HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-07-17 BOS Packet - Released
3141!Nbttbdivtfuut!Bwfovf
Mfyjohupo-!NB!13532
Kvof!6-!3128
Cpbse!pg!Tfmfdunfo
Upxo!PgÑdf!Cvjmejoh
2736!Nbttbdivtfuut!Bwf
Mfyjohupo-!NB!13531
OpujÑdbujpo!pg!Wbsjpvt!Wjpmbujpot!cz!Joo!bu!Ibtujoht!Qbsl
Efbs!Cpbse!pg!Tfmfdunfo-
Jo!Efdfncfs!boe!Kbovbsz!J!xspuf!up!jogpsn!zpv!pg!wjpmbujpot!pwfs!uif!dpvstf!pg!3127!cz!
uif!Joo!bu!Ibtujoht!Qbsl-!sfmbufe!up!uifjs!mjrvps!mjdfotf-!uif!Tqfdjbm!Qfsnju!voefs!xijdi!
uif!Joo!pqfsbuft!boe!uif!Nfnpsboevn!pg!Voefstuboe!)NPV*!uif!qspqsjfups!tjhofe!xjui!
uif!Upxo/!!Vogpsuvobufmz!J!opx!Ñoe!nztfmg!jo!uif!qptjujpo!pg!dpoubdujoh!zpv!bhbjo!up!
tffl!sfesftt!gps!gvsuifs!wjpmbujpot!pg!uiftf!tbnf!dpoejujpot!pg!pqfsbujpo-!bt!xfmm!bt!ofx!
poft!xijdi!ibwf!dpnf!up!mjhiu/
J/Jouspevdupsz!Dpnnfout
J!xjmm!qsfgbdf!nz!qpjout!cfmpx!xjui!tfwfsbm!dpnnfout;
J/b/J!ublf!op!kpz!jo!csjohjoh!uiftf!wjpmbujpot!up!mjhiu/!!J!xpvme!nvdi!sbuifs!
cfmjfwf-!op!epvcu!bt!zpv!xpvme-!uibu!boz!cvtjoftt!qfstpo!jo!upxo!xpvme!
pqfsbuf!jo!bddpsebodf!xjui!uif!wbsjpvt!sfhvmbujpot!boe!bhsffnfout!xijdi!
hpwfso!uifjs!pqfsbujpot-!ftqfdjbmmz!uif!mjrvps!mjdfotf/
J/c/J!bn!jogpsnjoh!zpv!bt!jt!nz!sjhiu!bt!bo!bcvuufs!up!tffl!sfesftt!boe!
sftqpotjwf!bdujpo!gspn!zpv!bt!uif!hpwfsojoh!sfhvmbupsz!boe!dpnqmjbodf!
cpez!gps!uif!Upxo!pg!Mfyjohupo/
J/d/Evsjoh!uif!sf{pojoh!qspdftt!uif!Cpbse!pg!Tfmfdunfo!sfqfbufemz!bttvsfe!
bcvuufst!boe!uif!ofjhicpsippe!uibu!uif!NPV!boe!uif!boovbm!bmdpipm!
mjdfotf!sfofxbm!qspdftt!qspwjefe!bo!fggfdujwf!fogpsdfnfou!nfdibojtn!up!
fotvsf!dpnqmjbodf!xjui!uif!dpoejujpot!pg!uif!sf{pojoh<!boe!uibu!uif!Cpbse!
xpvme!ifbs!boe!cf!sftqpotjwf!up!dpnqmbjout!sfhbsejoh!wjpmbujpot/
J/e/Uif!Tfmfdunfo!ibwf!nbef!dmfbs!uifz!sfrvjsf!fwjefodf!pg!wjpmbujpot!jo!
psefs!up!jojujbuf!dpssfdujwf!bdujpo/
J/f/J!bn!uifsfgpsf!qspwjejoh!zpv!xjui!npsf!epdvnfoubujpo!pg!wjpmbujpot!xijdi!
J!xjuofttfe!po!Nbz!31-!3128/!!Uiftf!bsf!wfsz!tjnjmbs!up!uiptf!jo!3127!!
xijdi!J!ijhimjhiufe!up!zpv!jo!dpssftqpoefodf!jo!Efdfncfs!3127!boe!
Kbovbsz!3128/!!J!gffm!ju!jt!wfsz!jnqpsubou!uibu!zpv!beesftt!uijt!tjuvbujpo!tp!
uibu!uif!Joo!qspqsjfups!voefstuboet!uibu!tvdi!wjpmbujpot!xjmm!opu!cf!
upmfsbufe!uijt!zfbs!boe!hpjoh!gpsxbse/
JJ/Tfswjdf!pg!Gppe!po!uif!Qpsdi!pg!uif!Joo
JJ/b/Bu!nje.ebz!po!Nbz!31ui-!xijmf!epjoh!tpnf!zbse!xpsl!po!nz!qspqfsuz-!J!
pctfswfe!gppe!boe!cfwfsbhf!tfswjdf!cz!xbju!tubgg!po!uif!Joo!qpsdi/!!
Lopxjoh!uibu!uif!Tfmfdunfo!sfrvjsf!fwjefodf!pg!wjpmbujpot-!J!ejtdsffumz!
uppl!tfwfsbm!qipupt!boe!b!tipsu!)27!tfdpoe*!wjefp!pg!tfswjdf!pddvssjoh!po!
uif!qpsdi!pg!uif!Joo-!xijmf!tubzjoh!xfmm!bxbz!gspn!hvftut!boe!tubgg/!!
)Qmfbtf!tff!Buubdinfou!2!gps!qipupt!boe!wjefp!tujmmt!gspn!jQipof/*
JJ/c/Qmfbtf!opuf!uibu!uisff!ubcmft!bsf!gvmmz!tfu!gps!tfswjdf!cz!xbju!tubgg!xjui!
ubcmfdmpuit-!mjofo!dvumfsz-!hmbttxbsf-!ijhi.cbdlfe!joepps!dibjst-!fud!boe!
uibu!uif!jnbhft!tipx!b!nfncfs!pg!uif!xbju!tubgg!tfswjoh!hvftut/
JJ/d/J!qspwjef!uijt!fwjefodf!gps!uif!gpmmpxjoh!sfbtpot;
JJ/d/b/Gppe!boe!cfwfsbhf!tfswjdf!po!uif!qpsdi!jt!opu!qfsnjuufe!bu!bmm!
bddpsejoh!up!uif!dpoejujpot!pg!uif!mjrvps!mjdfotf!uibu!zpv!tfu/!)Uif!
bmdpipm!mjdfotf!bmmpxt!pwfsojhiu!Joo!hvftut!pomz!up!dbssz!pvu!
uifntfmwft!bo!bmdpipmjd!cfwfsbhf!xjui!b!mjhiu!tobdl!tvdi!bt!b!
tboexjdi!ps!dppljf-!boe!pomz!voujm!:qn/*
JJ/d/c/Xjui!uif!Joo!tfswjoh!hvftut!po!uif!qpsdi-!uif!Joo!jt!bmtp!wjpmbujoh!
uif!Nfnpsboevn!pg!Voefstuboejoh!tjhofe!cz!uif!Tfmfdunbo-!bt!
xfmm!bt!uif!ETEVQ0Tqfdjbm!Qfsnju!bddpsefe!BC!Ipmejoht-!xijdi!
mjnjut!uif!sftubvsbou!up!65!tfbut/
JJ/e/Ju!jt!jnqpsubou!up!opuf!uibu!uif!dvssfou!fombshfe!boe!dpwfsfe!gspou!qpsdi!
xbt!opu!po!uif!QTEVQ0ETEVQ!qmbot!tvcnjuufe!up!Upxo!Nffujoh!ops!uif!
Tqfdjbm!Qfsnju!ifbsjoh!pg!uif!Cpbse!pg!Bqqfbmt/!!
JJ/e/b/Po!Tfqufncfs!23-!3124!uijt!tjhojÑdbou!dibohf-!bmpoh!xjui!
ovnfspvt!puifs!tvctuboujwf!npejÑdbujpot-!xbt!bqqspwfe!cz!uif!
\[pojoh!Cpbse!pg!Bqqfbmt!!bt!b!Ænjops!sfwjtjpoÇ!xjuipvu!bcvuufs!
opujÑdbujpo!boe!xjuipvu!pvs!lopxmfehf/!
JJ/e/c/Uijt!xpvme!bqqfbs!up!wjpmbuf!uif!efdjtjpo!nbljoh!sfrvjsfnfout!pg!
uif!Nbttbdivtfuut!\[pojoh!Bdu-!Dibqufs!51-!xjui!sfhbse!up!
bnfoenfout!)boe!uif!obuvsf!pg!uif!sfmjfg!hsboufe*!boe!qvcmjd!
ifbsjoh!sfrvjsfnfout/!!Gvsuifsnpsf-!ju!bqqfbst!uibu!pof!pg!uif!
nfncfst!pg!uif!\[pojoh!Cpbse!pg!Bqqfbmt!xip!wpufe!po!uif!Ænjops!
sfwjtjpotÇ!xbt!opu!qsftfou!bu!uif!psjhjobm!ifbsjoh/
JJ/e/d/Xf!pomz!mfbsofe!pg!uif!bcpwf!jo!dpotvmujoh!uif!Sfhjtusz!pg!Effet-!
xifo!nz!xjgf!boe!J!tpvhiu!up!voefstuboe!ipx!uif!qpsdi!dpvme!
ibwf!cffo!fombshfe!up!bddpnnpebuf!tfbujoh!xjuipvu!fodspbdijoh!
joup!uif!gspou!tfu!cbdl/!
JJJ/Jnqfsnjttjcmf!Vtf!.!Gvodujpot!boe!Fwfout
JJJ/b/Uibu!tbnf!fwfojoh!pg!uif!31ui-!J!ibqqfofe!up!tff!gspn!nz!gspou!xjoepxt!
uibu!Joo!tubgg!xfsf!tfuujoh!vq!tfwfsbm!ubcmft!po!uif!obsspx!fyqbotf!pg!
mbxo!jo!gspou!pg!uif!gpsnfs!Ebob!Ipnf!bmpoh!Nbttbdivtfuut!Bwfovf/!!
Mbufs!uibu!fwfojoh-!kvtu!cfgpsf!:qn-!b!mbshf!xfeejoh!qbsuz!hbuifsfe!uifsf-!
tqsfbejoh!po!up!uif!qvcmjd!tjefxbml/!!Mpve!nvtjd!xbt!qmbzfe<!uif!qbsuz.
hpfst!xfsf!hjwfo!tqbslmfst!boe!qfpqmf!zfmmfe!boe!diffsfe!evsjoh!xijdi!
ujnf!J!cfmjfwf!uif!csjef!boe!hsppn!ebodfe!jo!gspou!pg!uif!Joo/!!Uifsf!xfsf!
b!gfx!mpve!boopvodfnfout!uibu!uif!qbsuz!xpvme!cf!npwjoh!jotjef-!cvu!uif!
qbsuz!dpoujovfe!gps!tpnf!ujnf!jo!gspou!pg!uif!Joo/
JJJ/c/Gvodujpot!boe!fwfout!bsf!opu!bnpoh!uif!Bmmpxfe!Vtft!pg!uif!EfÑojujwf!
Tjuf!Efwfmpqnfou!boe!Vtf!Qmbo!)ETEVQ*!xijdi!jt!qbsu!pg!uif!{pojoh/!!Up!
hbuifs!fwjefodf!up!tvcnju!up!zpv-!J!dspttfe!uif!tusffu-!xbmlfe!qbtu!uif!
Joo-!bmpoh!uif!qvcmjd!tjefxbml-!boe!uppl!tfwfsbm!jnbhft!boe!b!wfsz!tipsu!
wjefp!dmjq!xjui!nz!jQipof/!!)Tff!buubdife!qipupt!pg!Buubdinfou!3/*
JJJ/d/J!ibwf!sfdfoumz!mfbsofe!gspn!uif!JooÉt!xfctjuf!uibu!b!cfesppn!jo!uif!
gpsnfs!Nvmmjlfo!Ipvtf!ibt!cffo!dpowfsufe!joup!b!nffujoh!sppn!dbmmfe!
uif!ÆTbmpo-Ç!xijdi!dbo!ipme!vq!up!26!joejwjevbmt-!bu!xijdi!gppe!boe!
cfwfsbhft!nbz!cf!qspwjefe/!!Jo!beejujpo-!uif!ÆMjwjoh!SppnÇ!jo!uif!gpsnfs!
Ebob!Ipnf!jt!bmtp!opx!cfjoh!pggfsfe!gps!sfou!up!hspvqt!pg!vq!up!36!
qfpqmf/!!Bddpsejoh!up!uif!Qsjwbuf!Fwfout!3128!qbhf!pg!uif!JooÉt!xfctjuf-!
dvtupnfst!xip!sfou!pvu!uif!ÆMjwjoh!SppnÇ!gps!ejoofs!po!Gsjebz!boe!
Tbuvsebz!fwfojoht!nvtu!bmtp!sftfswf!b!njojnvn!pg!6!sppnt!bu!uif!Joo-!tp!
dmfbsmz!opu!bmm!dvtupnfst!bu!uiftf!fwfout!bsf!sfrvjsfe!up!cf!pwfsojhiu!Joo!
hvftut/!)Tff!Buubdinfou!4!gps!qsjdjoh!boe!Buubdinfou!5!gps!qipupt!pg!
ÆMjwjoh!SppnÇ!gspn!Joo!xfctjuf/*
JJJ/e/Cfzpoe!uif!gbdu!uibu!uiftf!efejdbufe!gvodujpo!sppnt!bsf!opu!bmmpxfe!qfs!
uif!ETEVQ!boe!uibu!uif!mjrvps!mjdfotf!bddpsefe!up!uif!Joo!epft!opu!
fyufoe!up!tvdi!gvodujpo!sppnt-!Nt/!Lfoofbmz!ifstfmg!tubufe!cfgpsf!Upxo!
Nffujoh!uibu;!
ÆUif!QTEVQ!mjnjut!uif!ovncfs!pg!tfbut!uibu!xf!dbo!ibwf!up!65/!
Uibu!jt!jo!uif!QTEVQ-!uibu!jt!uif!nbyjnvn!ovncfs!pg!tfbut!uibu!J!
dbo!ibwf-!tp!boz!bmdpipm!mjdfotf!uibu!J!bqqmz!gps!xjmm!cf!mjnjufe!up!
65!tfbut/Ç!)Tff!MfyNfejb!sfdpsejoh!pg!Nbz!:-!3123-!bu!3;14;55-!pg!
Nt/!LfoofbmzÉt!sftqpotf!up!b!rvftujpo!evsjoh!Upxo!Nffujoh!
dpotjefsbujpo!pg!Bsujdmf!45/*
JJJ/f/Bt!zpv!nbz!sfdbmm-!evsjoh!uijt!Upxo!Nffujoh-!Nt/!Nbo{-!Dibjs!pg!uif!
Qmboojoh!Cpbse!jo!uif!CpbseÉt!sfqpsu!up!upxo!Upxo!Nffujoh!Nfncfst!
tubufe!uibu;!
ÆXjui!sfhbse!up!gvodujpo!sppnt-!xijmf!gvodujpo!sppnt!bsf!b!
qfsnjuufe!vtf!jo!uif!{pojoh!efÑojujpo!pg!ÆJooÇ-!uif!joufsjps!qmbo!gps!
uif!cvjmejoht!po!uijt!tjuf-!xijdi!bsf!nbef!b!cjoejoh!qbsu!pg!uif!
QTEVQ-!ep!opu!jodmvef!efejdbufe!gvodujpo!sppntÇ/!!)Tff!
MfyNfejb!sfdpsejoh-!bu!njovuf!5:-!pg!Upxo!Nffujoh!pg!Nbz!:-!
3123/*
JJJ/g/Uif!fyjtufodf!pg!tvdi!gvodujpo!sppnt!xpvme!bmtp!qsftvnbcmz!ibwf!
jnqmjdbujpot!gps!uif!DfsujÑdbuf!pg!Pddvqbodz!bddpsefe!uif!Joo!boe!Cpbse!
pg!Ifbmui!sfhvmbujpot/!
JJJ/h/Ju!jt!dfsubjomz!vomjlfmz!uibu!uif!sf{pojoh!pg!uif!Joo!xpvme!ibwf!tvddfttgvmmz!
qbttfe!Upxo!Nffujoh!jg!gvodujpot!ibe!cffo!qfsnjuufe-!bt!nboz!nfncfst!
boe!sftjefout!bmsfbez!gfmu!uif!joufotjuz!pg!uif!dpnnfsdjbm!vtf!xbt!opu!
bqqspqsjbuf!hjwfo!uif!gppuqsjou!pg!uif!sf{pofe!qspqfsuz-!uif!dmptf!qspyjnjuz!
pg!qsjwbuf!ipnft-!boe!qbsljoh!sfrvjsfnfout/!
JJJ/i/Jg!pof!beet!uif!36!tfbut!jo!uif!ÆMjwjoh!SppnÇ-!uif!26!tfbut!jo!uif!ÆTbmpoÇ-!
uif!65!!tfbut!jo!uif!sftubvsbou!boe!uif!33!sppnt!pg!uif!Joo-!qbsljoh!jt!
xpfgvmmz!efÑdjfou/!Ju!jt!jofwjubcmf!uibu!xifo!gvodujpot!pddvs-!bt!pof!
bqqbsfoumz!eje!upebz-!uibu!dvtupnfst!xip!dboopu!Ñoe!qbsljoh!bu!uif!Joo!
xjmm!qbsl!po!sftjefoujbm!tjef!tusffut-!bt!tfwfsbm!dbst!eje!evsjoh!bo!fwfou!
upebz/!!Evsjoh!b!qfsjpe!pg!tfwfsbm!njovuft!nz!xjgf!boe!J!xjuofttfe!bu!
mfbtu!4!hspvqt!pg!qbsuzhpfst!qbsl!uifjs!dbst!ofbs!pvs!esjwfxbz!po!Qbslfs!
Tusffu!boe!dsptt!uif!tusffu!up!foufs!uif!Joo-!dbsszjoh!cbmmppot!gps!bo!fwfou/
JJJ/j/Gvsuifsnpsf-!gvodujpot!ejtqmbdf!puifs!qbuspot!joup!puifs!bsfbt!pg!uif!Joo!
opu!bvuipsj{fe!gps!gppe!boe!cfwfsbhf!tfswjdf/!!)Qmfbtf!tff!Buubdinfou!6*
JW/Bmdpipm!Dpotvnqujpo!Pvutjef!Qfsnjuufe!Bsfbt
JW/b/Evsjoh!uif!fwfojoh!gvodujpo!jo!gspou!pg!uif!Joo-!tpnf!hvftut!po!uif!gspou!
mbxo!xfsf!esjoljoh!bmdpipm!)tff!tfdpoe!qipup!jo!Buubdinfou!3!xjui!xijuf!
bsspxt!qpjoujoh!up!xjof!hmbttft*/!!Uijt!jt!pg!dpvstf!opu!b!qfsnjuufe!bsfb!
gps!dpotvnqujpo/
JW/c/Bu!uif!Efdfncfs!3127!mjrvps!mjdfotf!ifbsjoh!gps!uif!Joo!bu!Ibtujoht!Qbsl-!
J!xbt!bewjtfe!cz!uif!CPT!boe!uif!Upxo!Nbobhfs!uibu-!xfsf!J!up!pctfswf!
gvsuifs!wjpmbujpot!pg!uif!mjrvps!mjdfotf-!J!tipvme!dbmm!uif!Mfyjohupo!Qpmjdf!
Efqbsunfou/!!Xijmf!J!dpotjefsfe!epjoh!uijt-!J!vmujnbufmz!efdjefe!bhbjotu!ju!
bt!ju!tffnfe!ufssjcmz!vogbjs!up!uif!zpvoh!dpvqmf!dfmfcsbujoh!uifjs!xfeejoh!
ebz!up!tqpjm!uifjs!fwfou!cz!ibwjoh!ju!csplfo!vq!cz!uif!qpmjdf/!!!Ju!tffnfe!
mftt!jousvtjwf!up!hbuifs!qipuphsbqijd!fwjefodf!gspn!uif!bekbdfou!qvcmjd!
xbmlxbz/
J!ipqf!uibu!zpv!xjmm!ublf!wfsz!tfsjpvtmz!uif!wjpmbujpot!J!ibwf!pvumjofe!bcpwf!boe!jo!zpvs!
dbqbdjuz!bt!uif!Cpbse!pg!Tfmfdunfo!fotvsf!uibu!pvs!sfhvmbujpot!bsf!gvmmz!dpnqmjfe!xjui!
gps!uif!cfofÑu!pg!uif!foujsf!dpnnvojuz/
Tjodfsfmz-
Kpio!N/!Qbusjdl
Buubdinfout;
Qbuspot!po!Qpsdi!Tfu!vq!gps!Gppe!Tfswjdf!cz!Xbju!Tubgg!boe!Pvuepps!Gppe!
Buubdinfou!2
Tfswjdf!Pctfswfe!po!Nbz!31-!3128!bu!23;31qn
Buubdinfou!3 Mbshf!Gvodujpo!ifme!jo!gspou!pg!Joo!po!Nbtt!Bwf/
Joo!Qsjwbuf!Fwfout!jogpsnbujpo!tipxjoh!dsfbujpo!pg!gvodujpo!sppn!jo!Mjwjoh!
Buubdinfou!4
Sppn!boe!dpowfstjpo!pg!b!hvftu!cfesppn!joup!b!gvodujpo!sppn
Buubdinfou!5 Qipupt!gspn!Joo!xfctjuf!tipxjoh!ÆMjwjoh!SppnÇ!tfu!vq!gps!gvodujpot
pqfoubcmf/dpn!Sfwjfx!pg!Bsujtusz!po!Uif!Hsffo!.!Sftubvsbou!Qbuspo!
Buubdinfou!6 Eftdsjcjoh!Cfjoh!Npwfe!up!ÆMjwjoh!SppnÇ!Up!Ejof!Xifo!Ejtqmbdfe!cz!
Gvodujpo!jo!Sftubvsbou
Buubdinfou!2;!Qbuspot!po!Qpsdi!Tfu!vq!gps!Gppe!Tfswjdf!cz!Xbju!Tubgg
Buubdinfou!2!)dpou*;!Pvuepps!Gppe!Tfswjdf!Pctfswfe!po!Nbz!31-!3128!bu!23;31qn
Buubdinfou!3;!Mbshf!Gvodujpo!Ifme!jo!Gspou!pg!Joo!po!Nbtt!Bwf/
Qipup!gspn!qvcmjd!
tjefxbml!pg!pvuepps!
gvodujpo!po!Nbz!31!
\[ppn!pg!bcpwf!qipup!
tipxjoh!hvftut!xjui!
xjof!hmbttft
Buubdinfou!4;!Joo!Qsjwbuf!Fwfout!Jogpsnbujpo!tipxjoh!dsfbujpo!pg!gvodujpo!sppn!jo!
Mjwjoh!Sppn!boe!dpowfstjpo!pg!b!hvftu!cfesppn!joup!b!gvodujpo!sppn
QSJWBUF!FWFOUT!3128
Uif!Mjwjoh!Sppn!
Uif!Mjwjoh!Sppn!jt!bwbjmbcmf!up!cf!sfoufe!cz!uif!ebz!boe!cz!uif!ibmg.ebz/!
Ebz!Sfoubm;!%911!!!!!!Ibmg.ebz!sfoubm;!%511!
Gppe!'!Cfwfsbhf!Njojnvn;!%611!!!!Gppe!'!Cfwfsbhf!Njojnvn;!%361!
Uif!Mjwjoh!Sppn!dbo!cf!sfoufe!gps!fwfojoh!fwfout!gps!vq!up!36!qfpqmf/!
Gppe!'!Cfwfsbhf!Njojnvnt<!
!Npoebz!.!Uivstebz!!Mvodi;!%2-611!!!Ejoofs;!%3-611!
!Gsjebz0Tbuvsebz!!Mvodi;!%2-611!!!Ejoofs;!%4-111+!
!Tvoebz!!!!Csvodi;!%2-611!!!Ejoofs;!%3-611!
!+sfrvjsft!sftfswbujpo!pg!6!hvftu!sppnt!
Uif!Tbmpo!
Xf!ibwf!sfopwbufe!pof!pg!pvs!tvjuft!jotjef!uif!Jtbbd!Nvmmjlfo!Ipvtf!up!bddpnnpebuf!b!qsjwbuf!
nffujoh!tqbdf!gps!vq!up!26!qfpqmf/!
Dpnqmjnfoubsz!MDE!qspkfdups!boe!tdsffo!
¦
Sppn!Sfoubm!%611/11!
¦
Gppe!'!Cfwfsbhf!Njojnvn!%611/11!
¦
Sftubvsbou!Sfoubm!
Uif!Joo(t!Sftubvsbou-!Bsujtusz!po!uif!Hsffo-!dbo!cf!sfoufe!pvu!gps!fwfout!pg!vq!up!65!qfpqmf/!Uif!
sftubvsbou!jt!dmptfe!up!uif!qvcmjd!po!Npoebzt!gps!mvodi!boe!ejoofs!up!bddpnnpebuf!qsjwbuf!fwfout/!
Uif!sftubvsbou!jt!bwbjmbcmf!gps!qsjwbuf!fwfout!po!puifs!ebzt!pg!uif!xffl-!cvu!tvdi!cvz.pvut!bsf!
tvckfdu!up!ijhifs!gppe!boe!cfwfsbhf!njojnvnt/!)Bmm!njojnvnt!mjtufe!cfmpx!bsf!tvckfdu!up!jodsfbtf!
evsjoh!qfbl!ujnft/*!
!Gppe!'!Cfwfsbhf!Njojnvnt;!
!Npoebz!!!Mvodi;!%3-611!!!Ejoofs;!%4-611!
!Uvftebz0Xfeoftebz!!Mvodi;!%3-611!!!Ejoofs;!%5-611!
!Uivstebz!!!Mvodi;!%3-611!!!Ejoofs;!%6-611!
!Gsjebz++!!!Mvodi;!%3-611!!!Ejoofs;!%8-611!
!Tbuvsebz++!!!Csvodi0Mvodi;!%4-611!!Ejoofs;!%9-611!
!Tvoebz!!!!Csvodi;!%5-111!!!Ejoofs;!%5-611!
!++Bmm!cvz.pvu!fwfout!po!Gsjebz!boe!Tbuvsebz!ojhiut!bsf!sfrvjsfe!up!sftfswf!BMM!33!!!
!hvftu!sppnt/!Bwfsbhf!hvftu!sppn!sbuft!tubsu!bu!%436/11!
Qbsujft!xip!cvz.pvu!uif!foujsf!Joo!dbo!ibwf!qsjwbuf!bddftt!up!uif!sftubvsbou!evsjoh!csfblgbtu!xjui!
%2-111!sppn!sfoubm!po!xfflebzt!boe!b!%3-111!sppn!sfoubm!po!xfflfoet/!
Puifs!Sftubvsbou!Fwfout;!
Fwfout!pg!vq!up!31!qfpqmf!dbo!cf!iptufe!jo!uif!sftubvsbou!xjuipvu!cvzjoh!pvu!uif!foujsf!sftubvsbou!
gps!uif!qbsuz(t!fydmvtjwf!vtf/!Uiftf!qbsujft!xjmm!cf!tvckfdu!up!b!qfs!qfstpo!njojnvn!tfu!po!b!dbtf.
cz.dbtf!cbtjt/!Xf!xjmm!xpsl!xjui!zpv!up!dsfbuf!b!qsjy.yf!nfov/
3138!Nbttbdivtfuut!Bwf/-!Mfyjohupo-!NB!13532!!!!!!!892.412.7771!!!!!!!xxx/joobuibtujohtqbsl/dpn
)tpvsdf;!iuuq;00nfejb/joobuibtujohtqbsl/dpn0e0joobuibtujohtqbsl0nfejb0qeg0
Tbmft`Nbufsjbmt`QEG0QSjwbuf`fwfout`3128`tiffu/qeg*
Buubdinfou!5;!Qipupt!gspn!Joo!xfctjuf!tipxjoh!ÆMjwjoh!SppnÇ!tfu!vq!gps!gvodujpot
)Tpvsdf;!iuuq;00xxx/joobuibtujohtqbsl/dpn0hbmmfsz.fo/iunm*
Buubdinfou!6;!pqfoubcmf/dpn!Sfwjfx!pg!Bsujtusz!po!Uif!Hsffo!
Sftubvsbou!Qbuspo!Eftdsjcjoh!Cfjoh!Npwfe!up!ÆMjwjoh!SppnÇ!Up!Ejof!Xifo!Ejtqmbdfe!cz!
Gvodujpo!jo!Sftubvsbou!
!
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Lexington Center Committee
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 11:26:38 -0400
From: jerry@michelsonshoes.com
I regret to inform you that Stacy Sheehan will step down from our committee,
Lexington Center Committee, at once. Stacy has been transferred to another branch
of Cambridge Trust Co. We will miss her valuable insight of her industry as well as
her lifetime business experience and civic dedication in Lexington.
Sincerely,
Jerry Michelson
Lexington Center Committee, chair
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Middlesex, ssORDER OF TAKINGTown of Lexington
Harbell Street
ORDER OF TAKING
At a meeting of the Board of Selectmen of theTown of Lexington held on the seventeenth of
July, 2017. It is
ORDERED: Whereas the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Lexington having determined
and adjudged that common convenience and necessity require that a town waybe laid out in the
location hereinafter described and having complied with the requirements of law relating to
notice, did on the sixthday of February2017, lay out as a town waythe way known as Harbell
Street adistance of 645feet, more or less, accordingly and duly filed their report of such laying
out with the boundaries and the measurements of the same in the office of the Town Clerkon
th
the 14day of February2017, and whereas at the 2017Annual Town Meeting duly called,
th
warned and held on the 20
day of March, 2017namely, at the adjourned session of March 29,
2017; it was under Article #20as follows:
“VOTED:To establish as a Town way and accept the layoutas a Town wayHarbell Street
from Paul Revere Road, a distance of 645 feet,more or less,to the end of Harbell Street,as laid
out by the Selectmen and shown upon a plan dated February 14, 2017on file in the office of the
Town Clerk, to authorize the Selectmen to take by eminent domain, purchase or otherwise
acquire any fee, easementor other interest in land necessary therefor; to appropriate $147,000
for such acquisition and the construction of a public road and related facilities and
improvements in the layout of Harbell Street, with all or a portion of the costs therefor subject
to the assessment of betterments by the Board of Selectmen; and to raise such amount the
Treasurer, with the approval of the Board of Selectmen, is authorized to borrow $147,000
under M.G.L. Chapter 44, Section 7, or any other enabling authority.Any premium received by
the Town upon the sale of any bonds or notes approved by the this vote, less any such premium
applied to the payment of the costs of issuance of such bonds or notes, may be applied to the
payment of costs approved by this vote in accordance with Chapter 44, Section 20 of the
General Laws, thereby reducing the amount authorized to be borrowed to pay such costs by a
like amount.
NOW THEREFORE, we, the undersigned, being a majority of the Board of Selectmen of the
Town of Lexington, duly elected, qualified and acting as such, do hereby under and by virtue of
the provisions of Chapter 79 of the General Laws and of every other power and authority us
hereto in any way enabling, take the right or easement to use for all the purposes of a town way
for the use of said Town of Lexington, the land in said Town bounded and described as
follows:
Beginning at a point at the intersection of the northerly sideline of Paul Revere Road
and the westerly sideline of Harbell Street; being N86-14-40E thirty-five and thirty-
three hundredths feet of a point of tangency along Paul Revere Road that has a radius of
six hundred, ninety-four and eighty-three hundredths feet;
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Middlesex, ssORDER OF TAKINGTown of Lexington
Harbell Street
N13-35-10W, a distance of 640feet, thence
N60-08-26E, a distance of 41.67feet, thence
S13-35-10E, a distance of 658.61feet, thence
S86-14-40W, a distance of 40.60feet, to the point of beginning.
Shown on a plan entitled “Street Layout and Acceptance Plan, Harbell Street, Lexington,
Massachusetts” by GCG Associates, Inc., dated February 14, 2017and attached to this
document.
All trees, if any, upon the land taken are included in this taking.
The area, which it is expected will receive benefit or advantage other than the general
advantage to the community from such improvement, is described as follows:
The same being lands now or formerly of Joseph Winter and Amy Doud-Winter, Huaixiang
Hao and Fang Xia, Gail Corson, Carmen Verrier, Claude Lavallee and Qiong Wang, John
Taylor, Deepanker Kocheta and Jain Monica, Jinsheng and Wei Wu, Daniel Hess IV and
Jessica Hess, Michael and Patrice Briskin, Helen Eshleman, David and Julie Winton, Elizabeth
Bradshaw and Francis Heiligmann, Edward and Joseph Driscoll, Andrew Clarke and Jennifer
Wilson, as shown on a plan entitled “Street Layout and Acceptance Plan, Harbell Street,
Lexington, Massachusetts”; Scale 1”=30’’; Dated February 14, 2017.
