is if Pelham is taken by eminent domain.
Mr. Hurley said the timeline is the sooner the better, although he understands Mr. Levine’s
concerns because the School Committee shares them; none of the members want to jeopardize
the Hastings project.
Mr. Radulescu-Banu asked if the Laconia property would be appropriate for consideration for
LCP. Mr. Hurley said the property is owned by the Schools but DiNisco and SMMA have said
the hilly terrain and dead-end location make it a poor site for a pre-school, although it might be
acceptable for an elementary school.
Mr. Radulescu-Banu asked if the Town could buy the Laconia site from the Schools. Mr. Valente
replied that the Town already owns the property but it is under the jurisdiction of the School
Committee. Ms. Steigerwald said the Schools would not want to sell the property because it
offers flexibility for potential future projects.
Ms. Hai said the CEC is acutely aware of what projects are on the Capital Plan and the
committee is not keen to add a Central Office project. The reason the question of the Central
Office was raised is because it might be advantageous to move the Central Office and free up a
70-428
Joint Meeting – December 12, 2016
better permanent location for LCP at a lower cost, using Pelham as the Central Office location in
the short-to-mid-term. The assumption has been that Pelham would not need an extensive
renovation for the interim use. Doing this would take some of the burden off the Harrington site,
preserve the co-location of LCP and the elementary program, and preserve the 8 acre Pelham site
for other uses identified by the Town. The questions raised by CEC were driven by the desire to
drive down costs and maximize the benefits to LCP. This would also allow Harrington to expand
to meet growing enrollment needs. The committee is not attempting to make educational
decisions but it is trying to ensure that the course of action is fiscally responsible.
Mr. Alessandrini said that the School Committee is trying to address the questions put before it.
He added that LCP has already been included in the Capital modeling. There will never be a
good time to add another project on the list of debt exclusions and yet the need is there and will
not go away. Mr. Alessandrini asked what the financial committee members and the Board of
Selectmen see as the best use of Pelham.
Mr. Hurley said that the majority of the School Committee is committed to having LCP at
Pelham. He asked which of the options the Board of Selectmen and the other committees
preferred and which they would be willing to support at Town Meeting.
Mr. Neumeier (AC) said the presentation by the School Committee with regard to Pelham is
persuasive and he believes it is time to get moving on the project. No taxpayer money will be
saved if the solution to LCP is postponed and interest rates go up. He disagrees with Mr. Levine
about not adding in the LCP project with Hastings and the Fire Station debt exclusions. The
argument would be that Town Meeting is in favor of Public Safety and not in favor of the
Schools.
Starting around the table to gain an understanding of support, Mr. Michelson (AC) said the
School Committee’s argument for Pelham is compelling and he supports it.
Mr. Radulescu-Banu (AC) said he supports the School Committee’s proposal and believes the
addition of LCP to the debt exclusion vote is a risk that probably must be taken.
Ms. Yang (AC) said she is glad to hear both sides of the story: educational needs versus cost
concerns. She said debt lasts for a long time and the Town might reach a point where it won’t
accept additional debt.
Saying he had already made his opinion known, Mr. Parker added another point: LCP is not yet
at capacity so there is still some breathing room. He believes the Town is reaching the edges of
taxpayer capacity. While there are uncertainties in the future and a lot of questions that cannot be
answered, his goal is to maintain the maximum amount of flexibility. Once LCP goes to Pelham
permanently it will constrain other uses for the site. On a related note, what would the space at
Harrington be used for if not for LCP?
Mr. Bartenstein (AC) asked if there would be unused capacity at Pelham once LCP moves there
and the gym and cafeteria are used by the Community Center. Ms. Barry said the Board has not
70-429
Joint Meeting – December 12, 2016
discussed unused capacity. Mr. Bartenstein said he is concerned that the Town would be making
an expensive purchase without a full plan for how to use the acquired space.
Ms. Garberg (AC) appreciates the work the School Committee has done to put the children and
educational programming first. She said the job of the Appropriation Committee is to prepare the
School Committee to answer the questions that Town Meeting will pose. She is disappointed Mr.
Goddard could not be present to answer many of the questions that remain and she hoped he
would be able to provide information at a later time. She agrees that maintaining flexibility is an
important point. She is in favor of adding LCP to the upcoming debt exclusion but preparation
leading up to a vote must be thorough.
