Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2016-10-13 BOS Packet - Released
SELECTMEN'S MEETING Thursday, October 13, 2016 Estabrook Hall-Cary Memorial Building- REVISED AGENDA 6:30 PM AGENDA EXECUTIVE SESSION 1. Executive Session-Exemption 3: Collective Bargaining Update, LMMA(30 min) 6:30 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comments are allowed for up to 10 minutes at the beginning of each meeting. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes for comment. Members of the Board will neither comment nor respond, other than to ask questions of clarification. Speakers are encouraged to notify the Selectmen's Office at 781-698-4580 if they wish to speak during public comment to assist the Chairman in managing meeting times. SELECTMAN CONCERNS AND LIAISON REPORTS TOWN MANAGER REPORT ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 1. Review and Comment- 20/20 Vision Committee Survey(10 min) 7:10 p.m. 2. Approve Proposed FY2017 Water and Wastewater Rates (15 min) 7:20 p.m. 3. Staff Comments - Center Streetscape Design Review Ad Hoc Committee, Tier 1 7:35 p.m. Report(30 min) 4. Request for State Mandate Determination-Early Voting(5 min.) 8:05 p.m. 5. Approve Town Manager's Appointment to the Permanent Building Committee(5 8:10 p.m. min) 6. Selectmen Committee Appointments & Resignations (5 min) 8:15 p.m. 7. Sign State Election Warrant(5 min.) 8:20 p.m. 8. Cast Vote- MPO Ballot(5 min.) 8:30 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Water& Sewer Adjustments 2. Approve Minutes and Executive Session Minutes 3. Approve One-Day Liquor License-Wilson Farm 4. Approve One-Day Liquor License-Neillio's Catering EXECUTIVE SESSION 1. Executive Session-Exemption 3:Pending Litigation 430 Concord Avenue(20 min) 2. Executive Session-Exemption 6:Purchase of Land-20 Pelham Road; and 173 Bedford Street(20 min) ADJOURN 1. Approximate Adjourn Time 9:10 P.M. The next meeting of the Board of Selectmen is scheduled for Monday, October 24, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, Town Office Building, 1625 Massachusetts Avenue. Hearing Assistance Device.s Available on Repast �� �� � All agenda time and the order of items are approximate and subject to change. Recorded by LeWedia AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Executive Session-Exemption 3: Collective Bargaining Update, LMMA (30 min) PRESENTER: ITEM NUMBER: Carl F. Valente, Town Manager; Denise Y. Casey, Human Resources Director ES.Al SUMMARY: Suggested motion for Executive Session: Move to go into Executive Session to discuss strategy with respect to collective bargaining related to the Lexington Municipal Management Association and to reconvene in Open Session. Further, the Chairman declares that an open meeting discussion may have a detrimental effect on the bargaining position of the Town. Update on bargaining with LMMA. SUGGESTED MOTION: None required. FOLLOW-UP: None required. DATE AND APPROXIMATE TIME ON AGENDA: 10/13/2016 6:30 p.m. AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Review and Comment - 20/20 Vision Committee Survey (10 min) PRESENTER: ITEM NUMBER: Joe Pato, Selectmen I.1 SUMMARY: This year, to keep the Town forward looking, the 20/20 Vision Committee, with support from the three elected boards, is again seeking citizen participation in identifying the aspects of our Town that are of greatest interest and concern through the distribution of a Town survey. The results of this survey will be broadly shared with the Town's decision makers, and will guide both their decision making and the 20/20 Committee in identifying areas deserving further review. We need your input to assure that our planning reflects the community's shared vision. The 20/20 Vision Working Group on Social Diversity request that BOS members review the 2012 survey, attached, and give comments and suggestions on new or changed questions. SUGGESTED MOTION: FOLLOW-UP: Please send any comments/suggestions by the end of October to Mr. Pato, the Board's liaison to the 20/20 Vision Committee. DATE AND APPROXIMATE TIME ON AGENDA: 10/13/2016 7:10 p.m. ATTACHMENTS: Description Type D Proposed 20116 Survey Scope M'Work Backup Matorinl D PIR:WiOUS SUNCY Backup Matorinl Lexington 20/20 Vision Committee 2017 Community Survey Scope of Work DRAFT 3 - Oct. 9, 2016 On two previous occasions, most recently in 2012, the Town of Lexington's 20/20 Vision Committee has conducted a community-wide survey of citizen attitudes about town characteristics and services in order to identify resident views of what is important to them about Lexington, and how well the town is meeting their expectations. These surveys also gathered a wide range of demographic information about survey respondents,both to validate the survey results, and to allow assessment of how attitudes may evolve with the town's rapidly changing demographics. The Committee, with the support of the town's elected boards and with funding approved by Town Meeting, is now preparing to conduct another community-wide survey, in a similar fashion and in pursuit of the same goals. Our intent is to conduct the survey in March 2017 and analyze the results by August 31, 2017. The Town is seeking a consultant with experience in survey design, administration, and analysis to assist the 20/20 Vision Committee in preparing, conducting, and analyzing the 2017 survey. The Scope of Work will consist of three phases: • Phase 1: Preparation of Survey-Working from the 2012 survey, and in collaboration with and with the guidance of the Committee, its Social Diversity Working Group, and the town's elected boards and their staffs,the Consultant will produce the survey, prepare it for execution via both Survey Monkey and hard copy versions, pre-test it with a selected group of town leaders, make any revisions appropriate on the basis of the pre-test, and work with a town volunteer(s) selected by the Committee and Working Group to translate the survey into Mandarin and, perhaps, one or two additional languages. This phase should be completed by January 2017. • Phase 2: Administration of the Survey-Again working with the Committee and Working Group,the Consultant will be responsible for overseeing dissemination of the survey and for collection and compilation of those surveys completed in hard-copy form. Included in this phase will be preparation of a cover letter for use in distribution of the survey and an informed consent form. It is anticipated that the survey will be administered during a multi-week period in March 2017. • Phase 3: Analysis of Survey Results and Preparation of Final Report(s) - Again working in consultation with the Committee,Working Group, elected boards, and staff,the Consultant will be responsible for producing a report or reports analyzing the survey data,which describe its findings, identify results of significance to town policy makers, assess demographic factors that are reflected in survey results and address any respects in which respondent demographics are unrepresentative of the town, and discuss other dimensions of interest to the elected boards, the Committee, and the Working Group. This phase will be completed by the end of August 2017. Lexington20/20 Vision Survey 111111111=11111111 "111111T111111iiii, "i,1111111i, 2�111i'1111 Lexington is a vibrant, active and diverse community whose residents are invested in the Town's character and sense of community. In 1999, the 20/20 Committee was formed by the Town's three elected boards—the Selectmen, the School Committee, and the Planning Board —to engage a wide range of Lexington's citizens in developing a vision of Lexington's future that can guide the Town's decision making. The 20/20 Committee has regularly used community meetings, surveys, focus groups, and working groups on specific topics to formulate and refine a long-range vision for the Town. The vitality and legitimacy of our work has depended on the participation of thousands of residents. This year, to keep the Town forward-looking, the 20/20 Committee, with support from the three elected boards, is again seeking citizen participation in identifying the aspects of our Town that are of greatest interest and concern. The results of this survey will be broadly shared with the Town's decision makers, and will guide both their decision-making and the 20/20 Committee in identifying areas deserving further review. We need your input to assure that our planning reflects the community's shared vision. The Board of Selectmen, the School Committee, and the Planning Board are specifically hoping to use information from this survey to inform their understanding of community perspectives. Please take a few minutes to complete the following questionnaire. Be assured that your responses will be anonymous and that they will be kept confidential. Findings will be presented in terms of aggregated data, not individual responses. Your replies will help inform decision-making in our Town as we move toward the future. PART ONE: For each item in the left-hand column of the following tables, please indicate (by placing a check mark next to the response most appropriate for you): 1) how important the item is to you in preserving or improving Lexington, 2) how you would rate the current performance of the Town with regard to the item, and 3) which item is most important to you within each list of items. (Choose only one response for each list.) *1. Table 1A: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - Importance How important are each of the following items to you in preserving or improving Lexington? Extremely Very Somewhat Not very Not at all Attracting additional O O O O O business developments Having a vibrant downtown O O O O O that attracts residents and visitors Capitalizing on the Town's O O O O O history to attract a large number of tourists Providing supportive O O O O O regulatory framework for economic development �:`�F Lexington1 1 Vision Survey *2. Table 113: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - Current Performance How would you rate the current performance of the Town with regard to each of the following items? Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor Don't know Attracting additional O O O O O O business developments Having a vibrant downtown O O O O O O that attracts residents and visitors Capitalizing on the Town's O O O O O O history to attract a large number of tourists Providing supportive O O O O O O regulatory framework for economic development *3. Table 1C: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Please indicate which ONE of the items in the list below is MOST important to you: OAttracting additional business developments OHaving a vibrant downtown that attracts residents and visitors OCapitalizing on the Town's history to attract a large number of tourists OProviding supportive regulatory framework for economic development *4. Table 2A: EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE - Importance How important are each of the following items to you in preserving or improving Lexington? Extremely Very Somewhat Not very Not at all Ensuring high quality of O O O O O public schools Providing life-long learning O O O O O opportunities for residents Attracting and retaining O O O O O high quality teachers Maintaining grounds and O O O O O buildings of public schools Planning for the future of O O O O O the educational system Delivering public education O O O O O cost-effectively Providing adequate O O O O O funding for education J:`,, Lexington1 1 Vision Survey *5. Table 213: EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE - Current Performance How would you rate the current performance of the Town with regard to each of the following items? Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Don't Know Ensuring high quality of O O O O O O public schools Providing life-long learning O O O O O O opportunities for residents Attracting and retaining O O O O O O high quality teachers Maintaining grounds and O O O O O O buildings of public schools Planning for the future of O O O O O O the educational system Delivering public education O O O O O O cost-effectively Providing adequate funding O O O O O O for education *6. Table 2C: EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE Please indicate which ONE of the items in the list below is MOST important to you: OHigh quality of public schools OLife-long learning opportunities for residents OHigh quality teachers OMaintenance of school grounds and buildings OPlanning for the future of the educational system OCost-effective public education OAdequate funding for education Lexington1 1 Vision Survey *7. Table 3A: ENVIRONMENT - Importance How important are each of the following items to you in preserving or improving Lexington? Extremely Very Somewhat Not very Not at all Protecting open spaces O O O O O from development Preserving the environment O O O O O in open spaces Minimizing impact of O O O O O individuals,businesses and government on the environment Reducing energy O O O O O consumption by individuals, businesses and government Maintaining use of O O O O O agricultural/farm lands Providing citizen education O O O O O about sustainability *8. Table 313: ENVIRONMENT - Current Performance How would you rate the current performance of the Town with regard to each of the following items? Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Don't Know Protecting open spaces O O O O O O from development Preserving the environment O O O O O O in open spaces Minimizing impact of O O O O O O individuals,businesses and government on the environment Reducing energy O O O O O O consumption by individuals, businesses and government Maintaining use of O O O O O O agricultural/farm lands Providing citizen education O O O O O O about sustainability Lexington1 1 Vision Survey *9. Table 3C: ENVIRONMENT Please indicate which ONE of the items in the list below is MOST important to you: OProtecting open spaces from development OPreserving the environment in open spaces OMinimizing impact of individuals, businesses and government on the environment OReducing energy consumption by individuals,businesses and government OMaintaining use of agricultural/farm lands OProviding citizen education about sustainability *10. Table 4A: PHYSICAL CHARACTER- Importance How important are each of the following items to you in preserving or improving Lexington? Extremely Very Somewhat Not very Not at all Preserving the Town's O O O O O historic areas and structures Making Town's historic O O O O O areas and structures accessible to all residents and visitors Preserving the physical O O O O O character of residential neighborhoods Enhancing the physical O O O O O environment of the Town Center Managing the flow of traffic O O O O O through Town Ensuring adequate, O O O O O convenient parking in the business districts Lexington1 1 Vision Survey *11. Table 413: PHYSICAL CHARACTER- Current Performance How would you rate the current performance of the Town with regard to each of the following items? Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Don't Know Preserving the Town's O O O O O O historic areas and structures Making Town's historic O O O O O O areas and structures accessible to all residents and visitors Preserving the physical O O O O O O character of residential neighborhoods Enhancing the physical O O O O O O environment of the Town Center Managing the flow of traffic O O O O O O through Town Ensuring adequate, O O O O O O convenient parking in the business districts *12. Table 4C: PHYSICAL CHARACTER Please indicate which ONE of the items in the list below is MOST important to you: OPreserving the Town's historic areas and structures OMaking Town's historic areas and structures accessible to all residents and visitors OPreserving the physical character of residential neighborhoods OEnhancing the physical environment of the Town Center OManaging the flow of traffic through Town OEnsuring adequate,convenient parking in the business districts Lexington1 1 Vision Survey *13. Table 5A: POPULATION DIVERSITY- Importance How important are each of the following items to you in preserving or improving Lexington? Extremely Very Somewhat Not very Not at all Welcoming diverse groups O O O O O of people Ensuring housing is O O O O O available for a diverse population Offering gathering places O O O O O for diverse ages and interests Providing books and other O O O O O materials for a diverse population in the library *14. Table 513: POPULATION DIVERSITY- Current Performance How would you rate the current performance of the Town with regard to each of the following items? Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Don't Know Welcoming diverse groups O O O O O O of people Ensuring housing is O O O O O O available for a diverse population Offering gathering places O O O O O O for diverse ages and interests Providing books and other O O O O O O materials for a diverse population in the library *15. Table 5C: POPULATION DIVERSITY Please indicate which ONE of the items in the list below is MOST important to you: OWelcoming diverse groups of people OEnsuring housing is available for a diverse population OOffering gathering places for diverse ages and interests OProviding books and other materials for a diverse population in the library �:`�F Lexington1 1 Vision Survey *16. Table 6A: TOWN GOVERNMENT - Importance How important are each of the following items to you in preserving or improving Lexington? Extremely Very Somewhat Not very Not at all Acting with integrity O O O O O Balancing short-term needs O O O O O with long-term issues Acting in a fiscally O O O O O responsible manner Living within constraints of O O O O O Proposition 2 1/2 Making information on O O O O O decisions and actions easy to obtain (including acting in a fiscally transparent manner) Capitalizing on the diversity O O O O O of the Town's population Encouraging citizen O O O O O participation in Town affairs Participating in regional O O O O O groups to share resource, services and ideas Planning for the long-term O O O O O future J:`, Lexington1 1 Vision Survey *17. Table 613: TOWN GOVERNMENT - Current Performance How would you rate the current performance of the Town with regard to each of the following items? Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Don't Know Acting with integrity O O O O O O Balancing short-term needs O O O O O O with long-term issues Acting in a fiscally O O O O O O responsible manner Living within constraints of O O O O O O Proposition 2 1/2 Making information on O O O O O O decisions and actions easy to obtain (including acting in a fiscally transparent manner) Capitalizing on the diversity O O O O O O of the Town's population Encouraging citizen O O O O O O participation in Town affairs Participating in regional O O O O O O groups to share resource, services and ideas Planning for the long-term O O O O O O future *18. Table 6C: TOWN GOVERNMENT Please indicate which ONE of the items in the list below is MOST important to you: OActing with integrity OBalancing short-term needs with long-term issues OActing in a fiscally responsible manner OLiving within constraints of Proposition 2 1/2 OMaking information on decisions and actions easy to obtain (including acting in a fiscally transparent manner) OCapitalizing on the diversity of the Town's population OEncouraging citizen participation in Town affairs OParticipating in regional groups to share resource,services and ideas 0 Planning for the long-term future Lexington1 1 Vision Survey *19. Table 7A: TOWN SERVICES (Police, Fire, Public Works, Library, Human Services, Recreation, etc.) - Importance How important are each of the following items to you in preserving or improving Lexington? Extremely Very Somewhat Not very Not at all Ensuring public safety O O O O O (police,fire and emergency medical services) Maintaining roads and O O O O O sidewalks(including street cleaning,snow removal, pick-up of debris,timely repairs) Offering sports fields and O O O O O facilities for diverse activities, including recreation Providing comprehensive O O O O O library services Providing quality services O O O O O and facilities for senior citizens Delivering Town services in O O O O O a responsive and friendly manner Delivering Town services O O O O O cost-effectively Allocating adequate money O O O O O for Town services gcw 10 Lexington1 1 Vision Survey *20. Table 713: TOWN SERVICES (Police, Fire, Public Works, Library, Human Services, Recreation, etc.) - Current Performance How would you rate the current performance of the Town with regard to each of the following items? Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Don't Know Ensuring public safety O O O O O O (police,fire and emergency medical services) Maintaining roads and O O O O O O sidewalks(including street cleaning,snow removal, pick-up of debris,timely repairs) Offering sports fields and O O O O O O facilities for diverse activities, including recreation Providing comprehensive O O O O O O library services Providing quality services O O O O O O and facilities for senior citizens Delivering Town services in O O O O O O a responsive and friendly manner Delivering Town services O O O O O O cost-effectively Allocating adequate money O O O O O O for Town services *21. Table 7C: TOWN SERVICES (Police, Fire, Public Works, Library, Human Services, Recreation, etc.) Please indicate which ONE of the items in the list below is MOST important to you: OEnsuring public safety(police,fire and emergency medical services) OMaintaining roads and sidewalks(including street cleaning,snow removal, pick-up of debris,timely repairs) OOffering sports fields and facilities for diverse activities, including recreation OProviding comprehensive library services OProviding quality services and facilities for senior citizens ODelivering Town services in a responsive and friendly manner ODelivering Town services cost-effectively OAllocating adequate money for Town services agw TT Lexington1 1 Vision Survey 22. Are there issues, other than those we have identified, that you feel are important to consider when preserving or improving Lexington? If so, please indicate those in the space below: �k 23. As the Town plans for the future, it is necessary to balance the needs and interests of all citizens. In order to help us better do this, the following question asks you to rate each of the areas for planning identified above. Please allocate 100 points among the following items in terms of their importance to you. Please be sure that your total point allocation adds up to 100. (Each category must be allocated a whole number.) Providing for a diverse population(e.g., in housing,educational opportunities,meeting spaces) ------------------------------------------------------------- Enhancing economic development(e.g.,attracting businesses,tourism, vibrant downtown) ------------------------------------------------------------- Assuring educational excellence (e.g.,quality of public education, educational opportunities) Addressing environmental issues(e.g., preserving open space,energy consumption,sustainability) ------------------------------------------------------------- Safeguarding the physical character of the Town (e.g., neighborhoods, historic venues,traffic flow,parking) ------------------------------------------------------------- Insuring the quality of Town government functioning (e.g.,acting in a fiscally responsible manner, making Information easy to obtain) Delivering Town services(e.g.,public safety, responsiveness to citizens' needs) *24. Taking everything into account, on a scale from 1 to 10 (where 1 = not at all satisfied and 10 = extremely satisfied), how satisfied are you currently with Lexington as a place to live? (Please choose the response that best indicates your degree of satisfaction, by placing a check mark in the circle most appropriate for you.) 1: Not at all 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Extremely satisfied satisfied 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25. What potential changes that might occur in Lexington most concern you? (Please indicate your answer in the space below.) age 12 Lexington1 1 Vision Survey Upllll III u. IIIIIIIIII IIIIII I IIIIIIIIII IIIIIII IIIII III IIIIIII III IIIIIIII II�III IIIIIIII III�II IIIII IIIIII iiii IIII III����IIII011 II�IIII IIIIIIII PART TWO: The last few questions ask for background information about you. This information will not be used to identify individual respondents. It will be used in aggregated form to assess patterns of responses to the above questions. For each question, please either check the circle next to the appropriate answer for you or provide an answe when requested. *26. What is your sex? O Male OFemale *27. What is your age? OUnder18 O 18-24 O 25-34 O 35-44 O 45-54 O 55-59 O 60-64 O 65-69 O 70-74 O 75-79 O 80-84 O85 or older *28. What is your occupation? a e 13 Lexington1 1 Vision Survey *29. What is the highest level of education that you have completed? OLess than high school OHigh school degree or GED OSome college OCollege degree OMaster's degree OProfessional degree (e.g., medicine, law) O Ph.D. *30. With which of the following group do you most identify? OHispanic or Latino/a O White OBlack or African American OAmerican Indian or Alaska Native OAsian-Chinese OAsian-Asian Indian OAsian-Filipino OAsian-Japanese OAsian-Korean OAsian-Other ONative Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander OSome Other Race Multi-racial/ethinc(please specify): 31. In which precinct (number) do you reside? (If you don't know, please consult http:llwheredoivotema.com/bal/myelectioninfo.php) age w 14 Lexington1 1 Vision Survey *32. How long have you lived in Lexington? OLess than one year O1-5 years O6-10 years O1 1-20 years OMore than 20 years *33. What initially drew you to Lexington as a place to live? (Please check all that apply.) ❑ I grew up here. ❑ The schools ❑ The history ❑ Location ❑ Family ❑ Friends Other(please specify): *34. How likely is it that you will still be living in Lexington in the year 20209. OVery likely OSomewhat likely OSomewhat unlikely OVery unlikely ODon't know *35. What is the number of people living in your household at the current time? OOne, I live alone. O Two OThree or more *36. How many children aged 18 or younger live in your household? O None O One O Two OThree or more "'a g e 15 Lexington1 1 Vision Survey *37. What is the approximate value of your residence? O1 am a renter. OLess than$400,000 OBetween$400,000 and$550,000 OBetween$551,000 and$650,000 OBetween$651,000 and$750,000 OBetween$751,000 and$850,000 OBetween$851,000 and$950,000 OBetween$951,000 and$1,500,000 OBetween$1,501,000 and$2,500,000 OMore than$2,501,000 ODon't know 38. Please select from one of the income categories below to indicate your annual household income for 2011. OLess than$30,000 O $30,000 to$50,000 O $51,000 to$75,000 O $76,000to$100,000 O $101,000to$150,000 O $151,000to$200,000 O $201,000to$300,000 O $301,000to$500,000 OMore than$500,000 *39. Are you a registered voter? OYes(If you are a registered voter, please respond to question#40.) ONo (If you are not a registered voter,please skip to question#41.) 40. If you answered "Yes," did you vote in the last municipal election in March 2012? O Yes O No a e 1(3 Lexington1 1 Vision Survey *41. For each of the following, please indicate whether you and/or a member of your family has participated in the activity during this past year. You A family member Participated in a ❑ ❑ Recreation Department class,camp or trip Utilized ball fields or ❑ ❑ playgrounds Used community walking ❑ ❑ trails or bike trails Taken a Community ❑ ❑ Education class Attended a program at the ❑ ❑ library Checked out any materials ❑ ❑ (books, DVDs,etc.)from the library Used the Senior Center ❑ ❑ (e.g.,taken a class,eaten a meal) Ridden on Lexpress ❑ ❑ Received assistance from ❑ ❑ the Police or Fire Departments Received assistance from ❑ ❑ Human Services Lexington1 1 Vision Survey *42. This question asks about your participation in community activities. For each type of activity, please indicate (by checking the circle next to the appropriate response for you) whether you currently participate in the activity, used to participate in the activity, or never participated in the activity. Currently participate Used to participate Never participated Lexington Town Meeting O O O member Town of Lexington O O O committee or board member(e.g., Planning Board,Council on Aging, 2020 Committee) Lexington community O O O activity volunteer(e.g., Little League, Lexington Youth Soccer, League of Women Voters,Garden Club, Lexington Education Foundation, Historical Society,Cary Library volunteer) Lexington schools O O O volunteer(e.g., PTA, LexFun, room parent) Religious institution O O O volunteer Other(please specify): 43. Is there anything else about preserving or improving Lexington that you wish to add? 44. Thank you very much for your time and your thoughtful responses. A report based on the findings of this survey will be posted on the Town of Lexington website at http://www.lexingtonma.gov. If you would like a copy of the report sent to you directly, please provide your name and E-mail address below: Name: E-mail address: a e 18 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approve Proposed FY2017 Water and Wastewater Rates (15 min) PRESENTER: ITEM NUMBER: Rob Addelson,Assistant Town Manager for Finance 1.2 SUMMARY: This is the third of three meetings on proposed water/wastewater rates for FY2017. At the first meeting held on September 12, 2016, the Board reviewed the results of FY2016 water and wastewater operations;billed usage and retained earnings histories; the FY2017 water and wastewater budgets as adopted at the 2016 annual town meeting (direct and indirect costs that serve as the basis for calculating FY2017 water and wastewater rates), and proposed changes to the budgets adopted last spring; and, preliminary FY2017 water and wastewater rates. At the second meeting, held on September 26, 2016, staff presented revisions to the preliminary FY17 rates presented on September 12th and the Board took public comment on proposed Water/Wastewater rates for FY2017. Tonight's meeting is for the purpose of setting FY2017 water/wastewater rates. Three options for rate setting are proposed for the Board's consideration. They are described in the attached memo from the Assistant Town Manager for Finance to the Town Manager dated October 11, 2016. SUGGESTED MOTION: Move that the Board approve proposed FY17 water and wastewater rates shown as Option--- on the memorandum, Proposed FY17 Water and Wastewater Rates — Options for consideration by the Board of Selectmen, from the Assistant Town Manager of Finance to the Town Manager dated October 11, 2016. FOLLOW-UP: Selectmen's office to send final vote to Town Manager, Treasurer/Collector, Comptroller and Water/Sewer Department. Water/Sewer Department to implement new rates for FY17. DATE AND APPROXIMATE TIME ON AGENDA: 10/13/2016 7:20 p.m. ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Mla;nnu,tzr C'zrvvnr MI�:m.�gTMa;m �mzr�rv,�,a;�fl�'`�l�'I lrV�tarm�:nr�fl VVV�wtawv�ta;m Q$t a:,�;.. D C"over Mom) Q')tion s by the R ud z Sar7arCuM:Al. To: Carl Valente,Town Manager From: Rob Addelson, Assistant Town Manager for Finance Date: October 11, 2016 Subject: Proposed FY17 Water and Wastewater Rates—Options for consideration by the Board of Selectmen Subsequent to the meeting of the Board of Selectmen on September 26, 2016 when FY17 water and wastewater rates were proposed, meter readings for the Fall 2016 billing of Section 1 were completed (the Town is read in 3 sections each spring and fall). The rates proposed on September 26, 2016 included an estimate of irrigation usage for the full fiscal year of 370,000 HCF. The Section 1 readings show that irrigation usage for Fall 2016 is 132%higher than last year's Fall 2015 Section 1 usage, which is no surprise given the drought conditions of this summer. If that same increase is applied to the Fall 2015 usage for Sections 2 and 3, by extrapolation it is estimated that actual irrigation usage for FY17 could be 488,000 HCF. Consequently,there is an opportunity to revise estimated FY17 irrigation usage to an amount in excess of the 370,000 proposed on September 261n. Given the above, I would suggest three options for the Board's consideration. Option 1 is the same rate proposal presented to the Board on September 261h, which shows a combined increase for water and wastewater charges of 2.8%based on, among other things, estimated irrigation usage of 370,000 HCF. Under this option,the difference between estimated FY17 irrigation usage and anticipated actual FY17 irrigation usage of 488,000 HCF (see above)would be 118,000 HCF which would, all other things being equal, result in excess retained earnings as of 7/1/17 attributable to excess irrigation usage of$878,000. This amount would be available for appropriation for cash capital at the 2018 annual town meeting. Option 2 is also the same rate proposal presented to the Board on September 261h, but with a direction to staff to accelerate use of projected 7/1/17 retained earnings attributable to excess irrigation usage at the 2017 annual town meeting for cash capital. This would be accomplished by drawing down the estimated 7/1/16 certification of retained earnings of$1,800,000 to as low as$200,000 in anticipation of it being replenished when certified on 7/1/17 to approximately$1 million—the unused annual balance we try to maintain as a reserve fund—with the surplus we estimate would be generated from anticipated irrigation usage over and above FY17 estimate used in the rate making model. The advantage of Option 1 or Option 2 is that the use of retained earnings for cash capital avoids incurring issuance costs and interest expense associated with debt financing and effectively spreads the impact of the excess irrigation revenue over multiple years. Option 3 revises estimated irrigation usage for rate making purposes to 430,000 HCF, which results in a combined increase for water and wastewater charges of 1.1%. (While projected FY17 irrigation usage could go as high as 488,000 HCF based on the extrapolation of Fall 2016 Section 1 results (see above), I would recommend 430,000 HCF as a more prudent estimate.) If Option 3 is approved, 50 percent of the excess retained earnings that would result under Options 1 or 2 would be foregone in order to mitigate increases in FY17 rates. Additional retained earnings as of 7/1/17 attributable to excess FY17 irrigation usage would be approximately$411,000 and would be available for cash capital financing at the 2018 annual town meeting. The disadvantage of this approach is that estimated irrigation usage in FY18 may be lower than 430,000 HCF, assuming drought conditions do not continue, and could result in a significant rate increase in FY18. OPTIONS - PROPOSED FY2017 RATES OPTION 1: AS PROPOSED AT SEPTEMBER 26, 2016 BOS MEETING WITH IRRIGATION USAGE ESTIMATED AT 370,000 HCF (Use of projected excess retained earnings at 2018 ATM) Combined Increase for Residential/ Proposed FY16 Proposed FY17 the average Commercial/ FY17 Water Wastewater Wastewater user of 120 Industrial FY16 Water Rates Rates %Change Rates Rates %Change HCF/year. Tier 1 $3.58 $3.76 4.9% $6.73 $6.84 1.7% Tier 2 $5.38 $5.64 4.9% $10.99 $11.17 1.7% 2.8% Tier 3 $7.09 $7.44 4.9% $17.46 $17.76 1.7% irrigation $7.09 $7.44 4.9% NA NA 0.00/0 municipal $2.61 $2.60 -0.4% $3.02 $3.11 3.0% HanscornLincoln $5.28 $5.54 4.9% NA NA NA Labs VA Hospital $6.31 $6.62 4.9% NA NA NA Bedford-vvater $2.64 $2.63 -0.4% NA NA NA Proposed Use Additional @ 2017 ATM Proposed Use 7/1117 RE from for FY18 @ 2017 ATM for FY17 Excess Projected as of Appropriation Operating FY18 Water Irrigation 7/1116 @ 9/21116 STM Budget Capital Balance Usage Use of Water Retained Earnings(RE) $1,800,000 $221,500 $73,000 $ 505,500 $1,000,000 $878,000 OPTION 2:AS PROPOSED AT SEPTEMBER 26,2016 BOS MEETING WITH IRRIGATION USAGE ESTIMATED AT 370,000 HCF (Accelerated use of projected excess retained earnings at 2017 ATM) Combined Increase for the average user of 120 HCF/year. Tier 1 $3.58 $3.76 $0.05 $6.73 $6.84 1.7% Tier 2 $5.38 $5.64 $0.05 $10.99 $11.17 1.7% 2.8% Tier 3 $7.09 $7.44 $0.05 $17.46 $17.76 1.7% 0 irrigation $7.09 $7.44 $0.05 NA NA 0.00/0 municipal $2.61 $2.60 ($r;;;.oq $3.02 $3.11 3.0% HanscornLincoln $5.28 $5.54 $0.05 NA NA NA Labs VA Hospital $6.31 $6.62 $0.05 NA NA NA Bedford-vvater $2.64 $2.63 ($r;;;.oq NA NA NA Proposed Use Additional @ 2017 ATM Proposed Use 7/1117 RE from for FY18 @ 2017 ATM for FY17 Excess Projected as of Appropriation Operating FY18 Water Irrigation 7/1116 @ 9/21116 STM Budget Capital Balance Usage Use of Water Retained Earnings $1,800,000 $221,500 $73,000 $ 1,305,500 $ZOO,ODO $878,000 OPTION 3:REVISION TO RATES AS PROPOSED AT SEPTEMBER 26,2016 BOS MEETING BY INCREASING IRRIGATION USAGE TO 430,000 HCF Combined Increase for Residential/ Proposed FY16 Proposed FY17 the average Commercial/ FY17 Water Wastewater Wastewater user of 120 Industrial FY16 Water Rates Rates %Change Rates Rates %Change HCF/year. Tier 1 $3.58 $3.58 00/0 $6.73 $6.84 1.7% Tier 2 $5.38 $5.38 00/0 $10.99 $11.17 1.7% 1.1% Tier 3 $7.09 $7.09 00/0 $17.46 $17.76 1.7% irrigation $7.09 $7.09 00/0 NA NA 0.00/0 municipal $2.61 $2.60 -0.4% $3.02 $3.11 3.0% HanscornLincoln $5.28 $5.28 00/0 NA NA NA Labs VA Hospital $6.31 $6.31 00/0 NA NA NA Bedford-vvater $2.64 $2.63 -0.4% NA NA NA Proposed Use Additional @ 2017 ATM Proposed Use 7/1117 RE from for FY18 @ 2017 ATM for FY17 Excess Projected as of Appropriation Operating FY18 Water Irrigation 7/1116 @ 9/21116 STM Budget Capital Balance Usage Use of Water Retained Earnings $1,800,000 $221,500 $73,000 $ 505,500 $1,ODO,ODO $411,000 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Staff Comments - Center Streetscape Design Review Ad Hoc Committee, Tier 1 Report (30 min) PRESENTER: ITEM NUMBER: David Pinsonneault, DPW Director; John Livsey, Town Engineer 1.3 SUMMARY: No vote is required for this agenda item. Attached are staff comments regarding the Tier 1 Report of the Center Streetscape Design Review Ad Hoc Committee. SUGGESTED MOTION: None at this time. Should the Board wish to proceed with this project at the 2017 Annual Town Meeting, staff will prepare revised cost estimates based on the Board's selected design scope and materials. FOLLOW-UP: Committee to complete Tier 2 and 3 reports. DATE AND APPROXIMATE TIME ON AGENDA: 10/13/2016 7:35 p.m. ATTACHMENTS: Description Type D Sta C onnnrrm nits ta, t'iorr II Roporrt Backup Matorrinl D C onrta rr strra.ra.rt,a',ape Lx ignr Roview C'a,numaitta e Tier 11 Roporrt Backup Matorrinl VS MOq 1775 N��c p x p Town of Lexington Town Manager's Office APRIL79'" l FXINC, Carl F.Valente,Town Manager Tel: (781) 698-4540 Linda Crew Vine, Deputy Town Manager Fax: (781) 861-2921 Staff Comments SEPTEMBER 26, 2016 TIER 1 REPORT CENTER STREETSCAPE DESIGN REVIEW AD HOC COMMITTEE Overview Response to the Report: Staff found that most of the comments and recommendations in the Tier 1 Report are consistent with the plans developed to date (25 percent design), as prepared by BETA, the Town's consultant on this project. The report addresses both safety and aesthetics of the Center Streetscape project. The Department of Public Works (DPW) should have flexibility in the design standards so that aesthetic recommendations in the Report do not outweigh safety considerations recommended or to be recommended by the DPW and BETA. The Reports includes a number of recommendations regarding how this project should be bid/procured, the contract design and construction contract administration. While we understand that the intent of these comments are to be helpful to the DPW, we believe these recommendations are outside the scope of the Committee's charge and are rightly under the jurisdiction of the DPW administration, which is responsible for the implementation of the project. Staff has not directed BETA to estimate the cost of the recommendations in this Tier 1 report. We recommend that revised construction estimates and life cycle costs be developed after the Tier 1 through 3 reports are completed. In addition, certain aspects of the design recommendations, for example the location of lighting fixtures and types, cannot be priced until further design is completed. Specifics Responses to the Report: 1. Page 4— Sidewalks, paragraph 1: `After careful discussion and deliberation, the majority of the Committee chose the sidewalk material to be wire-cut brick, with the stipulation that it needs to be precisely installed and meticulously maintained.' Staff response: The terms `precisely installed' and `meticulously maintained' are generally not included when developing bid specifications. The sidewalk, regardless of the material chosen, will be installed consistent with the specifications developed for the project. Further, a maintenance protocol will be developed and adhered to, subject to sufficient staffing/resources. (emphasis added) 1625 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE•LEXINGTON,MASSACHUSETTS 02420 2. Page 5— paragraph continuing at the top of page: The report states that `cement is an inferior sidewalk material, especially in a heavily salted environment.' Staff response: We do not believe this is a factual statement. Salt tolerant concrete is common and resists salt. An example is the public sidewalk by the Cary Library at Massachusetts Avenue and Clarke Street. This sidewalk is heavily salted due to its proximity to Massachusetts Avenue. It is approximately 10 years old and has stood the test of time. 3. Pages 5—Recommendation Summary, Part lc: `Setting bed shall be an aggregate base...a bituminous concrete binder course...' Staff response: Because of the number of obstructions in the sidewalk on the north side of Massachusetts Avenue, more engineering analysis will need to be undertaken to determine the appropriate setting bed. While a bituminous concrete binder may be possible, this material will not likely be able to be machine installed in many locations due to the obstructions. This also limits the proper compaction and may affect the precision of the grading. We recommend that the subsurface material selection remain flexible with either bituminous concrete or cement concrete as options. This will allow a design to be chosen that is appropriate for the site conditions. 4. Page 5—Recommendation Summary, Part 1f: `Bricks will be laid in a herringbone pattern...' Staff response: Should the Board of Selectmen adopt the recommendation for a brick sidewalk material, staff recommends that a `soldier course' of brick be provided for improved installation and aesthetics. 5. Page 5—Recommendation Summary, Part 1i: `Minimize tree root disruption...' Staff response: Staff recommends the use of structural soil in tree wells. 6. Page 6—Recommendation Summary, Part 1k: The report recommends adopting a similar installation method as found in Exhibit A, the City of Cambridge brick sidewalk detail. Staff response: Staff recommends the use of the Town's installation detail rather than Cambridge's. Exhibit A includes a tack coat on top of a sand course, which is not possible or appropriate, should a brick sidewalk be chosen by the Board of Selectmen. 7. Page 6—Recommendation Summary, Part 1n: `Sidewalk smoothness will be evaluated to the extent possible using the newly developed "Wheelchair Pathway Roughness Index"....' Staff response: While staff agrees in concept with this recommendation, we continue to believe it is too early to implement in practice for reasons including: • This index has not been adopted and published. It is in review by the American Society for Testing and Materials International (ASTM), so it is not possible to comment on the appropriateness of this Index. • If the Roughness Index is finalized by ASTM it will be a new standard. Contractors will not be familiar with it, so it will be difficult for them to price. • If this standard is adopted in any fashion, contractors will have little experience with it and may be reluctant to be held to this standard without an upcharge. 8. Page 6—Recommendation Summary, Part 2c: `The outer j oints of the ramp shall be a dark brick....' Staff response: The warning panel and brick need to be of an appropriate contrast to meet the ADA standard. 9. Page 6—Recommendation Summary, Part 2e: `The tactile warning strip shall be a cast iron.' Page 12 Staff response: This is a design/aesthetic feature for which the staff has no preference. The Selectmen should consider, however, the additional cost of this material and that cast iron will result in some rust bleed-through to the adjacent material. Additionally, tactile warning strips are best installed in a bed of concrete. Staff is currently speaking with manufacturers on the viability of installing these strips directly on brick. It may be likely that a bed of concrete will be needed at each ramp that is exposed to the surface, and is slightly larger than the detectible warning panel for a proper and lasting installation. 10. Page 6—Recommendation Summary, Part 2f: `All of the existing ramps need to be replaced....' Staff response: The staff would recommend replacement of existing ramps only if the adjacent sidewalk is replaced as well. For example, if the south side sidewalk is not replaced, staff would not recommend replacement of the adjacent ramps, as the matching of the sidewalk and the ramp will be difficult and unnecessarily costly. 