Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-10-06 SB-minSELECT BOARD MEETING Monday, October 6, 2025 A meeting of the Lexington Select Board was called to order at 6:30p.m. on Monday, October 6, 2025, via a hybrid meeting platform. Ms. Hai, Chair; Mr. Lucente, Mr. Pato, Mr. Sandeen, and Ms. Kumar, were present, as well as Mr. Bartha, Town Manager; Ms. Axtell, Deputy Town Manager; and Ms. Katzenback, Executive Clerk. PUBLIC COMMENTS Ranjeeta Khetan, representing the PTO Board, spoke in favor of the Vote Yes for Lexington campaign. The current High School is overcrowded, outdated, and beyond its lifespan. The proposed project is ready, and delaying will only cost more in time and money. She asked the Board to allow the Town the chance to vote. Nichola Sykes, 12 Bellflower Street, spoke in favor of the proposed High School design. She liked seeing the proposed community spaces and the design element of the quad that is protected from the outside. Cost is a factor, but the bigger picture needs to be considered.The current plan has been well thought out and vetted, with many excellent professionals working on it. Other plans have been examined and found to cost more, take longer, and serve fewer stakeholder needs, as well as not meeting the educational objectives. Taylor Singh, 40 Hancock Street, stated that the Select Board created the LHS Project School Building Committee (SBC) which held its first meeting in July of 2023. Establishing an SBC is a required part of the MSBA building process. It is a collaborative body composed of Town and school staff, members of the community, and representatives of the owner’s project manager and design teams. Elizabeth Warren, 9 Fulton Road, noted that Town investigations are sensitive and need to remain confidential. Her focus is more on Town policy and process. She asked the procedure and disciplinary remedies for violation of civil discourse guidelines. Harassment Policy 26A clearly states basis and remedy for violations, and that includes a third party investigation. She asked what mechanisms may be in place when harassment complaints filed are not consistent with the Policy. Sarah Carter, 5 Spencer Street, voiced her appreciation for the School Building Committee (SBC). The SBC has done a great done taking input from many different groups throughout the process. The SBC put forward a plan that balances the idea of not over building with working to keep the cost as low as feasibly possible to build the school the Town needs for generations to come. Meg Muckenhoupt, 19 Whipple Road, stated that the Bloom design for the proposed High School project providing a great, flexible space that will meet the community needs. She asked the Board to support to plan in place. SELECT BOARD MEMBER CONCERNS AND LIAISON REPORTS 1. Select Board Member Announcements and Liaison Reports Nothing additional at this time. TOWN MANAGER REPORT 1. Town Manager Weekly Update Mr. Bartha stated that the State is a participant in a new round of opioid settlement funds. He recommended the Town participate in the process once again. The Board agreed. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve: Select Board Committee Appointment Town Report Committee: Asiya Karim To appoint Asiya Karim to the Town Report Committee to fill a term ending on September 30, 2026, to be effective immediately. DOCUMENTS: Town Report Committee - Asiya Karim - Application & Resume_Redacted VOTE: Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 5-0 to approve the Consent Agenda, as presented. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 1. Amendment to §192 Traffic Rules and Orders: Sylvia Street Traffic Restriction Ross Morrow, Assistant Town Engineer, explained that the Board is being asked to vote to amend Traffic Rules and Orders: Chapter 192-62 Certain Turns Prohibited Schedule 6 Prohibited Turns to add a turn restriction from Mass Ave onto Sylvia Street. This restriction is recommended to minimize cut-through traffic during the morning peak commute hours from 7:00 AM - 8:30 AM, Monday through Friday, year- round. The feedback from residents was almost exclusively positive for this proposal after a pilot study. Mr. Pato stated that some residents asked about lowering the speed limit along the street or considering a similar proposal in the afternoon. Mr. Morrow stated that this road already falls under the Town’s 25mph limit. Lowering it further would be difficult but could be studied. A similar proposal for the afternoons could also be considered. Barrett Bryan, 29 Sylvia Street, stated that he is thankful for the proposal. He would also like to see sidewalks down the street at some point in the future. He noted that the school bus comes anywhere from between 8:25AM-8:40AM. VOTE: Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 5-0 to approve the amendment to Chapter 192-62, Certain Turns Prohibited, Schedule 6 Prohibited Turns, to restrict turns from Massachusetts Avenue onto Sylvia Street, prohibiting right turns eastbound and left turns westbound between 7:00 AM and 8:30 AM, Monday through Friday, year-round. DOCUMENTS: Presentation - Sylvia Street Turn Restriction, 10062025 TSG Memo to SB - Sylvia Street, 10062025 - Sylvia Street Code Amendment (Signature Document) 2. Accept: Cedar Street Sidewalk Easements Mr. Morrow explained that through the design phase of the Cedar Street sidewalk project, it has been identified that due to the variable width of the public right-of-way (ROW) and other