Mr. Levine said the School Committee’s reasoning is solid; he is not persuaded that keeping LCP
at Harrington will solve any financial problems. Once LCP is moved to Pelham, the Central
Office can more easily be moved at a later time. This makes Harrington more viable for
expansion and that site is better suited than Pelham for an elementary school.
Ms. Manz (CEC) said the School Committee has made a compelling case that Pelham is more
suitable for a classroom building than for offices. However, if this is a permanent location for
LCP, the remainder of the 8 acre site would be unused.
Mr. Cole (CEC) said there should be a very crisp narrative about the need and the costs in order
to gain approval but moving forward is nonetheless important.
Mr. Kanter (CEC) said it has been helpful to hear the discussion about the Central Office and the
Schools’ willingness to keep administrative operations at the Harrington site. In the spirit of
being able to discount alternatives, the answers to the questions posed tonight about costs are
important to help the committees write their reports about the project. He encourages a continued
flow of information going forward into Town Meeting.
Mr. Kanter added that he would like clarification on when Pelham will be ready for occupancy.
In the handout about the different LCP alternatives, the Harrington option cited fall 2019 as the
occupancy date; tonight Pelham was cited as 2021. He asked also that Mr. Goddard confirm the
Harrington campus would be decompressed if LCP moves and that site work would no longer be
needed.
Ms. Hai posed a final concern: funding to make the Pelham gym and cafeteria usable to the
Town has not been included in any of the cost estimates. She asked that either the cost be added
to the total or that the shared-use concept not be discussed at this time.
Mr. Pato said he is in favor of the Pelham plan and he feels that a low-intensity use of the site
would be sustainable and an important piece of how the Schools cope with growth.
Mr. Kelley said he is in favor of acquiring Pelham and that LCP is a good use for the property
and poses a great opportunity for intergenerational connections. However, he does not see the
urgency and he is against taking the property by eminent domain. He believes the appraisal price
was distorted by approximately $3M due to a fundamental assumption that the property could be
70-430
Joint Meeting – December 12, 2016
developed under a Balanced Housing Special Permit, which would increase the housing yield.
He does not think this precedent should be set.
That being said, he believes Pelham should be acquired in a negotiated process and the Town
should take its time. In the future, he sees the LCP program going to Pelham and the Central
Office moving to the site of the current Police Station. This would allow for consolidation of
departments in clusters around town—Town Hall and Schools; Public Safety, and so forth.
Mr. Cohen said land becomes available not because you want it to but because someone is ready
to sell it. Taking property by eminent domain is clean because it clears up questions of title. In
this case, the owners of the Pelham came to the Town and encouraged the Town to move quickly
to buy the property. If the Town waits, someone else will buy it. He believes the acquisition
should move forward. He agrees with the concept of flexibility but does not believe the
Selectmen should be telling the School Committee how to conduct business.
Ms. Barry said she is also in favor of acquiring Pelham for School and Municipal uses and
believes it should be done soon. She emphasized that the Town and Schools are of one
community and will find a way to move forward together.
Ms. Jay said she would like the initiative to be presented to the voters as a joint venture. She
supports Ms. Hai’s comment about putting together the Municipal costs for the gym and
cafeteria so that the project can be unified.
Mr. Hurley said it is greatly encouraging that the Selectmen are willing to purchase the Pelham
property. It gives the Schools two options; there is now the potential to move forward.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 4-0 to adjourn at 9:35 pm.
A true record; Attest:
Kim Siebert
Recording Secretary
70-431
Selectmen’s Meeting
December 19, 2016
A meeting of the Lexington Board of Selectmen was held on Monday, December 19, 2016 at
7:00 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room of the Town Office Building following an earlier
Executive session that began at 6:30 p.m. Ms. Barry, Chai; 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
Mr. Pato read a statement that summarized his response to a number of questions from residents
about the Center Streetscape project and about the protest signs that have appeared around town.
He thanked residents for contacting him with their concerns and assured the public that no
decisions have been made on the Center Streetscape project, an initiative with an open process
that began in 2011 and is still in the conceptual stage, with an ad hoc design committee to
shepherd the process forward.
Mr. Cohen announced that he did not intend to run for another term as Selectman. He praised the
other Selectmen he has worked with—both current and in the past—and he said Lexington is a
well-run town due to the excellence of the Town Managers that have served and to capable,
dedicated Town employees. Quoting the words of a former Selectmen upon his decision not to
run again, Mr. Cohen said he prefers to think of his decision as one to step aside, not down. He
knows there are good people waiting in the wings and he is confident the Town will be in fine
hands.