The said area comprises the several lotsshown upon the plan hereinbefore referred to.
Betterments are to be assessed for this improvement.
We determine that no damages have been sustained and none are awarded.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Middlesex, ssORDER OF TAKINGTown of Lexington
Harbell Street
Unregistered Land
Harbell Street
OwnerMapLotBookPage
Joseph Winter & Amy Doud-Winter5890A509229
Huaixiang Hao &Fang Xia588062124132
Gail Corson587730707213
Carmen Verrier587863353557
Andrew Clarke & Jennifer Wilson582685358291
Deepanker Kocheta & Monica Jain58766334462
Claude Lavallee & Qiong Wang587939754232
John Taylor5889A17742269
Jinsheng Wu & Wei Wu588151743156
Daniel Hess IV & Jessica Hess58267A62615473
Michael Briskin & Patrice Briskin588224437057
Helen Eshleman588311253220
Donna Malek587566187358
Elizabeth Bradshaw & Francis Heiligmann5896A43461423
Edward Driscoll & Joseph Driscoll589556375215
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Middlesex, ssORDER OF TAKINGTown of Lexington
Harbell Street
The land in which the aforesaid rights and easements are taken is believed to belong to the
aforesaid named parties, but if the name of the owner of any of said land or of any interest
therein is not currently stated, it is to be understood that such land or interest is owned by an
owner or owners unknown to us.
WITNESS our hands at Lexington aforesaid this ___________ day of ______ 2017
____________________________
Selectmen
____________________________
of
____________________________
Lexington
____________________________
____________________________
Then personally appeared the above-named, Suzanne E. Barry,Michelle L. Ciccolo,Douglas
M. Lucente,Peter C.J. Kelley, Joseph N. Pato, known to me to be a majority of the duly
elected, qualified and acting Selectmen of the Town of Lexington, and severally acknowledged
the foregoing instrument to be their free act and deed and the free act and deed of the Town of
Lexington, before me,
____________________________
Notary Public
My Commission expires _________
70-382
Summit Meeting 3
Board of Selectmen, School Committee, Appropriation Committee
and Capital Expenditures Committee
December 1, 2016
A Summit was held on Thursday, December 1, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. in the Public Services
Building Cafeteria, 201 Bedford Street. Ms. Barry, Chair, Mr. Pato, Mr. Kelley, and Mr. Cohen;
Mr. Valente, Town Manager; Mr. Addelson, Assistant Town Manager for Finance, Mr. Goddard,
Public Facilities Director, Ms. Hewitt, Budget Officer and Ms. McIntosh, Executive Clerk were
present.
Also Present: School Committee (SC) members: Mr. Hurley, Chair, Ms. Steigerwald, Ms. Jay,
Mr. Alessandrini, Ms. Crocker; Dr. Czajkowski, Superintendent of Schools; Appropriation
Committee (AC) members: Mr. Bartenstein, Ms. Garberg, Mr. Levine, Mr. Michelson, Mr.
Neumeier, Mr. Radeluscu-Banu, Ms. Yang; Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) members:
Ms. Hai, Chair, Mr. Cole, Mr. Kanter, and Ms. Manz.
Not Present: Ms. Ciccolo, Board of Selectmen, Mr. Parker, Chair, Appropriation Committee
Ms. Barry called the Board of Selectmen meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and called upon the chairs
of the School Committee, Appropriation Committee and Capital Expenditures Committee to call
their committees to order.
Proposed FY18 Revenue Allocation Model
Mr. Valente explained that this is the Summit to review the Town’s new revenue projections for
FY18 and allocate them into four buckets; fixed costs, capital, reserves and operating costs
which includes school and municipal operations. At Summit 1, Mr. Valente provided the group
with an overview of the Town’s financial condition and a three year revenue and expenditure
projection. FY18 looked relatively positive; however in FY19, while still in a strong position
without additional revenues, the stress of the increasing school age population is beginning to be
felt and in FY20 it gets more serious in terms of having a balanced budget. At Summit 2, FY18
revenue projections were presented and that will be the basis now for Summit 3, for a discussion
of how those revenues will be allocated.
Mr. Valente presented a 3-year revenue allocation history along with what is projected for FY18.
Overall there is relative strong revenue growth; 6.6% over FY17. However, there is starting to
be some moderation in revenue increases. Mr. Valente asked the group to keep this in mind.
Mr. Addelson, Assistant Town Manager for Finance, presented the FY2018 Revenue Allocation
model. He reported that the projected revenue for FY18 is approximately $209 million. He
pointed out that included in the list of fixed costs, is approximately $14 million recommended for
various set asides, of which $618,148 is set aside for unallocated needs. After fixed costs,
approximately $8.7 million in incremental revenue is left. That amount is allocated at 73.7% to
the school side and 26.3% to the municipal side. The school share of incremental FY18 revenue
70-383
Budget Summit # 3 – December 1, 2016
is approximately $6.4 million, a 6.6% increase over FY17, and the municipal share is
approximately $2.3 million, also a 6.6% increase over FY17.
Mr. Addelson pointed out that the $618,148 in Unallocated Needs could absorb a potential
increase in health insurance. The projected increase in health insurance is budgeted at 5% but
the consultants are projecting increases as much as 7%. Mr. Addelson pointed out the
recommendation that $5 million go in to the Debt Service/Capital Stabilization Fund. And last,
is the $983,000 in unallocated revenue, which can be used to balance competing operating and
capital demands.
Mr. Levine inquired as to the trends in building permits. In his observation, there seemed to be
less building activity than in past years. Mr. Addelson responded that building permits were a
tool used to project growth in the tax levy. Projections for FY17 were a 2.5% increase with
actuals coming in at about 3.3%. Projections for FY18 were also 2.5%.
Mr. Valente elaborated on the $618,148 in Unallocated/Unidentified Needs. This could go to fill
the gap for items where revenue projections have fallen short. Though revenue projections are
typically conservative, an example could be where actual state aid falls below the Town’s
projections. The second category could be for an expense that is not included in the
recommended budget, but should be. The third category could be an unknown increase in fixed
costs, for example health insurance, as has been mentioned previously.
Mr. Valente explained that a focus continues to be capital plan management to mitigate the
amount of debt service by increasing the capital stabilization fund and addressing some of the
capital needs through cash capital, limiting the need for further debt. By keeping budgets level
and increases modest more can be put into the stabilization fund that can subsequently be used to
limit the tax impact to tax payers for various capital projects/debt service.
Mr. Valente discussed some emerging policy issues including increased requests for
improvements to pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle safety. On that note, the Town recently
received good news around the Complete Streets Program. A $292,000 grant was received
through the program which would go directly to towards transportation safety initiatives. Also
of note, the increasing financial impact of complying with the federal and state stormwater
management requirements is being felt in both the capital and operating budgets. It is becoming
increasingly difficult to absorb without new revenue sources. The committees were invited to
pass along any other policy priorities they are seeing.
Confirm Date for Summit 4
The date for Summit 4 was set for Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. in the cafeteria at the
Public Services Building.
Update on Lexington Children’s Place (LCP) Site Options and High School HVAC
Mr. Hurley provided an overview on the site options that have been explored for the Lexington
Children’s Place (LCP). The School Committee has had numerous conversations in an effort to
70-384
Budget Summit # 3 – December 1, 2016
narrow the options down formally to two. The committee informally narrowed the options to the
20 Pelham site or a new facility at the Harrington site. Mr. Hurley discussed the relative merits
of the two sites. If the Pelham property could be purchased within the next 20 to 30 days,
DiNisco would be asked focus on developing plans for the Pelham site. The School Committee
took a formal vote at their November 29 meeting to support locating the LCP at a joint
municipal/school site at the Pelham location.
Mr. Hurley discussed the plans to improve the HVAC system at the high school. The initial
discussion related to the high school HVAC system estimated a cost of $12-13M, which has
increased to $20M. The question is whether to proceed with investing this level of funds for a
comprehensive HVAC plan at the high school or modify the scope and take a more targeted
approach. The question with the reduction in scope is the decision of where to prioritize the
improvements.
Ms. Czajkowski discussed a more targeted approach to the HVAC updates to include teacher
planning spaces which are also used for extra student help and would possibly include the
library. The incremental funding for the four education spaces would be $320,000. To include
the library the estimate would increase to $550,000.
Mr. Levine inquired if the $20M for the HVAC work was improvements to the existing system
or a new system. Mr. Hurley replied that the $20M would change out the entire system and also
include proper ventilation and roof top energy recovery facilities for 210,000 sq. ft. of the
building. The current system does not allow for individual temperature control in the
educational spaces. However, it does operate and it could be maintained until the next major
high school project. Suggestions were made to continue to look at ways to improve efficiency
and also to look at the school capital plan in a comprehensive way. Ms. Steigerwald reiterated
that it is a good time for the committees to look at the high school holistically and ask what is the
right thing to do right now. Direction from the school community is necessary to identify where
the most help is needed and what makes sense programmatically.
Mr. Goddard identified some of the challenges to the current systems. A number of renovations
and additions have happened over the years since the building opened in 1954. The part of the
building being discussed at this point is the original 1954 building. Some systems are still the
original steam system and some were updated in 2000 to hot water. The combination of all the
various systems makes it difficult to upgrade.
Ms. Barry thanked all the boards and committees for their hard work and wished them well over
the holiday.
Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn at 8:39 p.m.
A true record; Attest:
Donna M. McIntosh
Executive Clerk
Documents Presented
3.FY2018 Revenue Allocation Model
70-385
Selectmen’s Meeting
FY2018 Budget Presentation #2
December 1, 2016
A Budget Session meeting of the Lexington Board of Selectmen was held on Thursday,
December 1, 2016 at 1:15 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room of the Town Office Building.
Ms. Barry, Chairman; Mr. Kelley; Mr. Cohen; Mr. Pato; and Ms. Ciccolo as well as Mr. Valente,
Town Manager and Ms. Siebert, Recording Secretary.
FY2018 Budget Presentations
Land Use, Health, and Development
The department includes Building and Zoning; Administration; Conservation; Public Health;
Planning; and Economic Development. Staff presenting the FY18 budget include Carol
Kowalski, Assistant Town Manager for Development; Melissa Tintocalis, Economic
Development Director; Aaron Henry, Director of Planning; Karen Mullins, Conservation
Administrator; Gerry Cody, Director of Public Health; Lorraine Garrett, Office Manager; and
Fred Lonardo, Building Commissioner and Zoning Enforcement Officer.
Ms. Kowalski said Land Use, Health and Development has just finished its first year as a unified
Department. Through an exercise conducted in October, areas of improvement were identified in
which additional cohesion and collaboration is warranted, most notably in communication.
The FY18 budget projects a decrease of 0.04%, mostly due to the elimination of one-time
moving costs allocated in FY17 and adjustments to the Visitor Center budget. Compensation is
increasing 1.34% and Expenses is decreasing 8.41%. Of the sub-programs, the highest
percentage decrease is in Administration at 4.27% and the highest increase is in Planning at
2.78%, largely attributable to the need for Overtime staffing for after-hours meetings.
There are seven PIRs totaling $457,624:
Increase hours for part-time inspectors in the Building and Zoning department ($10,025).
Contract services and supplies for Public Health to address opioid abuse and prevention strategies
as well as prescription drug disposal services and public health seminars ($16,342).
Fund the cost of contract services, publicity, and supplies to develop an updated Comprehensive
Plan (CP) ($358,900).
Increase the Economic Development marketing budget ($5,500) to fund website content
improvements as well as digital and marketing initiatives.
Pilot a three-year Bike share program ($27,000).
Conduct a Market Study to understand what part of the Lexington economy is visitor-based.
($25,000)
Compensate a Revolutionary Revelry Event Manager to coordinate the month-long, yearly
program ($15,000.)
70-386
FY2018 Budget Presentation #2 - December 1, 2016
There are ten Capital requests. Listed below are the projects and FY18 impacts:
Bedford and Eldred street improvements/pedestrian crossing: $175,000
Transportation Mitigation to Replenish TSG project funds: $100,000
Muzzey Street/Clark Street Parking Lot: no impact until FY19
Willard’s Woods and Wright Farm Meadow Preservation: $40,480
Cotton Farm Conservation Area Improvements: $300,403
Hartwell Area TMOD Plan Update: no impact until FY19
Conservation Restriction/Trail Easement: no impact and likely to be withdrawn due to other
priorities
Wright Farm additional site assessment following the discovery and mitigation of soil
contamination: $70,000
Stone Building analysis to determine what use concepts will work for this historic building:
$25,000
Hill Street sidewalk design: $100,000
Mr. Kelley asked whether David George is still handling zoning enforcement. Ms. Kowalski
clarified that in Massachusetts, there is usually a Zoning Enforcement Officer who is also the
Building Commissioner/Inspector. Mr. George is the Zoning Administrator, delegated by the
Zoning Enforcement Officer to conduct zoning enforcement.
Ms. Barry asked Mr. Cody to explain a bit more about prescription drug collection. Mr. Cody
said that while the four collections held throughout the year are robust, Health wants to install a
“Take Back Box” to provide a safe, secure, and permanent location for drop offs. The receptacle
would be maintained by the BOH which would contract with a vendor to clean out the box’s
contents periodically. Usually, boxes of this type are sited near Police Stations.
Referring to one of the Capital requests, Ms. Barry noted the Transportation Safety Group will
host a public forum about the Hill Street sidewalk capital project on Tuesday December 6 at 7pm
at the Hastings School. Survey plans will be shown and the public will be asked for feedback.
Mr. Cohen said he believed a citizen’s petition will be filed for the Hill Street sidewalk project.
The $100,000 Capital request is for the design phase only. Mr. Valente said a revision has
recently been made to the projected engineering costs and he asked the Board to adjust the Hill
Street request from $100,000 to $150,000. The estimate for construction now appears to be in the
$1.3M range. Mr. Valente asked the Board to provide some direction on this project because
$1.3M represents almost 25% of the Town’s yearly $6M debt allowance. Should the Town spend
$150,000 on design if the $1.3M project is unlikely to happen the following year?
Ms. Barry asked if the $150,000 would come out of dedicated sidewalk funds. Mr. Valente said
it would not. The $800,000 the Board recently approved for that purpose targets repair of
existing sidewalks.
Mr. Kelley asked if the schematic design survey identifies which side of Hill Street the sidewalk
should be built on. He also asked if property rights would be affected. Mr. Henry said the survey
70-387
FY2018 Budget Presentation #2 - December 1, 2016
did look at where the sidewalk should go but public input is desired before staff makes a
recommendation. Asst. Planner David Kucharsky does not believe property takings are a factor.
Mr. Kelley asked if there is enough history after three years for how successful in-house
management of the Visitor Center has been and if there is an opportunity to create an Enterprise
Fund. Ms. Kowalski replied that there is indication that the Visitor Center will be successful but
it is not at the point of being self-sustaining. Ms. Tintocalis clarified that FY16 was the first full
year of in-house management and although the operation made a profit of $20,000 after
expenses, the margins are still slim. About 120,000 visitors are served by the Center every year.
Now, with point-of-sale tracking and a longer history, the Town will be better able to model
whether a larger profit can be expected in the future. She added that the retail landscape is
shifting so staff does not want to be too optimistic with regard to merchandise revenue.
Ms. Barry asked if it is possible to track where visitors come from. Ms. Tintocalis said the
department expects to glean this information from visitors who opt in to provide zip codes at the
point of sale.
Ms. Ciccolo asked if there was is an appetite to fast-track the Hill Street project by offering a
betterment fund for Hill Street residents. Mr. Valente said this concept has not been discussed.
Ms. Ciccolo asked if transportation mitigation might be handled by one firm on an annual
contract rather than by different companies on a project-by-project basis. Having a single firm on
retainer would expedite services. Mr. Valente said the $100,000 transportation mitigation funds
are not only for engineering work but also, depending on the project, for traffic consultants or
other assistance. The funds are also intended to cover actual work, such as signage or curb bump-
outs.
Ms. Ciccolo said she is supportive of updating the Comprehensive Plan but the cost is
substantial. She asked if Planning had developed a detailed scope of work and if some of the
information from studies already done by other Town entities—like the 20/20 Vision survey and
the Economic Development Marketing Plan— could help keep down costs.
Mr. Henry said Planning has been working closely with 20/20 because of the synergy and timing
opportunities. The PIR was approached from a full-funding perspective even though Planning
acknowledges that the project could be scaled back if necessary. The scope of work will change,
depending on funding. Planning is thinking about priorities and how to create a tiered approach.
Ms. Ciccolo said she hoped that Health and Energy elements would be included in the Plan if full
funding is approved. Mr. Henry agreed, adding that Planning will approach the update differently
than in the past to achieve an integrated analysis rather than one that silos elements into stand-
alone categories.
Mr. Cohen referred to the need to improve transportation options to Lexington so that restaurants
are able to hire enough staff. Ms. Tintocalis said she has met with the owner of Lexx restaurant
70-388
FY2018 Budget Presentation #2 - December 1, 2016
so she can better understand the issue. The Lexx owner intends to set up a focus group with other
restauranteurs to try to collaborate on providing shuttle/van service from the city. Voucher and
Uber options might also be helpful. Ms. Tintocalis has reached out to Minuteman High School to
forge internship connections and will bring the Chamber of Commerce into the discussion.
Mr. Kelley asked if communities need to have a Comprehensive Plan to receive State or Federal
grants. Ms. Kowalski said there is no mandate for Massachusetts communities to have a Plan, as
there is in other states. However, communities that have CPs are awarded additional points when
applying for grants so it is advantageous for the Town to have one. Ms. Ciccolo added the
majority of grants she has submitted included a question about whether the grant project would
be consistent with a town’s CP. Bond rating agencies also look favorably on communities when
they have an up-to-date Plan. Location specialists companies use also like to see that a town has
a CP because it reveals local land use priorities.
Mr. Kelley asked if community engagement will be the starting point before consultants are
brought in. Mr. Henry said that public outreach is a prominent and ongoing focus throughout
development of the Plan. Mr. Pato said it is his understanding there would be facilitated
conversations during the process. Mr. Henry concurred, saying the idea is to hire a facilitator
rather than a professional planning firm because the department has planning expertise but is not
skilled in public facilitation.
Ms. Ciccolo said a State statute governs Comprehensive Plans, even though they are not
mandated, and the statute clearly spells out what is expected. Zoning reform has been moving
slowly through the legislative process and has passed the Senate. All of the discussions at this
level link a community’s current CP to zoning reform benefits, Ms. Ciccolo said. Typically, CPs
are updated every 10 years; by the time Lexington’s proposed update is complete it will have
been 17 since the Town adopted the current version.
Ms. Barry asked for more information about the Bike Share program, an item on the Capital list.
Ms. Tintocalis said that from the Visitor Center alone, her office fields numerous inquiries about
bicycle availability. In the program, she sees a natural intersection of tourism, public health,
recreation, and economic development. Arlington and Bedford have both indicated interest as
well and a regional sharing concept might work well. The $27,000 PIR funds 15 bikes for
Lexington’s specific use for one year and includes installation, service, marketing, app,
movement, repair, and replacement of bikes and insurance. There may be a corporate element as
well because companies like Shire might want to add the bike share program to their
transportation demand options. Bike share could also be beneficial to the regional transportation
management association.
Ms. Ciccolo said she is concerned about how the bike share would interact with Hubway,
Cambridge and Boston’s bike share program. Perhaps a transfer option would be possible. Mr.
Pato agreed but he said he also wants to get some kind of program going sooner than later. The
Town can gauge response and adjust from there.
70-389
FY2018 Budget Presentation #2 - December 1, 2016
Mr. Valente said the Comprehensive Plan is less an issue of management and administration and
more of a question of policy direction. It would therefore helpful if the Board could provide
direction. If it is a priority, Mr. Valente and Mr. Addelson will find a way to fit it into the
recommended budget, even if it means another project has to be postponed.
Ms. Barry canvassed her colleagues. Mr. Pato said the price tag was high but he wants the
community to have the kinds of conversations the Comprehensive Plan will prompt. Mr. Kelly
agreed and said that reaching out to the community was an important feature of the process. Ms.
Barry also agreed it was a high priority but she would want to know what might fall off the list if
CP was funded. Mr. Cohen also agreed to proceed, particularly because it has been so long since
the last update. Ms. Ciccolo agreed to move forward but believes the price is too high and that
other efforts—like the Open Space plan and the grant-funded Net Zero project—should be
integrated into the plan. She would like the CP to pull all these independent projects together
and she would like the funding split into two years to stagger the impact. As a final point, Ms.
Ciccolo said she believes a lot of the recent community turmoil and controversy can be attributed
to the fact that these kinds of public conversations are overdue.
Mr. Valente said for the last three years, the question of what to do with the historic Stone
Building has come up. The first issue to be addressed is what kinds of cultural programs the site
can accommodate. The second floor is envisioned to remain a lyceum, as it has been in the past.
Bringing in a consultant to advise on uses for the first floor is the next step as there is no internal
expertise to help answer these questions. The building has been preserved on the outside but
vacant for 9 years.
The project is on the list for potential Community Preservation funding but that committee may
not agree to fund it. If that happens, would the money come from the tax levy?
Mr. Pato said he supports the Stone Building project and notes that the Selectmen receive a lot of
inquiries about why the building is not being used. The types of uses the building can accommo-
date is constrained by the bequest to the Town. Additionally, Massachusetts Avenue will be
under construction in that area. At the moment, discussion is the right way to proceed.
Mr. Kelley supports using the building again as well, and recalls that a lot of discussion and
design took place nine years ago but was then stalled. He believes that the archives of those
discussions are available and added that the Library Trustees should be included in subsequent
conversations.
Mr. Valente said two engineering conceptual plans exist from the previous design work that
focused on making the building handicap accessible. A study was also done about the second
floor’s preservation as a lyceum. Both studies were done under the auspices of the Facilities
Department. If the new study goes forward, those results will be included in the new discussions.
Ms. Ciccolo said she hopes that CPC will fund the project and wonders if a public/private
partnership would be useful, particularly to help with operational costs. If the terms of the
70-390
FY2018 Budget Presentation #2 - December 1, 2016
bequest do not prohibit such uses, Ms. Ciccolo is aware there are a lot of non-profits in town
looking for space and potential for purposes such as co-working offices which are also worth
consideration.
Mr. Cohen said vacant buildings in town are of interest to him and he is glad to see progress on
the Stone Building.
Ms. Ciccolo said she hopes the apple orchards at Cotton Farm are part of improvement plan. Ms.
Kowalski assured her that they are. Mr. Kelley said he would prefer that parking lot additions to
the Cotton Farm be kept away from the road so that rural aspect of the property is maintained.
He also hopes that details of what would be done for $300,000 are more clearly spelled out
before the Selectmen have to vote on the project. Ms. Mullins said the $300,000 funding is for
design and there is always public input during the design phase.
Town Committees
Claire Goodwin, Management Analyst for the Town Manager’s Office, said that the overall
budget for 70+ Town Committees is decreasing in FY18 by 29.01% or $23,645. This is due to a
one-time $30,000 expense in FY17 for the 20/20 Vision survey. There is a 2% requested increase
for compensation for the financial committees’ part-time secretary; a 2 ½ % increase for supplies
for the Town Celebrations Committee; and a 5% increase to the budget for “Dance Around the
World”, held every other year.
The town-wide 20/20 Vision Committee has been preparing and editing a draft of its report
which is expected to be distributed more widely in January as a finished document.
Ms. Goodwin said it was brought to her attention just today that there will be an additional
request for Patriots Day funding but she has no details at this time.
There are two PIRs being submitted:
The Council for the Arts Grant Program wants to increase its budget to fulfil the Town charge
which is two-fold: to provide grants in the arts and culture and to encourage art in Lexington.
State funding for the Council is half what it was 30 years ago and the Council is only able to fund
about half of what is requested. The Council also wants to be able to commission artists to
develop interactive public art installations in commercial districts (East Lexington, Hartwell Ave,
the Center and other locations) to be displayed between May and November: $30,000
Getting to Net Zero project asks for funding for phase two of three that will help Lexington lower
carbon emissions from all buildings (municipal, commercial, residential) over the next 25-30
years. An evaluation of all buildings by a consultant has resulted in a baseline calculation for
future reference: $40,000.
Mr. Cohen asked if the Net Zero project would be a separate warrant article or part of the budget.
Mr. Valente said he anticipates it to be separate because the work will likely cross fiscal years.
70-391
FY2018 Budget Presentation #2 - December 1, 2016
Town Manager
Presenters Claire Goodwin, Management Analyst for the Town Manager’s Office and Denise
Casey, Human Resource Director, said the state of the department is strong. In the past year, the
office has recruited and hired several senior managers including Carol Kowalski, Assistant Town
Manager for Development and Tom Case, Chief Information Officer. The department is
currently recruiting for three positions due to retirements: Assistant Town Manager for Finance,
Recreation Director, and Human Resources Director. The Town Manager’s office has assisted
the Selectmen’s office as it experienced staff transitions and it has supported property acquisition
initiatives at 171 Bedford St. and the current negotiations for 20 Pelham Rd.
Ms. Goodwin pointed to two new department initiatives:
Work to support the high performance culture in the organization by providing directed team
building to the newly constituted Senior Management Team;
Develop new revenue sources to support the budget, particularly the Capital budget.
Ms. Goodwin noted that the recently presented cemetery fee adjustment is one example of new
revenues as is the stormwater management utility that will be presented in Budget Session III.
The overall FY18 budget will decrease by 3.99% due to a 17.39% decrease in Expenses for
Police and Fire assessment centers used in the promotion process. There is a 1.87% increase in
Compensation due to annual Step increases. No change in staffing is anticipation.
The Human Resources budget is decreasing 13.34% due to the one-time assessment center
request in FY17. HR is asking for an increase of $1,500 (37.5%) to advertise job openings at the
senior management level. Compensation is increasing 3.82% due to the reclassification of the
Human Resources Administrative Assistan position to a higher grade.
Ms. Casey presented the single PIR request on behalf of the person who will succeed her in the
job. This is a request that the department has made for some years to add an administrative
assistant for $69,406. Ms. Casey said although the office is keenly aware that the Town must be
careful about how many benefit-eligible positions are created, it notes that 150 benefit-eligible
staff have been added, which increases the work load of the current two staff in the office.
Ms. Casey thanked the Selectmen for the opportunity to serve the Town during her 9 ½ year
tenure.
Selectmen’s Office
Ms. Barry thanked Mr. Valente, Mr. Addelson and Ms. Hewitt for preparing the presentation due
to the Selectmen’s office staffing situation.
Jennifer Hewitt, Budget Officer, said the level service FY18 Selectmen’s budget incorporates a
number of changes to the budget that reflect office reorganization in the wake of two retirements.
Included in the budget is compensation for one full-time office manager, one full-time assistant,
and an as-needed Recording Secretary. A small 2.5% increase is seen on the Membership line
item due to the Massachusetts Municipal Association and the Massachusetts Area Planning
70-392
FY2018 Budget Presentation #2 - December 1, 2016
Council and a 2% increase in Contractual Services for the contract with LexMedia. The budget
for Legal Services is flat at $410,000 and the budget for contractual services for the Town Report
will increase 2.5%.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Upon motion duly made, it was voted 5-0 by roll call to enter Executive Session under
Exemption 6 to consider the purchase, exchange, lease or value of real property, Pine
Grove/Judges Road; and to also consider under Exemption 6, the purchase, exchange, lease or
value of real property, 20 Pelham Road; and also under Exemption 6 to consider the purchase,
exchange, lease or value of real property, Community Center Parking Lot; and to reconvene in
Open Session only to adjourn. Further, it was declared that an open meeting may have
detrimental effects on the litigating and negotiating positions of the Town.
Ms. Ciccolo will recuse herself from the Pelham Rd discussion due to conflict of interest.
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 4-0 to adjourn from Open
Session at approximately 3:45 p.m.
A true record; Attest:
Kim Siebert
Recording Secretary
70-393
Selectmen’s Meeting
FY2018 Budget Presentation #3
December 2, 2016
A Budget Session meeting of the Lexington Board of Selectmen was held on Friday, December
2, 2016 at 8:30 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room of the Town Office Building. Ms. Barry,
Chairman; Mr. Kelley: Mr. Cohen; and Mr. Pato were present as well as Mr. Valente, Town
Manager (late arrival) and Ms. Siebert, Recording Secretary.
Chairman Barry called the meeting to order at 8:45 p.m. and noted this would be the final of
three FY2018 Municipal budget sessions.
FY2018 Budget Presentations
Finance Department
Ms. Barry introduced presenters for the Finance Department budget, Rob Addelson, Assistant
Town Manager for Finance; Arnold Lovering, Treasurer/Collector; Laurie Dell’Olio, Town
Accountant; Jennifer Hewitt, Budget Officer.
Mr. Addelson gave an overview of the Finance Department. It is comprised of the Assessor’s
Office; the Treasurer/Collector’s office; the Comptroller’s office; and Water/Sewer Billing.
Looking back at FY16, Mr. Addelson said the Assessor’s Office established values for about
12,000 accounts that make up the residential and commercial/industrial real estate and personal
property tax base. The team visited 2000 parcels to conduct the Town’s cyclical inspections as
directed by the State Department of Revenue, which mandates valuation visits to every property
at least once every nine years.
The department inspected over 300 dwellings as ownership changed during the time period.
Ownership transfer is the predominant methodology for determining value of residential
property, Mr. Addelson said. As for building inspections, the department visited over 500 sites of
new construction/renovation for the purpose of establishing New Growth. The department also
handled 130 residential and 49 non-residential applications for abatement. It granted 173
abatements based on findings.
The department also reviewed in detail federal tax returns and recorded trust documents attached
to 44 applications for tax deferral applications, 43 of which were approved. Staff processed
1,525 motor vehicle excise tax abatements and reviewed in detail tax returns and trust documents
for 134 applications for statutory personal property tax exemptions. They reviewed 166
Community Preservation surcharge abatement applications.
The Town Accountant/Comptroller’s office processed 46,090 purchase orders; 35,000 accounts
payable transactions; and payroll for 27,042 Town and School employees. The Town Accountant
also maintains the General Ledger which is comprised of about 8,600 accounts. The FY2018
70-394
Budget Presentation #3 - December 2, 2016
Comptroller’s office manages the competitive procurement for goods and services for all
municipal departments including the Public Facilities Department and it manages the annual
audit process. The department prepares the annual Operating and Capital budgets and monitors
them on an ongoing basis. It also manages the Town’s outstanding debt.
The office provided technical assistance to Boards and Committees in the form of general
support and financial analyses and it provided technical assistance to Town departments that use
Munis, the financial management software.
The Treasurer/Collector’s Office maintains property tax accounts (both real and personal) and
maintains all water and sewer accounts. It manages the paying of accounts and pursues
delinquencies; it manages the investment of funds on behalf of the Town and reconciles
approximately 70 Town bank accounts.
\[Mr. Valente entered the meeting at this point.\]
The FY18 overall Finance budget will decrease by $37,795 (1.99%). Much of the change is in
the Comptroller’s Division budget (due to retirement-based changes to the Compensation line
item) and a decrease in Expenses due to one-time costs affecting FY17. Mr. Addelson said there
was also a $5,700 truing up adjustment made between budgeted and actual, which accounts for
another part of the decrease.
The overall percentage change in the Treasurer/Collector’s office is minus 1.49% made up of
increases in wages due to Step adjustments and a 22.58% decrease in Contractual Services
($10,150 expended in FY17 for one-time Tax Title Foreclosure funding.) Utility Billing shows
0% change.
Mr. Cohen said he was impressed with the remarkable amount of work the department
accomplishes and by staff dedication and capability.
Mr. Cohen asked for a status report of the Appellate Tax Board case and asked if more funds
should be allocated for the purpose. Mr. Addelson replied that an outstanding Verizon case is
being brought to a favorable conclusion for all municipalities throughout the state, including
Lexington.
Ms. Barry expressed sincere gratitude on behalf of the Board for the Finance Department’s
endeavors during the budget season, particularly to Mr. Addelson for professionalism and steady
guidance throughout his tenure in Lexington.
Department of Public Works
DPW Director Dave Pinsonnault introduced other members of his management team who
presented their own division budgets: John Livsey, Town Engineer; Chris Filadoro, Public
Grounds Superintendent/Tree Warden; Ralph Pecora, Water/Sewer Superintendent; Robert
Beaudoin, Environmental Services Superintendent; Eric Gitshier, Highway Superintendent; and
Marc Valenti, Operations Manager.
70-395
FY2018 Budget Presentation #3 - December 2, 2016
Mr. Pinsonnault said the department provides critical services to the Town and comprises the
third leg of public safety. Public Works has had a number of advantageous staff changes in the
past year and has recently made several fortunate hires and in-house promotions.