constraints, the proposed sidewalk could not be constructed fully within the ROW. The project team approached the two property owners of 67 and 75 Cedar Street to discuss their willingness to provide easements for the purpose of allowing a portion of public access sidewalk to be built on their property. Both property owners agreed to provide easements. The Board is being requested to accept the easements over 67 Cedar St and 75 Cedar Street or sidewalks. The Board thanked the residents who opted to grant the easements for their generosity. VOTE: Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 5-0 to accept the easements over 67 Cedar Street and 75 Cedar Street substantially in the form presented, with final changes to be made by the Town Manager in his reasonable discretion in consultation with Town Counsel; and to authorize the Town Manager to take all actions on behalf of the Board that are reasonably necessary in his judgment to complete and effectuate the acceptance of the easements. DOCUMENTS: Cedar Easements 3. Update: Council on Aging Proposed Committee Charge Amendments Dana Bickleman, Director of Human Services, explained that the Council on Aging Board is returning to the Select Board with its proposed charge, which was first presented on June 3, 2024. Following that presentation, the Board received redlined revisions from Town Counsel. These edits have been incorporated, and the updated charge is now being presented for the Select Board’s review and consideration. It has also been determined that the revised charge must receive approval at Town Meeting. The Council on Aging Board plans to bring the charge forward for consideration at the Spring 2026 Annual Town Meeting. VOTE: Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 5-0 to accept changes to the Council on Aging committee charge as presented. DOCUMENTS: COA board changes. Clean, COA Board changes. redlined 4, Discussion: 2026 Patriots' Day Celebration Dates Ms. Hai explained that, by statute, the Commonwealth observes Patriots’ Day on the third Monday in April. Locally, the Town Celebrations Committee coordinates community events in recognition of this holiday. For 2026, the statutory holiday falls on Monday, April 20, 2026. The Town Celebrations Committee has submitted a proposal recommending that the Town’s traditional Patriots’ Day events, parade, ceremonies, and related activities, be held instead on Saturday, April 18, 2026. The considerations for this proposal include logistics and participation as Saturday scheduling may allow greater participation from residents, families, and visitors who may not be available on a weekday. Also, regional considerations include that holding the events on Saturday may reduce overlap with larger regional commemorations and the Boston Marathon, which occurs on Patriots’ Day Monday. The Select Board is asked to discuss and decide whether to authorize the Town Celebrations Committee to hold the 2026 Patriots’ Day events on Saturday, April 18, 2026, instead of Monday, April 20, 2026. Mr. Lucente stated that there was a much larger crowd that attended the event last year when it was on a Saturday versus a Monday. He expressed concern with making sure there is a way to pay for the event in full if it is moved to Saturday. He suggested waiting for financial data before making a decision. David Pinsonneault, Public Works Director, stated that Police, Fire, and DPW are concerned that they may not be able to obtain the resources needed if the event is held on a Monday. There is more staff availability in the departments for a Saturday. David Grabel, 125 Reed Street and co-chair of the Town Celebrations Committee, agreed with the statements made by the DPW regarding the Saturday preference. The Committee is looking to present the best possible parade to the largest number of people at a benefit to the Town. He encouraged the Board to make a decision on this as soon as possible. Mr. Grabel confirmed the Town Celebrations Committee will operate within approved funds for the FY2026 Patriots Day budget and scale the event by managing expenses. Ms. Kosnoff stated that staff is still considering budgetary impacts regarding this proposal. The Committee gave staff the guidance that it should consider approximately 75% of the crowd seen this past year if a Saturday event is decided on. The four major expenses from last year's event were the audio visual equipment, the transportation, the day of event managing, and the advertising portion. These four things will likely not be able to be completed to the same level as last year due to the available funding. Cerise Jalelian, Town Celebrations Committee, explained that there will be crowds around for this event and safety is paramount. She requested that the Board make a decision as quickly as possible. The Committee will work within any financial constraints. Fire Chief Sencabaugh agreed that the public safety resources needed from the State and federal side will not be available on Monday, as they are committed to the Boston Marathon. Mr. Pato stated that it appears from a safety perspective there is a distinct advantage for retaining the event on Saturday. It seems this effectively would be true going forward, though this decision does not need to be made tonight. He stated that there should be a plan to scale the event back, if held on a Saturday, to fit within the budget. Mr. Sandeen stated that holding the event on Saturday could lead to there being events on both Saturday