On behalf of the Board and previous boards before this, Ms. Barry thanked Mr. Cohen for his
dedication, commitment, integrity, and for his wealth of knowledge of all things municipal. Ms.
Barry said the Town is a better place for Mr. Cohen’s service and that he will be missed,
although there is much she hopes he will continue to do.
Mr. Valente lamented Mr. Cohen’s decision, saying having him on the Board was like having
extra staff to take care of finance issues and Town Meeting warrants. It has been his pleasure to
have Mr. Cohen’s able assistance in all matters.
Ms. Ciccolo echoed Ms. Barry’s and Mr. Valente’s sentiments and is grateful for having had the
opportunity to work with him.
Ms. Barry said that the ad hoc Center Streetscape Committee met on December 15 and voted
their Tier II and Tier III reports and they also updated their Tier I report. This means the
committee is moving toward the public meeting phase, the first of which has been scheduled for
Wednesday January 11, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. in Battin Hall of the Cary Memorial Building. After
that meeting, the committee will digest the comments they receive, make revisions accordingly,
and then present the findings on Monday, January 23 during a regularly scheduled Board of
Selectmen’s meeting.
70-432
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 19, 2016
Ms. Barry said the order of business at the January 23 meeting will be that the ad hoc committee
will make its presentation and the Board will ask clarifying questions. The Board will not take
public comment that night nor will it deliberate. Ms. Barry has called a special meeting for the
Board on Monday, January 30 at 7:00 p.m. at Battin Hall of Cary Memorial at which the Board
will deliberate on the full report—all three tiers—and at that point take public comments.
Ms. Barry thanked her colleagues and the Town staff for their patience this year. She wished
everyone happy holidays and a happy new year.
Town Manager’s Report
In a follow-up on the Board’s meeting schedule, Mr. Valente noted that a joint meeting with the
Board of Selectmen and the Planning Board will take place in Estabrook Hall in the Cary
Memorial Building on January 5, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. Two areas of focus will be to preview
Planning Board Town Meeting warrant articles and to update the Board about where the Town is
on its negotiations with Brookhaven. Brookhaven intends to bring its re-zoning proposal to Town
Meeting and the Town has been in discussions with Brookhaven about various concerns.
Selectmen Barry and Ciccolo and Planning Board members Hornig and Dunn sit in on those
negotiation sessions.
The Lexington Community Preservation Committee has received the Directors Partnership
Award, given by the National Park Service, part of the US Department of Interior, for
exceptional achievement in advancing the knowledge, understanding, and interpretation of
Parker’s Revenge. Town Meeting funded the project in 2016 to move ahead with the study of
Parker’s Revenge and there was also private funding that went into the initiative.
Through the Sustainable Lexington Committee, the Town has been informed that Lexington has
been selected to participate in National Grid’s 2017 Community Initiative Program. The program
provides outreach funding to promote the Commonwealth’s Mass Saves program to conduct
home energy use audits that provides low-cost insulation installation, appliance recycling, and
other benefits. If the Town meets the stretch goals of the program, a $45,000 incentive payment
will be awarded. Mr. Valente thanked Todd Rhodes and Marcia Gens of Sustainable Lexington
and Claire Goodwin from the Town Manager’s Office for their work on this initiative.
Accept Terms of the Evelyn T. Brega Foreign Studies Scholarship Fund
David Williams, Chair of the Trustees of the Public Trust, began his presentation by
acknowledging Selectmen Cohen’s many contributions to the Trustees over his long tenure as a
Town volunteer and as a member of the Board of Selectmen.
Evelyn Brega was a long-time teacher at Lexington High in the department of World Languages.
After her retirement, Ms. Brega remained in Lexington at Youville until her death when she
bequeathed funds to establish the scholarship in her name. Applicants for the scholarship will be
Lexington High graduates who intend to major in International Studies or Foreign Language.
70-433
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 19, 2016
Mr. Pato noted a typo in the text of the trust criteria that should be corrected (“principal” to
“principle”.)
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve the amended
terms of the Evelyn T. Brega Foreign Studies Scholarship Fund that will be managed by the
Trustees of the Public Trust.