The FY18 budget for the DPW Administration will see a 2.33% decrease from FY17, largely due
to senior management retirements and associated adjustments in the Wages category. Expenses
will increase 7.38% ($2,315), due primarily to mandatory drug and alcohol testing costs.
Mr. Livsey said the FY18 Engineering Division budget will decrease by 1.01% due to a senior
level retirement. Mr. Livsey noted a shift of $27,000 from Professional Services to Seasonal
Part-time Wages in response to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
MS4 Stormwater federal permit, which requires a significant increase in the frequency of water
sampling. Because this increase is beyond the capacity of department staff, Mr. Livsey looked at
several approaches and settled on expansion of the Town’s current, award-winning program with
UMass Lowell that he called both well-managed and cost effective.
Mr. Livsey said the Town recently received a bronze-level Engineering Excellence award from
the American Council of Engineering Consultants for the Willard’s Woods conservation land
project. Mr. Livsey thanked the Board and Town Meeting for supporting projects such as this.
Mr. Pinsonnault continued the presentation with the FY18 Street Lighting budget, saying it is the
Forestry staff that inspects and repairs bulbs and sensors on Town-owned street lights. An
outside contractor repairs all other electrical outages including new lights, arms, poles, and
fixtures.
The Street Lighting budget will see a slight 2.81% ($7,449) decrease in FY18. Electricity costs
have been decreasing 6.69% in an ongoing, downward electricity trend.
Mr. Gitshier reported that the FY18 Highway Division budget is level funded although there is a
noted $12,800 (6.3%) increase in Contractual Services for the EPA MS4 stormwater permitting.
The increase is for additional catch basin repair costs.
For the Road Machinery Division, Mr. Gitshier said there will be an $11,234 (1.75%) increase to
cover new vehicle/machinery replacement parts, which are generally more expensive.
For Snow Removal, a 4.81% increase is expected, due to Professional Services ($10,000 for
weather information); Catering and Meals ($1,000 to feed road crews working over time during
storm events); Lease Agreement ($12,750 for three snow loaders); Plowing Contractors ($85,000
to remain competitive with other communities); and Vehicle Parts and Supplies ($2,500).
th
Mr. Pinsonnault said because a 5 mechanic was added to the crew three years ago, more repairs
and services have been done in-house, saving Contractual Costs.
70-396
FY2018 Budget Presentation #3 - December 2, 2016
Mr. Pinsonnault noted that at the American Public Works Conference this past fall, the DPW
received an Adversity Award for its efforts during the winter events of 2014-15.
Ms. Barry took this opportunity to give Mr. Gitshier a Town Seal lapel pin to welcome him back
to Lexington upon his recent hire as Highway Superintendent.
Mr. Filadoro presented the FY18 Park Division budget and noted an overall 1.5% increase.
Landscape Maintenance will increase $7,300 (8.94%) to keep up with the addition of athletic
field inventory and park complexes in town. A $6,000 increase in the Water/Sewer line item is
directed toward irrigation for upgrades, additional systems, and meter replacement. The
department is trying to catch up with work that was postponed. Mr. Filadoro hopes that FY18 is
the last year for which an increase is requested.
Mr. Pinsonnault said that the DPW worked with Recreation to request Capital funds to develop
water system conservation strategies and efficiencies that will provide future benefits.
Mr. Filadoro continued with the FY18 Forestry Division budget that shows a $7.391 (1.66%)
increase, made up of a $5,491 increase in Compensation and a $1,900 (1.97%) increase in
Expenses.
Mr. Filadoro moved on to the Cemetery Division that will increase $7,864 (2.17%) over FY17.
Once again, a Water increase was noted ($5,400 or 81.82%) for the irrigation lines. A Capital
item to complete a final section of a cemetery irrigation system and to change out old meters will
help conservation and use measurement accuracy.
Mr. Beaudoin presented the Refuse Collection budget for FY18 which shows a $72,995 (9%)
increase due to an anticipated new refuse and recycling collection contract. The Town is
currently in the final year of a five year contract with JRM Hauling.Mr. Beaudoin bases the 9%
increase projection on comparisons to the price hikes other towns have experienced with newly-
negotiated contracts. Mr. Beaudoin is now finishing the specifications of the new contract and
the RFP will be released in a couple of weeks. The award will be announced in January 2017.
The Recycling budget shows a 10.61% increase, primarily due to the increase in debt service and
e-waste disposal costs. The department has just begun to use a new windrow turner to manage
organic waste. Training is involved in operating the windrow turner but it appears to be an
effective composting tool, although it does not eliminate the need for personnel at the facility.
Refuse Disposal will increase 2.49% which is also related to the disposal contract.
Mr. Pinsonnault said the Hartwell Ave. Facility solar farm is behind schedule but moving along.
The project has affected services at Hartwell Ave. that Mr. Pinsonnault said would be felt even
after the project is complete. One of the hazardous waste collections had to be moved to 201
Bedford St. which resulted in some logistical and financial costs. In the process of moving the
Hartwell trailer away from the site, the trailer fell apart and there is now a Capital request for a
70-397
FY2018 Budget Presentation #3 - December 2, 2016
new trailer. Temporary accommodations for staff have been provided in the meantime. As of
July, Lexington stopped taking Arlington’s compost, resulting in a loss of revenue and Mr.
Pinsonnault is not sure whether there will be the capacity to resume taking the waste when the
solar project is completed. The DPW was able to accommodate a request from one of the school
construction projects to take in materials—at a significant savings to the Town and the project—
but the department had to turn down a subsequent request due to a lack of room.
Mr. Beaudoin said this year’s drought set composting behind schedule and the contractual
services to turn the materials were postponed because it was not worth the cost. The flexibility of
having the new windrow turner will allow compost to be turned as the weather dictates.
Ms. Barry asked if Lexington would continue to take other communities’ Christmas trees. Mr.
Beaudoin said he had not planned to do so; only Arlington’s has been accepted in the past.
Mr. Pecora presented the Water/Sewer Division budget. The Sewer Enterprise Division
anticipates two increases and one decrease that make up an overall 2.59% increase, not including
debt service. Increases for Contractual Services ($10,000) and Professional Services ($5,000) are
due to higher maintenance costs for pump stations and generators. The decrease for electricity
($15,000) is due to new, more efficient equipment.
The Water Enterprise Division shows a budget increase of 5.7% (not including debt service), due
largely to drug and alcohol testing costs, postage and mailing, and professional development.
Mr. Valente clarified that the Town is required by federal law to do random drug and alcohol
testing on any employee who uses heavy machinery. The testing is not due to a perceived
problem in this area. Prior to the FY18 budget, the Town had been conducting the testing but it
had not accounted for the expense in the correct manner.
Mr. Livsey spoke to two of the four Program Improvement Requests (PIRs):
Bike Sharrows: $120,000
The Town currently has about 11 miles of bicycle accommodations but there are a number of
heavily used arterial and collector roads (42 miles in total) that remain unmarked. This PIR will
be an ongoing request because more roads need to be marked and currently marked roads need to
be re-painted and maintained. Some State funding has been received from the Complete Streets
program to repaint 3 of the roads (a total of about 2 ½ miles) and the Town will continue to
apply for the funds as long as the program exists.
Mr. Pato remembered that a funding request for street pavement markings had been withdrawn
last year late in the budget process. Mr. Livsey said that the department will prioritize bike
accommodations going forward and the FY18 requested funding will help expand how the Town
addresses the issue. He noted that biking is a health and recreation matter as well as increasingly
about commuting.
70-398
FY2018 Budget Presentation #3 - December 2, 2016
Senior Civil Engineer: $35,434
Currently there is one Senior Civil Engineer on staff who plays a major role in project
management. Multiple projects go on simultaneously in town; and the additional engineer will
enhance the ability of the Town to implement and monitor projects. Although the full
compensation for someone in this position is $79,134, a $60,000 reduction in Professional
Services for outside contractors offsets the expense. When outside contractors are hired, they
only focus on one project; the additional in-house engineer would handle multiple projects.
Mr. Filadoro addressed the third PIR:
Landscape Maintenance at Monroe Cemetery: $5,000
This request for additional contract services will allow the cemetery grounds to be mowed every
two weeks during the rainy months when grass requires more care.
Mr. Beaudoin presented the fourth PIR:
Heavy Equipment Operator at Compost Facility, from part-time status to full-time: $3,500
This employee would assist with the processing of additional yard waste materials, monitor
incoming yard waste and other recyclable materials from residents and contractors, operate the
windrow turner and perform a variety of technical tasks. The facility’s acreage has been reduced,
yet an increasing amount of materials must be handled in a diminished area.
With the windrow turner, the compostable materials should be ready in 6 months rather than a
year. The material must be screened and readied for distribution. Staff from other departments
has been borrowed to accomplish the work, although a part-time employee was hired to
minimize the impact to other Town staff. Upgrading this employee from part-time to full time
will help maintain and enhance the operations at the Lexington Compost Facility.
Mr. Kelley asked if there is a risk of not fulfilling revenue expectations if the facility cannot
contract to handle Arlington’s waste. Mr. Pinsonnault replied that he is working with Mr.
Addelson in the Finance office to calculate this loss and ascertain whether it affects the facility’s
ability to self-sustain. He will return to the Board with that analysis.
Mr. Beaudoin said there are creative ways to increase revenue, such as leaf mulch sales that are
now enabled by the windrow turner.
Mr. Pinsonnault and Mr. Livsey touched on a few of the Capital items:
#321 Center Streetscape: The ad hoc committee has presented Tier I findings to the Board and is
now working on Tiers II and III. Presentations for the second and third tiers have yet to be made
to the Selectmen. A placeholder for eventual funding has been carried forward in this Capital
request with an estimated price tag of $7.87M, although the exact request cannot be calculated
70-399
FY2018 Budget Presentation #3 - December 2, 2016
until the full scope of the project is determined. Mr. Pinsonnault said the DPW is very much
involved with the ad hoc committee.
Ms. Barry said her understanding from the Chair of the ad hoc committee is that Tier I was
preliminary and that revisions are being made. Ms. Barry emphasized that the Board has not yet
made any deliberations because all information has not been presented and a second public
meeting—expected sometime in January— must take place to fulfill the committee’s directive.
#644 Sidewalk Improvements: As the Board requested, the funding level was restored to
$800,000 per year for repair of existing sidewalks.
#966 Community Center Sidewalk: Mr. Pinsonnault and Town Manager Valente had a very
productive meeting with the Scottish Rite, whose facility shares the Community Center campus.
This is a major step toward siting and constructing a sidewalk that was originally estimated at
$200,000. The Town is in the process of getting updated costs estimates due to input from the
Scottish Rite about materials and lighting.
Mr. Kelley asked for an update about where the sidewalk would be located. Mr. Pinsonnault said
he would provide the Board with that information.
Mr. Livsey continued to highlight some of the Capital items.
#850 Hartwell Ave Infrastructure Improvements
As this project has evolved, it became clear that there were more complications than originally
perceived and therefor the price request has increased to $2,185,000. The conceptual plan is that
of a roundabout but there are very significant wetland impacts requiring a higher level of
permitting. Engineering has looked at 5 alternatives— two roundabouts and three signalized—
that would have various impacts and require various wetland mitigation strategies. An informal
meeting with Conservation is scheduled to review these options.
A second factor in cost increases is the need to relocate the utilities on the Hartwell Ave. bridge,
which is complicated by the fact that neither Hanscom AFB nor Lincoln Lab can risk being
without electricity for any length of time. Addressing this requires design changes and associated
cost increases.
The third cost driver is the age of the equipment and controls at the jug handle at Bedford and
Hartwell. A viable design for a pedestrian crossing had been identified and MassDOT is in
agreement with it.
Ms. Barry asked what the anticipated timeline is for the project. Mr. Livsey said if it is built as
one project—although there are opportunities of phasing the project into different pieces—it is
expected to take two whole construction seasons which will cause significant disruption of traffic
in the area. MIT and the Base have both been brought into the loop as has an affected business
group. There was a discussion with the Town of Bedford in the past about the potential
roundabout but nothing about this recent initiative has been shared as yet. Once Mr. Livsey gets
a better sense of the impacts, he will discuss the project with Bedford.
70-400
FY2018 Budget Presentation #3 - December 2, 2016
Mr. Livsey emphasized that the bridge on Hartwell is weight restricted, not failing.
Mr. Kelley said he was pleased to see that the Town is addressing safer pedestrian road crossings
and safe access to the MBTA bus stop at Eldred. He would like to schedule time into
Selectmen’s meetings to hear about the different design options, both with respect to
Bedford/Hartwell and Hartwell/Maguire. Knowing ahead of time what the trade-offs are is an
integral part of how the community sees the solution. Mr. Kelley said the options as described
seem to make sense but the cost also needs to be examined.
Hill Street Sidewalk
This project is listed under Land Use, not DPW, but Mr. Livsey spoke to it, saying the request
for design funds is $150,000. Next year, the request would be $1.3M for construction. The Town
has received inquiries about the sidewalk as well as a petition from Hill Street abutters. The total
sidewalk length would be 3,700 feet and there are 45 residences on that stretch of road plus the
Lexington Golf Club and nearby Town conservation land. The matter is going before the Trans-
portation Safety Group who will hold a public meeting on December 6 at 7 p.m. at Hastings
School. There is a large number of supporters of the project but also some who are not in favor.
On the matter of the Pump Station Upgrade Capital project, Mr. Livsey said the Town received a
rebate of over $16,000 from Mass Saves for installation of VFDs to reduce energy usage.
Mr. Kelley said there has been a lot of enthusiasm in recent years for installing sidewalks. As
more such projects are brought forward, it is important for the community to realize that there
has been some private support funding from one means or another. Mr. Kelley said that this
becomes a policy question and be believes that betterment charge option should be part of the
conversation—perhaps not for the whole cost but possibly for a percentage. This would help us
get more things done, which is what neighborhoods and communities want.
Mr. Livsey said there are three pieces to the stormwater-related Capital requests:
#523 Storm Drainage Improvements and NPDES Compliance
The storm drain improvement portion of the $340,000 project accounts for $270,000 of the
expense which is earmarked for installation of storm drains and catch basins where needed. The
NPDES compliance part of the request ties directly into detection of elicit discharge which
entails field work to sample water quality and searching for sources of illegal discharge.
#557 Comprehensive Watershed Stormwater Management Program
There are three watersheds in Lexington: the Charles, the Shawsheen, and the Mystic. Several
years ago, plans were developed for these areas and specific projects were laid out to improve
protection of the resources. The FY18 request is for $390,000 which will be repeated in
subsequent years to continue the work. Mr. Livsey noted that Willard’s Woods is an excellent
example of a comprehensive stormwater mitigation plan.
70-401
FY2018 Budget Presentation #3 - December 2, 2016
#683 Town-wide Culvert Replacement Program
There is some crossover between this project and #557 because some culverts are within the
stormwater management plan. Some projects could use funds from both #683 and #557. This is
also an ongoing, annual request of $390,000.
Management Analyst Claire Goodwin provided more information about stormwater management
and highlighted aspects of the NPDES Small MS4 Permit Requirements that will become
effective July 1, 2017. MS4 requirements, which are unfunded federal mandates, were originally
created by the Clean Water Act of 1972. The newest version has 6 minimum control measures,
each with several onerous requirements embedded within:
Public Education and Outreach
Public Involvement and Participation
Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control
Stormwater Management in New Development and Redevelopment
Good Housekeeping and Pollution Prevention
Yearly Capital allocation for stormwater management FY14-FY18 has been $1,120,000.
Operating budget allocations have varied between $408,100 (FY14) and $538,300 (FY18).
Additionally, the DPW allocates 1.7 FTEs to manage stormwater requirements. With new MS4
regulations, this may increase to 2 FTEs.
One other item Ms. Goodwin noted is that in FY22 the Vac truck used to flush drainage systems
will need to be replaced. ($400,000)
Mr. Pato asked what actions the Town should take and what funding it should allocate to address
the possible continuation of drought conditions. Mr. Pinsonnault replied that the DPW reduced
the tree planting program last season in order to pay more attention to a fewer number of new
trees to ensure they survive. In the landscape operations, efficiencies that will lead to water
conservation have been implemented, including better irrigation on athletic fields to ensure safe
play conditions.
Additionally, allocations from the Enterprise fund during FY18 will be dedicated toward water
conservation public outreach. The department may also propose a second season of voluntarily
shifting irrigation timing.
Mr. Kelley asked if water issues on Grove Street had been resolved and if the Town was able to
meet its water delivery commitment to the Town of Bedford. He asked if the same low water
pressure issues will occur next summer as they did in 2016. Mr. Livsey said there is a water
distribution model being developed now which will help the department understand the impacts,
what the causes are, and how to respond. Results of the modeling are expected this winter.
Ms. Barry asked if there is placeholder funding for potential infrastructure needs to address the
model’s recommendations. Mr. Livsey said the water distribution improvement funding now
70-402
FY2018 Budget Presentation #3 - December 2, 2016
before the Board makes allowances for this work, although the magnitude of improvements is
not yet known.
Ms. Barry thanked the DPW for all the work that was done on the North Lexington pump station
and the force main project. In terms of PIRs, Ms. Barry said she would continue to advocate for
mowing at the cemeteries.
About the Townwide Signalization Capital project (#688), Ms. Barry asked what the status is
with Worthen Road and Mass. Ave. because the Town hears concerns from residents at least
once a month about that intersection. Mr. Livsey said there are significant roadway changes that
need to be made and changing the signal timing would not be enough. Some conceptual plans
have been created and a design contract now pending will move the project forward.
Ms. Barry asked if Burlington had drawn water from Lexington during the summer drought. Mr.
Pecora said that Burlington drew water for 7-10 days—about 7.9M gallons. There was no loss of
pressure or any other significant impact to Lexington’s system as a result. Grove St. was
specifically monitored but no problems were detected.
Ms. Barry read comments from Selectman Ciccolo. Ms. Ciccolo enthusiastically supports the
pavement markings request which she said is essential for bicycle and motorist safety and has
been deferred too long. She endorses the request for the new position within Engineering
because the current staffing level is overburdened with Capital projects. Ms. Ciccolo is also very
enthusiastic about #644 Sidewalk Improvements and she supports #1002 Staging for Special
Events.
Ms. Ciccolo would like to know more about #544 Street Acceptance and #850 Hartwell Ave.
Infrastructure Improvements. Projects that she thinks the full Board should discuss are #321
Center Streetscape Improvements and #922 Battlegreen Streetscape.
Mr. Cohen asked if the stormwater mandates are statutes or regulations. Mr. Livsey said they are
statutory.
Mr. Pato asked about #520 Equipment Replacement and whether there has been any progress on
identifying quieter, lower emission leaf blowers. Mr. Pinsonnault said he has a couple of leads on
leaf blowers and hopes to have one to test out by spring. Low Emission large equipment is harder
to find because of the nature of the work the machine does. The meter reading vehicle, however,
is a hybrid and the Town is looking at smaller vehicles whenever possible.
Mr. Valente said the discussions this morning have touched on some of the areas which staff
wanted direction. However, a big picture issue is the increasing number of requests from
residents around pedestrian and bike safety. Many of the Capital projects before the Board are
responsive to those requests but the projects are expensive and have impacts on staff who deal
with other competing demands.
70-403
FY2018 Budget Presentation #3 - December 2, 2016
More specifically, Mr. Valente talked about the sidewalk issue and noted the importance of the
Board’s support for funding to maintain existing sidewalks. Requests for new sidewalks are
coming in, however. The budget request for Hill Street sidewalk construction next year, if that
project goes forward, will be about $1.3M and there are other sidewalks that will follow after
Hill St. The Transportation Safety Group has been working to establish criteria for evaluating
sidewalk requests which goes beyond who made a request first. Mr. Valente said he hopes to
bring a proposal before the Board that will help form a prioritization policy. A sidewalk
betterment fund has not yet been discussed but the statutory parameters should be explored.
Recreation and Community Programs
Karen Simmons, Director of Recreation and Community Programs introduced Peter Coleman,
Assistant Director of Recreation; Sheila Butts, Community Center Director; and Tyler Radicioni,
Recreation Supervisor who will be making the presentations.
Before moving to the presentation, however, Ms. Simmons said— as she ends her 21 year tenure
in Lexington— she has been blessed to work with a great management team, staff, and group of
volunteers. During the multiple peak seasons in the year, staff can put in 60 hour weeks. Ms.
Simmons said she is proud to be a member of the Lexington Recreation Department, a noted
leader in the state.
Mr. Coleman said the Recreation and Community Programs Department consists of three
divisions: the Community Center, Recreation, and Pine Meadows Golf Club.
The FY18 Operating budget request reflects a total increase of 3.68%. Mr. Coleman said that the
17 months since the Community Center first opened have been very active and programming has
grown to serve a total of 213,200 people in FY16, up from 111,376 in FY15. A total of 646 out
of 743 programs ran as scheduled. Besides 6 full-time and 275 seasonal staff, there were 292
volunteers in FY16 who donated over 7000 hours of service, up from 265 volunteers in FY15
who gave 4600 hours. The department operates as an Enterprise Fund.
A Community Engagement Strategic Plan conducted in 2013 identified 4 key organizational
priorities:
Community engagement and outreach;
Financial stability and resilience;
Preserving, protecting, and improving Lexington’s recreational infrastructure;
Operational excellence to exceed customer expectations.
Staff continue to use this strategic plan as they create, implement and refine recreational
opportunities. Access for all, regardless of financial status, is a priority. Requests for assistance
are consistent although donations have declined. In FY16, the department provided 24 families
with 82 individual program scholarships.
70-404
FY2018 Budget Presentation #3 - December 2, 2016
Ms. Butts said the budget request for the Community Center Division reflects an increase of
$39,126 or 5.38% over FY17. The driver of the increase is contractual obligations.
In the current fiscal year, four of the full time employees—the director, office manager, Youth
and Family program coordinator, and the full time municipal clerk—are supported by the
General Fund rather than by the Enterprise Fund. In FY18, three of the four will again be
supported by the General Fund while the municipal clerk will transfer to the Enterprise Fund.
The remaining 2 FTEs, instructors, and seasonal employees will continue to be funded through
the Enterprise Fund. The goal, for the upcoming years, is for program fees to support all
positions and program operations.
Visits to the Community Center are on the rise and new participants of all ages people welcomed
regularly. Improvement of programs and services is ongoing. Sixty offerings formerly held at the
Muzzey Senior Center are being expanded due to the popularity of leisure programming.
Funding from the Dana Home provides “Forever Fit” classes 3 days a week that target the 60+
age group. Because of demand for programs and meeting rooms, the Community Center is
experiencing a space crunch.
The Center partners with the LABBB Collaborative to host monthly special event dances that are
open to current LABBB students and alumni. LABBB students come twice a week for yoga and
work out in the cardio fitness room. A new boxing program has been initiated for students on the
Autism spectrum. Ms. Butts noted that this program is fully subscribed. A partnership with
Public Facilities and LABBB has resulted in vocational programming to teach plant care and
recycling tasks. The Center offers programming in conjunction with the Special Needs Arts
Program to offer Saturday art classes and sing-a-long events.
The staff are taking Mandarin instruction to better serve that growing population.
The Town Universal Use policy team is continuing to refine the fee structure for room rental and
a second series of recommendations will soon be presented to the Board of Selectmen.
Ms. Butts addressed several questions that were forwarded to her by Selectman Ciccolo. About
weekend and evening expanded hours, Ms. Butts said that weekday evenings are already busy
with programs and meeting room requests. There is less activity on Saturdays when the Center is
open 9-5 and the Center is closed on Sundays. There are only occasional requests for extended
night and Sunday hours; Ms. Butts said the most requests are for earlier opening hours on the
weekdays so that patrons can use the cardio fitness room.
Mr. Coleman spoke to the Recreation Division budget request that will see an increase of
$55,641 or 4.1%, largely due to a Compensation increase of 7.9% driven by contractual
obligations, program instructors, and a minimum wage increase for seasonal employees. The
Operating budget supports staff that coordinate, manage, and deliver programs along with
supplies, equipment, and utilities needed to run programs and facilities. The Recreation Division
manages Town assets that include 429 acres of land and open space, 30 athletic fields,
70-405
FY2018 Budget Presentation #3 - December 2, 2016
11 neighborhood parks and play areas, 8 basketball courts, the Center Recreation Complex, the
Old Res swimming and picnic area, Lincoln Park, the Town pool complex, and 17 tennis courts.
Mr. Radicioni spoke about the Pine Meadow Golf Club budget that will see a $4.045 or 0.75%
budget increase in FY18 due to contractual adjustments. This past year was the last in a three
year contract with New England Golf, with an option to extend for 2 one-year periods. Because
the partnership with New England Golf has been successful, the contract will be extended for
another year at least. Overall, the golf course is in excellent condition and Mr. Radicioni said the
customer base is very loyal and happy with course conditions.
In FY16, a total of 37,178 rounds were played, up from an average of 35,000 per year. Pine
Meadows is also the practice facility for Lexington High and Minuteman Tech. USGA evaluates
the condition of the course twice each year.
Recreation Capital requests for FY18 totaling $1,860,000 include projects to protect and grow
recreational infrastructure: the Town pool renovation project ($1,620,000); upgrades to irrigation
systems at athletic fields, also referenced by DPW Director Pinsonnault ($125,000); replacement
of a greens mower and a rough mower at Pine Meadows ($55,000); and replacement of the
swing sets at Bow St. Park, Franklin Park, and Munroe Park ($60,000).
The Pine Meadows equipment would be paid for through the Recreation Enterprise Fund. The
other three projects have been submitted to Community Preservation. Mr. Coleman said the most
critical of these Capital projects is the Town pool which last had renovations done in 1980. The
filtration systems have far exceeded their life expectancy. The funds will also cover a
reconfiguration of the wading pool and the addition of spray park features. If approved,
construction would begin immediately after Labor Day 2017 and be completed in May 2018 with
no interruption to the 2018 season.
Mr. Cohen said Recreation programs and staff are very, very impressive and he thanked Director
Simmons.
Ms. Barry asked for an update on the Lincoln Field lighting project. Ms. Simmons said the
Lexington United Soccer Club has entered into a public/private partnership with the Town to
raise funds to install lighting on Lincoln #2. They have entered into the permitting process with
the Department of Environmental Protection and are working with the Town Engineer. A
company that specializes in landfills has begun to work on the design. A $500,000 fundraising
campaign has also begun.
Ms. Barry asked what field scheduling impacts are expected with the middle school renovation
and the modular classroom installation at the elementary schools. Mr. Coleman said Recreation
was able to operate all its summer camps and clinics this year. For 2017, there will be no access
to the Middle Schools’ fields during the summer months but Recreation is looking at
alternatives, like Estabrook. He anticipates minimal impact.
70-406
FY2018 Budget Presentation #3 - December 2, 2016
Ms. Simmons said there has been resident concern about the loss of the three tennis courts at
Clarke but the courts will be reconstructed and put back online as part of the school project.
Ms. Barry commented that the Mandarin lessons for staff are terrific. She asked if seasonal staff
could also take advantage as well. Ms. Butts and Ms. Simmons agreed this could be done.
Ms. Barry delivered a question from Ms. Ciccolo about the Center Track and Field Capital
project not due for funding consideration until FY19. How long will the track last once it is
built? If there’s a chance the area will be used for LHS rebuilding purposes, will the Town get
enough use from the $3M track project before the renovation to justify the expense?
Ms. Simmons said the existing track was built about 1980 and it has had approximately 10
resurfacings of sprayed rubber coating. The expected life span of a track is 25 years. The more
re-surfacing that are done, the faster the coating wears off. Technology has changed over time so
a new surface treatment would use different techniques and materials. As for the LHS building
project, the department needs more information. Ms. Simmons said it would be irresponsible to
bring this forward for FY19 if there is a decision to build the high school on that land.
Ms. Barry said this analysis should also to be directed to the attention of the School Committee.
Ms. Simmons said the decision about the track will affect the LHS track and field team.
Minuteman Tech is also about to construct a new school and during the building it will lose its
athletic facilities. Ms. Simmons said there could be an overlap or a partnership with Lexington in
the timing of these projects.
Ms. Barry asked if the track color could remain blue. Ms. Simmons said this request had already
been made by the LHS Athletic Director.
Another question from Ms. Ciccolo was about the cricket field construction project not slated
until FY22. Is there a space in mind and how much land would be required? Ms. Simmons said
the FY22 time frame was chosen to give the department time to consider questions like needs
level and location.
Ms. Ciccolo also put in a request for an Ultimate Frisbee team home field. Because there is no
cutting for this sport, a lot of kids participate. Lexington won the State championship twice in
recent years.
Mr. Kelley asked about how late the lights on Lincoln Field #2 will be kept on. Ms. Simmons
said there would be one light and the end time would be between 8 and 8:30 p.m. If LHS has a
late game, Recreation would come back to the Board for an extension.
Ms. Simmons said that the Lincoln Park lighting, once it is funded by public/private efforts,
would be gifted to the Town. Ms. Barry said the project has a website for those interested in
donating.
70-407
FY2018 Budget Presentation #3 - December 2, 2016
Ms. Barry thanked the Recreation Department and commended Ms. Simmons for making
Lexington a far better place in her 20 years of service.
Department of Public Facilities
Pat Goddard, Director of Public Facilities, introduced the seven members of his department who
were present.
Shawn Newell, Assistant Director of Public Facilities, said the department has three divisions:
Educational Facilities, Municipal Facilities, and Shared Facilities. The FY18 budget is for level
services; the All Funds budget includes the Buildings Rental Revolving Fund as well as funding
from the PEG Revolving Fund.
Although the budget is for level services, there is an increase of $413,514 or 3.95%, driven by
the educational facilities All Fund budget that is increasing by $423,901 (5.77%). This is due to
additional square footage and renovations of schools (Diamond, Clarke, modulars at Bridge,
Bowman, Fiske, 171 Bedford St, and Pelham Rd.). The impact is felt in compensation (3
additional FTEs) and energy costs.
Mr. Newell pointed out that an adjustment for an omitted staff vacancy in FY17 ($53,227) adds
to the perception of increase for FY18. Step and COLA increases for FY18 equal $99,863.
Overall utilities are increasing by $7,446 which includes a $66,088 reduction for natural gas due
to a lower contracted rate and an increase $55,834 for electricity. One of the main reasons the
utility budget is not growing more is cost avoidance from the rooftop solar array project plus
additional solar capacity now being installed at the Hartwell Ave. facility.
Total solar credits for 2018 are expected to be $316,000. Without solar cost avoidance, the
utilities budget for 2016 would have risen by $323,946—a 10.82% increase. The Solar PPA
contract identifies credits that will reduce payments to Eversource over the next 18-20 years for
electrical transmission services. Solar credits are also responsible for funding a portion of the
proposed 2018 appropriation to the Capital Stabilization Fund which will be tapped to relocate
solar panels when roof repairs are needed.
Priorities for the department for FY18 will be to support multiple Capital projects and perform
system upgrades and maintenance projects. Additional project management resources are likely
to be required through the Capital budget, depending on the number of projects that need to be
managed simultaneously. Operational priorities will be to support operations at the Community
Center, Cary Memorial Building, and Cary Library. Both Cary Memorial and Cary Library have
increased to a 7 day work schedule.
One PIR request is to add 2 FTEs to the Town custodial staff ($92,235) for a net increase of
$43,296, offset by replacement of the cost of contracted cleaning services.
70-408
FY2018 Budget Presentation #3 - December 2, 2016
Capital Projects presented by Mr. Goddard include #1022 Lexington Children’s Place (LCP) at
Pelham Road which is listed for $11M. Due to additional information, this estimate has changed
to $18.3M. When the next phase of planning begins, the Town will seek ways to lower that cost.
#564 LHS Heating Systems Upgrade is identified as totaling $20,829,000 over time. Mr.
Goddard said last year at this time the project was estimated at $13M.The School Committee is
discussing a postponement or deferral of this project until a new school is built (feasibility study
in FY22). For a stopgap HVAC project at LHS, Mr. Goddard said he will change the request to a
maintenance only level of funding if the School Committee votes to postpone the full
replacement.
Project #870 Hastings School Renovation/Replacement is in the preliminary design phase and
has submitted material to MSBA. The finished building would house 645 students in 110,000 sq.
ft., with existing students in the ILP program included in the count. This represents a 20%
increase in size over the number of students Estabrook was designed for. The full cost estimate
for the project is $58,500,000.
The next phase of this project will be to submit the schematic design. The State requires the
Town to submit a renovation option as well as a new building design but Mr. Goddard said, with
enrollment increases, a new school appears to be the better option. There will be a meeting with
the community on December 15at the Estabrook School to discuss Hastings options. The
submission is due to the MSBA by January 4.
Three more building projects--#306 Lexington Police Station Rebuild, #738 45 Bedford Street
Fire Department Rebuild and #1021 Fire Department Swing Space 173 Bedford St—now have
architecture teams working on designs. A meeting with those architects and Town staff will take
place on December 22. Some discussion has taken place about budgets for these projects; Mr.