and Monday. He would like one day to be chosen for the events. Steve Cole, 49 Balfour Street and Captain of the Lexington Minutemen, stated that the Minutemen have met with the 10th Foot, the Historical Society, Police, Fire, and DPW. From a reenactment standpoint, the Minutemen want to do it on Saturday this year. It would like to consider moving back to Monday after this year. Dawn McKenna, 9 Hancock Street, stated that the purpose of Patriots Day is to honor what happened in Lexington and to make sure the world is aware of it. It is not Marathon Monday; it is Patriots Day on which the marathon takes place. The Town will lose that narrative if it keeps the event on Saturday. This takes the focus off the birthplace of American liberty, which is where it should be on that day.She stated that it is much more expensive for people to attend on a Saturday night than a Monday. There will be a big turnout this year because of the 250th celebration. She asked the Board to go back to the original route for the event. VOTE: Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 5-0 to authorize 2026 Patriots’ Day events to be held on Saturday, April 18, 2026, instead of Monday, April 20, 2026. DOCUMENTS: Recommendation to hold 2026 Patriots Day Celebration on Saturday, Memo from Lexington Minute Men 5. Special Town Meeting 2025 -2 and 2025 Special Election Select Board to Call Special Election Article 97 Discussion Select Board to Sign Combined Election and Special Town Meeting Warrant Article 97 Discussion Mina Makarious, Town Counsel, explained that, in terms of Article 9 - Home Rule Legislation for New Lexington High School in the Town Meeting Warrant, there is a matter that is leading to the possibility for two different types of language for the Warrant. The Board needs to determine how to advance the request to Town Meeting and if there needs to be a request for Article 97 legislation to the State legislature. Town Meeting has to authorize the transfer of the land currently under the Bloom plan. Through due diligence, it became clear that there is a 1961 legislation authorizing the Town to use the land that is made up of a parcel in the middle of the high school campus for playground, park, and school purposes. There is a legal position that this already authorizes the construction of a school there. It is clear that the land has been in use for decades as park and playground purposes, and that this is the understood purpose of the property. The suggestion is to ask the legislator to confirm that the land can be used for school purposes and make clear the commitment to use the adjoining land for park and playground purposes. Town Counsel Makarious explained that requesting Article 97 relief from the legislature requires first going to the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs under the Public Land Protection Act for a review process.The legislation does not enshrine property into a park or playground use. The legislation's only task is to remove existing protections, if any. In this case, this would be on the land that is currently used for park purposes. No legislation is necessary for a town or a state agency to dedicate land for a park. Mr. Lucente stated that he would like to go forward with the Article 97 process. He would also like the plans to have very prescriptive direction from Town Meeting that the land will be placed into that protected status. The legislation from 1961 is new information, but Article 97 was enacted in 1972. This land has been used for recreation over many years, and the Town has invested millions for it to be used as such. Mr. Pato stated that the intention is to take existing playing fields and recreate them at the same quality or better. There is no change to the plan that is in the proposal to move forward. Those properties were protected under a special act that granted recreation, open space, and school purposes. It is honoring what was originally set down to do to have exactly the restrictions moved from one plot to the other. There is no intention to abandon the plan to recreate the fields. Town Counsel Makarious explained that the typical Article 97 legislation, says nothing about what is happening with the land being swapped. The intention of the Article 97 legislation from the State is not to protect land; it is to affirm that there is an ability to use land that was protected. This is what the Town would be seeking as a confirmation and the 1961 legislation does that. The Town has to decide if it wants to affirm this position with the potential risk that the legislature may take its time to make the decision or proceed without that affirmation. If the Town chooses to dedicate the land, that has more to do with the Town Meeting vote, than with the legislature. If the Town does through the Article 97 process, there needs to be clear indication that it is dedicating the land. Mr. Sandeen suggested the Town has two choices before us and has to weigh why the Town would go through an additional approval cycle, now that it has been discovered under the 1961 legislation that there is additional flexibility and the ability to move the project forward without it. He suggested that the Town should choose to go through that approval cycle because it has been telling stakeholders, residents, and our design team for five years that the Town would go through this approval cycle. While it could be nice to have the additional flexibility and one less set of approvals, he recommended that