Accept Terms of the Quinn Amsler Memorial Scholarship Fund
Mr. Williams said the Trustees were particularly excited about this scholarship because it will
benefit students who have met with challenges due to medical or mental disabilities. The
Scholarship is named for a young Bridge School student who died last year. The Bridge School
Community rallied around the cause and raised over $20,000 to establish the scholarship. The
applicant can be a graduate of either Lexington High School or Minuteman Regional.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve the terms of
the Quinn Amsler Memorial Scholarship Fund that will be managed by the Trustees of the Public
Trust.
Discussion of FY18 Program Improvement Request—Update to Comprehensive Plan
Planning Director Aaron Henry and Assistant Town Manager for Development Carol Kowalski
presented greater detail about the scope of work for the proposed Planning Department Program
Improvement Request (PIR) to update the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. Planning Director Henry
broke out the various tasks within the $302,000 budget request and assigned each task with a
cost estimate in order to aid a better understanding of the request.
The current Comprehensive Plan was done in 2002-03 and published in 2003-04. Only four
elements—Land Use, Economic Development, Housing and Transportation— were published at
that time. The proposed update would be done in essentially two phases over two to three years:
Phase One of the process, taking 18-20 months, has been termed “pre-planning” and it
carries a projected cost of $177,000, inclusive of all expenses. This phase would include
community education and engagement ($40,000); data gathering; a buildout analysis of
the town ($35,000); socio-economic and demographic reporting ($12,000); public
facilities and financial analysis ($10,000); a prior study review ($10,000);establishment
of an advisory committee; and a project initiation meeting ($10,000).
Phase Two is more intensive is projected to take 16 to 18 months and cost $160,000. It
would develop the various elements that make up the plan. The tasks within this stage
include: vision, goals, implementation ($25,000); land use analysis ($10,000); housing
analysis ($5,000); economic development ($25,000); natural, cultural, historic resources,
and open space ($5,000); public services and facilities ($5,000); transportation ($25,000);
and supplemental elements such as sustainability ($15,000), design guidelines ($10,000)
and strategic planning areas ( $25,000 for each).
70-434
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 19, 2016
Mr. Henry said a 10% contingency cost has been added as well. He noted that these items would
be bid separately and that it is possible that a full-service planning and engineering concern
would be chosen for all elements. The plan is to best match the consultant to the element(s) it
works on. He added that different tasks will require different levels of assistance.
Mr. Henry emphasized that the community engagement piece of Phase One is extremely
important, particularly in a community like Lexington. A facilitation expert will be essential so
that the project is initiated on solid footing and a strong framework is created for the process.
Other initiatives in town such as Vision 20/20 and a review of the current plan are also
important. Taking a step back and conducting a meta-analysis of disparate finding that already
exist is essential to a successful process as well.
Phase One will end with a kick-off event for Phase Two, which Mr. Henry sees as a continuation
of the community education and engagement efforts that began in Phase One.
The supplemental group of elements listed— sustainability, design guidelines, strategic planning
and anything additional—are beyond the statutory requirements of any comprehensive plan done
on Massachusetts but Mr. Henry said if this large undertaking is to be done correctly, Lexington
should include sustainability. Aspects of sustainability are apt to be found across the other
elements, in any case, but there may need to be specific attention given to it as a stand-alone
category.
At the end of the process, Mr. Henry hopes to have data that will help to inform the Town’s
design guidelines on future land use. Strategic planning might focus in on a specific area of town
that requires a greater level of attention.
Mr. Henry said that the costs quoted are variable and may shift from one category to another,
depending on how the process unfolds and on work already completed by other groups or
initiatives.
It was noted that the data from the current plan was based on census information from 2000.
Mr. Pato noted there were overlap areas with existing projects such as the “Getting to Net Zero”
initiative and other sustainability efforts. He is particularly enthusiastic about the community
engagement piece of the Comprehensive Plan and about making sure it happens right from the
start with a trained and experienced facilitator.
Mr. Kelley said he supports the objective but the cost seems high. Like Mr. Pato, he is
enthusiastic about community engagement but he hopes that even before that, the process will
include looking closely at parallel and well-documented efforts such as Vision 20/20. He
applauded the Planning Board’s initiative of about a year ago that thoughtfully engaged the
public about residential development.
Mr. Kelley said he is willing to go along with approving Comprehensive Plan funding but he is
cautious about buying the whole package. He would like Mr. Henry to check back in with the
70-435
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 19, 2016
Board after each phase is completed to measure the success and value and also gauge how well
the community has responded to the process.