Goddard hopes to be able to update the figures after 12/22.
For March 2018 Annual Town meeting, Facilities will ask for only $50,000 of the $1M for the
swing space project. As far as the Fire Station is concerned, there is a sense that the $420,000
request will need to increase.
Project #939 Public Facilities Mechanical/Electrical System Replacement is for the Cary Library
chiller and would be done next summer ($489,000). #647 Municipal Building Envelopes and
Systems would eliminate water infiltration into the Town Office Building ($194,713).
Ms. Barry asked if there will be an impact to revenues/cost avoidance because the Hartwell solar
project is behind schedule. Even though the project is late, it will be online by the time FY18
would be affected.
Ms. Ciccolo commented in writing about #835 Visitors Center, saying that another year of data
will help the Town make good space and programming decisions. She would not like to see the
project pushed off later than 2019, however.
70-409
FY2018 Budget Presentation #3 - December 2, 2016
Ms. Ciccolo wrote that, with the accelerated Fire station project, the Department of Public
Facilities has a lot on its plate.”
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 4 - 0 to adjourn at
approximately 11:28 p.m.
A true record; Attest:
Kim Siebert
Recording Secretary
70-410
Selectmen’s Meeting
December 5, 2016
A meeting of the Lexington Board of Selectmen was held on Monday, December 5, 2016, at
7:21 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room of the Town Office Building. Ms. Barry, Chairman;
Mr. Kelley; Mr. Cohen; Mr. Pato ; and Ms. Ciccolo, were present as well as Mr. Valente, Town
Manager and Ms. Siebert, Recording Secretary.
Selectman Concerns and Liaison Reports
Ms. Ciccolo reported that Marilyn Fenollosa, former member of the Historic Districts
Commission (HDC), approached her with the idea to review the HDC’s enabling statute.
Lexington has its own particular act that governs the HDC, as do a handful of other
Massachusetts towns, but most of them—unlike Lexington’s—are organized under State law.
Ms. Fenollosa suggested it might be worthwhile to form a study group and explore whether using
the State law would improve consistency. Ms. Ciccolo said she recommended that Ms. Fenollosa
talk to Mr. Valente and Ms. Kowalski to explore the question.
Ms. Barry recommended that the number of members of such a study group be small, if one is
formed. Ms. Ciccolo said she will pass that comment on to Ms. Fenollosa.
Town Manager Report
Lexington will receive a $292,000 Complete Streets grant that the Town applied for last fall. It
will be used for these purposes: flashing school zone devices for five of the elementary schools
and Diamond Middle School as recommended by the Transportation Safety Group (each device
is in the $32,000-$50,000 range); bike accommodation striping/sharrows for Bedford St, Hayden
Ave., and Mass. Ave; handicap ramps at three of the elementary schools; a sidewalk on Outlook
Dr; bike racks at conservation land sites. Mr. Valente said the Town is thrilled to receive the
award which will help achieve the Board’s goal of improving pedestrian and bicycle safety.
The Center of town will experience a brief period of nighttime sewer maintenance work, starting
tonight from 9:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. and ending Thursday, December 8. The crews will be in the
middle of Mass. Ave. but traffic will not have to be detoured.
Over the weekend, there was a significant water main break on Bedford St. near the Boston
Sports Club. This portion of the road is State highway. Report of the break came in at about 5:00
a.m. on Saturday. Crews were onsite in about an hour and worked until about 6:00 p.m. to make
the repairs. Mr. Valente read aloud a portion of the incident report from Water Superintendent
Ralph Pecora, saying he was impressed with how departments worked together to make repair
work and traffic disruption as undisruptive as possible.
Some establishments such as the Quality Inn, Margarita’s restaurant, and the veterinary hospital
were affected, but Beth Israel hospital was not. About 10 feet of 12-inch pipe was replaced; the
leakage rate was measured as 5000 gal. per minute. Over 1.6M gallons of water was lost in the
5½ hour event but all the water drained into the storm drain system and no businesses were
damaged. Mr. Valente said the pipe break was along the top and bottom, not along a seam. The
pipe will be sent for testing to see if the cause of the failure can be determined.
70-411
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 5, 2016
It was noted that at approximately the same time, Hanscom AFB experienced two water main
breaks. Water system instruments registered a spike in water pressure in the line, which may
have had a connection to in the Bedford St. failure.
Ms. Barry said it was fortunate the break happened on a Saturday morning rather than during a
weekday when traffic volume is high. Also fortunate were the logistics of the break—10-12 feet
below the surface of the road— with no impact to either worker safety or damage to adjacent
properties. Ms. Barry applauded the cooperative efforts of the Town’s staff.
Appoint Town Comptroller
With the pending retirement of the Assistant Town Manager for Finance/Comptroller, Rob
Addelson, recruitment for his replacement was undertaken with Mr. Cohen and Ms. Ciccolo
participating in the interview panel. Following that process, Mr. Valente reported that he
recommends the appointment of Carolyn Kosnoff to the position. Under the Town’s charter, the
appointment of the Comptroller is made by the Selectmen and the appointment of Assistant
Town Manager for Finance is made by the Town Manager.
Mr. Valente provided some details about Ms. Kosnoff’s qualifications which include 11 years of
experience in corporate finance at a global financial institution. In her role as Assistant Town
Manager for Finance and Comptroller, Ms. Kosoff’s responsibilities will include serving as the
CFO for the Town; planning, coordinating and directing the activities of the Finance Department
including accounting, financial reporting, budget preparation, treasury, and the collection of
taxes, fees and receipts. In her role as Comptroller, she will exercise supervision over all
accounting records and will establish standard practices.
Ms. Kosoff’s estimated start date is January 3, 2017 which will allow a two-week overlap with
Mr. Addelson.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to appoint Carolyn
Kosnoff as Town Comptroller, effective by a date to be determined by the Town Manager.
Ms. Kosnoff was present in the audience for the confirmation vote. She introduced herself and
noted that she is a Lexington resident with two children who attend Hastings Elementary. She
thanked the Board and Mr. Valente, saying that although the interview process was long, she
enjoyed meeting so many people and understanding the variety of perspectives throughout the
Town.
Establish FY17 Tax Rate/Minimum Residential Factor
Mr. Addelson and Mr. Johnson, Chair of the Board of Assessors, presented the third and final
installment of the tax rate setting process. The first and second installments took place on
November 7 and November 21, respectively.
Tonight’s goals are to take votes on the following:
70-412
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 5, 2016
Establish a residential factor;
Determine whether to adopt an Open Space Discount;
Determine whether to adopt the Residential Exemption and, if so, at what percentage;
Determine whether to adopt the Small Commercial Exemption.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted 5-0 to establish the residential factor as
1.75, the same as in FY16.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted 5-0 not to adopt the Open Space discount.
Mr. Pato noted there are currently no properties to which this would apply.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted 5-0 not to adopt the Residential Exemption
as this time. Prior to the vote, Mr. Pato confirmed that he has convened a working group, as
directed by the Chair, to look into the matter of establishing a residential exemption for next
year. For this reason, he recommended that an exemption not be applied this year; his colleagues
unanimously concurred.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted 5-0 not to adopt the Small Commercial
Exemption.
Mr. Addelson said, now that the votes have been taken, the Town will submit data to the
Department of Revenue in order to certify the tax rate which will then allow the Town to issue
tax bills.
Update—Cell Tower RFP Planned for Police Station Site
Mr. Addelson updated the Board about an RFP being prepared for the lease of space behind the
Police Station for the construction of a cell tower by a private entity for cellular service. One
requirement of the RFP is that a portion of the tower be reserved for development of so-called
redundant pathways for municipal communications, particularly public safety communications,
but also for wireless communication for the Town’s computer network.
Mr. Addelson said the development of the RFP has been assisted by the Communication
Advisory Committee (CAC) in consultation with the Historic Districts Commission (HDC). The
successful telecommunications bidder will be required to sign a lease agreement which will
include annual lease payments to the Town. The lease term will be 10 years with an option to
renew for an additional 10 years.
Mr. Addelson provided some background about what brings the Town to this juncture: When
AT&T was told that their contract to lease space in the Muzzey Condominium building to house
cellular equipment would be terminated in December 2016, the company approached the Town
to ask if a nearby replacement location could be negotiated for the purpose of constructing a cell
tower. The timing of this request dovetailed with the results of a study of Police and Fire
70-413
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 5, 2016
communications that identified the need to address deficits in communications and to establish
redundant pathways. Consequently, the Town viewed the request by AT&T as an opportunity to
solicit competitive proposals for a third party to lease land behind the Police station for the
purposes of constructing a 120 foot mono-pole cell tower.
The terms of the lease would require the successful bidder to reserve the top portion of the pole
for Town use for the purposes specified above. A benefit of the initiative will be to strengthen
cell signals in the area that will ensure dependable emergency 911 calls in the downtown area.
Both the CAC and the HDC are supportive of the initiative, with the HDC advising that the
location of the pole should be one that will be visually shielded from Mass Ave to the greatest
extent possible. Mr. Addelson showed photographs taken during a so-called balloon test that
provide a sense of the tower’s visual impact to the land/skyscape.
In early September. Mr. Addelson, Police Chief Corr and Assitant Fire Chief Fleck attended a
meeting of the HDC to determine which of two proximal location was more favored. The HDC
preferred the location nearest the bike path; this is the site that is reflected in the current iteration
of the draft RFP which Town Counsel will review. The hope is to issue the RFP later in
December or in January.
Ms. Ciccolo asked if a gray or blue pole might blend into the background better than a white
pole. Mr. Valente said the successful bidder will have to go before the HDC for permitting and
this is the best way to channel that specification.
Mr. Kelley asked if the communication devices would be external or internal to the pole itself.
Mr. Addelson said the majority of equipment would be inside the pole but the Town’s additional
communications devices would be external such as a whip antenna and a girdle-type attachment
below the 120 foot mark containing multiple wireless devices. Mr. Kelley said he is not pleased
to see this happen but he is also not adamantly opposed, given the benefit to the Town.
Mr. Addelson said the 120 ft. height of the pole was not determined by a request from AT&T but
determined instead by the Town’s needs. Mr. Kelley asked what alternatives to the mono-pole
tower there were. Chief Corr replied that the study made it evident that Lexington needed a dual
or redundant system so that there was a wireless pathway above the trees for emergency calls and
a fiber optic system below ground to carry data. The advantage of the redundant system is that if
one fails, the other ensures connectivity. The 120 ft. height is necessary to provide an
unobstructed signal to all reaches of town.
Mr. Pato said he had the opportunity to see the balloon test when it was conducted and he is
comfortable with the proposal.
70-414
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 5, 2016
Review and Approve New Contract for Lexpress Service
Transportation Coordinator Jeanette Rebecchi and Chair of the Transportation Advisory
Committee Hank Manz presented their recommendation for the new Lexpress bus service
contract, effective July 1, 2017. Every few years, the Lexpress contract must be renegotiated.
There are two basic parts to the negotiations: standards for the fleet of vehicles must be
determined and the providers who bid on the contract must be evaluated.
The most recent RFP was issued in early November and two bids from local companies were
received. The evaluation committee was composed of Ms. Rebecchi, Mr. Manz, Charlotte
Rodgers, Director of Human Services, and Michelle Kelleher, Human Services Assistant.
Mr. Manz said there are not many affordable offerings for the type of bus needed and there is a
limited number of providers. Nevertheless, the committee is confident it received competitive
bids. A number of different models of bus were ridden to determine the range of options. One of
the most important factors was finding a model with a floor low enough to enable easy access for
wheelchairs and for others with mobility constraints.
After evaluating the two bidders, the committee recommends awarding the contract to M & L,
although both companies were recognized as viable options. Mr. Manz said the Ford vehicle
offered by M & L is known to be easy to maintain because of greater parts availability and there
is evidence that the vehicles last longer. The van can also accommodate one more standee than
the alternative offered by the second company. M & L will provide a heavier wheelchair lift at
no extra cost.
Mr. Manz said there are four vehicles in the proposal, even though Lexpress runs a three-bus/six-
route plan. The fourth bus is back-up to cover inevitable breakdowns. The spare bus will also
reduce the wear and tear on the fleet, increase longevity of the vehicles, and ensure uninterrupted
service.
Ms. Rebecchi said the cost for the service will increase from $55.29 per hour to $65.42 in the
first year of the contract. The contract term is 4 years with options for two additional years at
which point the hourly rate would be $73.96. The cost for the initial year of the contract
constitutes a budget increase of 17½ %; each year after, the budget line will increase
approximately 2½ %. The RFP was written with a level services budget in mind but the cost of
doing business has increased from the time the previous Lexpress contract was negotiated. Ms.
Rebecchi said that security cameras, that have become an industry standard, are an addition to
this contract. If the Board approves M & L as the service provider, Ms. Rebecchi will prepare the
paperwork and order the new buses.
Mr. Pato said he hopes in the future hybrid or electric passenger vans of the type needed will be
more widely available. He understands that no suitable proposals using these vehicles were
received this round but he hopes incentives can be provided in the RFP to encourage the market
to change accordingly. Ms. Rebecchi said the vehicle model chosen is one that can be converted
to alternative fuel types.
70-415
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 5, 2016
Mr. Kelley asked about the seating capacity of the chosen vehicle. Ms. Rebecchi said if there are
no wheelchairs, the bus seats 20. With two wheelchairs, the capacity is 16 because each if the
two wheelchair accommodations converts from two regular seats. The present fleet has 23 seats
when no wheelchairs are on board but ridership data indicates this reduction in capacity will not
present a problem. The number of standees is legally limited to 20% of the seating capacity,
meaning that a completely full vehicle will accommodate as many as 26 passengers.
Ms. Ciccolo noted that the effort to put together the RFP and to field applications is large. She
thanked Ms. Rebecchi, Mr. Manz, other staff and Transportation Advisory Committee
participants for their diligence. She also asked about bike racks for the vehicles. Ms. Rebecchi
noted that bike racks were included as a standard feature in this RFP.
Mr. Kelley asked if there would be a Lexpress logo on the buses, as there is now. Ms. Rebecchi
said branding would be much the same with some slight alterations due to the position of the
new vehicles’ windows.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to authorize the Town
Manager to award the Lexpress contract to M & L Transit for a period of four years, with two
one-year options to extend.
Update—Parking Management/Parking Permit System
Presenting a year-end update on the implementation of the Parking Management Plan were
Economic Development Officer, Melisa Tintocalis and Management Analyst, Claire Goodwin.
The Parking Management Working Group, under the Town Manager’s office, has been working
to implement and measure the success of the 29 recommendations that form the management
plan since it was first implemented in December of 2015. A mid-year update was provided in
July; the most recent update was presented in September.
Ms. Tintocalis said there was little change at year-end from findings reported at mid-year. The
greatest parking shortage in the Center still occurs during weekday lunch hours but businesses
continue to report that the employee sticker program has been successful. Police have noticed
that meter compliance has improved and there has been an improvement in interactions with the
public as they adjust to the new Smart meter technology. Ms. Tintocalis added that so-called
converted spaces that were once under-utilized— due to their peripheral location— are now used
more regularly.
As the Parking Management program moves into its second year, the noontime crunch time will
be addressed by considering additional changes and projecting what the impact of those changes
would be.
Ms. Goodwin reported findings from vacancy counts in the Center area lots as was done in
previous updates. To date, the parking group—working with Police department staff— have
done two full-day parking counts in April, July and October to gather data. Off-street parking
totals 619 of the 826 spaces available in the Center. This number includes Town, Library, Depot,
Waltham, Edison, NStar lots. The goal, as identified by Nelson-Nygaard consultants, is to
70-416
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 5, 2016
maintain a consistent par of at least 10% availability throughout the day. Ms. Goodwin reported
that this goal has been achieved at all times except the weekday noon hour. On a positive note,
Police report there is less so-called stacking in the Depot lot.
Ms. Tintocalis said it is clear that the successes achieved so far should be maintained. The
Parking Management group will continue to meet and to implement next steps that have been
identified. Besides continuing successful strategies, this includes increasing the parking supply to
address crunch times and, in the short term, exploring existing areas to mark that will allow for
improved public parking availability. A review will also be conducted of Depot lot capacity.
Ms. Ciccolo said things appear to be on track but she remains interested in the Nelson-Nygaard
recommendations for how the parking supply can be increased.
Mr. Cohen said, from his observation, the Parking Management Plan seems to be working well.
He asked why the Smart meters sometimes have red, blinking lights. Ms. Tintocalis said that the
meters have blinking green or red lights during the hours they are in effect. They blink either red
or green, depending on whether time has expired or not and the lights serve as a visual
enforcement cue. This is more observable in the dark, winter months.
Ms. Barry asked if the sticker program cycle was based on the calendar year. Ms. Tintocalis
replied the cycle is March 1 to March 1. Renewal letters go out in January to all employees and
current sticker holders who have until the end of February to submit renewal paperwork.
However, the program is new and still a work in progress so a rolling enrollment is allowed.
Review Revised Draft—Payment in Lieu of Parking Policy
Ms. Tintocalis, Ms. Goodwin, and Planning Director Aaron Henry presented changes to the
proposed Payment In Lieu Of Parking policy that were requested by the Board at a September
presentation. Specifically, the requests consisted of elimination of the change of use provision
and reconsideration of the PILOP payment, originally proposed at $8,000. Overall changes to the
policy reflect input from Center property owners, the Center Committee, the Chamber of
Commerce, and the Planning Board.
Ms. Tintocalis said that change of use is no longer applicable under the latest PILOP proposal.
There are now three triggers for when the policy would be applied:
When there is an increase in new construction of more than 35% of the existing new net
floor area;
When there is new construction on formerly vacant lots;
When there is demolition and construction of a new building.
The PILOP does not apply to projects that are solely internal reconfigurations or for changes of
use within an existing building.
Anytime one of these three scenarios occur in the Center district, a $10,000 per space mitigation
fee would be assessed. Parking space calculations would be based on proposed use (as deter-
70-417
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 5, 2016
mined by current zoning bylaws and the parking table); previous use (what type of parking
demand that use required); if any on-street parking will be provided; and if there are other ways
that parking can be provide (such as leasing space within a quarter mile radius.) If any
alternatives can be identified, discounts to offset the total parking calculation may be given. At
the discretion of the Assistant Town Manager for Development, there may also be small
allowances made if Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies are implemented.
Once any of these discounts are applied, the total number of remaining unmitigated spaces would
be multiplied by $10,000.
Ms. Tintocalis said this process is intended to lay out a consistent, transparent criteria for any
project to come before the ZBA. A case-by-case analysis would be sent in writing to the ZBA by
the Assistant Town Manager for Development’s office after review by Planning staff.
Mr. Pato expressed concerns about managing changes of use over time. He would like to see a
provision added that clarified at what point—perhaps 5 or 10 years— a new building’s change of
use would be subject to a PILOP. Similarly, the need to demonstrate a proof of lease agreement
is complicated by lease volatility. He wants to make sure there is a provision to verify lease
agreements over time. If lease agreements don’t exist, the policy’s stipulations would not be met.
He would also want to retain the ability to change the policy without triggering the need to
amend zoning bylaw requirements as specified in Section VIII Use of PILOP Mitigation Funds,
particularly since this program is new and subject to revision following implementation.
Mr. Kelley asked if there is any grandfathering of parking counts included in the policy. Mr.
Henry said there was a type of grandfathering in Section IV b. Prior Use in which the new
business is credited a certain number of spaces.
Ms. Ciccolo asked what feedback led to choosing the $10,000 figure. Ms. Tintocalis said that the
original $8,000 per space figure was found to be difficult when coupled with the now-eliminated
change of use clause. Once the change of use clause was removed, the cost of parking for the
Town was examined using a methodology adopted by the group.
Jerry Michelson, Center business owner and Chair of the Center Committee, said he has watched
the PILOP policy as it has developed. He said that the Center Committee has not yet seen this
iteration of the plan and he is therefore not in a position to speak about it for the group. Past
opinions, however, have been that PILOP payments should be large enough that the first choice
would be to create on-site parking rather than pay the fee. He questioned whether increasing the
PILOP by $2,000 was enough. He agreed that grandfathering spaces for new use makes sense,
given that the former business’ parking needs had already been absorbed but he added that, over
time, the use of commercial space was unknowable and fluid. He will take the information about
the new draft to the Center Committee and report back.
David Kanter, Precinct 7 Town Meeting member, said he finds it difficult to accept that the
policy has been created to work around a zoning bylaw. He wished, instead, that the zoning
bylaw had been revised so that it provides updates to the parking table and added that the
70-418
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 5, 2016
proposed policy does not address the need to increase the parking capacity. In his opinion, the
$10,000 mitigation fee is not large enough.
The revised PILOP will be discussed at an upcoming Center Committee meeting and the new
version has also been circulated to the Planning Board, business owners, and the Chamber of
Commerce. The only changes reflected in the most recent draft are in response to the Board’s
September directives. Mr. Valente said the goal is to have the Board of Selectmen approve the
policy and at some point input will need to be curtailed. Wording clarifications have been noted
and will be changed. The Center Committee will take another look at the document and then the
policy will return to the Board for a vote.
Consider RCN License Transfer of Ownership
The Communications Advisory Committee presented the specifics of this license change to the
Board of Selectmen in November and afterwards voted unanimously to approve the transfer.
CAC now recommends that the Board of Selectmen, in their role as cable television Issuing
Authority for the Town, approve the transfer of control to RCN from ABRV Partners VI, LP, to
TPG Capital, LP. All available information on the proposed transfer has been reviewed by the
License Negotiation Working Group of the CAC. The primary sources of that information are:
FCC Form 394 sent to the Town by RCN on September 7. 2016;
Application to the FCC for Authority Pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, to Transfer Control, dated September 1. 2016;
Presentation by representatives of RCN and TPG at a public hearing held on October 24, 2016;
Publications by business commentators on the rationale for, and consequences of, this transaction.
Although the Board of Selectmen agreed to accept public comment in writing for two weeks
following the public hearing, it was noted that no comments were received.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve RCN’s
application to transfer the Cable Television License in Lexington to TPG Capital, LP.
Pelham Property—Consider Eminent Domain Taking
Ms. Ciccolo recused herself from the Pelham property discussion due to a conflict of interest.
Mr. Valente reminded the Board that at the December 1, 2016 financial summit, the School
Committee stated they believe the 20 Pelham Rd property, the former Armenian Elementary
School, is the best location for the Lexington Children’s Place should the Town wish to acquire
it. The School Committee is interested only in the classroom section of the building and will not
have a need for the full-sized gym or cafeteria. These spaces would be available for Town use
and the property would therefore benefit both school and municipal programs.
The Town Manager and Town Counsel have been in negotiations with the Armenian Sisters for
quite some time but have not come to an agreement for the purchase of the property. Because the
70-419
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 5, 2016
School Committee wants to move ahead and begin work on the former school, Mr. Valente
recommends that the Selectmen vote to take the property by eminent domain at the December
19, 2016 Board of Selectmen meeting.
If the Board votes to take the property by eminent domain, the Town will need to compensate the
Armenian Sisters and Mr. Valente recommends that the compensation equal the property’s
appraised valuation, $7.4M. The Armenian Sisters will have 2 years to decide whether this is fair
compensation or whether they want to litigate. Even if the Board votes to take the property by
eminent domain, negotiations between the parties can still continue; in fact, negotiations can
continue until a court decision is handed down if the case goes to trial.
Both the Town and the Armenians Sisters need to bring closure to a many months-long process.
The Sisters want to sell the property which has been vacant for 16 months and use the proceeds
to continue the international work of their congregation. The Town is an interested and willing
buyer that can move quickly to purchase the property, whether the purchase occurs through
negotiations or through eminent domain.
If the Board agrees with the eminent domain approach, Mr. Valente will have Town Counsel
prepare the necessary documents.
Mr. Pato said the matter has been discussed at length during multiple Executive Sessions. He is
pleased to see the initiative reach this stage.
Mr. Kelley said he is fundamentally opposed to an eminent domain taking. In this case, there is a
willing buyer and a willing seller and the two parties should be able to come to terms. He
remains hopeful this will happen, although the price is certainly the sticking point.
Mr. Cohen said that the Town has been negotiating for a long time and will continue to
negotiate. He believes the appraisal was well done and that it resulted in a realistic valuation. He
supports drawing up the necessary papers but hopes a settlement can be reached.
Ms. Barry thanked Mr. Valente and those who have represented the Town throughout the
extended process. Mr. Valente confirmed that there is consensus to move toward a taking by
eminent domain.
Ms. Ciccolo returned to the Board room.
Approve Lexington Municipal Management Association Collective Bargaining Agreement,
FY17-19
Ms. Barry recused herself due to conflict of interest as her husband is an employee of the Town.
Ms. Ciccolo assumed the role of Chair.
Mr. Valente said the Town and the Municipal Management Association, which are the
supervisory employees of the Town, have reached a three-year collective bargaining agreement
for the period of FY17-19. The Board of Selectmen previously approved this agreement in
70-420
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 5, 2016
Executive Session on October 13, 2016. The LMMA membership has recently voted to accept
the settlement:
A 2% COLA adjustment in FY17;
A 1% COLA adjustment effective 7/1/17 and a 1% COLA adjustment effective 1/1/18 in FY18;
A 2% COLA adjustment in FY19;
Change to the Recognition Clause to reflect positions that have been added or removed from the
Association;
Change to the vacation leave article to allow new hires to use accrued vacation leave before
completing the probationary period;
Clarification that time granted from the sick leave bank is on a “rolling calendar” basis;
Clarification that clothing provided by the employer and tuition reimbursement paid to the
employee is for work purposes only and not subject to income taxes;
Change the Massachusetts Maternity Leave Act to reflect the new Parent Leave Act;
Create means by which employees who are promoted within the organization can discuss starting
salary with the Town Manager; and
Create means by which the Town Manager can determine the percentage given to an employee
who is working in a higher job category.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 4-0 to approve and authorize
the Town Manager to sign the collective bargaining agreement between the Town and the
Lexington Municipal Management Association for the period of FY17-19.
Ms. Barry returned to the Board room.
Annual License Renewals
Under all-alcohol licenses, there are 14 renewals; under Class I licenses, there is one; under
Class II licenses, there are 8; under Class III licenses, there is one; and under Common
Victuallers Licenses, there are 27.
Mr. Cohen noted that there are a number of institutions known to have licenses that are not
listed. Ms. Barry said those that are listed are in full compliance with their paperwork, payments,
training, and insurance. Some establishments are still gathering their documentation and those
renewals should be ready to approve at the December 19 Selectmen’s meeting.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted 5-0 to approve the license renewals for
2017 as presented.
Consent Agenda
Water & Sewer Commitments
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve commitments
of Water & Sewer charges October Finals for $18,143.72 and to approve the commitments of
Water & Sewer charges Special Billing November for $19,928.00.
70-421
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 5, 2016
Approve Property Tax Bill Insert
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve the Property
Tax Bill insert requested by the Tax Deferral and Exemption Committee.
Approve Free Holiday Shoppers Parking at Depot Lot
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to suspend Saturday
parking fees for the Depot parking lot between Nov. 26, 2016 and Dec. 31, 2016.
Sign Eagle Congratulations Letter—Dylan Jackson
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to sign a letter of
commendation congratulating Dylan Jackson for attaining the highest rank of Eagle in Boy
Scouting.
Approve One Day Liquor License—Cantata Singers
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve a one day
liquor license to sell wine in the lobby of Cary Memorial Building on Friday, December 16, 2016
from 8:00 p.m. until 11:00 p.m.
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5 - 0 to adjourn at
approximately 9:00 p.m.
A true record; Attest:
Kim Siebert
Recording Secretary
70-422
Joint Meeting
Board of Selectmen, School Committee, Appropriations Committee
and Capital Expenditures Committee
December 12, 2016
A Joint Meeting was held on Monday, December 12, 2016, at 8:00 p.m. in Estabrook Hall of the
Cary Memorial Building, 1605 Massachusetts Avenue. Board of Selectmen (BOS) Ms. Barry,
chair; Mr. Kelley; Mr. Cohen; Ms. Pato were present along with Mr. Valente, Town Manager;
Mr. Addelson, Assistant Town Manager for Finance; Ms. Hewitt, Budget Officer; and Ms.
Siebert, Recording Secretary. Selectman Ciccolo was absent due to her recusal from all
discussions relating to 20 Pelham Road.
Also Present: School Committee (SC) members: Mr. Hurley, Chair; Mr. Alessandrini, Vice
Chair; Ms. Crocker; Ms. Jay; Ms. Steigerwald (late arrival); Dr. Czajkowski, Superintendent of
Schools; Mr. Dailey, Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Operations. Appropriations
Committee (AC) members: Mr. Parker, Chair; Mr. Bartenstein, Vice Chair; Ms. Garberg; Mr.
Levine; Mr. Michelson; Mr. Neumeier; Mr. Radulescu-Banu; Ms. Yang. Capital Expenditures
Committee (CEC) members: Ms. Hai, Chair; Mr. Kanter, Vice Chair; Mr. Cole; Mr. Lamb; Ms.
Manz.
Ms. Barry called the BOS to order at 8:03 p.m. and introduced the Board’s members. Chairs of
the SC, CEC, and AC followed suit.
Procedure for Meeting Minutes
Ms. Barry explained that the BOS Recording Secretary will be taking the minutes and will share
draft copies of those minutes with the chairs of the SC, CEC and AC for review, prior to
approval by the BOS.
Ms. Barry said the format of the meeting would not allow for Public Comment, Selectmen’s
Comments, or a Town Manager’s Report.
Lowering the Flag in Honor of Edith Sandy
Ms. Barry said that long-term Town Meeting member Edith Sandy passed away suddenly on
December 10. Ms. Sandy’s husband told Ms. Barry he has been greatly comforted by the
outpouring of sympathies he has received on the TMMA discussion list. Ms. Barry noted that
Ms. Sandy was able to connect with people of all ages and that she always welcomed new
members warmly. She was never afraid to ask questions at Town Meeting and those questions
were frequently those that were on the minds of everyone else.
Given the fact that Ms. Sandy was a Town Meeting member for 46 years, the Board feels it
appropriate to lower the Battle Green flag in her honor for the day of her funeral service.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 4-0 to lower the Battle Green
flag to half-staff in memory of Edith Sandy on Tuesday, December 13, 2016.
A moment of silence was observed by those present.
70-423
Joint Meeting – December 12, 2016
20 Pelham Road—Consider Use of the Property for Lexington Children’s Place and Municipal
Purposes
At the last summit meeting on Thursday, December 1, the School Committee reported that 20
Pelham Road was its first choice location for the Lexington Children’s Place. Based on that, Mr.
Valente recommended on December 5 that the Board of Selectmen move toward taking the
property by eminent domain because negotiations between the Town and the Armenian Sisters,
who own 20 Pelham, had failed to reach an agreement on the purchase price. Also at that
meeting, The Board reached consensus to move ahead with Mr. Valente’s recommendation and
to hold a formal vote at a subsequent meeting. Since that date, Ms. Barry learned that members
of the Capital Expenditures Committee had reservations about whether Pelham was the best
place for LCP.
Ms. Barry asked Ms. Hai, Chair of CEC, to elaborate on her committee’s thinking. Ms. Hai
began by emphasizing that CEC is unanimously in support of the need for LCP to expand. The
concerns are specifically about the Pelham location. As CEC looked at the totality of the Town’s
capital assets, they questioned how those assets can best be deployed in the fulfillment of the
Capital Plan.
Ms. Hai then listed the questions CEC raised and said the committee had met earlier in the day
with School Committee Chair Hurley to express these concerns directly:
Is Pelham Rd a long-term, permanent location for LCP?
Is the $18.3M price tag for renovation costs for Pelham (the estimate quoted at the Summit) the
amount needed to bring the building up to code (safe and useable) or to renovate “as new”?
If the use of Pelham for LCP is temporary and the renovation goal is “as new”, are there a ways
to lower costs?
What are the long-term expectations for the location of the Central Office?
Ms. Hai said that as CEC looked at the cost of all possible LCP location projects identified, it
would be fairer to include the cost of acquiring Pelham in the total cost of that option. Doing so
makes the cost of Pelham significantly higher than the other options.
One of the strongest arguments for not keeping LCP at its current location on the Harrington
School campus is that the site is overburdened. Currently, the Central Office, LCP, and the
elementary Harrington program all occupy the campus. If a new LCP building were to be built
there, the site would hold three buildings instead of two but if the Central Office moved to
another location in the future, a third building for LCP might not be necessary. As other
municipal building projects are completed, there could be alternative options for the Central
Office, such as the current Police Station or 171 Bedford St.
CEC raises these questions because it wants to be sure all of the options are being considered and
weighed before the Pelham initiative moves forward. Using Pelham for LCP would preclude
other uses that might be advantageous to the Town.