11. Page 6—Recommendation Summary, Part 3a: `Town shall establish a Project Oversight Committee..." Staff response: It is not clear whether this implementation recommendation is within the Committee's charge from the Selectmen. Regardless, the oversight of this project should be within the purview of the Engineering Department rather than a committee. 12. Page 7—Recommendation Summary, Part 3c: `The proj ect should be bid as a construction or renovation project, and not as a highway project using Department of Transportation forms and procedures.' Staff Response: This proj ect will be bid as a construction project with the MassDOT `Blue Book' as the base document. This format gets supplemented with specifications specific to the Town and project. This is how most municipal horizontal construction projects are bid for Chapter 30 section 39M type work. While not required under procurement law, this is the format contractors are familiar and comfortable for this type of work. Variance from this method of bidding will likely result in specifications being missed. Staff strongly urges against this direction. 13. Page 7—Recommendation Summary, Part 3e: `The bid documents shall require the installing contractor build a mockup of greater than 8'x8' with full construction section for the sidewalk plus a handicap curb ramp.' Staff Response: Staff agrees with this recommendation but has not yet determined the appropriate size of the mockup. 14. Page 7—Recommendation Summary, Part a): `Curb replacement needs to be considered.' Staff response: While not opposed to this recommendation, the Selectmen should be aware of the cost of new granite curbing and installation will be about double the cost of reusing existing granite curbing and installation (resetting). Further, the existing curbing may have more of the `aged' look that is appropriate for the Center. 15. Page 7—Recommendation Summary, Part 4c): `The Committee advocates that we fully understand and learn from the deficiencies in the Waltham to Muzzey sidewalk project and avoid repeating those mistakes.' Staff response: We do not believe this statement and the related footnote reflects the in-field situation. Staff toured the south sidewalk with Committee member Jon Himmel and found that the sidewalk is in substantial compliance with the ADA and is not"near failure" as suggested in the report. Page13 16. Page 7—Recommendation Summary, Part 4d): 'I)Life cycle costs ... need to be considered.' `2) Our research made clear that proper installation will minimize maintenance costs...' Staff response: 1) Once the Selectmen make an initial decision on preferred materials for this project, staff will direct BETA to develop life cycle costs for the project so that the Selectmen can make an informed final decision. 2)It would be helpful if the Committee would share the referred research. 17. Page 9—Lighting, paragraph 2: `The Ad hoc Committee recommends that the consultant team including a Lighting Designer." Staff response: Lighting designers are part of BETA's design team; Ripman and Speclines. 18. Page 9—Lighting Design Performance Standards, la): `Meet IESNA standards...The standards include specific illumination requirements...' Staff response: It is appropriate to use illumination and lumination standards (perhaps this is what the Committee meant). Lumination is the reflected light that you see, whereas illuminance is the light that lands on a surface. The IES standards recommend `luminance for straight roadways and streets; horizontal and vertical illuminance is the selected method for pedestrian areas; and horizontal illuminance is used for intersections and interchanges.' Staff recommend that the IES RP-8-14 be used as well as including the recommendation quoted above. 19. Page 9—Lighting Design Performance Standards, ld): `Use LED bulbs...' Staff response: Staff and BETA are still researching the best bulb type technology. This document prepared by DPW Director David Pinsonneault, Town Engineer John Livsey and Town Manager Carl Valente. Presented to Board of Selectmen, October 13, 201 Page 14 �,jS HPR,ryr�,a x o gin. ry. 'C�E'dNGTQ�. TIER 1 REPORT OF THE CENTER STREETSCAPE DESIGN REVIEW AD HOC COMMITTEE to the LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN SEPTEMBER 26, 2016 Members o Victoria C. Buckley, Commission on Disability o Nancy Corcoran-Ronchetti, Planning Board o Anne Laurin Eccles, Historic Districts Commission o Margaret S. Enders, Bicycle Advisory o John W. Frey, Tree Committee o Jonathan A. Himmel, Tourism Committee o Wendall C. Kalsow, Historical Commission o Timothy D. Lee, Design Advisory Committee o Pamela F. Shadley, Center Committee o Howard L. Levin, Chair Liaisons: o Elaine Doran, Garden Club o Wendy Manz, Capital Expenditures o Glenn Parker, Appropriations o Eric J. Michelson, Retailers Association o F. David Wells, Historical Society o Ada Wong, Chamber of Commerce FOREWORD Following several years of discussion and meetings concerning the proposed renovation and revitalization of Lexington Center (the "Center Streetscape Project"), in April 2016 the Board of Selectmen adopted an Amended Charge establishing a Center Streetscape Design Review Ad Hoc Committee. Over the following weeks, the Board finalized the appointment of members and liaisons to the Committee, and the Committee began work in June. The Charge states as its central objective "To evaluate and make a recommendation on the various design elements (excluding engineering items related to traffic) for the Center Streetscape Project." The Charge divides the work into three separate tiers, with target delivery dates of September 15, November 1, and December 15, 2016. This is the Tier 1 Report to the Board, covering sidewalk materials and installation, and lighting styles. The Ad Hoc Committee undertook a detailed examination of the history of the Center, the advantages and disadvantages of available sidewalk materials and designs, lighting and illumination styles and techniques, conducted research, and hosted expert presentations from consultants, authorities and community members. The process included: • Seven Full Committee Meetings • Subcommittee and Workgroup Meetings • Research into Sidewalk Materials and Lighting Expert Presentations: • Town Engineer, BETA Group, Design Process • Characteristics of Brick and Concrete Materials • Tom Hopkins, Director, Massachusetts Architectural Access Board • Commission on Disability • History and Vision of the Center/Sasaki Report 1966 • Illumination ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... CENTER STREETSCAPE DESIGN AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT Page 2 The Committee's report was prepared with input from all of the Committee Members and Liaisons, and members of the general public who attended and contributed to its many meetings. The Committee is pleased to present to the Board its Tier 1 Report on the following pages. Also attached is the "Minority Report" submitted by the Commission on Disability. The full report was adopted by a vote of 9-0, including a minority report submitted on behalf of the Commission on Disability. Respectfully submitted, Howard L. Levin, Chair September 26, 2016 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... CENTER STREETSCAPE DESIGN AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT Page 3 SIDEWALKS The Lexington Center Streetscape Project sidewalk `scope' runs along Massachusetts Avenue from the Cary Library to the intersection of Fletcher, Woburn, and Mass Ave'. 2 The Center Streetscape Design Review Adul,�l � Hoc Committee is specifically tasked with a vision that calls for"providing an inclusive vibrant, welcoming environment ... enhancing and preserving the Center's historic resources ",.. addressing much needed maintenance," and providing safe and comfortable access. As � can be seen in the adjacent photograph, the inclusive, vibrant welcoming environment and the "Center's historic resources" predominantly consists of the brick sidewalk, the brick"gathering areas" flanked by benches, and the colonnade of trees. SIDEWALKS: After careful discussion and deliberation, the majority of the Committee chose the sidewalk material to be wire-cut brick, with the stipulation that it needs to be precisely installed and meticulously maintained. Sidewalks must meet the ADA guidelines as adopted by the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board and Public Rights of Way Accessibility Guidelines. There are concerns about vibration with segmented pavers, yet this health hazard can be minimized with specific design considerations.3 It is the Committee's conclusion that brick is the appropriate functional choice, aesthetic choice, and most responsive to the Project Vision. We further see the project as a thoughtful restoration. The majority of the Committee is mindful of the reservations expressed by the Commission on Disability and others, and their stated preference for a solution that includes cement concrete walkways. After careful study and deliberation, an 8-1 majority of the Committee concluded 1 There are approximately 3900 lineal feet and 61,300 square feet of sidewalk on both sides of Massachusetts Avenue within the project scope. Approximately two thirds of the existing sidewalk areas are brick and the remaining one third are concrete. It is recommended that all of the noncompliant brick and failing concrete be replaced. 2 Although Massachusetts Avenue is a numbered route,the project does not fall within MassDOT jurisdiction and therefore the Town does not have to necessarily follow those standards. 3 Regarding sidewalk vibration aka"roughness:"The US Access Board retained the University of Pittsburgh Human Engineering Department to develop"a standard that will make sidewalks safer and more comfortable for wheelchair users.The proposed standard(WK41917), ... describes a method to collect and analyze data from a sidewalk to determine its roughness."It has been demonstrated that"Roughness can make sidewalks uncomfortable and risky for wheelchair users and others such as parents pushing strollers,postal carriers pushing three-wheeled carts,and people using wheeled walkers." "Roughness"concerns are expected to soon become law and will likely be referenced in guidelines for the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA). ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... CENTER STREETSCAPE DESIGN AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT Page 4 that cement is an inferior sidewalk material, especially in a heavily salted environment', for reasons of durability, difficulty of repair, vibration characteristics, appearance, and life cycle cost. Further, a mix of cement with brick borders would be especially susceptible to tripping hazards, wheelchair discomfort, ongoing ADA compliance, and other shortcomings arising out of use of dissimilar materials in conjunction with each other, caused in part by differential settlement, expansion and contraction, especially in locales subject to freeze-thaw cycles. 5 RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY 1) SIDEWALK PAVEMENT a) Wire cut, square edge clay brick paver with no spacers, full 4"x 8." No chamfer. b) Color shall have a range from red to dark brown, no orange.6 c) Setting bed shall be an aggregate base compacted to a minimum of 95% density, a bituminous concrete binder course base with a depth from 3"to 4" (thicker where vehicles might have access or as warranted by the snow removal equipment), a V' bituminous concrete leveling course, and modified asphalt adhesive beneath the pavers all of which retard movement and uplift. A cementitious concrete base be should be considered as an additive alternate given the number of interruptions and the width of the sidewalk particularly on the North side of Massachusetts Avenue, or within the base scope in certain locations that require extra base strength. d) Pavers shall be set according to industry standards, including restraints (building, curb, metal edge, etc.) at all paver area edges. e) Joints shall be hand-tight, in the 1/16"but not more than 3/32"range, and be swept with a sand/concrete sand mixture such that the pavers avoid direct contact with one another to minimize breakage. f) Bricks will be laid in a herringbone pattern so that no joint is perpendicular to the main path of travel thus minimizing vibration. This pattern was determined by the University of Pittsburgh to be superior, from a vibration standpoint, to cement concrete sidewalks with their required panel joints. g) Pitch sidewalk adequately to provide necessary drainage, while maintaining compliance with accessibility requirements. h) Install drainage weep holes below the brick as necessary i) Minimize tree root disruption by appropriate selection of plants, root control and maintenance—possibly installing root barriers which force the roots to "grow down" j) All transitions between other elements contained in the sidewalk zone shall have special attention in detailing, installation, and long-term maintenance to minimize differential 4 It was stated that cement theoretically can be made more salt tolerant with special coatings and treatments. However,no information was presented on the long term effectiveness of such special treatments. s Carl C. Oldenburg,AIA,September 15,2016: "This can be readily observed in Lexington,particularly on the south side of Mass Avenue,where the worst cases of changes in level seem to occur where different materials meet. It can also be observed at the new sidewalks at 3rd Avenue in Burlington...,which I understand was designed by the Beta Group and is similar to what their proposal is for Lexington Center. Here we can see significant offsets in relatively brand-new construction where brick meets concrete... [L]ogically a designer would minimize the instances of changes in materials." 6 Visual disabilities,often related to complex neurological issues,can cause sensory noise and problems with depth perception. While no sidewalk material can address all such disabilities,a limited palate of brick colors can provide important visual cues and depth,while limiting senso7 noise. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... CENTER STREETSCAPE DESIGN AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT Page 5 settlement etc. —this includes but is not limited to tree grates, utility access points, edge restraining strips, and the like. k) The specifications shall include brick similar to the list of materials and installation method described on Exhibit A. 1) Consideration should be given to special borders where the sidewalk meets building facades, in order to ensure smooth transitions into store entrances and visible edges to the sidewalk. m) Final design and installation must conform to the most stringent, government approved accessibility standards, including AAB & ADA. Brick Institute Tech Notes should be used as a guide. n) Sidewalk smoothness will be evaluated to the extent possible using the newly developed "Wheelchair Pathway Roughness Index"from University of Pittsburgh research, which enables objective evaluation of sidewalks and pedestrian pathways to quantify roughness. This standard is currently awaiting adoption by the U.S. Access Board and/or other federal, state and private agencies/organizations to address the accessibility of sidewalk surfaces. 