Mr. Henry said he sees the Comprehensive Plan as a tandem effort between the Planning Board
and the Selectmen which will require cycling back frequently to make progress reports. He said
that the Planning office had researched other towns’ Comprehensive Plan RFPs to make an
accurate estimate on the cost. Across the state, there were a wide range of requests but it seemed
to Mr. Henry that the end results equate strongly with the investment made. He believes the cost
assignment he has presented puts the money where it needs to be, most notably in community
engagement and the visioning process.
Ms. Kowalski said that a strong Comprehensive Plan is largely dependent upon a strong master
plan advisory committee as well as an implementation committee. Not only will there be regular
check in with both boards but there may be liaisons from both boards that meet regularly with
the advisory and implementation groups.
Mr. Kelley asked whether the advisory board should be put in place before community
engagement initiatives begin. Ms. Kowalski replied that a committee can be formed at any time
but she recommended that the committee be formed once community engagement identified
enthusiasts for committee membership.
Mr. Cohen asked if comprehensive plans were mandated by the State. Ms. Kowalski said that
Massachusetts is somewhat unique in that it is not required to have a plan and yet MGL advises
towns to prepare plans and lists the various plan elements that should be included. There are no
direct consequences for not having a plan in place but there are funding sources that give towns
bonus points if they have ones that are up to date. Mr. Henry said the legislature is close to
passing a law to require comprehensive plan development and adoption. He believes it is wise to
pursue this even if there is no law that currently requires it.
Ms. Ciccolo said she enthusiastically supports the Comprehensive Plan development and has
been closely involved in the process in other towns. It is true that there is no State mandate but a
Town that has a comprehensive plan unquestionably receives a greater number of grants because
many applications for funding over a certain threshold require that a Town demonstrate
consistency between grant proposals and the Plan.
Jurisdictionally, the Comprehensive Plan comes under the Planning Board so more joint
meetings between Planning and Selectmen will be necessary. With respect to the creation of the
advisory committee, Ms. Ciccolo recommends forming it sooner rather than later because there
is a tendency in Lexington to revisit things, which would stymie progress. Ms. Ciccolo
encouraged Mr. Henry and Ms. Kowalski to include a public health element in the plan or to
weave public health through the other plan elements. Doing so would provide vital information
about how Lexington residents compare to those in other communities and how Lexington
measures up with national trends. This data would inform future decisions about transportation
and education.
70-436
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 19, 2016
Ms. Barry thanked Mr. Henry for breaking down the costs and for providing the scope of work.
Although the price tag is high, she supports the effort.
Mr. Kanter, Precinct 7 Town Meeting member, asked why the Program Improvement Request
would be fully funded in one fiscal year if the effort requires more than one bid would be broken
into two phases. Mr. Valente said that neither phase can stand on its own; funding for the whole
project should be affirmed.
Mr. Kanter asked if both phases would be awarded in FY18. Mr. Valente said he has not gotten
to that level of detail yet. The proposal would be presented as a separate warrant article at Town
Meeting, not as part of the Operating Budget, so that the funding is assured until the project is
complete.
A consensus vote of Selectmen yielded unanimous support for including the Comprehensive
Plan in the Town Manager’s version of the budget. Mr. Kelley asked for checkpoints along the
way and close communication between the Planning Board and the Board of Selectmen. Mr.
Cohen asked if the separate warrant article would come from Planning office or the Selectmen’s
office. Mr. Valente said this remains to be discussed.
Discussion of Municipal Modernization Bill for Possible Town Meeting Acceptance
The recent passage of the Municipal Modernization Bill has resulted in changes to home rule for
cities and towns. Mr. Valente presented aspects of the law of particular interest to Lexington that
require Town Meeting acceptance as well as those that do not require acceptance.
The list of 8 statutes requiring acceptance would have to be presented to Town Meeting but the
changes that do not require acceptance do not require citizen notification.
Mr. Valente clarified that the Town may not act on the eighth statute listed—the annual, rather
than quarterly, issuance of a property tax bill less than $100—because it may require
modifications to the tax billing software. The fourth item listed—the creation of a Special
Education Stabilization Fund—would piggyback on something the Town has already created but
the change would potentially make it easier to access the funds. Mr. Valente said he believes
there are still regulations that will come out with regard to this so the statute may not ready for
this Town Meeting.
Ms. Ciccolo said she is excited about the third item—creation of a separate parking meter fund
for parking meter receipts—and the fifth—speed limit revision and the creation of safety zones.