70-424
Joint Meeting – December 12, 2016
School Committee Chair Hurley prefaced his response to these questions by saying that the SC
has been engaged in discussions for some time with the Board of Selectmen and Town Manager
about Municipal and School joint sharing of Pelham. Then, in response to CEC’s questions he
said that:
The $18.3M price tag reflects a building as new scenario for LCP use only. Additional funds
might be needed to renovate the cafeteria and the gym for Town use. At its last meeting, the
School Committee asked Facilities Director Goddard to work to lower the LCP space cost
estimate.
The School Committee fully anticipates that LCP will be housed at Pelham permanently. There
has been no discussion about the move being less than permanent.
Mr. Hurley said the School Committee is concerned about having three operations at Harrington.
A new registration system the Superintendent has proposed is expected to operate from the
Central Office, adding an additional burden to the building’s operational capacity. However, if
available space is found at another location at a later date, the School Committee would be
interested to consider alternatives.
Appropriation Committee Chair Parker said that although members of Appropriation are not
elected, he sees the committee as playing the role of Town Meeting in these discussions because
AC must make a recommendation about the issue to Town Meeting. With that in mind, he
reported that the most recent committee meeting had seen a wide range of opinions expressed
about Pelham, including some of the questions raised by CEC.
One of CEC’s questions concerns why so small a part of an 8 acre property would be used for a
single purpose. If the property is acquired, what other purposes—like elder housing or an
elementary school— might it be used for? Additionally, Mr. Parker noted that the desire to put
LCP at Pelham conflicts with the previously expressed philosophy of keeping LCP near an
elementary school. CEC hopes that this initiative is part of a larger, 10-year coordinated capital
plan. Mr. Parker said CEC would be more comfortable if members knew the big picture.
Mr. Hurley said that discussions about these questions have been happening openly for quite
some time. The major concern that the SC has, related to Pelham, is cost but he noted that the
cost of the second choice—a free standing LCP at Harrington—is more expensive ($20.7M) than
Pelham ($18.3M).
Both the “as new” renovation at Pelham and the new construction at Harrington carry large price
tags. Cost is also of concern to the School Committee. The Committee has asked Facilities
Director Goddard to provide an estimate for a scaled-down renovation.
Superintendent Czajkowski noted that the School Committee recommended a year ago to the
Board of Selectmen that the Town pursue the purchase of Pelham for the public schools,
particularly for LCP. Supervisor of Early Childhood Education, Elizabeth Billings-Fouhy—
present in the audience— has worked for the district for 20 years and has expressed concerns
about continually moving the LCP program from place to place.
70-425
Joint Meeting – December 12, 2016
Dr. Czajkowski said the children served have special needs and are young; they should be
educated in an appropriate space, just like any other child in the district. The value in putting
resources into the LCP program is that doing so will avoid higher future costs.
Additionally, the proximity of the Pelham site to the Community Center creates an opportunity
for an intergenerational partnership and the potential for internships for teens.
Ms. Hai emphasized that CEC is in favor of finding a permanent home for LCP. The committee
is, however, asking how the available options have been narrowed; could there be a less
expensive way to achieve the same permanent home and still give the Town flexibility for other
operations?
Mr. Alessandrini (SC) addressed the question of putting LCP in proximity to an elementary
school by saying that Ms. Billings-Fouhy supported the Pelham site because of the
intergenerational opportunities.
With respect to moving the Central Office to Bedford Street or another location away from
Harrington, Mr. Alessandrini said there was a lot of uncertainty in that plan. At one time, the
School Committee considered Bedford St for LCP but was told the Town had other uses in mind
for the property.
Mr. Kanter (CEC) said his concerns centered on total asset use. He asked that the School
Committee provide insight about what other uses it envisions for Harrington in order to be able
to understand why moving the Central Office to Pelham does not make better sense. Without
information to the contrary, it appears to him that it would be less expensive and more expedient
to bring Pelham up to code for offices than it would be for educational purposes. Also, as was
expressed earlier, CEC does not want to commit to Pelham if the Central Office could be located
at a future date on another property already owned by the Town. Off-loading one of the
operations now at the Harrington site will alleviate some of the burden on that campus.
Mr. Kanter asked for information about the long term vision for the Central Office, saying that
there seems to be a legitimate, less expensive way to achieve the goals as they have been laid out
by the School Committee.
Mr. Kanter asked when Mr. Goddard will present a new estimate so that the cost burden of
Pelham is known. Mr. Hurley said Mr. Goddard had expressed concern that the Harrington
option timeline was longer than the Pelham option because construction at Harrington would
have to wait until the Central Office moves out. School Committee believes there is more interest
among Town leadership in locating LCP at Pelham than in housing the Central Office at Pelham
but the School Committee would not be opposed to keeping LCP on the Harrington site because
of proximity to the elementary school. Although the School Committee has not taken a formal
vote, he believes if there was strong support, the School Committee would look favorably upon
an LCP at Harrington plan but he does not want to raise hopes that this course of action would
save substantial money. Both scenarios are costly. Old Harrington would have to be torn down
and a new building built on the site.
70-426
Joint Meeting – December 12, 2016
Mr. Kanter said he wanted to know what the cost differential would be. Mr. Hurley said a
recommendation about the two top choices—Pelham or Harrington—is expected from DiNisco
consultants in February. Mr. Kanter asked if connecting road costs are included in the Pelham
estimate. Mr. Hurley replied that they are not. The estimate does include renovation to new and
site work for parking. Mr. Kanter said, since this is the case, he would like to know if road
improvements would be necessary, adding that the price of that work should be considered as
part of the overall cost.
Ms. Crocker (SC) responded to some of the questions that had been posed. She said the shared
use of the full-sized gym at Pelham fits well with the overall master plan of having such a facility
near the Community Center. If LCP is removed from Harrington, it would liberate classrooms
there for elementary expansion. She added that the Central Office question has been ancillary to
educational discussions because the SC is concentrating on what is best for the children’s
educational needs. However, if the Central Office eventually leaves the Harrington site, half of
the campus would open up for an expansion of Harrington or for an additional building.
Mr. Pato noted that the cost of purchasing Pelham for LCP has not been added to the project
estimate but neither has the cost of renovating Pelham for the Central Office or for any other
purpose. Renovation costs are not avoidable for any of the models. The cost comparison should
be a stand-alone LCP at Harrington versus a stand-alone LCP at Pelham.
Mr. Pato said he is concerned about the enrollment trends. There is no expectation that growth
will slow, so delaying a decision on LCP will only exacerbate the problem. Moving LCP to
Pelham creates the greatest amount of flexibility for the future.
Ms. Steigerwald (SC) said that Mr. Goddard has long been of the opinion that the Central Office
should be moved from its current Harrington location because of aging building systems and the
need to replace the roof. Speaking to Mr. Kanter’s point, she said there would have to be a
comparative estimate done on the cost to renovate the old Armenian Sisters’ school on Pelham
into office space. DiNisco has already indicated that Pelham is a good pre-school building but it
is not configured for office space.
Mr. Kanter said he has no sense what it would cost to renovate Pelham for office space. He
agreed it would cost a substantial amount; however, he does not believe that putting a second
elementary school on the Harrington site would achieve the goal of decompressing the site
burden. If the old building is removed, the area could be used for playing fields or for additional
parking. He hopes that, whether Harrington or Pelham is chosen, the initiative will move forward
in this cycle. He asked whether there is a plan in the next ten years to move the Central Office to
another location.
Ms. Steigerwald said that if the Central Office were to move from Harrington but LCP remain,
the Central Office building would continue to house four LCP classrooms. If a new building
were built for LCP at Harrington, the four classrooms full of kids would have to go to a swing
space somewhere else, which would cause substantial upheaval.
70-427
Joint Meeting – December 12, 2016
Dr. Czajkowski said that if the Central Office operation was moved out of old Harrington, the
entire building would have to be sprinklered, which Mr. Goddard said would cost about $1M.
She is also not confident the Central Office operations would fit, square footage-wise, into the
Pelham building. This is a question DiNisco would have to answer. The interior of Pelham is
more suitable for school purposes than for office purposes.
Additionally, if the Central Office moves out of Harrington to Pelham, Mr. Goddard told Dr.
Czajkowski a new building would not be ready for occupancy until 2021 and in the meantime,
the four classrooms currently in old Harrington would have to go somewhere. With so many
school projects currently in the pipeline, it is hard to see how an additional new building will fit
into the larger scheme. There has not been a discussion to date about moving the Central Office
because there are so many other moving parts to deal with.
Dr. Czajkowski said she has met with the Town Manager about consolidating departments and
looking more closely at moving Central Office operations to somewhere on the Town Hall
campus. However, she does not see a sense of urgency with regard to the Central Office, unless it
saves money and allows the Schools to address LCP for a lower cost.
Mr. Hurley said it would be helpful for the School Committee to hear how the people present
would vote on how to address LCP.
Mr. Levine said the timing of when decisions are made is important because of the upcoming
debt exclusion votes in 2017 on the Hastings School and the Fire Station. He believes it is not
advisable to add LCP to that list, which means that LCP would have to wait. He does not believe
the LCP project is unimportant; this is a process concern. If the money is not requested to
renovate Pelham for two or three years, there would be time to assess and look at the matter
more closely. He asked what the timing is if Pelham is taken by eminent domain.
Mr. Hurley said the timeline is the sooner the better, although he understands Mr. Levine’s
concerns because the School Committee shares them; none of the members want to jeopardize
the Hastings project.
Mr. Radulescu-Banu asked if the Laconia property would be appropriate for consideration for
LCP. Mr. Hurley said the property is owned by the Schools but DiNisco and SMMA have said
the hilly terrain and dead-end location make it a poor site for a pre-school, although it might be
acceptable for an elementary school.
Mr. Radulescu-Banu asked if the Town could buy the Laconia site from the Schools. Mr. Valente
replied that the Town already owns the property but it is under the jurisdiction of the School
Committee. Ms. Steigerwald said the Schools would not want to sell the property because it
offers flexibility for potential future projects.
Ms. Hai said the CEC is acutely aware of what projects are on the Capital Plan and the
committee is not keen to add a Central Office project. The reason the question of the Central
Office was raised is because it might be advantageous to move the Central Office and free up a
70-428
Joint Meeting – December 12, 2016
better permanent location for LCP at a lower cost, using Pelham as the Central Office location in
the short-to-mid-term. The assumption has been that Pelham would not need an extensive
renovation for the interim use. Doing this would take some of the burden off the Harrington site,
preserve the co-location of LCP and the elementary program, and preserve the 8 acre Pelham site
for other uses identified by the Town. The questions raised by CEC were driven by the desire to
drive down costs and maximize the benefits to LCP. This would also allow Harrington to expand
to meet growing enrollment needs. The committee is not attempting to make educational
decisions but it is trying to ensure that the course of action is fiscally responsible.
Mr. Alessandrini said that the School Committee is trying to address the questions put before it.
He added that LCP has already been included in the Capital modeling. There will never be a
good time to add another project on the list of debt exclusions and yet the need is there and will
not go away. Mr. Alessandrini asked what the financial committee members and the Board of
Selectmen see as the best use of Pelham.
Mr. Hurley said that the majority of the School Committee is committed to having LCP at
Pelham. He asked which of the options the Board of Selectmen and the other committees
preferred and which they would be willing to support at Town Meeting.
Mr. Neumeier (AC) said the presentation by the School Committee with regard to Pelham is
persuasive and he believes it is time to get moving on the project. No taxpayer money will be
saved if the solution to LCP is postponed and interest rates go up. He disagrees with Mr. Levine
about not adding in the LCP project with Hastings and the Fire Station debt exclusions. The
argument would be that Town Meeting is in favor of Public Safety and not in favor of the
Schools.
Starting around the table to gain an understanding of support, Mr. Michelson (AC) said the
School Committee’s argument for Pelham is compelling and he supports it.
Mr. Radulescu-Banu (AC) said he supports the School Committee’s proposal and believes the
addition of LCP to the debt exclusion vote is a risk that probably must be taken.
Ms. Yang (AC) said she is glad to hear both sides of the story: educational needs versus cost
concerns. She said debt lasts for a long time and the Town might reach a point where it won’t
accept additional debt.
Saying he had already made his opinion known, Mr. Parker added another point: LCP is not yet
at capacity so there is still some breathing room. He believes the Town is reaching the edges of
taxpayer capacity. While there are uncertainties in the future and a lot of questions that cannot be
answered, his goal is to maintain the maximum amount of flexibility. Once LCP goes to Pelham
permanently it will constrain other uses for the site. On a related note, what would the space at
Harrington be used for if not for LCP?
Mr. Bartenstein (AC) asked if there would be unused capacity at Pelham once LCP moves there
and the gym and cafeteria are used by the Community Center. Ms. Barry said the Board has not
70-429
Joint Meeting – December 12, 2016
discussed unused capacity. Mr. Bartenstein said he is concerned that the Town would be making
an expensive purchase without a full plan for how to use the acquired space.
Ms. Garberg (AC) appreciates the work the School Committee has done to put the children and
educational programming first. She said the job of the Appropriation Committee is to prepare the
School Committee to answer the questions that Town Meeting will pose. She is disappointed Mr.
Goddard could not be present to answer many of the questions that remain and she hoped he
would be able to provide information at a later time. She agrees that maintaining flexibility is an
important point. She is in favor of adding LCP to the upcoming debt exclusion but preparation
leading up to a vote must be thorough.
Mr. Levine said the School Committee’s reasoning is solid; he is not persuaded that keeping LCP
at Harrington will solve any financial problems. Once LCP is moved to Pelham, the Central
Office can more easily be moved at a later time. This makes Harrington more viable for
expansion and that site is better suited than Pelham for an elementary school.
Ms. Manz (CEC) said the School Committee has made a compelling case that Pelham is more
suitable for a classroom building than for offices. However, if this is a permanent location for
LCP, the remainder of the 8 acre site would be unused.
Mr. Cole (CEC) said there should be a very crisp narrative about the need and the costs in order
to gain approval but moving forward is nonetheless important.
Mr. Kanter (CEC) said it has been helpful to hear the discussion about the Central Office and the
Schools’ willingness to keep administrative operations at the Harrington site. In the spirit of
being able to discount alternatives, the answers to the questions posed tonight about costs are
important to help the committees write their reports about the project. He encourages a continued
flow of information going forward into Town Meeting.
Mr. Kanter added that he would like clarification on when Pelham will be ready for occupancy.
In the handout about the different LCP alternatives, the Harrington option cited fall 2019 as the
occupancy date; tonight Pelham was cited as 2021. He asked also that Mr. Goddard confirm the
Harrington campus would be decompressed if LCP moves and that site work would no longer be
needed.
Ms. Hai posed a final concern: funding to make the Pelham gym and cafeteria usable to the
Town has not been included in any of the cost estimates. She asked that either the cost be added
to the total or that the shared-use concept not be discussed at this time.
Mr. Pato said he is in favor of the Pelham plan and he feels that a low-intensity use of the site
would be sustainable and an important piece of how the Schools cope with growth.
Mr. Kelley said he is in favor of acquiring Pelham and that LCP is a good use for the property
and poses a great opportunity for intergenerational connections. However, he does not see the
urgency and he is against taking the property by eminent domain. He believes the appraisal price
was distorted by approximately $3M due to a fundamental assumption that the property could be
70-430
Joint Meeting – December 12, 2016
developed under a Balanced Housing Special Permit, which would increase the housing yield.
He does not think this precedent should be set.
That being said, he believes Pelham should be acquired in a negotiated process and the Town
should take its time. In the future, he sees the LCP program going to Pelham and the Central
Office moving to the site of the current Police Station. This would allow for consolidation of
departments in clusters around town—Town Hall and Schools; Public Safety, and so forth.
Mr. Cohen said land becomes available not because you want it to but because someone is ready
to sell it. Taking property by eminent domain is clean because it clears up questions of title. In
this case, the owners of the Pelham came to the Town and encouraged the Town to move quickly
to buy the property. If the Town waits, someone else will buy it. He believes the acquisition
should move forward. He agrees with the concept of flexibility but does not believe the
Selectmen should be telling the School Committee how to conduct business.
Ms. Barry said she is also in favor of acquiring Pelham for School and Municipal uses and
believes it should be done soon. She emphasized that the Town and Schools are of one
community and will find a way to move forward together.
Ms. Jay said she would like the initiative to be presented to the voters as a joint venture. She
supports Ms. Hai’s comment about putting together the Municipal costs for the gym and
cafeteria so that the project can be unified.
Mr. Hurley said it is greatly encouraging that the Selectmen are willing to purchase the Pelham
property. It gives the Schools two options; there is now the potential to move forward.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 4-0 to adjourn at 9:35 pm.
A true record; Attest:
Kim Siebert
Recording Secretary
70-431
Selectmen’s Meeting
December 19, 2016
A meeting of the Lexington Board of Selectmen was held on Monday, December 19, 2016 at
7:00 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room of the Town Office Building following an earlier
Executive session that began at 6:30 p.m. Ms. Barry, Chai; Mr. Kelley; Mr. Cohen; Mr. Pato;
and Ms. Ciccolo were present as well as Mr. Valente, Town Manager and Ms. Siebert, Recording
Secretary.
Selectman Concerns and Liaison Reports
Mr. Pato read a statement that summarized his response to a number of questions from residents
about the Center Streetscape project and about the protest signs that have appeared around town.
He thanked residents for contacting him with their concerns and assured the public that no
decisions have been made on the Center Streetscape project, an initiative with an open process
that began in 2011 and is still in the conceptual stage, with an ad hoc design committee to
shepherd the process forward.
Mr. Cohen announced that he did not intend to run for another term as Selectman. He praised the
other Selectmen he has worked with—both current and in the past—and he said Lexington is a
well-run town due to the excellence of the Town Managers that have served and to capable,
dedicated Town employees. Quoting the words of a former Selectmen upon his decision not to
run again, Mr. Cohen said he prefers to think of his decision as one to step aside, not down. He
knows there are good people waiting in the wings and he is confident the Town will be in fine
hands.
On behalf of the Board and previous boards before this, Ms. Barry thanked Mr. Cohen for his
dedication, commitment, integrity, and for his wealth of knowledge of all things municipal. Ms.
Barry said the Town is a better place for Mr. Cohen’s service and that he will be missed,
although there is much she hopes he will continue to do.
Mr. Valente lamented Mr. Cohen’s decision, saying having him on the Board was like having
extra staff to take care of finance issues and Town Meeting warrants. It has been his pleasure to
have Mr. Cohen’s able assistance in all matters.
Ms. Ciccolo echoed Ms. Barry’s and Mr. Valente’s sentiments and is grateful for having had the
opportunity to work with him.
Ms. Barry said that the ad hoc Center Streetscape Committee met on December 15 and voted
their Tier II and Tier III reports and they also updated their Tier I report. This means the
committee is moving toward the public meeting phase, the first of which has been scheduled for
Wednesday January 11, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. in Battin Hall of the Cary Memorial Building. After
that meeting, the committee will digest the comments they receive, make revisions accordingly,
and then present the findings on Monday, January 23 during a regularly scheduled Board of
Selectmen’s meeting.
70-432
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 19, 2016
Ms. Barry said the order of business at the January 23 meeting will be that the ad hoc committee
will make its presentation and the Board will ask clarifying questions. The Board will not take
public comment that night nor will it deliberate. Ms. Barry has called a special meeting for the
Board on Monday, January 30 at 7:00 p.m. at Battin Hall of Cary Memorial at which the Board
will deliberate on the full report—all three tiers—and at that point take public comments.
Ms. Barry thanked her colleagues and the Town staff for their patience this year. She wished
everyone happy holidays and a happy new year.
Town Manager’s Report
In a follow-up on the Board’s meeting schedule, Mr. Valente noted that a joint meeting with the
Board of Selectmen and the Planning Board will take place in Estabrook Hall in the Cary
Memorial Building on January 5, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. Two areas of focus will be to preview
Planning Board Town Meeting warrant articles and to update the Board about where the Town is
on its negotiations with Brookhaven. Brookhaven intends to bring its re-zoning proposal to Town
Meeting and the Town has been in discussions with Brookhaven about various concerns.
Selectmen Barry and Ciccolo and Planning Board members Hornig and Dunn sit in on those
negotiation sessions.
The Lexington Community Preservation Committee has received the Directors Partnership
Award, given by the National Park Service, part of the US Department of Interior, for
exceptional achievement in advancing the knowledge, understanding, and interpretation of
Parker’s Revenge. Town Meeting funded the project in 2016 to move ahead with the study of
Parker’s Revenge and there was also private funding that went into the initiative.
Through the Sustainable Lexington Committee, the Town has been informed that Lexington has
been selected to participate in National Grid’s 2017 Community Initiative Program. The program
provides outreach funding to promote the Commonwealth’s Mass Saves program to conduct
home energy use audits that provides low-cost insulation installation, appliance recycling, and
other benefits. If the Town meets the stretch goals of the program, a $45,000 incentive payment
will be awarded. Mr. Valente thanked Todd Rhodes and Marcia Gens of Sustainable Lexington
and Claire Goodwin from the Town Manager’s Office for their work on this initiative.
Accept Terms of the Evelyn T. Brega Foreign Studies Scholarship Fund
David Williams, Chair of the Trustees of the Public Trust, began his presentation by
acknowledging Selectmen Cohen’s many contributions to the Trustees over his long tenure as a
Town volunteer and as a member of the Board of Selectmen.
Evelyn Brega was a long-time teacher at Lexington High in the department of World Languages.
After her retirement, Ms. Brega remained in Lexington at Youville until her death when she
bequeathed funds to establish the scholarship in her name. Applicants for the scholarship will be
Lexington High graduates who intend to major in International Studies or Foreign Language.
70-433
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 19, 2016
Mr. Pato noted a typo in the text of the trust criteria that should be corrected (“principal” to
“principle”.)
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve the amended
terms of the Evelyn T. Brega Foreign Studies Scholarship Fund that will be managed by the
Trustees of the Public Trust.
Accept Terms of the Quinn Amsler Memorial Scholarship Fund
Mr. Williams said the Trustees were particularly excited about this scholarship because it will
benefit students who have met with challenges due to medical or mental disabilities. The
Scholarship is named for a young Bridge School student who died last year. The Bridge School
Community rallied around the cause and raised over $20,000 to establish the scholarship. The
applicant can be a graduate of either Lexington High School or Minuteman Regional.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve the terms of
the Quinn Amsler Memorial Scholarship Fund that will be managed by the Trustees of the Public
Trust.
Discussion of FY18 Program Improvement Request—Update to Comprehensive Plan
Planning Director Aaron Henry and Assistant Town Manager for Development Carol Kowalski
presented greater detail about the scope of work for the proposed Planning Department Program
Improvement Request (PIR) to update the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. Planning Director Henry
broke out the various tasks within the $302,000 budget request and assigned each task with a
cost estimate in order to aid a better understanding of the request.
The current Comprehensive Plan was done in 2002-03 and published in 2003-04. Only four
elements—Land Use, Economic Development, Housing and Transportation— were published at
that time. The proposed update would be done in essentially two phases over two to three years:
Phase One of the process, taking 18-20 months, has been termed “pre-planning” and it
carries a projected cost of $177,000, inclusive of all expenses. This phase would include
community education and engagement ($40,000); data gathering; a buildout analysis of
the town ($35,000); socio-economic and demographic reporting ($12,000); public
facilities and financial analysis ($10,000); a prior study review ($10,000);establishment
of an advisory committee; and a project initiation meeting ($10,000).
Phase Two is more intensive is projected to take 16 to 18 months and cost $160,000. It
would develop the various elements that make up the plan. The tasks within this stage
include: vision, goals, implementation ($25,000); land use analysis ($10,000); housing
analysis ($5,000); economic development ($25,000); natural, cultural, historic resources,
and open space ($5,000); public services and facilities ($5,000); transportation ($25,000);
and supplemental elements such as sustainability ($15,000), design guidelines ($10,000)
and strategic planning areas ( $25,000 for each).
70-434
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 19, 2016
Mr. Henry said a 10% contingency cost has been added as well. He noted that these items would
be bid separately and that it is possible that a full-service planning and engineering concern
would be chosen for all elements. The plan is to best match the consultant to the element(s) it
works on. He added that different tasks will require different levels of assistance.
Mr. Henry emphasized that the community engagement piece of Phase One is extremely
important, particularly in a community like Lexington. A facilitation expert will be essential so
that the project is initiated on solid footing and a strong framework is created for the process.
Other initiatives in town such as Vision 20/20 and a review of the current plan are also
important. Taking a step back and conducting a meta-analysis of disparate finding that already
exist is essential to a successful process as well.
Phase One will end with a kick-off event for Phase Two, which Mr. Henry sees as a continuation
of the community education and engagement efforts that began in Phase One.
The supplemental group of elements listed— sustainability, design guidelines, strategic planning
and anything additional—are beyond the statutory requirements of any comprehensive plan done
on Massachusetts but Mr. Henry said if this large undertaking is to be done correctly, Lexington
should include sustainability. Aspects of sustainability are apt to be found across the other
elements, in any case, but there may need to be specific attention given to it as a stand-alone
category.
At the end of the process, Mr. Henry hopes to have data that will help to inform the Town’s
design guidelines on future land use. Strategic planning might focus in on a specific area of town
that requires a greater level of attention.
Mr. Henry said that the costs quoted are variable and may shift from one category to another,
depending on how the process unfolds and on work already completed by other groups or
initiatives.
It was noted that the data from the current plan was based on census information from 2000.
Mr. Pato noted there were overlap areas with existing projects such as the “Getting to Net Zero”
initiative and other sustainability efforts. He is particularly enthusiastic about the community
engagement piece of the Comprehensive Plan and about making sure it happens right from the
start with a trained and experienced facilitator.
Mr. Kelley said he supports the objective but the cost seems high. Like Mr. Pato, he is
enthusiastic about community engagement but he hopes that even before that, the process will
include looking closely at parallel and well-documented efforts such as Vision 20/20. He
applauded the Planning Board’s initiative of about a year ago that thoughtfully engaged the
public about residential development.
Mr. Kelley said he is willing to go along with approving Comprehensive Plan funding but he is
cautious about buying the whole package. He would like Mr. Henry to check back in with the
70-435
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 19, 2016
Board after each phase is completed to measure the success and value and also gauge how well
the community has responded to the process.
Mr. Henry said he sees the Comprehensive Plan as a tandem effort between the Planning Board
and the Selectmen which will require cycling back frequently to make progress reports. He said
that the Planning office had researched other towns’ Comprehensive Plan RFPs to make an
accurate estimate on the cost. Across the state, there were a wide range of requests but it seemed
to Mr. Henry that the end results equate strongly with the investment made. He believes the cost
assignment he has presented puts the money where it needs to be, most notably in community
engagement and the visioning process.
Ms. Kowalski said that a strong Comprehensive Plan is largely dependent upon a strong master
plan advisory committee as well as an implementation committee. Not only will there be regular
check in with both boards but there may be liaisons from both boards that meet regularly with
the advisory and implementation groups.
Mr. Kelley asked whether the advisory board should be put in place before community
engagement initiatives begin. Ms. Kowalski replied that a committee can be formed at any time
but she recommended that the committee be formed once community engagement identified
enthusiasts for committee membership.
Mr. Cohen asked if comprehensive plans were mandated by the State. Ms. Kowalski said that
Massachusetts is somewhat unique in that it is not required to have a plan and yet MGL advises
towns to prepare plans and lists the various plan elements that should be included. There are no
direct consequences for not having a plan in place but there are funding sources that give towns
bonus points if they have ones that are up to date. Mr. Henry said the legislature is close to
passing a law to require comprehensive plan development and adoption. He believes it is wise to
pursue this even if there is no law that currently requires it.
Ms. Ciccolo said she enthusiastically supports the Comprehensive Plan development and has
been closely involved in the process in other towns. It is true that there is no State mandate but a
Town that has a comprehensive plan unquestionably receives a greater number of grants because
many applications for funding over a certain threshold require that a Town demonstrate
consistency between grant proposals and the Plan.
Jurisdictionally, the Comprehensive Plan comes under the Planning Board so more joint
meetings between Planning and Selectmen will be necessary. With respect to the creation of the
advisory committee, Ms. Ciccolo recommends forming it sooner rather than later because there
is a tendency in Lexington to revisit things, which would stymie progress. Ms. Ciccolo
encouraged Mr. Henry and Ms. Kowalski to include a public health element in the plan or to
weave public health through the other plan elements. Doing so would provide vital information
about how Lexington residents compare to those in other communities and how Lexington
measures up with national trends. This data would inform future decisions about transportation
and education.
70-436
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 19, 2016
Ms. Barry thanked Mr. Henry for breaking down the costs and for providing the scope of work.
Although the price tag is high, she supports the effort.
Mr. Kanter, Precinct 7 Town Meeting member, asked why the Program Improvement Request
would be fully funded in one fiscal year if the effort requires more than one bid would be broken
into two phases. Mr. Valente said that neither phase can stand on its own; funding for the whole
project should be affirmed.
Mr. Kanter asked if both phases would be awarded in FY18. Mr. Valente said he has not gotten
to that level of detail yet. The proposal would be presented as a separate warrant article at Town
Meeting, not as part of the Operating Budget, so that the funding is assured until the project is
complete.
A consensus vote of Selectmen yielded unanimous support for including the Comprehensive
Plan in the Town Manager’s version of the budget. Mr. Kelley asked for checkpoints along the
way and close communication between the Planning Board and the Board of Selectmen. Mr.
Cohen asked if the separate warrant article would come from Planning office or the Selectmen’s
office. Mr. Valente said this remains to be discussed.
Discussion of Municipal Modernization Bill for Possible Town Meeting Acceptance
The recent passage of the Municipal Modernization Bill has resulted in changes to home rule for
cities and towns. Mr. Valente presented aspects of the law of particular interest to Lexington that
require Town Meeting acceptance as well as those that do not require acceptance.
The list of 8 statutes requiring acceptance would have to be presented to Town Meeting but the
changes that do not require acceptance do not require citizen notification.
Mr. Valente clarified that the Town may not act on the eighth statute listed—the annual, rather
than quarterly, issuance of a property tax bill less than $100—because it may require
modifications to the tax billing software. The fourth item listed—the creation of a Special
Education Stabilization Fund—would piggyback on something the Town has already created but
the change would potentially make it easier to access the funds. Mr. Valente said he believes
there are still regulations that will come out with regard to this so the statute may not ready for
this Town Meeting.
Ms. Ciccolo said she is excited about the third item—creation of a separate parking meter fund
for parking meter receipts—and the fifth—speed limit revision and the creation of safety zones.
The Selectmen regularly receive requests for speed limit revision and this will allow the Town to
respond without appealing to the State. Ms. Ciccolo noted that the parking meter statute was the
result of work done in Lexington and Hudson.
Mr. Cohen asked why Lexington would have to approve the seventh item—creation of a special
fund for medical compensation for police and firemen injured on duty—when the Town already
does that. Mr. Valente said the only change is that the State law would be referenced every year
70-437
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 19, 2016
the line item is voted. There needs to be acceptance of the statute but the practice would be
unchanged.
Mr. Cohen asked if all the Municipal Modernization statutes that require approval would be on
the same warrant article. Mr. Valente believes a single article with a number of sub-categories
will suffice.
Ms. Barry asked that there be some form of education if the Town moves forward to approve the
speed limit statute.
Mr. Kelley said he is happy to support approval and is particularly enthusiastic about being able
to set speed limits at 20 mph in the Center of town. He recommends public hearings for areas of
town where changes might be warranted.
Mr. Pato agreed with his colleagues about the speed limit statute. He pointed out that Cambridge
and Boston have adopted a 25 mph speed limit throughout where other speed postings do not
exist. He looks forward to public hearings about changes, as well.
Mr. Kanter, Precinct 7 Town Meeting member, asked what the process would be to change a
speed limit to either 20 or 25 mph. Mr. Valente said that a 25 mph speed limit can be adopted
town wide or street by street. If done community-wide, signs would be placed at the town’s
borders. The 20 mph limit is done by designating an area as a so-called Safe Zone. In order to
implement, an engineering study must be done that would verify that the criteria for a 20 mph
zone is met. The criteria includes volume of pedestrian traffic and the presence of seniors and
school children. Mr. Valente has asked the Transportation Safety Group to look at both speed
limit changes and to present findings to the Board of Selectmen at a future meeting. Mr. Pato
said that these changes cannot be applied to roads that are State numbered.
Mr. Kelley said he had concerns about one change in State Law that does not require Town
Meeting approval—a fee that can be charged to an applicant so that the Town can hire
consultants to advise on permit applications. Mr. Valente replied that this statute currently exists
but is limited to specific boards—like Conservation. This change would extend the fee to any
permitting authority, including the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Kelley said he is not comfortable
that this statute because it could apply to any number of permit requests and could constitute a
financial burden to the applicant.
Review FY18 Proposed Shared Costs Budget
Mr. Addelson defined shared costs as those that support the delivery of both municipal and
school programs. It includes debt service, the Appropriation Reserve Fund and the Department
of Public Facilities budget.
The Appropriation Reserve Fund has been budgeted at $900,000 for the past few years and Mr.