2) HANDICAP CURB RAMPS a) Curb ramp configurations and slopes shall meet the requirements of ADA and AAB. b) The Handicap central ramp aka direct path of travel shall be a brick similar to that above, except that the color shall be lighter for contrast. The triangular wings formed between the main sidewalk sections and the central ramp shall be made of the same brick as in section 1. c) The outer joints of the ramp shall be a dark brick or other appropriate material to define the transition between the horizontal sidewalk and the sloped Handicap Curb Ramp. Use of a dark brick border is intended as a visual contrast signaling a change of grade. d) Installation method shall be as described above. e) The tactile warning strip shall be of cast iron. f) All of the existing ramps need to be replaced with these materials and in the locations in the final plans. 3) OVERSIGHT a. Town shall establish a Project Oversight Committee to work though the DPW with the designer during final design, and the contractor during construction. The selection of designer should emphasize the importance of providing leadership to implement the project in a manner that is consistent with the recommendations and intents of this report. These recommendations are important to maintain continuity and quality control on the decisions, submittals and final construction. The Project Oversight Committee shall include representatives from town committees with appropriate design and construction experience; it would have oversight but not day to day involvement. This citizen group could also assist with continued project outreach and public relations. b. The Ad Hoc Committee strongly believes that the Center Streetscape project will require more critical,professional oversight during the design, bidding, construction, and closeout process than the "standard practice" devoted to Lexington horizontal (roadway) ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... CENTER STREETSCAPE DESIGN AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT Page 6 construction projects. The Committee recommends that the DPW retain an independent cost estimator, and that during construction there be a full time, dedicated Owner's Project Manager. c. The project should be bid as a construction or renovation project, and not as a highway project using Department of Transportation forms and procedures. d. Specifications shall require the contractor to provide a HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE route of travel for pedestrians during construction. e. The bid documents shall require that the installing contractor build a mockup of greater than 8'x8'with full construction section for the sidewalk plus a handicap curb ramp. Approved mockup shall be matched in all subsequent work and can become a permanent portion of the installation. f. The Town should implement a web based, smart phone, community feedback system that "captures locations and pictures of sidewalks defects that you pass by every day" and transmits it to the DPW for evaluation and correction. PeopleGIS and PathVu are systems that currently exist. g. The DPW should develop a definitive site inspection and maintenance protocol, including annual inspections after construction is complete. 4) Notes: a. Curb replacement needs to be considered. We understand that reusing existing curb is a cost savings, however the combination of new and existing curb may not work well, and since brick pavers are to extend to the street curb, the back of the curb will need to be sawn to receive the pavers. b. An adequate budget line item specifically for Center sidewalk maintenance should be included in the town's future annual budget. The budgeted amount should be determined based on the requirements of the inspection and maintenance protocol referred to above. c. The Committee advocates that we fully understand and learn from the deficiencies in the Waltham to Muzzey sidewalk project and avoid repeating those mistakes.7 d. Life Cycle Costs (First Cost and Subsequent Costs)need to be considered. Our research made clear that proper installation will minimize maintenance costs,potentially reducing them below the cost of maintaining other materials. While the Committee advocates the continued use of brick,it is mindful of the criticism expressed about the 2007 brick sidewalk installation on the South side of Mass Ave between Waltham and Muzzey Streets. The critics indicate that the installed brick was not the approved brick,that the slopes are off,that bricks are broken,that the installation is perhaps not ADA compliant,that there are puddles that suggest that the base is settling,and that existing sections of the sidewalk are nearing failure... The Committee recommends each of these criticisms be investigated&repaired where a ro riate durin the Fall of 2016. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... CENTER STREETSCAPE DESIGN AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT Page 7 EXHIBIT A General Specifications The following detail is the standard being used by the City of Cambridge, and is recommended for use in Lexington by the Ad Hoc Committee. STRINGER COURSE— AFIRE CUT BRICK 1.4 IHIT)IUIN1)UI< U'N(',RETE �C N A7Ef" 1 a 1�'q�"') HInAI�EN C:(A)R sE dERI-IC`AL GRANITE C URr 3 G (SEE VERFIIC:AL GRANITE �0 k ('3/4 SAND k 1,5 HIGH IRON EI`74:E C'URD DETAIL) 'y ".'LITINC, BED AND 10" SPIKES S t ,,,----- NEOPRENE 14d01DIFIED PAWEIWENT PER ASPHALT TACK (,'CJAT SORFACINCa .•rr _ .ASPHALT TACK COAT VA RI E UNDISTURBED EARl1"I —3" Cr7lvlF'ACTEI:Y �As C;d`11VI"AC;TED A'F''JEL 'a�IW3 Fw;E ",;U�-GRAOE C;La .y A C`7 eNM'Ia,'ETE w.. `", 1HUTT JOINT „WEEP W ((SEE VEF!1fCAL 1 GIRANITE C;UrIR3 DRY "-,AJNI',/CEMEINT MIX D ETAI L j SECTION -A NOTES:. 1. SIDEWALK , SHALL h,IAT:)H 'WVIIOTH ANIF 571-Cl'E OF FXIS,TIN,;, 1.INLE'S:C OTHEI",'WI xE NOTE0. 2, BIT.aMINOUS CDNCFETE BINDER COURSE SHALL BE r DEPTH (IIN TWO 3'- COURSES) AT DRIVEWAYS. HEFEIR 41 I"IPC)JECT DRAWIIN5S OR ENCCINEEh'„r INaTROCTICFNS P")IH Lr„'1CATION.", 3, FOR I1413F"IWAL BIRTCK L"S"rOUT PATTERN, SEE DETAIL .2524.8 BRICX 511DE'W"WALK(DETAIL-SECTIIOINI 0�aaaiq CITY OF t,;:AIMDRIDc'E STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND DETAILS SCALE? NI.T.S. 11AT2 1E: 9�ST1��]k� IIEC. SECT10N REF#: E}221D1 252'�_ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... CENTER STREETSCAPE DESIGN AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT Page 8 LIGHTING High quality lighting, designed to appropriate illumination levels, is one of the most important safety improvements for dusk, dawn and nighttime hours. In addition, street and site lights play an important role during daylight hours, as they are often the tallest elements on the street, and contribute to the character of the environment. The Ad Hoc Committee recommends that the consultant team include a Lighting Designer. We believe that the overall lighting plan and the more intimate pedestrian areas will improve with a specific focus on lighting design. The designer should not only look at illumination levels but also the placement of the different types of lighting, and the consideration of moonlighting, uplighting and holiday lighting to create a vibrant, attractive and interesting center. In addition, the designer should incorporate in the final design enhancement to the safety of cyclists using the roads and cross-walks. The Committee expects that the lighting designer will develop alternatives based on these guidelines for further discussion and evaluation. The Committee has been asked to provide a recommendation on the style of the site lights. The designers are responsible for the final locations, layout, distribution type and electrical connections and controls. Below are the Committee's recommendations for the final lighting design including performance standards for and expectations of the site lighting design. 1) LIGHTING DESIGN PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The final site lighting, electrical, and control plan should: a) Meet IESNA standards for the level of use of our Center. The standards include specific illumination requirements, including "average maintained footcandles" and "average to minimum uniformity ratio". The lighting design should be evaluated and revised as often as necessary to meet the standards. b) Evaluate specific illumination levels needed at crosswalks, and correctly illuminate pedestrians. Consider bicyclists relative to illumination levels. c) Use street lights to illuminate the vehicular areas, and use pedestrian scale lights to illuminate pedestrian areas, for safety and to contribute to ambiance and character. d) Use LED bulbs for lower electricity and maintenance costs. Bulbs should be in the 3000- 3500 Kelvin range for the appropriate color (see the appendix). e) Locate lights in coordination with the street trees, to avoid light/tree branch conflicts. f) Balance the height and visibility of the poles with the desire to minimize the number of poles which can be sidewalk obstructions. g) Design all site lighting with black poles and luminaires, as this may allow different lighting styles to be visually tied together, and will also allow the DPW to more easily repair damage. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... CENTER STREETSCAPE DESIGN AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT Page 9 h) Adjust the final light selections to fit the needs of each specific area, for example the lengths of street with and without overhead wires. The aesthetic goals shall be maintained for all specific conditions. i) Use these recommendations for the entirety of Mass Ave from the Minuteman Statue to Woburn Street so that there is a consistent illumination level and a consistent aesthetic appearance for this entire stretch. j) Minimize the number, and address the aesthetics of the electrical control panels. Locate them down side streets if possible. Consider artwork on the panels. k) Holiday lighting, used for several months of the year, should be examined and updated. This should include minimizing light scatter effects, and provision of safe and convenient electric supply. The Committee assumes that these general performance standards will be used during final design. 2) LIGHTING RECOMMENDATIONS The Committee knows that there are many different types of existing lights between the Minuteman Statue and the Woburn Street intersection (the area of the Streetscape project). We know that there are many more types of lights around the Battle Green. We have kept this in mind as we make our recommendations for the Center Streetscape lighting. Our recommendations focus on STREET LIGHTS, PEDESTRIAN LIGHTS as well as existing pedestrian lights as follows. a) STREETLIGHTS T04 i) Tall roadway lights should visually disappear, as much as possible. The ���� poles should be in the 20' —30' height range, as low as they can be while still illuminating 6 lanes of travel and parking. We understand that the taller the lights, the greater the area of illumination, and therefore the fewer number of poles; this should be balanced, however, with the aesthetics of the poles and the sidewalk1 obstructions. ii) The luminaires (the light heads) should be as small as possible while providing the correct amount of illumination. The luminaire and arm should be able to be mounted on existing utility poles (for the south side of the east end of Mass T tea' Ave). Poles should be round, and the 270 arm should have some curve/elegance. ------- .-.. ..II. iii) The lighting design should assess 51 "F� ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... CENTER STREETSCAPE DESIGN AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT Page 10 whether there can continue to be street lighting only on the south sidewalk through the heart of the Center, or if staggering the street lights on both sides of the street is necessary for appropriate illumination levels. Currently there are NO streetlights on the north side of Mass Ave in the heart of the Center and the Committee would like the lighting design to consider maintaining this. iv) The images below are of the type of street light being recommended. I� �toll, ,d Ulk'LI(In � 'µ.alp lip I�f� Ar ors' �..el �l till rnrll LEL;trrz�,anr,p,rm� i Ion Brack,,UBSI O©-I A Prier.UPS IB6 I� ���y n- �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... CENTER STREETSCAPE DESIGN AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT Page 11 3) PEDESTRIAN LIGHTS in the heart of the Center and Pedestrian Light Assembly along Mass Ave a) Pedestrian lights in the Town Center should resemble �� the 1965 Sasaki lights. If possible, these lights should be from a catalog and not custom. They should be octagonal,painted black, with smooth round poles and no ornamental top. The top panel should be a solid shield to eliminate light going straight to the sky. They should use LED bulbs. b) These lights should be used in the Center from they statue to the Woburn Street intersection, where pedestrian lights are needed for additional illumination. '... ,t ;line ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... CENTER STREETSCAPE DESIGN AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT Page 12 PEDESTRIAN LIGHTS IN THE"MUNICIPAL" AREA, BEYOND THE BACK OF THE MASS AVE SIDEWALK The Center area includes lights that are not technically in the "streetscape". We have discussed these, and support their continued use in areas beyond the streetscape area. c) Lights at Cary Hall and Town Buildings, and on town-owned land outside the main commercial core, can continue to be those currently installed at the Town Offices. d) Pedestrian Lights at Depot Square Park: Depot Square Park should maintain its ornamental lights, as this is a park and not a streetscape. Along the sidewalk, add roadway lights as needed for illumination continuity in the street. ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ �) �, m " Z�-, M r. 1. m+re�n.J' �k�,Aa%x axx drr bv�m.ie x-,+-mptim n� �,uYw�uwa .yam � �lY Mur m ararnmo8 p�[uR1mY...�m ultkv i ..... ara o. .