The Selectmen regularly receive requests for speed limit revision and this will allow the Town to
respond without appealing to the State. Ms. Ciccolo noted that the parking meter statute was the
result of work done in Lexington and Hudson.
Mr. Cohen asked why Lexington would have to approve the seventh item—creation of a special
fund for medical compensation for police and firemen injured on duty—when the Town already
does that. Mr. Valente said the only change is that the State law would be referenced every year
70-437
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 19, 2016
the line item is voted. There needs to be acceptance of the statute but the practice would be
unchanged.
Mr. Cohen asked if all the Municipal Modernization statutes that require approval would be on
the same warrant article. Mr. Valente believes a single article with a number of sub-categories
will suffice.
Ms. Barry asked that there be some form of education if the Town moves forward to approve the
speed limit statute.
Mr. Kelley said he is happy to support approval and is particularly enthusiastic about being able
to set speed limits at 20 mph in the Center of town. He recommends public hearings for areas of
town where changes might be warranted.
Mr. Pato agreed with his colleagues about the speed limit statute. He pointed out that Cambridge
and Boston have adopted a 25 mph speed limit throughout where other speed postings do not
exist. He looks forward to public hearings about changes, as well.
Mr. Kanter, Precinct 7 Town Meeting member, asked what the process would be to change a
speed limit to either 20 or 25 mph. Mr. Valente said that a 25 mph speed limit can be adopted
town wide or street by street. If done community-wide, signs would be placed at the town’s
borders. The 20 mph limit is done by designating an area as a so-called Safe Zone. In order to
implement, an engineering study must be done that would verify that the criteria for a 20 mph
zone is met. The criteria includes volume of pedestrian traffic and the presence of seniors and
school children. Mr. Valente has asked the Transportation Safety Group to look at both speed
limit changes and to present findings to the Board of Selectmen at a future meeting. Mr. Pato
said that these changes cannot be applied to roads that are State numbered.
Mr. Kelley said he had concerns about one change in State Law that does not require Town
Meeting approval—a fee that can be charged to an applicant so that the Town can hire
consultants to advise on permit applications. Mr. Valente replied that this statute currently exists
but is limited to specific boards—like Conservation. This change would extend the fee to any
permitting authority, including the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Kelley said he is not comfortable
that this statute because it could apply to any number of permit requests and could constitute a
financial burden to the applicant.
Review FY18 Proposed Shared Costs Budget
Mr. Addelson defined shared costs as those that support the delivery of both municipal and
school programs. It includes debt service, the Appropriation Reserve Fund and the Department
of Public Facilities budget.
The Appropriation Reserve Fund has been budgeted at $900,000 for the past few years and Mr.
Addelson recommends the same level of funding for FY18. The Reserve Fund is used in the case
of extraordinary or unforeseen costs that arise after the budget is adopted. It is voted by the
Appropriation Committee before bringing it to the Selectmen for approval.
70-438
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 19, 2016
The debt service budget is still in the process of being developed.
The category of employee benefits and insurance is comprised of the Town’s share of pension
costs, Medicare tax, health and dental insurance, life insurance, unemployment compensation,
Workers’ Comp., property and liability insurance, and uninsured losses. The FY18
recommended All Funds employee benefits and insurance budget is $34,701,077 which
represents a $1,474,925 increase over FY17 or 4.44%. Mr. Addelson made a correction to one
statement in the meeting packet, saying the recommended budget in fact does not include the
benefit costs for all new benefit eligible positions. Those costs will be funded by the allocation
that was made to both the Town Manager and the Superintendent of School in order to build
their respective budgets. Ultimately, when the budgets come before Town Meeting, they will
include those costs but they currently are not included.
Mr. Addelson reviewed the various aspects of the budget and increase drivers:
The contributory retirement assessment (an increase of $250,000 or 4.76%) based on a
2015 actuarial valuation of the Lexington Retirement System;
The non-contributory retirement increase ($783 or 5.67%) for employees receiving
awarded pensions prior to the creation of the contributory system;
A $206,247 or 13.95% increase in the Town’s contribution for Medicare Tax based on
FY16 actual costs, projected FY17 and FY18 salaries and wages, and historical rates of
increase;
A $860,778 or 3.57% increase in the health insurance budget (All Funds);
A $28,939 or 2.72% increase in dental insurance costs (All Funds);
No increase in life insurance costs based on projected enrollments;
Level funding of unemployment insurance;
A $65,237 or 10.4% increase in Workers’ Compensation;
A $37,941 or 4.41% net increase in costs of property and liability insurance;
A $25,000 or 12.5% increase in the budget for uninsured losses.