Addelson recommends the same level of funding for FY18. The Reserve Fund is used in the case
of extraordinary or unforeseen costs that arise after the budget is adopted. It is voted by the
Appropriation Committee before bringing it to the Selectmen for approval.
70-438
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 19, 2016
The debt service budget is still in the process of being developed.
The category of employee benefits and insurance is comprised of the Town’s share of pension
costs, Medicare tax, health and dental insurance, life insurance, unemployment compensation,
Workers’ Comp., property and liability insurance, and uninsured losses. The FY18
recommended All Funds employee benefits and insurance budget is $34,701,077 which
represents a $1,474,925 increase over FY17 or 4.44%. Mr. Addelson made a correction to one
statement in the meeting packet, saying the recommended budget in fact does not include the
benefit costs for all new benefit eligible positions. Those costs will be funded by the allocation
that was made to both the Town Manager and the Superintendent of School in order to build
their respective budgets. Ultimately, when the budgets come before Town Meeting, they will
include those costs but they currently are not included.
Mr. Addelson reviewed the various aspects of the budget and increase drivers:
The contributory retirement assessment (an increase of $250,000 or 4.76%) based on a
2015 actuarial valuation of the Lexington Retirement System;
The non-contributory retirement increase ($783 or 5.67%) for employees receiving
awarded pensions prior to the creation of the contributory system;
A $206,247 or 13.95% increase in the Town’s contribution for Medicare Tax based on
FY16 actual costs, projected FY17 and FY18 salaries and wages, and historical rates of
increase;
A $860,778 or 3.57% increase in the health insurance budget (All Funds);
A $28,939 or 2.72% increase in dental insurance costs (All Funds);
No increase in life insurance costs based on projected enrollments;
Level funding of unemployment insurance;
A $65,237 or 10.4% increase in Workers’ Compensation;
A $37,941 or 4.41% net increase in costs of property and liability insurance;
A $25,000 or 12.5% increase in the budget for uninsured losses.
Discuss Possible Schedule for the Debt Exclusion Question
Mr. Valente said that in February of 2017, the Town expects to issue Bond Anticipation Notes
(BAN) for the purchase of 173 Bedford St. (approx. $4.4M) and 20 Pelham Rd ($8M). In the
financial model, presented at several financial summits, these purchases were included as
potential projected excluded debt. Because these BANs will come due in February 2018, staff
wants to begin a discussion about the timing of the debt exclusion question. A debt exclusion
vote will also be necessary to fund the Hastings School project. The current timeline for that debt
vote is fall of 2017.
Mr. Valente said approval of the Hastings School project by the MSBA is expected in late
August of 2017. Once that happens, the Town has 120 days to go to Special Town Meeting
(STM) for funding approval and to then hold a town-wide debt exclusion vote.
70-439
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 19, 2016
Mr. Valente said that 21 days is necessary to call an STM but, practically speaking, a month to 4
weeks is a reasonable amount of turnaround time. He suggested October 2 as a possible STM
date. After STM occurs, a minimum of 35 days is required to hold a town-wide election for the
debt exclusion vote. Mr. Valente calculated that the earliest this vote could take place is
November 6.
November 13 was considered as a possible date because there is no school scheduled for that day
due to teacher/staff professional development. However, that was later rejected and November 6
was settled upon as the target date for the election. Mr. Valente said it helps to know the vote
date in order to plan for the Bond Anticipation Note timing.
Mr. Kelley noted that the Hastings School project necessarily guides the debt exclusion timing
due to MSBA rules but there are a number of other projects that should be discussed for
inclusion such as the Fire Station and 20 Pelham Road. Mr. Valente said the question of
including the Fire Station construction has been discussed preliminarily with the financial
committees.
Mr. Kanter, Capital Expenditures Committee, asked what the current BAN rates are. Mr.
Addelson replied that interest rates on a short-term note are 1.5% in today’s market.
Mr. Kelley asked if in-levy funding is being considered for any of the pending projects. Mr.
Addelson said that the remodeling of the Fire Station swing space on Bedford St was calculated
in the debt exclusion model rather than within levy, as was the purchase of the property.
Update—Roofing Replacement for Monroe Center for the Arts
At Annual Town Meeting 2016, there was an appropriation approved for $298,000 to fund a
replacement roof at the Town-owned Munroe School which is leased to the Munroe Center for
the Arts. MCA agreed to an increase in rent payments to offset the debt service cost but indicated
that if the project price was actually this high, the offset would be beyond their capacity. They
agreed to bid the project out and then report back to the Selectmen.
A bid for the project was accepted for $163,000 and MCA has now agreed to increase their
monthly rent from $2,000 to $5,000 for the five-year period of the debt service.
Pelham Property—Consider Eminent Domain Taking
Ms. Ciccolo recused herself due to a conflict of interest, as she has with all discussions relating
to 20 Pelham Rd.
Mr. Valente said that at the Selectmen’s meeting on December 5, the Board indicated its intent to
move forward to take 20 Pelham Rd. property by eminent domain, due to the absence of a
negotiated settlement. However, in the last week, there has been a renewal of discussion between
the Town and the property owners so Mr. Valente asked that the eminent domain vote be
postponed until January 9, 2017.
70-440
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 19, 2016
Discuss Municipal Use of 20 Pelham Road Property
Mr. Valente said that at the Summit III meeting on December 1, the School Committee reported
that 20 Pelham Rd. is its favored location for the Lexington Children’s Place program. The
Schools would use only the classroom space, leaving the gym and cafeteria available for
municipal use. Given the proximity of 20 Pelham Rd. to the Community Center, staff would like
the Selectmen’s approval to begin discussions of programmatic uses of the gym and cafeteria
areas. This would allow the DiNisco architectural design consultants to perform a building
analysis and provide recommendations.
Mr. Cohen said he votes to move ahead. Ms. Barry said she agrees but noted that policies and
procedures will also have to be created, and possibly the appointment of a committee to keep the
municipal use component on track. Mr. Kelley said he is supportive of an analysis of benefits the
Town would gain from the Pelham site. Mr. Pato said he also supports the initiative but wants
the focus to be getting the school space on line as quickly as possible.
Mr. Kanter, Capital Expenditures Committee, asked if the DiNisco review would include any
connecting road requirements. Mr. Valente said that aspect of the work would be within the
School’s purview.
Annual License Renewals
This is the second group of annual license renewals. The first was approved on December 5.
The Board of Selectmen received an email and a hand delivered letter today that referred to some
issues at the Inn at Hastings Park. Ms. Barry will meet with the owner to discuss those issues.
Once the Board approves the renewals, the Selectmen’s office mails out the licenses by the end
of December. The licenses are released once all requirements have been met by the applicants. In
total, there are 7 Coin licenses; 4 Common Carrier licenses; 7 Common Victualler licenses; 15
Entertainment licenses; 4 Liquor Club licenses; 6 Liquor Common Victualler licenses; 1 Liquor
Innholder; 1 Liquor Retail Package Goods Store; 3 Liquor Wine and Malt licenses; and 3
Lodging/Innkeeper licenses in this round of renewals.
John Patrick, 2030 Massachusetts Avenue, author of the email and letter received today by the
Selectmen’s office, spoke to his concerns with the management of the Inn at Hastings Park. He
asked that Ms. Barry address these matters with the inn owner during their meeting. Ms. Barry
said after receiving the email/letter she reached out to the owner who said she had not received
the communication and so has not had the opportunity to respond. Mr. Patrick said this was an
oversight on his part and he would be happy to do send it to the owner. Ms. Barry scheduled a
meeting with the owner and said, in her experience, the inn has always been responsive to
concerns.
Mr. Valente said because Mr. Patrick’s letter had been delivered that afternoon, he has not had
time to examine the points it raises.
70-441
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 19, 2016
Mr. Patrick notes that the Board of Selectmen together with the Police are responsible for
enforcement of the terms of the license. If future violations are observed, he asked to whom he
should address these observations. Mr. Valente replied this would be a matter for the Police.
Mr. Patrick said that he has not been able to find any indication of discussion or documentation
with regard to change of management at the inn. Ms. Barry replied that her understanding is that
this paperwork will be coming to the Selectmen once the license is renewed, as directed by
licensing process rules.
Mr. Patrick acknowledged that the inn has been an area of contention since the initial project \[to
allow outside liquor consumption\] was announced and he asked that conditions be considered
that would withdraw permission for outdoor consumption due to the alleged violations and noise.
Mr. Kelley said he is confident that the concerns can be worked out and it is important this
happens as the inn is an immediate abutter to single-family residences. Mr. Pato echoed Mr.
Kelley’s comments and added that he is encouraged that Ms. Barry intends to meet with the
innkeeper.
Ms. Barry said because license renewals must be approved by the first of the year and the
Selectmen do not meet again until after New Year’s, she recommends that the Inn at Hastings
license, along with the other licenses, be renewed tonight. Mr. Valente said there is a public
hearing process the Board needs to follow in order to change the conditions or revoke a license.
This can happen at any time of year.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve the 2017
licenses as presented.
Consent Agenda
Approve One –Day Liquor License—Spectacle Management
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve a one-day
liquor license for Spectacle Management to sell beer and wine in the lobby of the Cary Memorial
Building on Saturday, January 28. 2017 from 7:00 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. during the Lenny Clark
Comedy Show.
Approve Tax Bill Insert—Business Directory
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve the tax bill
insert for the Lexington Business Directory as requested by the Economic Development office.
The Directory will be posted on the Town’s website. The insert would only be included in
commercial and personal property bills.
70-442
Selectmen’s Meeting – December 19, 2016
Sign Eagle Congratulations Letter—Noah Garberg
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to sign a letter of
commendation for Eagle Scout Noah Garberg from Troop #10.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to adjourn at 8:45 p.m.
from Open Session and to reconvene in a continuance of an Executive Session began at 6:30
p.m. but was curtailed due to lack of time. As did the earlier Executive Session, the continuance
will consider under Exemption 6 the purchase, exchange, lease or value of real property, 20
Pelham Road. Following the Executive Session, the Board will reconvene in Open Session only
to adjourn.
Ms. Ciccolo will recuse herself for this Executive Session discussion due to a conflict.
Following a return to Open Session, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to adjourn at
approximately 9:10 p.m.
A true record; Attest:
Kim Siebert
Recording Secretary
71-1
Joint Meeting
Board of Selectmen and Planning Board
January 5, 2017
A joint meeting of the Board of Selectmen and Planning Board was held on Thursday, January 5,
2017 at 7:00 p.m. in Estabrook Hall of the Cary Memorial Building, 1605 Massachusetts
Avenue. Board of Selectmen (BOS) S. Barry, Chairman; Mr. Kelley; Mr. Cohen; Mr. Pato Ms.
Ciccolo (early departure); were present along with Mr. Valente, Town Manager (late arrival);
Ms. Kowalski, Assistant Town Manager for Development; and Ms. Siebert, Recording Secretary.
Also present were Planning staff, Mr. Henry, Planning Director; Mr. Kucharsky, Assistant
Planning Director; and David Fields, Planner. Planning Board (PB) members Mr. Dunn; Mr.
Canale, Chair; Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti; Mr. Hornig; and Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Barry called the Selectmen’s meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. and introduced the Board
members. Mr. Dunn called the recessed Planning Board meeting back to order from a recess at
7:07 p.m.
Ms. Barry welcomed the audience but noted there would be no public comment this evening as it
was a working meeting.
Ms. Barry noted that Mr. Dunn has decided not to run for re-election and has stepped down as
Chair of the Planning Board. Mr. Canale is now Chair of the Planning Board.
Procedure for Meeting Minutes
Ms. Barry explained that the BOS Recording Secretary will be taking the minutes for the
Selectmen. Draft copies of those minutes will be shared with the Planning Board for review,
prior to approval by the Board of Selectmen.
Anticipated Planning Board Articles for 2017 Annual Town Meeting
Mr. Canale gave an overview of the five zoning bylaw articles and four general bylaw articles
the Planning Board intends to bring forward at the 2017 ATM which he hopes will be ready for
Town Meeting. Additionally, there are two citizen articles, one that requests zoning changes at
Brookhaven. The final article that Planning will speak about at Town Meeting is the $302,000
request for funding to update the Comprehensive Plan.
On January 18, 2017 there will be an open forum for the community at Battin Hall in the Cary
Memorial Building at which Planning will present the articles in advance of the February public
hearing.
Mr. Canale added that last year, a general bylaw was approved to create neighborhood
conservation districts (NCDs). The Historical Commission set up two study committees, one for
the Turning Mill district and another for the Byron- Lockwood-Mass. Ave. district. On January
17, 2017, there will be a decision at a joint meeting of the Planning Board and the Historic
District Commission that will decide whether a vote on the Turning Mill NCD should be taken at
this Town Meeting. If so, a separate public hearing will take place for this article.
71-2
Joint Meeting – January 5, 2017
The Zoning Bylaw Articles are:
Special Permit Residential Developments: changes are proposed to streamline/improve
the process;
Definitions Changes: some housekeeping needed to strengthen what Town Meeting
approved;
Two-Family Homes: proposals are now being reviewed by Town Counsel;
Economic Development Changes: changes to the CRO zone.
No zoning bylaw technical changes are planned.
The General Bylaw Articles are:
Scenic Road Designation
Creation of Turning Mill NCD
Blasting Prohibition
NCDs—Technical Changes: a $500 fine will be lowered to $300 due to a ruling from the
State’s Attorney General; wording changes will clarify NCD Commission oversight
jurisdiction
Special Permit Residential Developments
Mr. Henry said the prices for units in developments using the Balanced Variant is higher than the
Planning Board would like. To address this, Planning proposes to create a fourth, smaller size
category. Today, the smallest unit is 2,700 sq. ft.; in the new bylaw, the smallest size would be
2,100 sq. ft. The percentage of each size category would also be changed to 25% of the total
units at 3,500 sq. ft., 25% at 2,700 sq. ft., 25 % at 2,100 sq. ft. and 25% unregulated.
Mr. Henry said Planning hopes this substantive change will address community concerns about
affordability and SHI inventory. In this case, Mr. Henry said the public benefit variant would be
eliminated that exists in the current bylaw; it would be folded into the requirement of the newly
named “Flexible Development” bylaw.
Some of the wording of the details of the bylaw is now being refined. This amendment is closely
related to one of the citizens’ petitions articles that seeks to modify Balanced Housing
Developments so a meeting with the petitioner is being arranged to discuss how the two articles
overlap.
Mr. Pato said this amendment appears to be heading in the right direction and he is happy to see
it on the docket for Annual Town Meeting.
Mr. Kelley said he understands the objective of addressing concerns with Balanced Housing
Development (BHD) but the primary issue with BHDs seems to be density. He asked about the
changes to the total square footage allowance in Flexible Residential Development (FRD) as
opposed to Balanced Housing Development. Mr. Henry said that FRDs would allow 80% of the
71-3
Joint Meeting – January 5, 2017
maximum total floor area (GFA) of conventional construction; today, under BHD, the metric is
7,200 sq. ft. times the number of units on the proof plan which calculates the total sq. ft. that may
be requested. The new model pares back the allowance by 20%.
Mr. Kelley asked, if it is not 7,200 sq. ft. per conventional per house lot, from what number is
80% calculated. Mr. Henry said the number depends on the actual layout of the lots on the proof
plan. Mr. Hornig said that last year, Town Meeting passed a rule so that, in conventional
developments on single lots, the GFA is limited by a formula based on lot size. For every
different lot size, there is a maximum. In a conventional proposal, the by-right sq. footage
computation is done on the proof plan. For the FRD, the conventional number is multiplied by
80% to arrive at the sq. footage that can be built under the FRD special permit.
Mr. Kelley said the number of units is not addressed. Mr. Hornig and Mr. Henry agreed and said,
that by encouraging smaller units, density may be exacerbated. The goal, Mr. Hornig said, is to
get smaller units that should be less expensive; the increase in density is a side effect of
achieving that goal.
Ms. Johnson said that not all Planning Board members agree that there is no limit to the number
of units this model can yield. Now that several BHD developments have gone forward, it has
been demonstrated that sites are encumbered by wetlands, narrow passages, steep slopes and
other features unique to individual properties; rarely can a remaining buildable site accommodate
the full number of units that an unencumbered site would. Ms. Johnson said she has proposed
that density be limited to 50% again as many units as allowed by-right. This formula is more
transparent and makes it easier for residents to understand the density impact of a proposed
development. She agrees with all the new sq. ft. proposals but also believes there should be a
specified density limit.
Planning is weighing whether the 50% concept will alter what the square footage proposal is
intended to accomplish. The percentage is still under consideration. Ms. Johnson and Mr. Canale
said that the Board of Selectmen’s comments—as well as input from the public— are important
to hear.
Mr. Kelley asked if the 15% required affordable stipulation refers to the currently used
calculation for SHI qualification. Mr. Henry said it does but the percentage is still under
discussion. The units would be affordable in perpetuity.
Mr. Kelley said the clause about multiple unit impacts on the surrounding neighborhood poses
interpretation challenges. Mr. Canale said that the Planning Board makes these determinations
and weighs neighborhood impact. For conventional development, the Planning Board has little
leverage but when a proposal under BHD/FRD comes forward, the Planning Board has greater
influence under the Special Permit process. Under FRD, the Planning Board hopes to achieve the
goals of a better product than conventional development would yield plus at least a small
increase in profit to act as an incentive for a developer to go through the special permitting
process.
71-4
Joint Meeting – January 5, 2017
Mr. Cohen noted some blank areas in the proposal and asked if Town Counsel had given any
advice. He added that the source(s) of the article include “the Selectmen” which at this point is
premature. Mr. Henry thanked Mr. Cohen for catching that error and said that Town Counsel is
providing guidance.
Mr. Pato said identifying a density limit is a good idea but 50% over conventional yield may not
be advisable, especially coupled with a 15% SHI target. A balance should be sought that will
encourage this model of development.
Definitions Changes
Mr. Fields said the main purpose of this amendment is to address the implementation of the
Gross Floor Area requirements adopted under Article 41 of ATM 2016. Given the attention to
floor area the development process now requires, it has become evident that a number of
definitions must be clarified, revised, updated, or deleted to eliminate the gamesmanship that has
taken place about how basements, crawl spaces and attics are defined and measured.
Mr. Kelley asked how the new definition of “basement” accommodates a walk-out. Mr. Hornig
said the key is slope: if the lot does not slope, a walk-out basement would be considered a first
story. If the lot does slope, the average natural grade would be above the lowest natural grade
and the entire floor of the basement will be below that average, even if it is not below the grade
at its lowest point.
Mr. Pato did not have a specific comment about this amendment but commented that the GFA
calculation is something that should be looked at in general, based on the public’s reaction to the
size of houses being built. Mr. Henry said that Planning Board and staff want to see the results of
the changes now being proposed because people are using crawl spaces, for example, to hide
square footage. If Town Meeting adopts the proposed changes, square footage will have to
shrink.
Mr. Pato said he wants to make clear that reduced house size, through methods that create
transparent and expected results, is the goal of these changes. Mr. Henry said this is the
gamesmanship loophole Mr. Fields is talking about: the gap between building code and zoning
code definitions.
Mr. Canale said that Planning stated during last Town Meeting that it wanted to prevent the
egregious outliers. If new homes built after this are still larger than anticipated, Planning will
look at the calculus again.
Two-Family Homes
Ms. Johnson said this bylaw has been in discussion for nearly a year. The goal of the bylaw is to
encourage diversity of housing styles without impacting neighborhoods or abutting properties.
There are currently 300 two-family homes listed in Lexington and 10,000 single-family homes
so the need is apparent.
71-5
Joint Meeting – January 5, 2017
The sticking points among Planning Board members seem to be the size of the units and how
they correspond to the existing first floor area. Ms. Johnson and Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti met to
develop a proposal whereby the units would be categorized by the half-unit and there would be
certain size limitations.
Other Planning Board members would like to see bigger units than Ms. Johnson’s and Ms.
Corcoran-Ronchetti’s proposal provides. In the research that has been done, it was noted that the
two-family bylaw adopted in other towns has been prone to abuse; the homes are large and they
impact the character of the town. Ideally, the goal of this bylaw is for two-family home to blend
seamlessly with the neighborhood.
Mr. Kelley asked about affordable versus senior housing restrictions and whether it must be both
or one or the other. Ms. Johnson said the Board has determined it needs to be one but not
necessarily both. Mr. Kelley asked if the unit is affordable in perpetuity, would keeping track of
it pose an undue burden for Code Enforcement. Mr. Kelley also asked if both units would be
owned or could one be owned and the other rented. Mr. Henry said these details have not yet
been ironed out but if a unit goes on the SHI inventory, it becomes part of the RHSO monitoring
program. An age-restricted deed would be on file with the DHCD as well.
Ms. Barry commended Ms. Johnson and Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti for reaching out to other
communities to learn what has worked and what hasn’t with respect to two-family regulation.
Economic Development Changes
Mr. Hornig said the goal of these changes is to accomplish changes regarding permitted uses and
dimensional standards, similar to those adopted in 2009 for the CM District on Hartwell Ave.
Allowed uses will be broadened to include amenities like those permitted in the CM District.
Dimensional increases will be allowed by increasing floor area ratios and by opening the door to
special permit applications to address case-by-case assessment of unique situations.
Zoning map changes are also proposed, specifically adjusting the boundaries of the CRO
(regional office district) to match lot lines and adding a parcel to the CRO near Forbes Rd. The
land underneath the power lines there is zoned as residential and should be commercial or GC.
Also, MIT owns a large parcel on Wood Street that is currently used for Lincoln Laboratories.
The Planning Board would like that use to continue so rezoning would eliminate the possibility it
could be used for housing.
Scenic Roads Designations
Mr. Canale recused himself from this discussion and Ms. Johnson chaired the Planning Board in
his absence.
Residents have expressed concerns about neighborhood character. Scenic Roads is a General
Commonwealth bylaw that municipalities can enact to protect roads from landscape alterations
that would adversely affect the byway’s beauty.
71-6
Joint Meeting – January 5, 2017
Planning proposes four roads for Scenic status: Bennington Road (accepted portion); Fern Street
(entire length); Shade Street (entire length) and Vine Street (entire length). Ms. Barry asked how
these particular streets were chosen. Ms. Johnson said there are other roads seem like obvious
candidates but they are either not accepted Town roads or they are State routes. Mr. Henry said
other streets might be included at a later date. Ms. Johnson said Planning is open to more
suggestions from the Selectmen and from the public.
Mr. Cohen asked if the Scenic Road Statute must be accepted. Mr. Henry replied that once the
roads are designated, the law governs them but the statute itself need not be accepted. Mr. Cohen
asked if abutters have been notified. Mr. Henry said that is being done now.
Mr. Henry said the Scenic Roads bylaw allows the Planning Board to review stone wall
alteration but public shade trees remain under the purview of the Tree Warden. If alteration of
both a wall and a tree on a scenic byway is anticipated, a single public hearing must be held, for
the public’s convenience that deals with both issues together.
Creation of the Turning Mill NCD
Mr. Canale resumed as Planning Board Chair.
The Turning Mill NCD study group has solicited input from residents. There will be a joint
meeting of Planning and the Historic District Commission and, if the draft article is approved,
the article will move forward to the warrant. The public hearing for the article would have to be
th
advertised by January 18.
Blasting Prohibition
Ms. Johnson said that a recent matter before the Planning Board has again highlighted the need
to restrictions to removal of ledge by blasting. Not only does blasting alter the ecosystems and
topography of a site, it creates vibrations that can impact foundations, cause structural
disturbances and jeopardize the results of laboratory research projects in nearby biotech
facilities.
Blasting is increasing in Lexington. The economics that used to make blasting cost-prohibited no
longer exist. Permitting would require a “blast analysis” that considers the effects on adjacent
properties within 250 feet. Ms. Johnson has concerns that 250 feet might not include all
potentially affected properties and damage may not appear right away.
Town Counsel had concerns with the original proposal that sought to prohibit blasting in the
densest residential districts so the Planning Board suggests instead a Scenic bylaw addendum to
Chapter 43 of the Earth, Fill, and Removal bylaw. The prohibition could appear in the first
paragraph.
Mr. Kelley asked if it is reasonable to limit blasting for utility tie work. Mr. Cohen said he has
received a lot of phone calls in the last 3 months about blasting.
71-7
Joint Meeting – January 5, 2017
Mr. Pato said that alternatives to blasting are not benign and the Planning Board should make
sure actions do not lead to worse alternatives. There should be latitude to take the least invasive
path forward.
NCD Technical Changes
Mr. Canale said Chapter 78. Neighborhood Conservation Districts, Section 9 (b) of the Code of
Lexington would be amended to change a fine previously approved at $500 to $300 on the basis
of a ruling from the Attorney General’s office.
The other change under this category protects a homeowner from so-called double jeopardy if
their historic home must be approved for demolition. The NCD would rule on historical home
demolition in the district rather than the Historic District Commission (HDC). The HDC supports
this bylaw amendment.
Brookhaven Citizen’s Article
Mr. Canale said that the Planning Board generally supports this article although there are some
things it would like see included. Negotiations with Brookhaven about these inclusions have
broken down but the Board remains mostly comfortable with the article as it now stands.
The biggest concern is affordable housing and fears that the addition of 79 units at Brookhaven
will adversely affect the SHI percentage. Planning prefers that affordable housing mitigation
occur on the Brookhaven site itself.
Mr. Kelley said it is his impression the Planning Board has taken the position that any additional
units should not adversely affect the town’s SHI. Mr. Henry said the approximate SHI is
currently 11.4% and this percentage will not be revised until the 2020 census. Mr. Canale agreed
with Mr. Kelley that the Town should not bear the burden for Brookhaven’s actions.
Ms. Barry said two Selectmen are on the Town’s Brookhaven negotiating team and hopes the
matter will come to a mutually beneficial conclusion.
Comprehensive Plan
Mr. Canale said he is encouraged that the Selectmen have supported the Comprehensive Plan
and he looks forward to co-presenting the funding article at Annual Town Meeting.
Ms. Barry affirmed that the Selectmen responded favorably to the most recent, more detailed
Comprehensive Plan presentation provided by Mr. Hendy and Ms. Kowalski. The Board of
Selectmen are concerned about timing and cost but feel there is much to be gained from
undergoing the process and updating the Plan.
Mr. Henry said any questions or comments about tonight’s presentation are welcome and the
materials will be available on the Planning website momentarily. Mr. Hornig emphasized that
71-8
Joint Meeting – January 5, 2017
everything presented tonight is still a work in progress. Ms. Barry thanked the Planning Board
for the meeting.
Adjourn
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 4-0 to adjourn at 8:20 p.m.
A true record; Attest:
Kim Siebert
Recording Secretary
71-9
Selectmen’s Meeting
January 9, 2017
A meeting of the Lexington Board of Selectmen was held on Monday, January 9, 2017 at 7:01
p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room of the Town Office Building. Chairman Barry, Mr.
Kelley, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Pato, and Ms. Ciccolo were present as well as Mr. Valente, Town
Manager and Ms. Siebert, Recording Secretary.
Chairman Barry read a statement from the Board of Selectmen about a recent incident on Tarbell
Avenue that resulted in the arrest of a Lexington resident, charged with Civil Rights and
weapons violations and harassment of a neighboring resident. Ms. Barry emphasized that
Lexington is a community fosters inclusiveness, celebrates diversity, and respects all individuals.
Ms. Barry expressed the Board’s appreciation for the cooperative efforts of Police Department,
Fire Department, Human Services Department, Massachusetts State Police and the Middlesex
County District Attorney’s office.
Public Comments
Dawn McKenna, 9 Hancock Street, spoke about the Mass Ave. crosswalk that was recently
moved from in front of the Visitors Center to the corner of Meriam St. She has observed that
many people are still crossing unprotected at the former crosswalk site. Mr. Valente will refer
this matter to Town staff.
Selectman Concerns and Liaison Reports
Ms. Barry acknowledged the long tenure of School Committee Chair Bill Hurley who recently
stepped down from the Committee due to health reasons. Ms. Barry thanked Mr. Hurley for his
dedication to the Town and the Schools and, on behalf of the Board of Selectmen, she wished
him well.
Ms. Barry also noted upcoming events to be held on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, Monday,
th
January 16
. There will be a community conversation on race hosted in conjunction with the
Human Rights Committee and the Lexington Interfaith Clergy Association. It will begin at 9:30
a.m. at Grace Chapel.
Town Manager’s Report
In advance of her impending retirement on March 1, Mr. Valente asked Deputy Town Manager
Linda Vine to step forward to be recognized. Ms. Vine thanked the Board of Selectmen for its
support over the years. Ms. Barry, in turn, thanked Ms. Vine of behalf of the Board for her many
years of service to the Town during which she has served in multiple roles.
Mr. Valente said he and School Superintendent Mary Czajkowski received notification from
Facilities Director Pat Goddard of his intention to retire at the end of August. Recruitment is
expected to begin by the end of January and it is hoped there will be a 2-3 month overlap for Mr.
Goddard and his successor. Mr. Goddard was the first Director of Facilities in a municipal/school
shared role. Ms. Barry expressed the Board’s appreciation, saying Mr. Goddard handled many
71-10
Selectmen’s Meeting – January 9, 2017
challenges over the last 10 years, never failing to rise to the occasion. On behalf of the Board,
she wished him well in his retirement.
Mr. Valente introduced the newly hired Director of Recreation and Community Programs,
Melissa Battite, who will assume the position at the end of January. Ms. Battite has served the
Town of Brookline for 24 years, most recently as the Assistant Director of Recreation. Ms. Barry
presented Ms. Battite with a Town of Lexington lapel pin.
Joint Meeting with School Committee—Vacancy Resulting from Bill Hurley’s Resignation
Ms. Barry asked acting School Committee Chair Mr. Alessandrini to call his Committee to order
and introduce the members. Members Jesse Steigerwald, Judy Crocker, Eileen Jay were present
as was Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Mary Czajkowski. Mr. Alessandrini thanked Ms. Barry
for her kind words about Mr. Hurley and said the School Committee also wishes him well.
The item of business discussed was the process and protocol of filling the vacancy resulting from
Mr. Hurley’s resignation. Town Clerk Nathalie Rice also joined the discussion.
Mr. Valente said the timing of Mr. Hurley’s decision raises questions of process and urgency,
since there is little time remaining to pull nomination papers in advance of the Town election
cut-off date. Even more complex is how to inform interested candidates and the public about the
difference between Mr. Hurley’s remaining term and the full School Committee 3-year term.
Both will be on the ballot. Mr. Valente and Ms. Rice conferred with Town Counsel to be certain
on how to proceed.
Individuals interested in filling Mr. Hurley’s position must submit nomination papers and run for
the remainder of Mr. Hurley’s term, a period of 1 year.
The two School Committee seats are to be considered separate—one 3-year term and one 1-year
term. Candidates must run for one or the other, but not both. If someone wants to run for the
now-available 1-year vacancy, he/she has only until January 13 to pull nomination papers. Those
papers will require 50 signatures which must be returned to the Town Clerk’s office by January
17. To pull papers, a resident must appear in person at the Town Clerk’s office during business
hours, 8:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m., Monday-Friday.
Because time is so short, a concerted effort to get the word out through various means was
discussed: postings are already on Town government bulletin boards and information will be sent
out through the Town Meeting email communication list. A bulletin is planned for the
Lexington Minuteman, the Lexington listserv, the Town website, School parent lists, the
Colonial Times and Lex Media.
Ms. Barry asked what would happen if no one pulled papers for the 1-year seat. Mr. Valente said
the position would still appear on the ballot and could be filled by write-in votes. Ms. Rice noted
there are currently two candidates vying for the 3-year term which was the only open seat until
Mr. Hurley’s resignation.
71-11
Selectmen’s Meeting – January 9, 2017
Ms. Jay asked if the deadline to close nominations could be extended. Ms. Rice replied that State
law is clear that it would not be permitted. Mr. Alessandrini agreed it is important to make a big
push to get the information out because most citizens are unaware of the situation. They see two
candidates and two positions and don’t know the about the technicalities.
Ms. Crocker asked if this announcement would be an appropriate use of the Code Red
emergency notification system. Mr. Valente said it would not be unless the Board overrode
established protocol.
Dr. Czajkowski asked that an official statement be prepared to ensure accurate and consistent
information. Once that message is crafted, she will relay it to the School groups to send to their
constituents. Mr. Valente will work on the statement with staff.
Mr. Cohen said he believes that if one of the two 3-year candidates decides to run for the 1-year
term, that person would have to pull new papers and get 50 new signatures. Ms. Rice said she is
awaiting word from Town Counsel on this question.
Elaine Ashton, 32 Cliffe Avenue, asked if the candidate with fewer votes might be considered
for the 1-year term, if no one runs for it. Ms. Rice said she is unsure of the emergency procedure
following an election but she knows that, unlike Town Meeting, both seats must be run for
separately.
th
Ms. Barry noted that the annual Town Election will take place this year on Monday, March 6.