�svrs'asmuemacm � w � Y'"' $pYlAtil"YYY v tMlaRMYYY�MkY PY�I MANY Y�Y�pYq.m .... aAe.manor .a-m�.... rurr mwm- m� �as..9-m N J Gf Fleclricr�I M�q Cry. �� `v g�,�ry�r � rd Mfg cm ✓ MY�MNiS p 8M L4Y RY'3 7 if,..nnuw mm'rmamzagxrrrar�rrr:�y A aIMIMraze. ,en nw mvsrrawmn.' RWIl fA-fl. iYW a�`nre�i�. �.IIAWlWItW WPan A.W'4rl(Av3AX'W A e� iMN R'JEaNO'£NYb Pedestrian Light in the Center, consistent with existing light, but painted black with LED bulb ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... CENTER STREETSCAPE DESIGN AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT Page 13 i f — n onnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnm ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... CENTER STREETSCAPE DESIGN AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT Page 14 1 J i I� i Light in the Center Light near Lexx ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... CENTER STREETSCAPE DESIGN AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT Page 15 Minority Report of the Center Streetscape Design Review Ad Hoc Committee Tier One Sidewalk Materials Purpose of Minority Report This report is being submitted because the Commission on Disability's preferred choice of sidewalk materials is concrete with wire-cut brick on the sides which is cheaper at installation. However the majority of the Ad Hoc Committee voted for wire-cut square-edge brick. There are three major concerns about the choice of brick. First, there has not been enough exploration done by the Committee about concrete as a possible sidewalk material. This was also raised as an issue by a resident in the Public Hearing. A concrete expert was never invited to present in front of the Committee so there was not enough technical information to compare the two materials. The second concern is related to the vast number of complicated factors contributing to the fact that brick is not the right surface for individuals with disabilities. Lastly, there is the difficulty of comparing the importance of aesthetics to the importance of functionality. Commission on Disability and Related Sidewalk Standards The charge of the Commission on Disability is "to ensure that people with disabilities are fully integrated into all aspects of the Town and can participate seamlessly and without barriers. The Commission makes recommendations concerning the implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA)within the Town. Members review and recommend policies as they affect those with disabilities, and provide information, guidance, and technical assistance." The pertinent regulations for ADA-compliant sidewalks are: Massachusetts Architectural Access Board Guidelines (2006); PROWAG (Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines, 2010) from the US Access Board—best practice guidelines; ADA (Department of Justice) 2010 Guidelines. According to these regulations, sidewalks need to be continuous common surfaces, without level changes more than 1/4 inch; sidewalks must be stable and firm; sidewalks need to have a cross slope less than 2%. Many forms of brick as well as other surfaces may be able to be installed to meet the technical requirements of the ADA. However, the ADA's spirit of universal design, equality and accessibility is bigger than the regulations. Additionally, the 2015 Town Meeting voted unanimously in favor of Article 42, which states: "To provide a welcoming and comfortable experience for individuals of all abilities, the Town will endeavor at all times to use smooth, safe and aesthetically appropriate materials when constructing sidewalks and other passageways on town-owned walkways. Bricks and other small discrete pavers may be used as decorative edge treatments, but shall always be installed to create the smoothest surface possible, ensuring safety for citizens who have trouble traversing uneven surfaces." ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Streetscape Minority Report on Sidewalks Page 1 How Sidewalk Material Choice Affects Disabilities While brick may meet the technical requirements (under very specific circumstances), the Commission on Disability believes it is a surface, except when installed as decorative trim, that is an unnecessary hazard for individuals with disabilities. There are several things to consider. The first is vibration. This has been studied by the University of Pittsburgh. Vibration disturbances are a real and dangerous health hazard. Walkers, wheelchairs, crutches, strollers, shoes and canes can get caught in the seams and then people trip, lose balance or fall. Vibration issues can cause spasticity,pain, loss of balance and disturbances of correct positional seating. However, there are some individuals with disabilities who gain a positive sensation from irregular surfaces. This is a unique and atypical physical reaction to vibration or roughness that is not shared by other disabilities. These disabilities include ALS and Parkinson's. The University of Pittsburgh researchers have been working on a way to objectively measure roughness. Their method is based on the international roughness index approach which is used for vehicular pavements. This is known as the "Wheelchair Pathway Roughness Index". This new objective measure is awaiting approval from the US Access Board to become a standard soon. The focus on the impact of surface continuity on mobility is one area of concern for individuals with disabilities, but there are others. For individuals with neurological issues, brick causes a dramatic and disorienting experience due to sensory overload resulting in ambiguity from signals related to depth perception. Concrete is seen as causing less "neurological noise" and less confusing sensory input. Individuals with vision impairments are unable to discern variation in the surface of bricks and there is no bright contrast on brick sidewalks like there is on concrete accented with brick. High contrast supports all global issues related to wayfinding. Sidewalks that are firm and stable, such as concrete, resist indentation from the forces applied by a walking person's feet and reduce the rolling resistance experienced by a wheelchair. When a pedestrian or wheelchair user crosses a surface that is not firm or stable, energy that would otherwise cause forward motion deforms or displaces the surface instead. Recent research has looked at the internalized reactions of individuals to brick on pathways of travel. The authors examine the impact of urban sidewalks as being "physical locations of inequality for people with disabilities". Bricks are seen as unwelcoming and emphasize the lack of equality for disabilities (Disability and Qualitative Inquiry: Methods for Rethinking an Ableist World by Ronald J. Berger and Laura S. Lorenz, 2015). At the Public Hearing, many senior citizens as well as Commission on Disability members voiced their concerns about wire-cut brick. Current statistics on adults in the US with disabilities from the CDC are staggering: hearing - 16.8%; vision - 9.1%; mobility - difficulty walking 1/4 mile - 7.1%; physical function difficulty - 15.1%. The percentage of adults over 18 years old and with at least one basic action difficulty or complex activity limitation is 32.4%. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Streetscape Minority Report on Sidewalks Page 2 For adults aged 65+, this percentage is 60.5%, not a minority. The Commission on Disability urges the Committee to listen to its residents with disabilities. Characteristics of Concrete In March 2016, the Commission on Disability invited Craig Dauphinais, from the Massachusetts Concrete & Aggregate Producers Association (MaCAPA)to share his expertise on concrete as a sidewalk material_ MaCAPA represents concrete and aggregate producers and other ready mix suppliers, and their role is related to outreach and education. He summarized the advantages of concrete as being its versatility, durability, and competitive cost. He said proper installation is crucial—if installed correctly the life span can be 40-50 years with little to no maintenance. He noted that when installing concrete one should place the seams at the points where cracking is expected to happen to avoid maintenance. ASTM (American Standard Test Measures) standards also emphasize the crucial importance of careful installation. The key factor in sidewalk longevity is the quality of construction. Even a concrete sidewalk can fail after several years if poor materials are used and good design and construction practices are ignored. A common criticism of concrete is that it is not salt-resistant in colder climates. This is no longer the case as the technology has evolved sufficiently to improve concrete's reaction to salt. Traditional salts (not magnesium chloride) are less damaging to the surface than they used to be. There are salt-resistant concrete mixes as well as additives that enable concrete to be salted. Some of these additives are non-hazardous, environmentally safe penetrating chemical treatments that: increase durability; eliminate trip hazards (flaking, chipping,popping,pitting, dusting, or spalling); reduce maintenance and repair needs after being applied once. Setting/Installation of Concrete The National Research Council of Canada's Institute for Research in Construction emphasizes that: "proper compaction and preparation of the subgrade beneath the concrete sidewalk is essential. The uniformity of the compaction is just as important as the degree of compaction. Uniform compaction diminishes differential settlement of the concrete sidewalk and reduces the chance of crack development." They say that there should be a granular subbase layer between the compacted subgrade and the concrete. They also advise: "To minimize cracking, control joints should be cut into the slab at spacings of about 4 feet transversely across the length of the sidewalk". Other installation and setting have been researched, such as reinforcing concrete with bars when the sidewalk is placed over excavations such as tree roots or sewer laterals, to prevent settling or cracking of the sidewalk. Maintenance of Concrete In terms of maintenance people often think that concrete is more difficult to maintain than brick. Again, this seems to depend on proper installation, which can influence the longevity ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Streetscape Minority Report on Sidewalks Page 3 of the concrete, as well as how quickly repairs are made. There are several maintenance methods: saw cutting (advantage is precision and quality); grinding; patching and ramping; removing and replacing concrete slabs. A report entitled"How to Reduce Sidewalk Trip Hazards on Tight Budgets: Managing ADA Compliance, Risk, and Budget, by Gary Beneduci (2010) provides the following advice about maintenance: "When trip hazards range between a quarter inch and two and half inches, saw cutting is the most effective method to remove trip hazards...Complies with ADA standards for removal and slopes. Meets OSHA recommended standards for slip resistance. Appears clean and neat. Cuts precisely removing trip hazards in difficult-to-reach places. Removes hazards quickly. Stretches budgets...costs about 10 times less than removal and replacement...In summary, with trip hazards 2 1/z inches or less, saw cutting stretches budgets, by lengthening the life of concrete sidewalks that might otherwise be replaced". Aesthetics vs Function Due to the many and varied effects of multiple types of disabilities it can be very difficult to balance the desire for aesthetics with functionality. The Commission on Disability believes that concrete with brick edges is already a reasonable compromise position. Even if the unevenness of wire-cut brick sidewalks could be overcome (as promised), brick is still a problem for those with neurological or sensory issues. While historical significance is often cited as a reason to keep the bricks,parts of Boston's Freedom Trail have decided that it is easier for individuals to negotiate a small strip of brick in concrete. The Commission on Disabilitystresses that the Committee be aware that safe and safety functionality are important, and should always come before aesthetics. The other issue to remember is that if there are problems with roughness, unevenness, or even cross slope on the newly recommended wire-cut brick sidewalks, the people most affected will be those with disabilities, not the ones who wanted that choice of material. Summary of Recommendations of Minority Report The recommendations from this report are as follows: ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Streetscape Minority Report on Sidewalks Page 4 • The Committee needs to seek more information about concrete so that a more in-depth comparison can be made between the two surfaces. Expert information is needed, especially concerning salt-resistant types, installation and maintenance concerns. • There needs to be a full comparison of life cycle costs between sidewalks that are wire- cut brick and those that are concrete with decorative brick edges. The costs of installation appear to be roughly $250 per square yard for brick and $70 per square yard for concrete. Since the Streetscape project involves approximately 61,300 square feet (6,811 square yards) of sidewalks, this cost comparison is crucial. Lexington is facing difficult budgetary decisions currently and project decisions should reflect an understanding of the fiscal restraints. Respectfully submitted, Victoria Buckley September 16, 2016 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Streetscape Minority Report on Sidewalks Page 5 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Request for State Mandate Determination-Early Voting (5 min.) PRESENTER: ITEM NUMBER: Carl F. Valente, Town Manager 1.4 SUMMARY: A vote is requested for this agenda item. The Town Clerk is requesting whether the Board of Selectmen will support a request to the State Auditor's Office to make a determination whether the new law requiring early voting for state elections is a State Mandate that would require legislative funding under the State Mandates law. SUGGESTED MOTION: Move that the Board of Selectmen support the Town Clerk requesting that the State Auditor determine whether the early voting for State elections is a State mandate. FOLLOW-UP: Town Clerk's Office DATE AND APPROXIMATE TIME ON AGENDA: 10/13/2016 8:05 p.m. ATTACHMENTS: Description Type D P 1y lkrtinrnTM Letter Backup Matorrinl g ' Town of Lexington 3 APRIL 1911 c % Nathalie L. Rice, Town Clerk Phone: 781-698-4558 nricerc-4lexingtonma.- ov fax: 781-861-2754 October 4, 2016 Mr. Carl Valente, Town Manager Town Offices 1625 Massachusetts Avenue Lexington, MA 02420 Dear Carl, In response to notification from William Campbell, Woburn City Clerk, I wanted to make you aware that Town Clerks are being urged to notify Bill Campbell of their Early Voting costs. Bill Campbell has a meeting on October 14, 2016 with the Director of the Division of Local Mandates from the State Auditor's Office. He has asked Town Clerks to submit their Early Voting costs prior to this meeting, so he is prepared with local and state-wide information. He plans to request additional state funding to cover the cost of Early Voting as defined in the Statute (hours of the Town Clerk's Office), not for additional hours which are deemed discretionary. As you know, the cost of Early Voting was the subject Article 6(a) at the September 21, 2016 Special Town Meeting#5. The supplemental appropriation approved at that time was $6,250. This included extra hours on Thursday nights and one Saturday. Net of these discretionary hours, the cost of Early Voting in Lexington is currently anticipated to be $4,283. 1 would caution, however, that meeting the voter turnout out during Early Voting will be a "work in motion". It is unknown whether planned staffing will suffice. Town Clerk's staff will be called upon to meet reasonable needs, but additional Inspectors will be used if voter turnout markedly exceeds expectation. For this reason, the current projection of$4,283 must be considered an estimate, not a final cost. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. I am happy to contact Bill Campbell with Lexington's Early Voting costs if appropriate, Fours sincerely, Naalie L. Rice Town Clerk cc Tom Case Rob Addelson 1625 MASSACHUSE i I S AVENUE. LI.XING 1 oN, MASSACIIt'SETTS 02420 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approve Town Manager's Appointment to the Permanent Building Committee (5 min) PRESENTER: ITEM NUMBER: Carl F. Valente, Town Manager 1.5 SUMMARY: Request that the Board of Selectmen appoint Robert Cunha and Joe Sirkovich to the Permanent Building Committee for the Fire Station project. SUGGESTED MOTION: Move to approve Robert Cunha and Joe Sirkovich to the Permanent Building Committee as user agency members for the Fire Station project. FOLLOW-UP: Town Manager's Office will send an appointment letter. DATE AND APPROXIMATE TIME ON AGENDA: 10/13/2016 8:10 P.M. ATTACHMENTS: Description Type AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Selectmen Committee Appointments & Resignations (5 min) PRESENTER: ITEM NUMBER: Suzanne Barry, Chairman 1.6 SUMMARY: Historic Districts Commission The Board will be appointing two full members of the HDC. These positions are nominated by the Historical Society. Tax Deferral and Exemptions Committee Mary Haskell has resigned, effective immediately. SUGGESTED MOTION: Move to appoint two full members to the Historic Districts Commission, to fill the unexpired terms of Lynn Hopkins (2020) and Paul Ross (2017)respectively. Move to accept the resignation of Mary Haskell from the Tax Deferral and Exemptions Committee. FOLLOW-UP: Selectmen's Office DATE AND APPROXIMATE TIME ON AGENDA: 10/13/2016 8:15 p.m. ATTACHMENTS: Description Type D V DC, ➢kki Q l7 Ma utiV'sa rra hs,s,a,a,.Na,utiuurs tia nr.s, Backup Matorrinl LEXINGTON Historical ®ciey zstory m Education •CommunitySEP 3 0 2016 September 29, 2016 Ms. Suzanne Barry Chair, Board of Selectmen Town of Lexington 1625 Massachusetts Avenue Dear Ms. Barry: The Town's charge for the HDC states the following qualifications for nominees: INDIVIDUAL: Individuals involved with this committee should have a sense of dedication to historical heritage,historical preservation, and to the special townscape of Lexington and the concept of architectural compatibility COLLECTIVE: The Selectmen seek members with the following backgrounds: • L,egal training and experience • Historical training or experience • Training in architecture, architectural history and aesthetics • Training and/or experience in graphic design • Membership in the local business community It is probably assumed, although not stated, that all appointees should also have appropriate personal qualities, including integrity, independent judgment, diplomacy with HDC applicants, and a sincere desire to serve the Town. The Lexington Historical Society is forwarding four nominees for the two vacant Commissioner positions designated for Historical Society nominees, all of whom meet these qualifications. Mark Connor is an architect with extensive institutional and exhibit-based experience, member of the local business community, and has demonstrated a keen sense of dedication to historic preservation and the special townscape of Lexington. Edward Adelman is an architect and a recent resident of Lexington. He served as an Historical Architect for the National Park Service for eleven years, where his work included documentation,preservation, and interpretation of historic structures and sites. Jon Himmel is an architect with broad experience in institutional construction projects. His commitment to public service in Lexington is evidenced by his participation in Town Meeting, on the Permanent Buildings Committee and numerous other assignments. P.O. Box 514 • Lexington, MA 02420 ° 781.862.1703 office@lexingtonhistory.org ° lexingtonhistory.org Robert Adams, also an architect, has extensive experience in institutional master planning, historic preservation and adaptive re-use and residential projects. He was associated for many years with The Architects Collaborative, the distinguished practice that included a number of Lexington architects associated with the Town's mid-century modern neighborhoods. It is often the practice of the Board of Selectmen to choose associate members of the HDC from among nominees for full Commissioners. Because we believe the four individuals above are so richly qualified, we request that after a selection is made of the two frill Commissioners, the remaining two candidates be considered nominees for associate Commissioners. In the event, however, that additional associate commissioner candidates from the Historical Society are needed, we nominate the following: F. David Wells, Jr. is a life-long Lexington resident and businessman who has served the Town in numerous capacities. His dedication to historic preservation is evidenced by his long-time involvement on the Lexington Historical Society's Buildings Committee, which has spearheaded the purchase and adaptive re-use of the Lexington Depot, and the renovation and restoration of Buckman Tavern, the Hancock-Clarke House, and Munroe Tavern. Paul O'Shaughnessy was born and raised in Lexington, but during the years he lived in Newton he served for 11 years on the Newton Upper Falls Historic District Commission, 7 as chair, as well as serving on the Newton Design Review Committee. In Lexington, he has been deeply involved in historic preservation as a member of the Board of Friends of Minuteman National Historic Parks and as a Board member and past President of the Historical Society. He is a quality control engineer with skulls that could prove useful to the Commission. Sincerely, William Poole, President AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Sign State Election Warrant (5 min.) PRESENTER: ITEM NUMBER: Suzie Barry, Chairman 1.7 SUMMARY: The Town Clerk is requesting that the Board approve the Warrant for the November 8, 2016 State election. SUGGESTED MOTION: Move to approve and sign the State Election Warrant. FOLLOW-UP: Town Clerk's Office DATE AND APPROXIMATE TIME ON AGENDA: 10/13/2016 8:20 p.m. ATTACHMENTS: Description Type D State Hec tionr Wamnnr:t Backup Matorrinl COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS WILLIAM FRANCIS GALVIN SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH WARRANT FOR 2016 STATE ELECTION Middlesex, ss. To the Constables of the Town of Lexington GREETINGS: In the name of the Commonwealth, you are hereby required to notify and warn the inhabitants of the Town of Lexington who are qualified to vote in the State Election to vote at: PRECINCT ONE, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING; PRECINCT TWO, BOWMAN SCHOOL; PRECINCT THREE, LEXINGTON COMMUNITY CENTER; PRECINCT FOUR, CARY MEMORIAL BUILDING;PRECINCT FIVE, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING; PRECINCT SIX, CARY MEMORIAL BUILDING; PRECINCT SEVEN, ESTABROOK SCHOOL; PRECINCT EIGHT, SAMUEL HADLEY PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING; PRECINCT NINE, MARIA HASTINGS SCHOOL, on TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER,2016 from 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. for the following purpose: To cast their votes in the State Primaries for the candidates of political parties for the following offices: ELECTORS OF PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT . . . . FOR THIS COMMONWEALTH REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FIFTH DISTRICT COUNCILLOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .THIRD DISTRICT SENATOR IN GENERAL COURT (precincts 1,2,4-7) . . FOURTH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT SENATOR IN GENERAL COURT (precincts 3,8,9) . . . . THIRD MIDDLESEX DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE IN GENERAL COURT. . . . . . FIFTEENTH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT SHERIFF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MIDDLESEX COUNTY QUESTION 1: LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives on or before May 3, 2016? SUMMARY This proposed law would allow the state Gaming Commission to issue one additional category 2 license,which would permit operation of a gaming establishment with no table games and not more than 1,250 slot machines. The proposed law would authorize the Commission to request applications for the additional license to be granted to a gaming establishment located on property that is (1) at least four acres in size; (ii) adjacent to and within 1,500 feet of a race track,including the track's additional facilities, such as the track, grounds,paddocks,barns, auditorium, amphitheatre, and bleachers; (iii)where a horse racing meeting may physically be held; (iv)where a horse racing meeting shall have been hosted; and(v)not separated from the race track by a highway or railway. A YES VOTE would permit the state Gaming Commission to license one additional slot-machine gaming establishment at a location that meets certain conditions specified in the law. A NO VOTE would make no change in current laws regarding gaming. QUESTION 2: LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives on or before May 3, 2016? SUMMARY This proposed law would allow the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to approve up to 12 new charter schools or enrollment expansions in existing charter schools each year. Approvals under this law could expand statewide charter school enrollment by up to 1% of the total statewide public school enrollment each year.New charters and enrollment expansions approved under this law would be exempt from existing limits on the number of charter schools, the number of students enrolled in them, and the amount of local school districts' spending allocated to them. If the Board received more than 12 applications in a single year from qualified applicants, then the proposed law would require it to give priority to proposed charter schools or enrollment expansions in districts where student performance on statewide assessments is in the bottom 25% of all districts in the previous two years and where demonstrated parent demand for additional public school options is greatest. New charter schools and enrollment expansions approved under this proposed law would be subject to the same approval standards as other charter schools, and to recruitment,retention, and multilingual outreach requirements that currently apply to some charter schools. Schools authorized under this law would be subject to annual performance reviews according to standards established by the Board. The proposed law would take effect on January 1, 2017. A YES VOTE would allow for up to 12 approvals each year of either new charter schools or expanded enrollments in existing charter schools,but not to exceed 1%of the statewide public school enrollment. A NO VOTE would make no change in current laws relative to charter schools. QUESTION 3: LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives on or before May 3, 2016? SUMMARY This proposed law would prohibit any farm owner or operator from knowingly confining any breeding pig, calf raised for veal, or egg-laying hen in a way that prevents the animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending its limbs, or turning around freely. The proposed law would also prohibit any business owner or operator in Massachusetts from selling whole eggs intended for human consumption or any uncooked cut of veal or pork if the business owner or operator knows or should know that the hen,breeding pig, or veal calf that produced these products was confined in a manner prohibited by the proposed law. The proposed law would exempt sales of food products that combine veal or pork with other products,including soups, sandwiches,pizzas,hotdogs, or similar processed or prepared food items. The proposed law's confinement prohibitions would not apply during transportation; state and county fair exhibitions; 4-H programs; slaughter in compliance with applicable laws and regulations; medical research; veterinary exams, testing, treatment and operation if performed under the direct supervision of a licensed veterinarian; five days prior to a pregnant pig's expected date of giving birth; any day that pig is nursing piglets; and for temporary periods for animal husbandry purposes not to exceed six hours in any twenty-four hour period. The proposed law would create a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation and would give the Attorney General the exclusive authority to enforce the law, and to issue regulations to implement it. As a defense to enforcement proceedings, the proposed law would allow a business owner or operator to rely in good faith upon a written certification or guarantee of compliance by a supplier. The proposed law would be in addition to any other animal welfare laws and would not prohibit stricter local laws. The proposed law would take effect on January 1, 2022. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect. 2 A YES VOTE would prohibit any confinement of pigs, calves, and hens that prevents them from lying down, standing up, fully extending their limbs, or turning around freely. A NO VOTE would make no change in current laws relative to the keeping of farm animals. QUESTION 4: LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives on or before May 3, 2016? SUMMARY The proposed law would permit the possession,use,distribution, and cultivation of marijuana in limited amounts by persons age 21 and older and would remove criminal penalties for such activities. It would provide for the regulation of commerce in marijuana, marijuana accessories, and marijuana products and for the taxation of proceeds from sales of these items. The proposed law would authorize persons at least 21 years old to possess up to one ounce of marijuana outside of their residences;possess up to ten ounces of marijuana inside their residences; grow up to six marijuana plants in their residences; give one ounce or less of marijuana to a person at least 21 years old without payment;possess,produce or transfer hemp; or make or transfer items related to marijuana use, storage, cultivation, or processing. The measure would create a Cannabis Control Commission of three members appointed by the state Treasurer which would generally administer the law governing marijuana use and distribution,promulgate regulations, and be responsible for the licensing of marijuana commercial establishments. The proposed law would also create a Cannabis Advisory Board of fifteen members appointed by the Governor. The Cannabis Control Commission would adopt regulations governing licensing qualifications; security; record keeping;health and safety standards;packaging and labeling; testing; advertising and displays; required inspections; and such other matters as the Commission considers appropriate. The records of the Commission would be public records. The proposed law would authorize cities and towns to adopt reasonable restrictions on the time,place, and manner of operating marijuana businesses and to limit the number of marijuana establishments in their communities. A city or town could hold a local vote to determine whether to permit the selling of marijuana and marijuana products for consumption on the premises at commercial establishments. The proceeds of retail sales of marijuana and marijuana products would be subject to the state sales tax and an additional excise tax of 3.75%. A city or town could impose a separate tax of up to 2%. Revenue received from the additional state excise tax or from license application fees and civil penalties for violations of this law would be deposited in a Marijuana Regulation Fund and would be used subject to appropriation for administration of the proposed law. Marijuana-related activities authorized under this proposed law could not be a basis for adverse orders in child welfare cases absent clear and convincing evidence that such activities had created an unreasonable danger to the safety of a minor child. The proposed law would not affect existing law regarding medical marijuana treatment centers or the operation of motor vehicles while under the influence. It would permit property owners to prohibit the use, sale, or production of marijuana on their premises (with an exception that landlords cannot prohibit consumption by tenants of marijuana by means other than by smoking); and would permit employers to prohibit the consumption of marijuana by employees in the workplace. State and local governments could continue to restrict uses in public buildings or at or near schools. Supplying marijuana to persons under age 21 would be unlawful. The proposed law would take effect on December 15, 2016. A YES VOTE would allow persons 21 and older to possess,use, and transfer marijuana and products containing marijuana concentrate (including edible products) and to cultivate marijuana, all in limited amounts, and would provide for the regulation and taxation of commercial sale of marijuana and marijuana products. A NO VOTE would make no change in current laws relative to marijuana. 