Discuss Possible Schedule for the Debt Exclusion Question
Mr. Valente said that in February of 2017, the Town expects to issue Bond Anticipation Notes
(BAN) for the purchase of 173 Bedford St. (approx. $4.4M) and 20 Pelham Rd ($8M). In the
financial model, presented at several financial summits, these purchases were included as
potential projected excluded debt. Because these BANs will come due in February 2018, staff
wants to begin a discussion about the timing of the debt exclusion question. A debt exclusion
vote will also be necessary to fund the Hastings School project. The current timeline for that debt
vote is fall of 2017.
Mr. Valente said approval of the Hastings School project by the MSBA is expected in late
August of 2017. Once that happens, the Town has 120 days to go to Special Town Meeting
(STM) for funding approval and to then hold a town-wide debt exclusion vote.
70-439
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 19, 2016
Mr. Valente said that 21 days is necessary to call an STM but, practically speaking, a month to 4
weeks is a reasonable amount of turnaround time. He suggested October 2 as a possible STM
date. After STM occurs, a minimum of 35 days is required to hold a town-wide election for the
debt exclusion vote. Mr. Valente calculated that the earliest this vote could take place is
November 6.
November 13 was considered as a possible date because there is no school scheduled for that day
due to teacher/staff professional development. However, that was later rejected and November 6
was settled upon as the target date for the election. Mr. Valente said it helps to know the vote
date in order to plan for the Bond Anticipation Note timing.
Mr. Kelley noted that the Hastings School project necessarily guides the debt exclusion timing
due to MSBA rules but there are a number of other projects that should be discussed for
inclusion such as the Fire Station and 20 Pelham Road. Mr. Valente said the question of
including the Fire Station construction has been discussed preliminarily with the financial
committees.
Mr. Kanter, Capital Expenditures Committee, asked what the current BAN rates are. Mr.
Addelson replied that interest rates on a short-term note are 1.5% in today’s market.
Mr. Kelley asked if in-levy funding is being considered for any of the pending projects. Mr.
Addelson said that the remodeling of the Fire Station swing space on Bedford St was calculated
in the debt exclusion model rather than within levy, as was the purchase of the property.
Update—Roofing Replacement for Monroe Center for the Arts
At Annual Town Meeting 2016, there was an appropriation approved for $298,000 to fund a
replacement roof at the Town-owned Munroe School which is leased to the Munroe Center for
the Arts. MCA agreed to an increase in rent payments to offset the debt service cost but indicated
that if the project price was actually this high, the offset would be beyond their capacity. They
agreed to bid the project out and then report back to the Selectmen.
A bid for the project was accepted for $163,000 and MCA has now agreed to increase their
monthly rent from $2,000 to $5,000 for the five-year period of the debt service.
Pelham Property—Consider Eminent Domain Taking
Ms. Ciccolo recused herself due to a conflict of interest, as she has with all discussions relating
to 20 Pelham Rd.
Mr. Valente said that at the Selectmen’s meeting on December 5, the Board indicated its intent to
move forward to take 20 Pelham Rd. property by eminent domain, due to the absence of a
negotiated settlement. However, in the last week, there has been a renewal of discussion between
the Town and the property owners so Mr. Valente asked that the eminent domain vote be
postponed until January 9, 2017.
70-440
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 19, 2016
Discuss Municipal Use of 20 Pelham Road Property
Mr. Valente said that at the Summit III meeting on December 1, the School Committee reported
that 20 Pelham Rd. is its favored location for the Lexington Children’s Place program. The
Schools would use only the classroom space, leaving the gym and cafeteria available for
municipal use. Given the proximity of 20 Pelham Rd. to the Community Center, staff would like
the Selectmen’s approval to begin discussions of programmatic uses of the gym and cafeteria
areas. This would allow the DiNisco architectural design consultants to perform a building
analysis and provide recommendations.
Mr. Cohen said he votes to move ahead. Ms. Barry said she agrees but noted that policies and
procedures will also have to be created, and possibly the appointment of a committee to keep the
municipal use component on track. Mr. Kelley said he is supportive of an analysis of benefits the
Town would gain from the Pelham site. Mr. Pato said he also supports the initiative but wants
the focus to be getting the school space on line as quickly as possible.