Mr. Alessandrini said the School Committee has scheduled a special meeting on Friday, January
13 at 8:30 a.m. to elect the new Chair and Vice-chair and to redistribute Mr. Hurley’s committee
liaison assignments.
The School Committee left the meeting at 7:25 p.m.
st
Request from the Lions Club for 61 Annual July 4th Carnival
Doug Lucente and Bill Carlson from the Lexington Lions Club requested permission to hold the
st
61 Annual July 4th Carnival at Hastings Park. Set-up would start Tuesday, June 27, 2017 and
breakdown would be on Wednesday, July 5, 2017.
Mr. Lucente said the Annual Lions Club Carnival is one of the oldest continuous carnivals in
Massachusetts and the Lions’ largest fundraiser, raising 61% of the Club’s yearly revenue. 90%
th
of the proceeds from the Carnival stay in Lexington to fund community projects such as the 300
Clock, gateway to Lexington signs, a bathroom facility at Lincoln Park, the outdoor seasonal
skating rink at Fletcher Park, large print books for the Cary Library collection, Little League
sponsorships, scholarships, USS Lexington memorial, the wheelchair and walker program, the
White Tricorne Hat program, and assistance for those who need medical care related to eye
disease and vision issues.
71-12
Selectmen’s Meeting – January 9, 2017
In 2012, the Carnival moved to Hastings Park after occupying several other locations over the
years. It typically sees 10,000-15,000 visitors during the week-long runs. The Lions Club
provides a free day for the disabled and host old-fashioned youth games such as sack races. The
Carnival includes a yearly fireworks display.
The Lions Club meet with Town staff to review the Carnival’s layout, schedule, and permitting.
The Lions Club staffs many of the events and maintains cleanliness of the area before, during,
and after the fair.
Dawn McKenna, 9 Hancock Street, asked why the Carnival closes at 6 p.m. on the night of July
th
4 because seems to be a night that people would want activities. Mr. Lucente replied that the
next day is a work day so it is a better model for both the Lions who staff the Carnival and for
attendees. Additionally, the Bicentennial Band plays on Tuesday evenings and the Lion Club
does not want to pose a conflict for those who want to attend the concert.
th
Ms. Barry asked why the Lions are requesting night lights until 11:30 p.m. from June 27
th
onward if the Carnival doesn’t open until June 30. Mr. Lucente replied that the Club may not
use the lights that far in advance or keep them on that late at night but set up will require
illumination and much of the work is done by volunteers who have day jobs. He noted that the
Carnival has its own power source.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve the request of
th
the Lions Club to hold the July 4 Carnival from Sunday, June 27, 2017 through Monday, July
5, 2017 with the times as requested in the Lions Club letter dated January 4, 2017.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve the request of
the Lions Club to have the lighting turned on until 11:30 p.m. from June 27, 2017 through July 4,
2017.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve the request of
the Lions Club to have a fireworks display on Monday, July 3, 2017 at approximately 9:30 p.m.,
subject to the approval of the fireworks vendor and necessary safety precautions required by the
Lexington Fire Department.
Approve Sunday Entertainment License for Fiesta Shows/Lions Club
Because the Carnival will be in operation on Sunday, July 2, 2017, a Sunday Public
Entertainment License approval is necessary.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve and sign the
th
request for a Sunday public entertainment license for the July 4 Carnival for Sunday, July 2,
2017.
Update: Hartwell Ave/Maguire Road Intersection Project
David Cannon, Assistant Town Engineer, and Stantec consultants; Tom Hanson, Jerry Fortin,
and Rick Bryant, provided an update on the design options available for road improvements to
71-13
Selectmen’s Meeting – January 9, 2017
the intersection of Hartwell and Maguire roads, including reconstruction of the small bridge that
crosses the Kiln Brook.
Mr. Hanson said the Stantec team developed two options: a roundabout and a signalized
intersection. The roundabout has a two-lane approach from Bedford St and a two-lane departure
toward Hanscom AFB, transitioning down to a single lane once the project area is cleared. The
signalized option is similar in that there are two approach lanes and two departure lanes that
narrow down as the road approaches the Base.
The Kiln Brook Bridge is municipally owned. Stantech developed comparative cost estimates for
two designs. The roundabout option, using conventional construction, has a 24,000 sq. ft.
wetland impact although Mr. Hanson said walls could be constructed to reduce the impact to just
under 9,000 sq. ft. The cost of the basic roundabout using conventional construction would be
$6.1M and the roundabout with constructed walls would be $6.9M.
There are three design options for a signalized intersection. The first uses a 2-to-1 slope.
Between the roadway and the bridge, the project’s wetland impact equals 16,000 sq. ft. which
exceeds the 5000 ft. wetland loss threshold, triggering the need for additional mitigation permits
and requirements. Stantec also considered constructed slopes of 1 ½ to 1, using riprap to achieve
the slope. By doing this, the impact would be reduced to 3,800 sq. ft. The final option would
minimize wetland impacts to 1,700 sq. ft. by putting the 1 ½ to 1 slope in the walls themselves.
The three signalized options range in price from $5.5M to $5.96M.
Ms. Barry reminded the Board the information is in front of the Board tonight as an update only
and will not be voted on tonight. Due to the complex wetland and utilities issues in the area, the
project cost of $4.75M that was previously budgeted will be insufficient no matter which option
is chosen. Later in the meeting during Mr. Valente’s FY18 budget presentation, the Board will
see a supplemental funding request for this project of $2.185M.
Mr. Pato said he favors the roundabout design but is sensitive to the greater level of wetland
impacts. He asked if one design has a greater traffic capacity and if there are any limits to how
much traffic can be accommodated over time as the area grows. Rick Bryant, traffic engineer,
said the two-lane roundabout proposal handles a full built-out scenario. The signalized option
with two lanes in each direction, including turn lanes, also handles full build-out.
Mr. Kelley asked if the roundabout serves traffic growth better. Mr. Bryant said the two are
fairly comparable.
Ms. Ciccolo questioned whether the Town has adequate property to perform mitigation or if it
would be necessary to access abutting properties. Mr. Hanson said there is the potential for
mitigating immediately adjacent to the project on land not owned by the Town. A mitigation plan
has not yet been discussed with the Conservation Commission; in a previous consultation, the
Commission appeared to prefer the options with least impact to the resource area.
71-14
Selectmen’s Meeting – January 9, 2017
Mr. Kelley asked if this would be a good time to consult with Conservation about wetland
replication. If the Selectmen agree that a roundabout design is preferred, a message to that effect
could be relayed to the Commission through Stantec.
Mr. Pato said he also prefers the roundabout design but is concerned about the measurably larger
impacts to wetlands and about the higher project cost.
Mr. Cohen asked how much land-taking would be involved in the designs. The Stantec
consultants said the quantities have not be calculated. There would be takings for either design
but more for a roundabout because it has a larger footprint. Mr. Cohen said the cost for that
should be factored into considerations.
Ms. Ciccolo asked how many years it would be before the Hartwell Ave. area reaches full build-
out. The consultants replied that the timetable is unknown. The most recent study of the business
corridor was done before the recession and after zoning changes allowed greater density in the
district. A single-lane roundabout would not accommodate the current volume of traffic leaving
the Base at 5:00 p.m.
Ms. Ciccolo also voiced her preference for a roundabout but said she, too, is concerned about
land takings and costs. If additional value engineering could minimize costs and takings, the two-
lane roundabout would be the best option in this location.
Ms. Barry said she also has concerns about cost and land takings that present obstacles to
choosing the roundabout design.
Mr. Pato said because the Board wants the Hartwell area to grow, he would caution against
under-designing the roadway improvements. From an economic development perspective, the
Town wants to enhance the corridor and improve access.
Mr. Kanter, Capital Expenditures Committee, asked about the timing of impact on the budget.
David Cannon said the design concept would need to be identified before the cost impact is fully
understood. Mr. Valente said that all options presented would require supplemental funding; the
highest estimated supplemental cost figure will be put forward in case that option is chosen.
There are many engineering and regulatory steps to be taken over a number of months before the
full cost is known.
Ms. Ciccolo noted that signalized intersections have maintenance costs as well as environmental
impacts from idling cars. Mr. Kelley agreed that there are quality-of-life benefits to a roundabout
design. He asked that the Town not abandon the concept and said that slightly greater wetland
mitigation is not necessarily an insurmountable obstacle. He urged that a discussion take place
about the matter with the Conservation Commission.
Pelham Property—Consider Eminent Domain Taking
Ms. Ciccolo recused herself from the Pelham Road discussion.
71-15
Selectmen’s Meeting – January 9, 2017
Mr. Valente said the Board of Selectmen indicated, at its December 5, 2016 meeting, a
willingness to vote to take the 20 Pelham Road property by eminent domain in the absence of a
negotiated settlement. Given the request by the School Committee to use this property for the
Lexington Children’s Place program, primary ownership is crucial so that design work can
begin. There are three items before the Board that must be voted. The first two items have been
requested by Town Counsel and the third has been requested by Bond Counsel.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 3-1 to approve the Order of
Taking as written, dated January 9, 2017. Mr. Kelley cast the dissenting vote.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 3-1 to approve and sign the
Order of Taking as presented on January 9, 2017. Mr. Kelley cast the dissenting vote.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 4-0 that the Board does not
currently anticipate that the property to be acquired with the $8,000,000 Land Acquisition
Bonds, or any portion thereof, will be leased, rented, managed, or otherwise exclusively
committed to a third party, or sold for as long as any bonds or notes are outstanding. The
intended use of the property is for school and municipal purposes.
FY18 Town Manager’s Preliminary Recommended Budget and Financing Plan
Mr. Valente; Mr. Addelson, retiring Assistant Town Manager for Finance; and Ms. Carolyn
Kosnoff, newly-hired Assistant Town Manager for Finance, presented the Town Manager’s
preliminary FY18 budget and finance plan for review and comment.
Before the presentation, Ms. Barry welcomed Ms. Kosnoff to the Town staff with a Lexington
seal pin.
Mr. Valente said work on the FY18 budget commenced on June 22, 2016 when the Board of
Selectmen conducted its annual goal-setting exercises. Informed by those goals, staff strived to
create a budget that reflects the challenges the Town anticipates in the next five years. In the first
section of the Town Manager’s recommended budget—known as the White Book—Mr.
Valente’s 11-page summary highlights School and Municipal operating budgets and the Town’s
Capital budget.
The proposed budget supports the Selectmen’s theme of proposing a sustainable path forward by
providing a balanced and affordable budget that preserves critical capital assets, programs, and
services. Mr. Valente said the proposed budget maintains the current level of municipal and
school services with limited service enhancements; continues a strong Capital program; provides
flexibility in case of State Aid reductions or unanticipated expenses; and proposes significant set
asides for the Capital Stabilization Fund to mitigate impacts from future debt service.
Key recommendations:
Add $7.7M into the Capital Stabilization Fund;
71-16
Selectmen’s Meeting – January 9, 2017
Appropriate $595,000 from the Capital Stabilization Fund for within-levy debt service;
Use $3,100,000 from Capital Stabilization for excluded debt to provide property tax
relief;
Limit Program Improvement Requests (PIRs) totaling $573,150 ;
Hold some Capital projects in abeyance;
Provide a contingency/unallocated revenues of $618,000.
With the addition to and subtraction from the Capital Stabilization Fund described above, the
balance of the Fund would be $27M at the close of FY18.
For Operating Budget revenues, staff projects an increase of 5.1% or $10,161,087 over FY17
budgeted revenues. Historically, 5.1% is in the range of typical revenue increases since FY12.
Mr. Valente listed several considerations for targeted new revenue sources:
Stormwater management fee;
Adjustment of the cemetery burial fee;
Adjustment of revenue from sale of compost and yard waste fees;
Potential Hartwell solar revenues.
Financial/Budget Priorities include:
Planning for financing Capital, both within the tax levy and for excluded debt;
Managing Operating Budget increases;
Continuing funding of OPEB liability
Continuing investments for pedestrian safety per Article 45 Citizen’s Article approved
ATM15.
The budget’s major cost centers include:
Lexington Public Schools: $101,850,333
Minutemen Regional High School: $1,510,239
Shared Expenses: $54,040,896
Municipal Departments: $35,338,750
Cash Capital—Tax Levy and Available Funds: $6,247,099
Other: $10,966,122
The total of these cost centers is $210,063,438 from the General Fund. This constitutes an
increase of 5.3% over the approved FY17 budget.
The Shared Expenses category represents over 25% of the Operating Budget. Mr. Valente
defined Shared Expenses as those that support the operations of both Municipal departments and
School department.
71-17
Selectmen’s Meeting – January 9, 2017
Two items were highlighted under Shared Expenses: Employee Benefits and Facilities
Departments. Employee Benefits may change from projected due to uncertainty in health
insurance rates through the State’s Group Insurance Commission (GIC). An 8% increase was
assumed when the budget was built but, based on recent information, the increase could be
higher.
Increases in the Facilities Department are due to three additional custodial employees, added to
cover expanded square footage at Clarke and Diamond middle schools and the Lexington
Children’s Place. Mr. Valente said an expected $190,000 savings in the Facilities budget is due
to lower utilities costs resulting from the Hartwell solar installation.
PIRs over and above level service department budgets have been reviewed. Below is the list
recommended by the Town Manager:
DPW: Senior Engineer: $1,619 (net);
DPW: Pavement Markings: $75,000;
DPW: Street Tree Assessment: $50,000;
Planning: Comprehensive Plan: $302,000;
Committees: Getting to Net Zero: $40,000;
Town Clerk: Additional Hours: $25,425;
Information Services: Regional Consortium Staff Support: $15,000;
Economic Development: Bike Share Program: $27,000 (Recommend funding from
Center Stabilization Fund);
Total of various other PIRs: $37,106
The total PIR expenses represented by the list above is $573,150. The total of all PIRs submitted
was $1,092,000. Mr. Valente was cautious about adding new staff or increasing hours but
included two in the recommended PIR requests: a Senior DPW Engineer ($1,619) and additional
hours in the Town Clerk’s office. Mr. Valente said the salary for the Senior Engineer position
represents such a small increase to the DPW budget because $60,000 will be shifted from
Contractual Services to the Salary line item. Additionally, because the position is unlikely to be
filled until November, the FY18 salary allocation of $61,619 is pro-rated to cover only six to
seven months of salary and benefits. An entire year would require another $32,000; this will be
reflected in the FY19 budget.
For FY18, staff recommends that funds be added to two reserve accounts: OPEB= $1,829,721;
and Capital Stabilization=$7,726,101. The current balance of the OPEB account (before the
addition) is $9.035M; the current balance in the Capital Stabilization account is $23.067M.
The Town must undergo a post-retirement employee health benefit actuarial study every two
years; the OPEB liability over the next 30 years totals $195M.
This year’s recommended Capital plan is more ambitious than the two prior years because of the
high number of priority projects. Staff recommends that over $5.6M in Capital projects be paid
71-18
Selectmen’s Meeting – January 9, 2017
for in cash. Anticipated excluded debt projects for Spring ATM equal $1,775,250 (design funds
for the Fall Capital projects); excluded debt projects for Fall STM equal $77,274,750 (Hastings
School, LCP, Fire Station swing space and station construction).
Total levy supported debt service is projected to increase over FY17 by 5%, net of $595,000 in
debt service mitigation and $8,340 for projects supported by non-tax revenue. The plan to use
the Capital Stabilization Fund for within levy debt is consistent with the plan that was presented
last year at Town Meeting and at Summit 1 in October 2016.
Projected use of Free Cash for Capital financing in FY18 is $3,415,000. Projected use of Tax
Levy financing for Capital is $2,832,099. The Town’s Free Cash position is currently strong and
using cash takes pressure off the debt service.
Managing excluded debt service is key to the Capital financing plan. The substantial increase in
excluded debt from FY13 to FY14 was the result of the Bridge, Bowman, and Estabrook school
projects. FY13 was the first year the Town used funds from Capital Stabilization to mitigate
impacts on the taxpayers. Gross excluded debt service for FY18 is projected to be an additional
$12,303,692 (middle school projects and elementary school modular) with $3,100,000 taken
from Debt Service Tax Relief. If the Board of Selectmen and Town Meeting both approve the
use of $3.1M, the median residential tax bill impact from excluded debt would be 2.9%. This
represents the 2 ½ % increase allowed by law plus an additional .r% or $61.00.
Capital projects that closely align with the Selectmen’s priorities include:
Center Streetscape: $2,870,000 (carried forward from last year’s budget pending plan
approval by BOS);
Road Improvements/Construction: $2,542,297 (continuation of aggressive funding
levels);
Sidewalk Improvements: $800,000 (an increase of $200,000 over FY17);
Town-wide Roofing: $1,784,160 (mostly at Bridge School);
LHS Air Conditioning: $600,000 (due to change of direction from larger $18M HVAC
project);
LHS Security: $627,320 (cameras in the building and changes to door-locking
mechanisms);
School Technology: $1,331,900
Westview Cemetery Bldg. Design: $270,000 (phase I, funded from increased cemetery
fees instead of from tax levy).
Mr. Valente and the financial team also recommends that certain Capital projects be postponed
until it is known how the vote on excluded debt projects plays out at STM17. Those projects to
be held in abeyance include:
Sidewalk improvements: $800,000
Bikeway Bridge Renovations: $368,000
LHS Air Conditioning $600,000
71-19
Selectmen’s Meeting – January 9, 2017
LHS Security evaluation and upgrade: $627,320
LHS Guidance Space Mining: $230,200
There would still be debt service for the engineering portion of Capital projects, even if the
projects themselves are not approved. This is why the projects will be held in abeyance until the
results of the debt exclusion votes are known next fall.
Ms. Ciccolo said the abeyance approach seems reasonable but she asked if the construction
season would be missed if the tax levy funded projects were postponed until after Special Town
Meeting. Mr. Valente said the construction season would be missed.
Mr. Kelley asked if the abeyance course of action meets with State rules about municipal
funding. Mr. Valente said projects can be authorized but do not have to move forward; the
timeline is up to the Selectmen. Similar actions occurred during the recession when financial
uncertainty caused delays in starting Town Meeting approved projects.
Mr. Kelley asked, in these circumstances, if re-appropriation would be necessary. Mr. Valente
said it would be and it could occur the following spring at ATM18. Mr. Valente said the timing
will be challenging outlining the following the sequence of events:
1.Town Meeting in March 2017
2.Debt Exclusion passes/does not pass Fall 2017
3.If it passes, all proceeds as originally planned; if it fails entirely or in part, the Operating
Budget would have to be adjusted to absorb the debt service for the portion of the debt
exclusion vote that was unsuccessful.
4.Return to Town Meeting for re-appropriation.
Mr. Pato noted that the amount financed for the projects to be held in abeyance exceeds the
amount of the debt service. Mr. Valente said this was done with the mind to provide flexibility in
the event the debt exclusion vote is not successful.
Mr. Pato said he is concerned about sequestering the entire amount for sidewalk construction
which would preclude any advancements in that area. He prefers that some portion of the
$800,000 move ahead even if the entire allocation could not be used.
As the Board considers the White Book budget recommendations, Mr. Valente said some
important continuing policy issues should be kept in mind:
Planning for large Capital projects;
Continued use of Capital Stabilization Fund;
Appropriation into the Capital Stabilization Fund;
Continued OPEB funding;
Provide reserve for contingencies;
Consider new potential revenue sources.
71-20
Selectmen’s Meeting – January 9, 2017
Mr. Valente repeated the goals the FY18 budget strives to achieve. The priorities for 2015-2020
are “Planning and Implementing Significant Capital Projects Due to School Enrollment Growth
and Public Safety Needs”.
Next steps for staff are to respond to questions on the Operating and Capital budgets;
development of a Capital Projects financing model for the Selectmen and the financial Summit
committees; assisting with Board policy issues; and relaying the budget documents to the
financial committees and Town Meeting members.
The next steps for the Selectmen are to recommend the Operating and Capital budget and the
financing plan to Town Meeting; and to approve the final recommended Operating and Capital
budgets at the February 13, 2017 Board of Selectmen’s meeting.
Mr. Valente expressed his appreciation for the work done on the budgets by the senior
management team. Mr. Cohen commended the staff for an outstanding job.
Mr. Kelley asked if there was a plan for administering the storm water management fee. Mr.
Valente said a more detailed presentation will be made to the Board in March. The Town has not
assumed revenue from this source in the budget calculations.
Mr. Kelley asked if the $60,000 Consulting Services item in the DPW budget was a recurring or
one-time expense. Mr. Valente said the expense was in the budget for the first time in FY17 but
the strategy of hiring an outside contractor proved unwieldly. The amount of engineering work
shows no sign of letting up Mr. Valente said.
Mr. Kelley asked if there is a fee structure for an increase in cemetery burial fees. Mr. Valente
said that if Town Meeting approves the Westview building project, it would trigger the fee
increase.
Mr. Kelley said an increase in compost sales and yard waste fees would have consequences in
the Hartwell Revolving Fund. Mr. Valente agreed but said the self-sustaining model is being
challenged. Revenue from the Town of Arlington was lost this year and may be permanently lost
because space to store that yard waste is tight. Additionally, there has been a request for
additional staffing so that the compost can be turned more frequently, speeding up the
decomposition process. A more detailed presentation about the Hartwell facility will take place
in the fall of 2017.
Dawn McKenna, Tourism Committee Chair, expressed concern that the expense line item for the
Visitors Center shows a zero allocation. She assumes that funding is now within the Economic
Development line item but she wants to be assured that funds will not be consumed by other
needs. She asked that the specific Visitors Center funding continue to be broken out on line 7330
as it has been in the past.
Ms. McKenna said that efforts, historically done by volunteers, have recently migrated to Town
staff with positive results. However, she noted that many hours of free advertising consultation
previously donated by a volunteer will now need to be funded.
71-21
Selectmen’s Meeting – January 9, 2017
Additionally, a Citizens article has been put forward by members of the Tourism Committee.
Ms. Kenna said she hopes to work with Town staff to devise a funding plan for the Visitors
Center. She asked the Board of Selectmen to consider authorizing the Town Manager’s office to
explore funding options.
Ms. Barry expressed the Board’s appreciation to the budget team.
Authorize Term of Debt—Yard Waste Wind Row Turner
Town Meeting in 2015 approved $500,000 for the purchase of a wind row turner for the Town’s
compost facility on Hartwell Avenue. This February, the Town will sell bonds to finance this
piece of equipment. Staff requests authorization from the Board to sell the bonds in excess of
five years, if necessary, to balance debt service of the overall bond issue. This wind row turner
has a useful life of 10 or more years. Massachusetts General Law allows, with the approval of
the Board, the issuance of debt in excess of five years for equipment purchases.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to authorize the issuance
of bonds for a maximum of 10 years for the purchase of a wind row turner for the Hartwell Ave.
compost facility.
Approve and Sign—Employment Agreement for Assistant Town Manager for Finance
Mr. Valente said he has prepared the employment agreement for the Assistant Town Manager for
Finance/Comptroller. The agreement is consistent with the employment agreements for other
senior staff. As the appointing authority for the Town Comptroller, the Board of Selectmen is
signatory to this agreement.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve and authorize
the Chairman to sign the employment agreement between the Town of Lexington and Carolyn
Kosnoff.
Approve FY16-18 Collective Bargaining Agreement—Dispatchers
Ms. Barry recused herself from this item due to conflict of interest. Ms. Ciccolo chaired the
meeting in Ms. Barry’s absence.
Mr. Valente summarized the details of the FY16-18 collective bargaining agreement that was
approved by the Public Safety Dispatchers Union. The Board of Selectmen previously approved
the terms of this agreement in Executive Session on May 2, 2016.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 4-0 to approve and authorize
the Town Manager to sign the Collective Bargaining Agreement with AFSCME Local 1703—
Public Safety Dispatchers, for the FY16-18 period.
71-22
Selectmen’s Meeting – January 9, 2017
Review and Approve Response to Liquor License Complaint
Ms. Barry returned to the meeting and resumed the role of Chair.
The Board received a written complaint dated December 19, 2016 from residents John M.
Patrick and S. Kimberley Woodard alleging liquor license violations at the Inn at Hastings Park.
Ms. Barry drafted a response to the complaints and provided copies for her colleagues to review.
Ms. Barry stated that she and Mr. Valente met with the owner and manager of the inn to go over
concerns.
John Patrick, 2030 Massachusetts Ave, said he and his wife had sent another letter earlier in the
day to the Selectmen responding to the draft letter which he accessed online in the meeting
packet. Since Mr. Patrick’s response letter was received after office hours, Mr. Patrick
distributed copies to Board members and summarized the contents.
Ms. Barry said given the level of questions raised by the Board and the lateness of Mr. Patrick’s
most recent letter, she will defer approval of the draft letter to a future meeting.
Review and Approve Response to Liquor License Compliance Check Violation
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve and authorize
the Chair to sign the letter to the Bulpan Restaurant informing them of actions to be taken in
regards to the liquor license violation as a result of the December 23, 2016 compliance check by
Lexington Police.
Review List of Potential Articles for 2017 Annual and Special Town Meeting
Ms. Barry asked her colleagues to review the 49 articles slated for Annual Town Meeting 2017
and the two articles scheduled for Special Town Meeting 2017. Mr. Cohen noted there will be
three articles at STM. Ms. Barry asked which of the articles the Board would like presentations
on before they are taken up by Town Meeting.
Based on the title/content, the Board identified the articles below to be scheduled for
presentation: ATM 4, 9, 11, 16, 17, 29 (possibly), 32, 33, 34-37 (summary of all Planning
articles), 38, 39, 42, 43-47 (updates on all zoning articles), 48, 49.
The Board will also hear updates from Facilities for the articles slated for STM.
Annual License Renewals
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve one Class 2
license renewal; fifteen Common Victualer license renewals; two Entertainment license
renewals; and one Lodging/Innkeeper license renewal as presented.
71-23
Selectmen’s Meeting – January 9, 2017
Board of Selectmen Appointments and Resignations
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to accept the resignation
of Tim Zack as a member of the Communications Advisory Committee and Mary Barry-Ng from
the Human Rights Committee.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to reappoint Anne Eccles
to the Historic District Commission for a term ending December 31, 2021.
Approve Use of Battle Green—Retirement of USAF Col. Anderson
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve a permit for
use of the Battle Green for a retirement ceremony honoring Colonel Michael Anderson on
September 2, 2017 from 9:00am until 12:30 p.m.
Logistics will be coordinated with the various Town departments involved and to date there has
been no negative feedback from Town staff.
Approve Patriots’ Day Events
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve the Patriots’
Day activities listed below, subject to working out details with Town Departments.
1.Lexington Minute Men—Approve a request for Patriots’ Day Weekend:
a.Sunday, April 2. 2017—Battle Green—Reenactment rehearsal—11:00 a.m. to
5:00pm (rain date Sunday, April 8, 2017);
b.Saturday, April 15, 2017—Battle Green—Parker’s Revenge Reenactment—9:00 a.m.
to 10:30 a.m.;
c.Sunday, April 16, 2017—Battle Green—Reenactment of Hancock Clarke/Paul
Revere Ride;
d.Monday, April 17, 2017—Battle Green—Reenactment—1:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Rain
Date April 22, 2017.
rd
2. Lions Club—Approve request for 103 Annual Patriots’ Day 5-mile Road Race on
Monday, April 17. 2017 with an awards ceremony on the Battle Green at the end of the
race from approximately 11:15 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
3.Town Celebrations Committee—Approve the requests for the Patriots’ Day morning
parade, ceremonies on the Battle Green, and afternoon parade on Monday, April 17.
2017.
4.Historical Society/Lexington Minute Men—Approve the request for the reenactment of
the arrival of Paul Revere and William Dawes on April 16-18, 2017.
Approve Request for Discovery Day Street Fair
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve the request of
the Lexington Retailers Association detailed in a letter dated January 5, 2017 to have exclusive
use of the Muzzey Street/Waltham Street parking lot on Saturday, May 27, 2017 (rain date
71-24
Selectmen’s Meeting – January 9, 2017
th
June 3) from 5:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. for the 38
annual Discovery Day Street Fair and to provide
free parking as outlined on their letter dated January 5. 2017, subject to working out all details
with Public Works and Police staff.
Ms. Barry noted that the requested erection of seven temporary signs and permission to park a
flatbed trailer in Lexington Center are both under the purview of the Town Manager’s office and
are therefore not included in the motion.
Consent Agenda
Water & Sewer Commitments
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve Water &
Sewer Commitments Section 3 for $5,684,448.29 and Water & Sewer Commitments Special
Nov. 2016 for $19,928.00.
Approve and Sign Proclamation—Superintendent Nancy Nelson
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve the signing of
the proclamation honoring Nancy Nelson in recognition of her 23 years as Superintendent of the
Minute Man National Historic Park on her retirement.
Approve Property Tax Bill Insert
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve the property
tax insert requested by the Lexington Bicycle Advisory Committee.
Executive Session
On motion duly made and by a 5-0 roll call vote, the Board of Selectmen entered Executive
Session under Exemption 6 to consider the purchase, exchange, lease, or value of 20 Pelham
Road and to reconvene in Open Session only to adjourn. Further, it was declared that an Open
Meeting may have a detrimental effect on the negotiating position of the Town.
Ms. Ciccolo will again recuse herself on this item.
Adjourn
Upon reconvening in Open Session following Executive Session and on motion duly made and
seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 4-0 to adjourn at approximately 10:30 p.m.
A true record; Attest:
Kim Siebert
Recording Secretary
71-25
Summit Meeting 4
Board of Selectmen, School Committee, Appropriation Committee
and Capital Expenditures Committee
January 12, 2017
A Selectmen’s Meeting was held at 6:00 p.m. and a Summit Meeting was held at 7:00 p.m. on
Thursday, January 12, 2017, in the Public Services Building Cafeteria, 201 Bedford Street.
PRESENT: Ms. Barry, Chair, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Pato, and Ms. Ciccolo; Mr. Valente,
Town Manager, Mr. Addelson, Outgoing Assistant Town Manager for Finance, Ms. Kosnoff,
Assistant Town Manager for Finance, Ms. Hewitt, Budget Officer and Ms. McIntosh, Executive
Clerk.
Executive Session
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 4-0 by roll call to go into
Executive Session under Exemption 6 at 6:00 p.m. to consider the purchase, exchange, lease or
value of real property, 20 Pelham Road, and to reconvene in open session. Further, the
Chairman declared that an open meeting discussion may have a detrimental effect on the
negotiating position of the Town.
Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 4-0 by roll call to return to open session at.
6:53 p.m. and to recess until 7:00 p.m.
Also Present: School Committee (SC) members: Mr. Alessandrini, Chair, Ms. Jay, Ms.
Steigerwald, Ms. Crocker; and Dr. Czajkowski, Superintendent of Schools; Appropriation
Committee (AC) members:, Mr. Bartenstein, Chair, Mr. Levine, Mr. Michelson, Mr. Neumeier,
Mr. Radulescu-Banu, Ms. Yang, Ms. Yan and Mr. Padaki ; Capital Expenditures Committee
(CEC) members: Ms. Hai, Chair, Mr. Lamb, Mr. Cole, Mr. Kanter, and Ms. Manz.
The School Committee, Capital Expenditures Committee and Appropriation Committee called
their meetings to order at 7:03 p.m.
FY2018 Preliminary Budget and Financing Plan Presentation
Mr. Valente explained that this is the Summit where he will go over the Preliminary FY18
Budget, which includes the operating and capital budgets and the Financing Plan that is behind
those budgets. The Preliminary Budget (White Book) is on the Town’s website and tonight’s
presentation is also on the Town’s website. Relevant to the discussion the Board just had, Mr.
Valente pointed out that there is a table in the capital budget section of the presentation dealing
with excluded debt which presents the list of projects which are potentially candidates for
excluded debt.
Mr. Valente reported that this is a balanced budget, it maintains current levels of service with
limited service enhancements recommended, and it continues a strong capital program. The
recommendation provides some flexibility in case there are state aid reductions or state aid less
than what was is projected, as well as unanticipated expenses. Lastly, it proposes to set aside
additional funds into the Town’s Capital Stabilization Fund to be used to help mitigate the debt
service impact of future capital projects.
Mr. Valente presented key recommendations which were to: add $7.7 million to the Capital
Projects Stabilization Fund; use $595,000 from the Capital Stabilization Fund for within-levy
71-26
Summit 4 – January 12, 2017
debt service; use $3.1 million from the Capital Stabilization Fund for excluded debt service to
provide property tax relief, limit program improvement requests on the municipal side; defer
some planned capital projects; and set aside for provide contingency use of $618,000 in funds
not otherwise allocated.
Mr. Valente is projecting that in FY18 the Town will have an additional $10.2 million in general
fund revenues, or about 5.1% more than in FY17. Suggestions for future new revenue sources
are to introduce a storm water management fee, adjust cemetery burial fees, adjust the sale of
compost and yard waste fee, and to recognize potential Hartwell solar revenues.