3 Hereof fail not and make return of this warrant with your doings thereon at the time and place of said voting. Given under our hands this day of ,2016. Suzanne E. Barry Norman P. Cohen Peter C.J. Kelley Joseph N.Pato Michelle L. Ciccolo Selectmen of Lexington I have served the foregoing warrant by posting a printed copy thereof in the Town Office Building, 7 days at least before the time of said Primary. Michael R. Barry 2016 Constable of Lexington 4 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Cast Vote - MPO Ballot (5 min.) PRESENTER: ITEM NUMBER: Carl F. Valente, Town Manager 1.8 SUMMARY: Richard Canale, the Board's designee to the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization, recommends voting for the MPO representatives from Framingham, Bedford, Somerville and Braintree. All are running unopposed for re-election. SUGGESTED MOTION: Move to vote and authorize the Chairman to sign the Absentee Ballot for the MPO election for the representatives of the town's of Framingham and Bedford and the cities of Somerville and Braintree. FOLLOW-UP: BOS office will forward ballot to the MAPC. DATE AND APPROXIMATE TIME ON AGENDA: 10/13/2016 8:30 p.m. ATTACHMENTS: Description Type 1K MBTA Advisory Board MAPC177Tremont Street, Boston, NLA02111 Tel:(617)426-6054 Fax:(617)461-2054 October 4, 20116 TO: Chief Elected Officials fit: Paul Regan, Executive Director, MBTA Advisory Board Marc Draisen, Executive Director. Metropolitan Area Planning Council RE: Municipal Elections to the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization We are pleased to forward the 2016 MPO Ballot for the elected municipal seats on the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), This year there are four municipal seats on the MPO up for election. The Town of Framingham is running unopposed for the Metro West Regional Collaborative (MetroWest) seat, The Town of Bedford is running unopposed for the Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination (MAGIC) seat. The City of Somerville is running unopposed for the Inner Core seat. The Town of Braintree is running unopposed for the South Shore Coalition (SSC) seat. K21 Dates and Locations: October 25, 2016 Absentee Ballots Due 5:00 PM delivered by mail or in person (Ng Fax or Email) to: BOSTON REGION MPO ELECTIONS Metropolitan Area Planning Council 60 Temple Place, 6'h Floor Boston, -AL4 02111 October 26, 20 16 MPO Municipal Election At MAPC Fall Council Meeting, 9-00AM Quincy Marriott, 1000 Marriott Drive, Quincy, MA 02169 N W N OCT t6 2016 SELECTMEN One vote may be cast by each of the Chief Elected Officials of the 101 municipalities in the Boston region, for each open seat(there are 4 open seats). Ballots may be cast by one of the following ways: 1. By the CEO, in-person, on October 26, 2016 at MAPC Fall Council 'Meeting. 2. By Absentee Ballot, delivered by mail or in-person to MAPC by 5:00 PM the day before the election, October 25, 2016. 31. By a designee, in-person, on October 26. 2016 at MAPC Fall Council Meeting. Each Chief Elected Official or their designee, regardless of which sub-region they are in, or whether they represent a city or a town, may cast one vote for each of the four open MPO seats (for a total of 4 votes cast). Atmointina Desienees: Designees shall present a signed letter or signed MPO Ballot by the CEO of the municipality they are representing, to MAPC staff prior to the election or by 9:00 AM on the day of the election. Designees may represent only one municipality in the election. Certification of Results: The results of the election shall be certified by the Chairman of the MPO by 12 noon on Friday October 28, 2016. We appreciate the interest shown by the candidates in choosing to serve in these seats on the MPO and for your interest in this important matter. We look forward to your participation. Please contact Eric Bourassa at MAPC (617-933-0740) or Paul Regan, Executive Director of the MBTA Advisory Board (617-426-6054), if you have any questions concerning this election. 2016 MPO Absentee Ballot The MP O Election will be held on Wednesday, October 26, 2016 At MAPC Fall Council Meeting. 9:00 AM Quincy Marriott, 1000 Marriott Drive, Quincy, MA 02169 Absentee ballots must be delivered by October 25,2016 via mail or in person �oFax or ail by 5 PM to: BOSTON REGION MPO ELECTIONS .4letropolitan Area Planning Council 60 Temple Place, 6'4 Floor Borton, ,VA 02111 Each Chief Elected Official, regardless of which sub-region they are in, or whether they represent a city or a town, may cast one vote for each of the four open MPO seats. Chief Elected Official may: Vote flaborative Q Framingham Cheryl Tully Stoll, 'Chair Board of Selectmen r Vote for pAly one from the Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination IQ Bedford Michael Rosenberg, Chair Board of Selectmen Vote F_ L3 Somerville Joseph A. Curtatone, Mayor Vote for onl one from the South or Coalition Braintree Joseph C_ Sullivan, Mayor Municipality Chief Elected Official (Signature) (Print or type name) (see back for more information) Fill this box out only if you (Mayor or Char Board of Selectman) are appointing someone to vote in your place in person on October 26 th t the MAPC Fail Council Meeting. Designation of alternate y Mayer or Chair Board of Selectman): hereby authorize to cast the ballot for(name) (municipality) Chief Elected Official (signature) Date AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Water & Sewer Adjustments PRESENTER: ITEM NUMBER: David J. Pinsonneault, Department of Public Works Director C.1 SUMMARY: Adjustments of Water and Sewer charges as recommended by WSAB ($ 34,723.12) SUGGESTED MOTION: Move to approve the Water and Sewer adjustments as provided. FOLLOW-UP: Treasurer/Collector DATE AND APPROXIMATE TIME ON AGENDA: 10/13/2016 ATTACHMENTS: Description Type D lh/SA11�9&-116Q10S110II3-116 BackupM torinl FY2017 gas ADJUSTMENTS TO WATER/SEWER 1 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE WATER AND SEWER.ABATEMENT BOARD WSAB 9/8/20'16-BOS MTG 10/13/16 PAGE 1 OF 2 77Bridge Blossomcrest Road $ (268,64) $ (840.18) $ (1,108,82) 843898 2016 Brent Road $ (1,653,93) $ (5,539,21) $ (7,193,14) 848206* 2016 Street $ (653.63) $ (2,191,60) $ (2,845.23) 853920* 2016 0300809400 11 Carriage Drive $ (65,64) $ (204,08) $ (269,72) 852520 2016 0300954100 7 Meld Road $ (332.88) $ (1,077.04) $ (1,A09.92) 854422 2016 0300703802 17 Freemont Street $ (91.35) $ (91,35) 851241 2016 0200408402 100 Gleason Road $ (308.85) $ (308,85) 832307 2016 0300813800 130 Grove Street $ (83,78) $ (263,56) $ (347,34) 852580 2016 0200399700 47 Harding Road $ (91.44) $ (387.12) $ (478.56) 846561 2016 0300871 100 390 Marrett Road $ (140.28) $ (454.86) $ (595.14) 853319 2016 0300880502 682 Marrett Road $ (1,044.00) $ (1,044,00) 839040 2016 0200566800 10 Meriam Street $ (226,95) $ (977.05) $ (1,204.00) 848820 2016 0100261000 12 Potter Pond $ (100.96) $ (354.92) $ (455.88) 815358 2015 0300742800 70 Reed Street $ (83.78) $ (263.56) $ (347.34) 852580 2016 0200494500 13 Rumford Road $ (316.89) $ (1,286.10) $ (1,602,99) 847792 2016 0300856500 155 Shade Street $ (276.99) $ (850.53) $ (1,127,52) 853128* 2016 0100034700 5 Sheila Road $ (361,02) $ (1,162.10) $ (1,523.12) 841242 2016 0300624900 19 Stratham Road $ (59.76) $ (179.16) $ (238.92) 850207 2015 0100092400 38 'Tyler Road $ (169.23) $ (541.79) $ (711,02) 841963* 2015 0200484600 365 Woburn Street $ (152.52) $ (468,641 $ (621.16) 847661 2016 0300929000 14 Woodcliffe Road $ (105.84) $ (377.82) $ (483,66) 854086* 2016 0300668400 37 Woodpark Circle $ (453.30) $ (1,665.90) $ (2,1 19,20) 850781 2016 0200409000 3 Wyman Road $ (42,241 $ 1125.12) $ (167.36) 846661 2016 0300672500 25 Hayward Avenue $ (684.90) $ (2,031.48) $ (2,716.38) 836447* 2016 0200383800 47 Ledgelawn Avenue $ (96,96) $ (532,96) $ 1629.92) 846347 2016 0300958600 244 Wood Street Annex 6 $ (1,161,09) $ (1,161.09) 840085 2016 0100134800 8 Chose Avenue $ (46,54) $ (78.85) $ (125.39) 842542 2016 0300888300 4 Freeman Circle $ (77,61) $ (138.90) $ (216,51) 853542 2016 0200322300 32 Mercy Road $ (172.04) $ (340.94) $ (512.98) 845510* 2016 0100254500 83 l IPleasant Street $ (1,,131,86) $ (1,131.86) 844101 2016 $ (8,161,95) $ (24,626,42) $ (32,788.37) Denotes that more than one bill is involved in the abatement continued to page 2 FY2017 ADJUSTMENTS TO WATER/SEWER 0I ', AS RECOMMENDED BY THE WATER AND SEWER ABATEMENT BOARD WSAB 9/8/2016-BOS MTG 10/13/16 PAGE 2 OF 2 WATERSTREET. SEWER YE BILL . Carried over from Rage 1 $ (8,161.95) $ (24,626.42) $ (32,788.37)If Al 0100255AOO 108 Pleasant Street $ (576.041) $ (1,358.71) $ (1,934.75) 844111* 2016 $ (8,737.99) $ (25,985.13) $ (34,723.12) It is further recommended to waive all accumulated interest on disputed bills for which no abatement is recommended; ACCOUNT NBR STREET BILL YEAR " rl �, 61 ^ ( y 1(fd%�E �'vl ilv+(t q/ Il f/ 4fiyrd" 2016 d3019075©2 12� Rlchmoard Circle 'rGir�,pJ�i's�,� ira�� �.rctl�r�na�u/�i�{r��� ��r,(,r�/�a� � „�s�, ",,rt�4i!'A�,l,�1`i�r„��f ,1��J1�`,,,trf,6/�'�Nevi 4 „Y,f!� k,rx�lf✓y°�,f✓ Although one bill will be adjusted,other bills are included in the calculation It is the recommendation of the Water and Sewer Abatement Board that the Town Collector be authorized to waive interest that has accrued on the bills included herein,unless stated here otherwise,from the due date of the bill until 30 calendar days after the date of written notification to applicant of the Selectmen's action. THE SUM SET AGAINST THE ABOVE ACCOUNTS IS HEREBY ADJUSTED. WATER SEWER TOTAL ($8,737.99) ($25,985.13) ($34,723.12) ERECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF SELECTMEN 10/13/16 ,W AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approve Minutes and Executive Session Minutes PRESENTER: ITEM NUMBER: Suzanne Barry, Chairman C.2 SUMMARY: The minutes of August 2, 2016,August 15, 2016,August 19, 2016 and August 30, 2016 are ready for your review and approval. The Executive Sesion minutes of August 2, 2016 and August 15, 2016 are ready for your review and approval. SUGGESTED MOTION: Motion to approve the minutes of August 2, 2016,August 15, 2016,August 19, 2016 and August 30, 2016. Motion to approve and not release the Executive Session minutes of August 2, 2016 and August 15, 2016. FOLLOW-UP: Selectmen's Office DATE AND APPROXIMATE TIME ON AGENDA: 10/13/2016 ATTACHMENTS: Description Type AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approve One-Day Liquor License - Wilson Farm PRESENTER: ITEM NUMBER: Suzanne Barry, Chairman C.3 SUMMARY: Wilson Farm has requested a one-day liquor license to serve wine at their "Pumpkin Floral Arrangement Workshop" which takes place at their location(Pleasant Street) on Wednesday, October 19, 2016 from 5:30 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. SUGGESTED MOTION: Motion to approve the consent agenda. FOLLOW-UP: Selectmen's Office DATE AND APPROXIMATE TIME ON AGENDA: 10/13/2016 ATTACHMENTS: Description Type AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approve One-Day Liquor License -Neillio's Catering PRESENTER: ITEM NUMBER: Suzanne Barry, Chairman C.4 SUMMARY: Neillio's Catering has requested a one-day liquor license to serve beer and wine at a "Sons of American Revolution" event which takes place at The Depot on Thursday, December 8, 2016 from 6:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. SUGGESTED MOTION: Motion to approve the consent agenda. FOLLOW-UP: Selectmen's Office DATE AND APPROXIMATE TIME ON AGENDA: 10/13/2016 ATTACHMENTS: Description Type AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Executive Session-Exemption 3: Pending Litigation 430 Concord Avenue (20 min) PRESENTER: ITEM NUMBER: Carl F. Valente, Town Manager ES.B1 SUMMARY: Suggested motion for Executive Session: Move to go into Executive Session to discuss strategy with respect to potential litigation related to the property at 430 Concord Avenue and to reconvene in Open Session only to adjourn. Further, the Chairman declares that an open meeting discussion may have a detrimental effect on the litigating position of the Town. Update on Town's actions regarding zoning violations at 430 Concord Avenue. SUGGESTED MOTION: None required. FOLLOW-UP: TMO, Zoning Enforcement and Town Counsel. DATE AND APPROXIMATE TIME ON AGENDA: 10/13/2016 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Executive Session-Exemption 6: Purchase of Land-20 Pelham Road; and 173 Bedford Street (20 min) PRESENTER: ITEM NUMBER: Carl F. Valente, Town Manager ES.B2 SUMMARY: Suggested motion for Executive Session: Move that the Board go into Executive Session to consider the purchase, exchange, lease or value of real property, 20 Pelham Road, and to reconvene in Open Session only to adjourn. Further, that as Chairman, I declare that an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the negotiating position of the Town. Update on 20 Pelham Road negotiations. Updagte on 171-173 Bedford Street negotiations SUGGESTED MOTION: None required. FOLLOW-UP: TMO and Town Counsel will continue negotiation. DATE AND APPROXIMATE TIME ON AGENDA: 10/13/2016 ATTACHMENTS: Description Type