the Town continue moving forward with the Article 97 process, because that’s what we have been communicating for the last five years and a deviation from that plan at the last moment could raise concerns. Ms. Hai agreed that this was the representation made to the public throughout the process. She stated that she supports the project, in large part, because of the guarantee made to bring the fields back. She sees no reason to not go through the process to both be true to that word and to offer the additional protection on the field. She supports keeping the Article 97 language and process in the warrant. Ms. Kumar stated that she sees the importance to following through with what was told to the residents, but she also feels that the residents are very intelligent. They understand that there is now different information available than there was five years ago. She is comfortable moving forward with the Article 97 process. Mr. Pato stated that there is no material change being proposed except to add another hurdle outside of local control. There is value in retaining local control, but he will not stand in the way of the Article 97 process. Olga Guttag, Emerson Road, asked the Board to not put in Articles 8 and 9 onto this Warrant. She feels that before going out for a debt exclusion for Bloom design the Board should ask the architects to work through a stage project design to a budget. VOTE: Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 5-0 to approve and sign Town Meeting 2025-2 Warrant including Article 9 wording, as presented by Town Counsel and discussed, subject to any scrivener’s errors, Counsel amendments, or others by management, as necessary within non-substantive changes. VOTE: Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 5-0 to call the Special Election for December 8, 2025. VOTE: Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 5-0 to approve and sign the Special Election Warrant and authorize staff to make non-substantive edits as necessary or as recommended by Town Counsel or Bond Counsel. DOCUMENTS: Election Warrant and 2025-2 Special Town Meeting, Election Warrant and 2025-2 Special Town Meeting with No Art 97 homeRule The Board took a brief recess. 6. Board Discussion: Recommendation to Consider Removal of a Tree Committee Member Ms. Bartha explained that an independent investigator was hired by the Town this spring to review concerns and complaints that had been filed regarding Gerald Paul’s conduct as a member of the Tree Committee and his treatment of Town staff. A summary of relevant excerpts from the investigative report's executive summary are provided below: This investigator finds sufficient evidence to conclude that Mr. Paul violated the Guidelines for Civil Discourse for all Select Board appointed committee members by continuing to pursue information regarding the Tree Warden's enforcement of the Tree Bylaws after the DPW Director, Town Manager, Select Board and the Middlesex District Attorney’s office found insufficient evidence of any intentional wrongdoing. Instead of looking at how to improve the processes of enforcing the bylaws, Mr. Paul instead has insisted on repeatedly attacking employees' personal integrity. Furthermore, while the rest of the Tree Committee members seem ready to move forward and look ahead rather than back, Mr. Paul refused to do so. His inability to “agree to disagree” and move on is detrimental to the relationship between the Tree Committee and the Tree Warden/DPW. Based on the findings of fact and conclusions, this investigator recommends that the Select Board consider Mr. Paul’s removal from the Tree Committee. Gerry Paul, 43 Highland Avenue, explained that he has 11 months left on his term for the Tree Committee and has been on the Committee for 20 years. He explained that continuing to pursue information is not a violation of the guidelines. Making public records requests is not a violation of the guidelines for civil discourse. In Massachusetts, people have a right to make public records requests.A vote to remove him would require the belief that pursuing information is a violation of the guidelines for civil discourse, even when the pursuit has been shown to be proper and warranted. It would require a belief in allegations made against him that have been shown to be false and unsubstantiated, and the belief that the extreme step of removal from a committee is appropriate action for supposedly violating recommendations in the guideline. Ms. Hai noted that, due to the threat of litigation on the matter, the Board will not respond directly to any of the information. The Board has received and read the materials submitted.The Select Board has a fiduciary obligation to ensure that all municipal employees are treated fairly and appropriately in the execution of their professional duties. VOTE: Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 5-0 that, based on an independent investigator’s conclusion that Gerald Paul violated the Guidelines for Civil Discourse, which stemmed from an investigation to review concerns and complaints that had been filed regarding Mr. Paul’s conduct as a member of the Tree Committee and his treatment of Town staff, the Select Board voted 5-0 to remove Mr. Gerry Paul from the Tree Committee, effective immediately. DOCUMENTS: DRAFT 2025-2 STM Warrant ADJOURN VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted 5-0 to adjourn the meeting at 9:19p.m. A true record; Attest: Kristan Patenaude Recording Secretary