Mr. Kanter, Capital Expenditures Committee, asked if the DiNisco review would include any
connecting road requirements. Mr. Valente said that aspect of the work would be within the
School’s purview.
Annual License Renewals
This is the second group of annual license renewals. The first was approved on December 5.
The Board of Selectmen received an email and a hand delivered letter today that referred to some
issues at the Inn at Hastings Park. Ms. Barry will meet with the owner to discuss those issues.
Once the Board approves the renewals, the Selectmen’s office mails out the licenses by the end
of December. The licenses are released once all requirements have been met by the applicants. In
total, there are 7 Coin licenses; 4 Common Carrier licenses; 7 Common Victualler licenses; 15
Entertainment licenses; 4 Liquor Club licenses; 6 Liquor Common Victualler licenses; 1 Liquor
Innholder; 1 Liquor Retail Package Goods Store; 3 Liquor Wine and Malt licenses; and 3
Lodging/Innkeeper licenses in this round of renewals.
John Patrick, 2030 Massachusetts Avenue, author of the email and letter received today by the
Selectmen’s office, spoke to his concerns with the management of the Inn at Hastings Park. He
asked that Ms. Barry address these matters with the inn owner during their meeting. Ms. Barry
said after receiving the email/letter she reached out to the owner who said she had not received
the communication and so has not had the opportunity to respond. Mr. Patrick said this was an
oversight on his part and he would be happy to do send it to the owner. Ms. Barry scheduled a
meeting with the owner and said, in her experience, the inn has always been responsive to
concerns.
Mr. Valente said because Mr. Patrick’s letter had been delivered that afternoon, he has not had
time to examine the points it raises.
70-441
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 19, 2016
Mr. Patrick notes that the Board of Selectmen together with the Police are responsible for
enforcement of the terms of the license. If future violations are observed, he asked to whom he
should address these observations. Mr. Valente replied this would be a matter for the Police.
Mr. Patrick said that he has not been able to find any indication of discussion or documentation
with regard to change of management at the inn. Ms. Barry replied that her understanding is that
this paperwork will be coming to the Selectmen once the license is renewed, as directed by
licensing process rules.
Mr. Patrick acknowledged that the inn has been an area of contention since the initial project \[to
allow outside liquor consumption\] was announced and he asked that conditions be considered
that would withdraw permission for outdoor consumption due to the alleged violations and noise.
Mr. Kelley said he is confident that the concerns can be worked out and it is important this
happens as the inn is an immediate abutter to single-family residences. Mr. Pato echoed Mr.
Kelley’s comments and added that he is encouraged that Ms. Barry intends to meet with the
innkeeper.
Ms. Barry said because license renewals must be approved by the first of the year and the
Selectmen do not meet again until after New Year’s, she recommends that the Inn at Hastings
license, along with the other licenses, be renewed tonight. Mr. Valente said there is a public
hearing process the Board needs to follow in order to change the conditions or revoke a license.
This can happen at any time of year.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve the 2017
licenses as presented.
Consent Agenda
Approve One –Day Liquor License—Spectacle Management
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve a one-day
liquor license for Spectacle Management to sell beer and wine in the lobby of the Cary Memorial
Building on Saturday, January 28. 2017 from 7:00 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. during the Lenny Clark
Comedy Show.
Approve Tax Bill Insert—Business Directory
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve the tax bill
insert for the Lexington Business Directory as requested by the Economic Development office.
The Directory will be posted on the Town’s website. The insert would only be included in
commercial and personal property bills.
70-442
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 19, 2016
Sign Eagle Congratulations Letter—Noah Garberg
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to sign a letter of
commendation for Eagle Scout Noah Garberg from Troop #10.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to adjourn at 8:45 p.m.
from Open Session and to reconvene in a continuance of an Executive Session began at 6:30
p.m. but was curtailed due to lack of time. As did the earlier Executive Session, the continuance
will consider under Exemption 6 the purchase, exchange, lease or value of real property, 20
Pelham Road. Following the Executive Session, the Board will reconvene in Open Session only
to adjourn.
Ms. Ciccolo will recuse herself for this Executive Session discussion due to a conflict.
Following a return to Open Session, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to adjourn at
approximately 9:10 p.m.
A true record; Attest:
Kim Siebert
Recording Secretary