In the proposed FY18 operating budget, Mr. Valente discussed several financial/budget priorities
established by the Selectmen. To that end, there is a plan for financing capital, both within the
tax levy and excluded debt. The continued funding of post-employment benefits liability remains
a priority. Lastly, per Article 45, a Citizen’s Petition approved at the 2015 Annual Town
Meeting, the proposed budget continues investments in pedestrian and bicycle safety.
A summary of all the different categories of the budget and the percent change in each cost
center from FY17 appropriated to FY18 recommended budget was presented. Overall the
operating budget is increasing by 5.3% or $10.6 million. Shared expenses support both the
school department and the municipal departments and represent about 25% of the overall budget.
Mr. Valente highlighted two items because of percent change. First, in employee benefits there
was a 5.1% increase and this reflects an increase of 8.1% in health insurance premiums. Also
highlighted in the facilities department budget is a $400,571 increase, this is due to the expansion
of school facilities that will require an increase in staff. This is offset by a reduction in energy
costs of $190,000 from the Hartwell Avenue solar facility.
The preliminary budget includes two reserve recommendations. First, to add $1.8 million to the
other post-employment benefits (OPEB) trust fund, which currently has a balance of about $9
million. The liability in that account over the next 30 years is $195 million. The second
recommendation is to add about $7.7 million to the Capital Stabilization Fund, which currently
has a balance of about $23 million.
Mr. Valente presented a chart with information on the capital budget from FY13 to FY18, by
funding source. In total, he is recommending $25 million in funding in all areas. Of the list of
significant capital projects to consider for excluded debt, Mr. Valente pointed out that
approximately $1.7 million in design funds for Hastings School, Lexington Children’s Place and
the Fire Station would be requested at Spring Town Meeting. The Hastings Project, Fire Station
and Lexington Children Place would go before Fall Special Town Meeting with an estimated $77
million for construction.
Mr. Valente highlighted some of the more significant capital projects including the Center
Streetscape project; which has yet to come before the Board of Selectmen. In line with the
Board of Selectmen’s stated goals are $2.5 million in road infrastructure improvements including
pedestrian and bicycle improvements. He went on to discuss $1.78 million in a town-wide
roofing project for which there may be some MSBA reimbursements available. The LHS Air
Conditioning project was discussed at the last summit and considerably scaled back from a
71-27
Summit 4 – January 12, 2017
comprehensive project to a targeted approach addressing the HVAC concerns in particular areas
of the high school.
Mr. Valente reiterated the continuing policy issues for consideration: planning for large capital
projects; continued use of the Capital Stabilization Fund; continued OPEB funding; sufficient
reserves for contingencies; and potential new revenue sources.
Next steps are for staff to: respond to questions on the operating and capital budget; develop a
capital projects financing model for the Selectmen and Summit participants; assist the Board
with policy issues; and transmit the budget to the financial committees/town meeting members
by February 24, the target date which would allow Town Meeting to take up any financial
articles a month later. The School Committee is scheduled to vote on their recommended budget
on February 7which will allow the Selectmen to make their final recommendations on both the
operating and capital budgets at their meeting on February 13.
Capital Expenditures Committee – Preliminary Report: FY18 Proposed Capital Projects
Ms. Hai, chair of the Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) presented a preliminary review of
the thirteen capital items presented for FY2018, which would be refined over time through work
with the individual departments. The positions reported upon are unanimous unless indicated
otherwise.
1.Pine Grove/Judges Way - No position is being taken pending more information and
specifics on cost.
2.Hill St. Sidewalk - Supportive of expanding the sidewalk network. The Hill St. proposal
is only for design work and more information would be necessary before taking a
position.
3.Visitor’s Center - Unanimous in recommending that the Board of Selectmen reconsider a
prior decision and release some amount of appropriated design funds for value
engineering and towards revised design towards.
4.Hastings School Renovation Design – Town Meeting will be asked to vote on the total
cost of the project not the amount less the MSBA reimbursement.
5.LHS Security Upgrade – Looking for more information regarding what goal is to be
achieved through the security upgrade and how the capital expense would meet that goal.
(4 – 1 in favor)
6.Center Streetscape - Does not feel that the project is ready to go before Town Meeting at
this time. The Ad-Hoc Committee has yet to present to the Board and these meetings are
not scheduled until late January or early February.
7.Automatic Water Meter Reading System - The committee has requested an analysis of
the return on investment for an automated water meter reading system before a decision
is made on the project.
8.Hydrant Program – Supportive of the hydrant program. The committee is looking for
further assurance that the current level of funding is adequate. (3-1-1 in favor)
9.Street Acceptances – Supportive of the project (4-1) with the dissenting vote opposed
because there should be no projects incurred that add to operating costs.
10.Dam Repair Project – The committee is supportive of the project at the level requested if
the water level is lowered during construction, which would reduce the cost by $150,000.
71-28
Summit 4 – January 12, 2017
11.Bikeway – The majority is supporting it as a tax-levy funded project (4-1). The
committee asked why it wasn’t being funded through CPA funds and was told that as it
was repair it was mot CPA eligible. The dissenting member felt that if it is repair, it
should not be funded as an operating expense and not through capital.
12.Community Center Sidewalk – Awaiting further information regarding the type of
materials to be used.
13.Community Center Staging – Supporting deferral of the project. (4-1)
Review on ATM 2017 Preliminary Warrant Articles
Ms. Barry provided a brief review of the ATM 2017 Special and Annual Town Meeting warrant
articles. The full draft warrant was expected to be presented to the Board of Selectmen on
January 30, 2017.
Establish Tentative Date: Summit V
The date for Summit V was set for Wednesday, February 9, 2017. Ms. Barry also asked the
summit members to consider Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 7 p.m. as a date for an executive
session meeting to discuss the Pelham property. The chairs determined that each of their boards
would have a quorum on that date.
Documents Presented
1.FY18 Preliminary Budget & Financing Plan, Financial Summit IV dated January 12, 2017
Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to adjourn at 9:00 p.m.
A true record; Attest:
Donna M. McIntosh
Executive Clerk
71-29
Selectmen’s Meeting
January 23, 2017
A meeting of the Lexington Board of Selectmen was called to order at 7:03 p.m. on Monday,
January 23, 2017 in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room of the Town Office Building following an
Executive session that began at 6:00 p.m. Chairman Barry, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Pato, and
Ms. Ciccolo, were present as well as Mr. Valente, Town Manager and Ms. Siebert, Recording
Secretary.
Accept Terms of the Dailey Farm Scholarship
The terms of the proposed Dailey Farm Scholarship Fund direct it to be managed by the Trustees
of Public Trusts who will hold, invest, and transfer ¾ of the annual net income to the Lexington
Scholarship Committee. One or more Dailey Farm awards may be given each year. To be
eligible, a candidate must:
Demonstrate financial need
Be a resident of Lexington at the time of graduation
Graduate from either Lexington HS or Minuteman Regional HS
Preference will be given to those who intend to pursue the trades or agriculture as a career; have
a parent who is employed by the Town; and attend Wentworth Institute, UMASS Stockbridge, or
the Peterson School.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to accept the terms of the
Dailey Farm Scholarship Fund to be managed by the Trustees of Public Trusts.
Public Hearing—Notice of Intent to Layout Pubic Way—Harbell Street
Ms. Barry opened the hearing at 7:07 p.m. She welcomed John Livsey, Town Engineer, and
Michael Sprague, Engineering Assistant.
Mr. Sprague said Harbell Street is currently an unaccepted way. Daniel Hess, a resident of
Harbell Street, started the initiative to have the street approved as a Town road. Eight out of
fifteen abutters have signed a petition in agreement. Three other abutters have signed a petition
against to the project and the Town has been in contact with a fourth abutter who is similarly
opposed.
Mr. Sprague said a betterment totaling $147,000 would be required from abutters to bring the
road up to Town standards.
Following the Public Hearing tonight, the Selectmen will hold a vote at a later meeting and then
Town Meeting would be asked to pass for both the acceptance and the betterment.
Ms. Ciccolo asked if the methodology used to calculate the betterment looked at both per parcel
and per linear foot approaches. Mr. Livsey said his office recommends the per parcel option
which comes out to $9,800 per parcel. He has also calculated what the cost would be if the linear
71-30
Selectmen’s Meeting – January 23, 2017
foot approach is chosen but the amounts vary by house lot. Additionally, one abutter’s address is
not on Harbell and the frontage is not along a buildable lot.
Ms. Ciccolo asked if there is a provision in the Bylaw that allows non-buildable parcels to be
exempt from betterment charges. Ms. Livsey said he is not aware of such a provision and he
believes this is a legal question.
Ms. Ciccolo asked if there would be a Town contribution. Mr. Livsey said the Town’s position is
that abutters would pay 100% of the cost.
Ms. Ciccolo asked if the Town is currently performing road maintenance on Harbell Street. Mr.
Livsey said the Town has filled potholes, as the bylaw requires, and plowed snow, as mandated
by statute.
Mr. Livsey said the right-of-way would not change but the width of the road would be made a
consistent 18 feet. Currently, it varies between 16 feet and 20 feet. Ms. Barry asked if curbing
and sidewalks would be added. Mr. Livsey said no sidewalks are planned; curbs would be added
only if necessary for road drainage. Catch basins are already in place.
Mr. Kelley asked if there are legal options for how betterments are charged. Mr. Livsey said the
options are to charge by frontage foot or by parcel. Frontage is defined as any side of the lot that
abuts the road.
Amy Winter, 6 Greenwood Street, said she and her husband have given the project a lot of
consideration, have done extensive research, and have corresponded with Mr. Livsey. Ms.
Winter stated they are not in support of the project as currently proposed.
David Kanter, Precinct 7 Town Meeting member, asked if sidewalks would ever be added to
Harbell. If so, he believes the abutters should be asked to cover to those costs. Mr. Livsey said
acceptance does not preclude sidewalks being installed in the future.
Mr. Kanter asked if it would take a simple majority or super majority to impose the expense on
abutters who oppose the project. Mr. Valente said it would require a simple majority of the
Selectmen and a 2/3 vote at Town Meeting (because it involves bonding).
Robert Verrier, 14 Harbell Street has lived on the street for 50 years and thinks it would be great
if the Town fixed the road so conditions are better for the residents, especially the elderly and
children. He commended the DPW for work it has done to patch Harbell. Mr. Verrier believes
the Town took 5 feet on either side of the street years ago for sidewalks that were never built.
Dan Hess, 25 Harbell St., said he initiated the acceptance project because of the poor condition
of the street, particularly for those that drive the full length every day. He asked what can be
done if the people who are most supportive live at the far end of the street and but the less
supportive are those who don’t require use of the full length. Mr. Livsey said he is unaware of a
precedent for varying costs. There have been partial road acceptances in the past but those
connected to an already accepted street.
71-31
Selectmen’s Meeting – January 23, 2017
Mr. Cohen said in three recent incidents of road acceptances, abutters with property lines on the
streets having front doors on another street were exempted from paying a portion of the
betterment.
Mr. Kelley asked if connecting streets Balfour and Greenwood were accepted. Mr. Livsey said
that Balfour does not connect—there is only a walkway to Harbell Street. The map shows a
paper street connection but it actually reflects the Town right-of-way. He does not believe
Greenwood Street is an accepted way.
Huaixiang Hao, 22 Harbell Street, said he wishes the project was less expensive but supports it
because he wants the road improved and the proposal is realistic.
Andrew Clarke, 11 Constitution Rd, said he owns the unbuildable lot behind his house that has
the previously mentioned 9-10 feet. of frontage on Harbell Street. The recently assessed value of
that lot is $19,000. Mr. Clarke said being compelled to participate in the betterment constitutes
an undue burden and would not result in an increase in value. The lot is not accessible from
Harbell and because the 10 feet of frontage is occupied by a drainage easement.
Gail Corson, 10 Harbell Street, said she believes all the abutters want to see the road improved
but the cost is prohibitive. All the alternatives and details have not been presented to her
satisfaction and she has many unanswered concerns. If 8 abutters are for the betterment and 7 are
against, will the 8 assume full financial responsibility?
Bonnie Heiligmann, 30 Harbell Street, said she approves of the project but it is hard to do so
wholeheartedly because it will cause her rent to increase. She commended the DPW for the work
it has done to keep the road in an acceptable condition. She expressed surprise that the street was
not accepted in the 1980’s when the street was redone following sewer system installation. If
Harbell Street is accepted, signs should be erected to alert drivers that the road is a dead end.
Mr. Kelley asked if neighbors could get together and discuss bettering the road privately. No
approval would be needed from the Town in this case but the DPW would have to be involved to
make sure below street access points are handled properly so the Town can maintain its
infrastructure.
Qiong Wang, 18 Harbell Street said she has safety concerns, especially for elders and children.
She is happy to think the Town might improve the road.
Jinsheng Wu, 24 Harbell Street, agreed there were safety concerns the Town should address.
As a point of information, Mr. Cohen noted that the betterment can be paid all at once or over the
course of 20 years. Each abutter can decide independently how to handle his/her portion of the
cost.
Mr. Cohen said he assumed the Town has been charging Harbell Street residents for the
maintenance being performed, as the bylaw stipulates. Mr. Livsey said is he unaware of the
arrangements because billing is through the highway division, not through engineering. He
71-32
Selectmen’s Meeting – January 23, 2017
believes maintenance has been of a minor nature. Mr. Cohen said any accidents or injuries
incurred on an unaccepted road are the legal responsibility of the abutters, not the Town.
Gail Corson, 10 Harbell Street, said some of the sightlines on the street are poor. She
recommends adding a traffic-calming bump and said that some of the ongoing street
deterioration is from heavy landscaping and construction vehicles. She thinks residents should
investigate solutions amongst themselves.
John Adams Taylor, 21 Harbell Street, said he has been working on the street acceptance for
years but the betterment calculation seems expensive. Over the years, the residents have talked
about covering the maintenance costs but it is a difficult way to address the problem. He believes
the projected 5% interest for those who pay the betterment over time is higher than current loan
rates but having the road improved and accepted is the best long-term solution.
Ms. Barry said the Board will take a vote on Harbell Street at one of its February meetings. Mr.
Pato asked if the apportionment method will be spelled out when the Board takes the vote. Mr.
Valente said he will review the statute.
Ms. Ciccolo asked, if the Board approves laying out the road, would there be outreach to
residents. Also, can the safety concerns raised tonight can be addressed? Mr. Livsey said the
design work is still an open question and will not be done until funding is secured.
Mr. Kelley asked what the linear foot charge would be. Mr. Livsey said prices ranged between
$12,000 and $20,000 per parcel, depending on the property.
Gail Corsen asked if the cost calculation could be based on usage. Mr. Livsey said he did not
believe this is allowed by statute. Mr. Pato asked that residents consider meeting together to
reach consensus about how to proceed.
Mr. Livsey said, once dates have been determined, his department will send written notice to
residents about the Town process.
ATM 2017 Warrant Article Update—Campaign Finance Reform Resolution (Citizens Article)
Dan Alden, 38 Clarke Street, presented a petition with 30 signatures in support of including this
article on the Town Meeting warrant.
The purpose of the resolution is to “fix the broken political system by removing temptations that
have caused elected officials to represent a minority of wealthy interests over those of a majority
of citizens”. The resolution does not call for the passage of legislation at this time but it
recognizes a serious problem and might better be called an “anti-corruptionresolution”.
This movement is part of a nationwide, non-partisan effort to reduce the influence of big money
in politics, motivated by an organization called Represent.Us. The long-term goal is to gather
enough popular support to adopt legislation on the State level and, eventually, on the national
level. A version of this legislation was passed recently in South Dakota.
71-33
Selectmen’s Meeting – January 23, 2017
In 2012, Lexington overwhelmingly passed a resolution in support of a reversal of the Citizens
United Supreme Court decision, Mr. Alden noted.
Mr. Pato said campaign finance reform is a critical issue and the intent of reducing the influence
of money on elected officials is honorable. He is concerned about some of the specifics of the
resolution, such as how tax funds would be rebated to citizens and he would like time to study
the subtleties.
Mr. Kelley said he admires the objective and asked if a network across the country is using the
same means of gathering support. Mr. Alden said Represent.Us is a national organization with
chapters nationwide. Some of the language of the article is modeled after a sample resolution in
support of the Anti-Corruption Act created by Represent.Us. At some point, the text will be
tailored specifically to Massachusetts. The Anti-Corruption Act was recently passed in the city
of Tallahassee.
Ms. Ciccolo thanked Mr. Alden for bringing forward an important initiative. She encouraged him
to think about what he wants the outcome at Town Meeting to be as expressed in the motion and
how to help Town Meeting not get side-tracked and mired in debate and details. The resolution
will be non-binding.
David Kanter, Precinct 7 Town Meeting member, said he likes all of the resolution except the
clause about empowering “all voters through a $100 or more tax rebate to contribute to
candidates they support.” He believes this element should be stricken as it is too controversial.
Liquor License— Change of Manager—Inn at Hastings Park
Trisha Kennealy is now the General Manager of the Inn.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen vote 5-0 to approve the application
for a change of manager and issue an All Alcohol Restaurant Liquor License to the Inn at
Hastings Park, 2013-2027 Massachusetts Avenue.
Liquor License—Change of Manager and Officers/Director—Tio Juan’s Margaritas
Tio Juan’s Margaritas has submitted all the necessary paperwork needed to request
reconsideration of a previous application to change managers, approved by the Board on April
11, 2016, but returned by the ABCC to update the board of directors and officers.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve the
application reflecting the change of manager and change of beneficial interests, and issue an All
Alcohol Restaurant Liquor License to the Lexington Mexican Restaurant Group, Inc. d/b/a Tio
Juan’s Margaritas Restaurant, 438 Bedford St.
71-34
Selectmen’s Meeting – January 23, 2017
Receive Report of the Ad Hoc Streetscape Design Review Committee Report
Howard Levin, Chairman of the Ad Hoc Center Streetscape Design Review Committee,
provided a final committee report. No public comment was taken due to the upcoming public
forum scheduled for January 30, 2017, 7:00 p.m. in Battin Hall. The Selectmen will make no
motion or vote this evening.
Mr. Levin summarized the executive summary that was adopted unanimously by the Ad Hoc
Committee, with the exception of a separate motion on the sidewalk materials element that
received a vote of 7-1-1.
The Executive Summary and final report is available on the Town’s website or at the
Selectmen’s office.
At the conclusion of Mr. Levin’s presentation, Ms. Buckley, Commission on Disability, provided
a Minority Report that gave details about the Commission’s preferred choice of sidewalk
materials that differs from the conclusion of the majority. The text of this opinion is available as
an addendum to the full report.
Mr. Pato first thanked Mr. Levin and the other members of the Committee for their service to the
Town. The effort has required many hours of meetings, deliberation, and listening to a wide
range of input on a series of topics of great concern to many residents.
Mr. Pato asked if the ad hoc committee had looked at sidewalk designs using hybrid materials
that would satisfy the needs of the broader community.
Mr. Levin said the committee did look at these hybrid designs and also gathered public input.
Choices fell into two options: using all brick or creating a concrete center path with brick along
the sides. The Historic District Commission was focused on aesthetics but the ad hoc committee
as a whole looked at whether brick could satisfy accessibility needs.
After spending a lot of time on the question during Tier I— and returning to reconsider again
during Tier II—the ad hoc committee concluded that wire cut brick was better for wheelchair use
than concrete.
Safe limits for wheelchairs range between 13 and 15 hours, depending on if the wheelchair is
electric or manual. The concrete performance limit is 12 hours but Mr. Levin noted the data is
not relevant since continuous wheelchair use in Lexington center would most likely not be as
long that.
The conclusion of the committee was that the performance of brick was at least as good as
concrete due to seams between concrete panels. Wire cut brick installation, properly done,
requires little maintenance and is stable and easy to repair. Tom Hopkins, Director of the
Architectural Access Board, endorses wire cut brick, as does the Pearlman Vibration Study.
Given that the performance of the materials is comparable, the question became how to maintain
Lexington’s unique aesthetic characteristics at a reasonable cost.
71-35
Selectmen’s Meeting – January 23, 2017
Ms. Buckley said the concerns about brick go beyond vibrations and smoothness. There are other
disabilities besides those that necessitate wheelchair use: neurological, visual, sensory
processing. Ms. Buckley said the newest ADA standards, soon to be adopted, should be followed
because they will be in place by the time the work is done.
Mr. Kelley said the committee has done an outstanding job for the Town and he hopes the
process will reach a conclusion acceptable to all.
Mr. Kelley believes setting wire cut brick in sand is better than setting it into a hard surface, as
the report recommends. If the original hard setting is disturbed for maintenance or alterations, it
is virtually impossible to marry the new with the old and make it stable. There is also improved
permeability with sand.
Mr. Levin replied said that concrete/asphalt is the design standard for extremely flat sidewalk
surfaces. The bricks are tight, stable, durable, and “remarkably resilient” to winter chemical
treatments. But Mr. Levin noted that the center streetscape effort is only at the beginning stages
and aspects of it can still change. Design specifications can be found on page 20 of the full
report.
Ms. Barry asked if the selection of tree species has changed due to public input. Mr. Levin said
the list was substantially shortened and qualifications are noted for some of the remaining
species.
Mr. Cohen congratulated the many people and groups involved, saying that the report, overall, is
very impressive. On the subject of trees, he said there are many in the center that are dying and
hopes the new trees will thrive.
Ms. Ciccolo acknowledged and thanked all the members of the committee. She noted throughout
the report that there were references to changes of design that would save costs. She asked if
these concepts have been shared with the DPW. Mr. Levin said he believed the DPW was
receptive to the alternatives but at this stage there are no hard cost estimates.
Mr. Levin noted that some elements from the 25% design phase should be changed or
eliminated.
Lighting recommendations from the 25% design phase were changed and the suggestion of
additions of stone walls, cannons, and bollards along the Avenue were removed.
Ms. Ciccolo asked what the timeline is for the release of the new American Section of the
International Association for Testing Materials \[ASTM\] standards. Ms. Buckley said she
believes it will be in September.
Ms. Ciccolo asked, if the brick option is selected, would part of the project be eligible for
Community Preservation funding. Mr. Valente said he understands certain aspects are eligible.
71-36
Selectmen’s Meeting – January 23, 2017
Mr. Pato said he appreciates the efforts the committee has undergone to achieve universal access.
He believes curbing adjustments were intended only in the areas where the system is currently
failing and asked for verification on that point.
Mr. Pato is concerned about costs and wants to make sure the project is attainable, given the
many other Capital projects under consideration. He is also concerned about timing because the
th
250 anniversary of the Battle of Lexington and Concord is in 8 years.
Mr. Pato asked about double row tree plantings. Mr. Levin said there are double rows in most
places, all the way to Woburn Street This would not be cost prohibitive.
Mr. Kelley said the committee has not expressed interest in putting public tables in the center.
Mr. Levin said the sentiment was that permanent tables are not appropriate and they would be an
added expense. The recommendation is to focus instead on seating and to consider seasonal
furniture at a later date.
Mr. Kelley expressed concern that the report states that the DPW may waive aesthetic
considerations in the interest of safety. Mr. Levin said this is one of the reasons the ad hoc
committee recommends an oversight committee to shepherd the project from this point onward.
The primary goals of safety and aesthetics should be kept in sight through to completion.
Ms. Barry asked if the concrete option is the kind of concrete with reinforcement underneath that
performs better in icy conditions. Mr. Levin said the exact cost of concrete has not been
calculated but the installation cost is generally known to be less than brick. He is not convinced,
however, that the life-cycle cost of concrete is less than brick. The concrete experts said it is best
not to put salt on concrete for 2-3 years.
Ms. Barry noted the Town and citizens will to be supportive to the Center businesses during the
time of construction.
Mr. Cohen noted that Massachusetts Ave. needs to be reconstructed, in any case, and there will
be disruption from that.
Ms. Ciccolo said the report noted that new concrete needs lower levels of light to avoid glare
whereas aged concrete requires higher levels and how do communities adjust to this changing
need. Pam Shandley, Ad hoc committee member, said most communities do not address it but as
concrete dirties over time, so does the light fixtures.
Ms. Barry said the Selectmen are not ready to disband the ad hoc committee but they will move
to receive the report. Mr. Levin said the committee strongly recommends that the Board adopt
the report and update the 25% plan as a first step.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to receive the report of
the Ad Hoc Streetscape Design Review Committee, date January 19, 2017.
71-37
Selectmen’s Meeting – January 23, 2017
Discuss Process for January 30, 2017 BOS Meeting to Deliberate on Ad Hoc Center Streetscape
Design Review Committee Report
Ms. Barry anticipates taking up three items for individual consideration prior to opening the
discussion of the Ad Hoc Streetscape Design Committee Report. She asked Board members for
suggestions about how to format the meeting.
Ms. Ciccolo said experience has shown that dividing the meeting into sections— where people
first ask questions and then make statements--plus controlling the amount of time speakers can
hold the floor, has been successful. Ms. Ciccolo recommended that an abridged preliminary
presentation will be provided.
Mr. Kelley said the issue is extremely important and it will be vital for the committee to be able
to explain its positions. Public safety is indeed important but the work of other committees will
should be melded into whatever moves forward. The concepts of should be clear for Town
Meeting.
Mr. Pato said he is concerned about having too much of a presentation, given there have already
been public hearings and summary reports. Residents should be directed to access points for
videos as well as to written report texts. There should be adequate time for the public to address
the Board and for the Board to talk about what it has heard and what needs to be accomplished. It
should be clear what steps will need to take place between now and Town Meeting and what
questions remain to be answered.
Mr. Cohen said he is not sure the Center Streetscape project will be ready for this Town Meeting.
Mr. Levin said the final report is already posted on the committee’s webpage.
Ms. Barry said the Selectmen can do some publicity and direct people to the committee’s page
and to the LexMedia video.
Ms. Ciccolo said a clear format should be publicized so the community anticipates a hard stop
for the public input portion of the meeting to allow time for Board deliberation. She asked that
staff help the Board understand what high-level decisions remain to be made and to provide an
understanding of the timeline.
Ms. Barry said one of the recommendations the committee provided was an update to the 25%
design. Mr. Valente will discuss this with the DPW and pull together the information needed by
the Board.
Ms. Barry asked if it was realistic the project will be ready for spring Town Meeting. Mr.
Valente said the Board should decide this question but he cautioned against spending more on
design unless it is relatively certain the project will move forward.
Mr. Kelley said it should be made clear that roadway improvements in the center are critical. Mr.
Pato noted that when Town Meeting has been asked to approve construction funds in the past
71-38
Selectmen’s Meeting – January 23, 2017
without a clear design vision, it has balked and the necessary 2/3 majority has not been
supportive. Mr. Pato worries that the project is not at a sufficient state of development for Town
Meeting. At this time, he would vote for indefinite postponement.
Ms. Ciccolo and Ms. Barry will meet to fine-tune the public forum meeting procedure.
Dawn McKenna, Chair of the Tourism Committee, said she would find it hard to have Town
Meeting vote on the center streetscape project without including the Battle Green plan. Ms.
McKenna said many of the concepts in the center streetscape plan also appear in the Battle Green
Masterplan.
Center Traffic Trials
Mr. Livsey, Town Engineer, and BETA Group representatives Ken Ho and Mike Wasilewski,
discussed results from three traffic trials performed in the downtown area: removal of the right
lane turn on Massachusetts Avenue at Edison Way; removal of the right turn only lane on Mass
Ave at Waltham St; and Harrington Road one-way from Bedford St toward Mass Ave. (BETA
Group’s Power Point presentation and trial memorandum is available in the online meeting
packet for this date or from the Selectmen’s office).
It was stated the purpose of these trials was to evaluate the effects and potential long terms
benefits of traffic pattern changes on improved intersection safety for all modes of travel. The
trials took place at intervals during August-October 2016. They included a pre-implementation
phase during which 24 hour/day traffic counts were taken to establish baselines; pre-
implementation public notification using electronic message boards; trial implementation
detouring traffic by route blocking, signage, and Police details and gathering traffic counts,
turning movement counts, and crash data. A recount date on Harrington Rd that took place
because of equipment failure ascribed to vandalism. All equipment was removed from the center
th
by November 10.
BETA’s conclusions and recommendations for the three target areas were:
Location 1- Removal of the right lane turn on Massachusetts Avenue at Edison Way
The September traffic volumes were lower than counts conducted in April 2013. The trial
implementation did not negatively affect intersection operations or safety. There were no crashes
during the trial period. Recommendation: Eliminate right-turn lane on to Edison from westbound
Mass Ave.
Location 2- Right turn only lane on Mass. Ave. at Waltham St
Trial period traffic counts indicate that right-turning volume from Mass. Ave. to Waltham was
not reduced and crash incidents did not increase. The trial did not adversely affect operations or
safety. Recommendation: Eliminate right-turn lane Mass. Ave. eastbound on to Waltham Street
Location 3- Harrington Road one-way from Bedford Street toward Mass. Ave.
71-39
Selectmen’s Meeting – January 23, 2017
The number of crashes was reduced approximately 40% during the trial. Traffic diversion data
indicates that a significant number of vehicles used Meriam Street, Edgewood Road, or Patriots
Drive to circumvent the intersection. Operations at the intersection of Mass. Ave. and Meriam
Street were more congested but there was no increase in crashes. The Harrington Road one-way
trial therefore had a positive impact on the safety of the Bedford Street/Harrington
Road/Hancock Street intersection but it negatively affected operations and traffic on the
diversion streets listed. Recommendation: Improvement alternatives other than a change to one-
way should be considered to improve safety for all modes of travel.
Ms. Ciccolo asked what size truck was used at the Waltham Street location to model the turning
radius. Mr. Wasilewski said the truck was an SU30, not an articulated vehicle, but a box
truck/school bus, fire truck equivalent.
Mr. Cohen said he heard the most complaints about the Edison Way trial although the Selectmen
as a group heard the most about Harrington Way. The complaint about Edison centered around
vehicles attempting to come out of Grant Street Mr. Wasilewski said this was perhaps because
drivers couldn’t use the right turn lane as an acceleration lane as they are used to. The left turn
sightlines may also have been altered by moving the travel land into the middle of Edison Way.
Mr. Ho added that BETA suggested the 5-6 parking spaces on Edison Way be posted as “No
Parking” until 9am; if that happened, the parking lane could be used instead as a turning lane.
Mr. Pato said he received a lot of comments about this as well. One of concerns was because
Mass Ave remained wide in front of the Post Office during the trial period and drivers felt
uncomfortable entering Mass. Ave. because they needed to edge out. The recommendation to
bump out the curb line and to move the cross walk in from of the Post Office would remedy this
problem. Mr. Wasilewski said skip lines were added during the trial to help guide Mass Ave
vehicles left that were traveling west. In the actual reconfiguration, Mass Ave would be a straight
shot due to the added bump out.
Ms. Barry said she heard the most complaints about Edison Way. There was the perception that
drivers entering town got stuck in traffic farther out on Mass .Ave., particularly during the
morning commute hours. Ms. Barry said changing the timing of the Edison Way meters is
intriguing and if this idea is pursued, Waltham Street toward the Mass. Ave. intersection might
be a candidate as well.
Ms. Barry said the bulk complaints about Harrington Road were that the signage and barrels
added to the confusion of the temporary one-way.
Mr. Kelley said the real fix for the center is to slow down to 20 mph—something he has
advocated for and something new regulations will now allow the Town to do without State
approval. He said the wideness of Mass Ave at the Post Office, coupled with a high level of
activity at that location, presents a challenge. He does not see an advantage to closing down
Edison Way since there is little pedestrian activity there but he would like to do a trial that adds a
bump out at the Post Office. Drivers looking for parking struggle to circle around when they
have to re-enter the busy two-lane Mass Ave. and the bump out would create a protected
pathway.
71-40
Selectmen’s Meeting – January 23, 2017
Mr. Kelley sees a lot of value in closing the right turn off Mass. Ave. on to Waltham Street He
would also like to extend the timing of the eastbound traffic light by 15-20 seconds. The
Waltham St corner is dangerous for pedestrians. He favors improving safety but wants to
carefully consider what should be done.
Mr. Pato said he is disappointed with the Harrington Road results as had hoped to see fewer
crashes during the trial. He does sees value, however, in the other two trials and believes those
changes should be made. The Town has previously entertained the idea of putting a roundabout
at the Harrington Road location but his concern at the time was that it would require using some
of the land the Battle Green occupies. Mr. Pato wondered whether moving the road slightly
would eliminate that problem and rejuvenate the roundabout option.
Ms. Ciccolo said, in the case of Harrington Road, she agrees that the speed limit should be
lowered and suggested that a raised intersection or textured pavement could be added, providing
bicycles would not be adversely affected. Her preference would be to put cobblestones there but
she acknowledged that the DPW would most likely not like this due to cost and maintenance.
Lowering the speed would not contribute to traffic congestion as vehicles are slowed in the
center anyway. She does not favor the one-way option at Harrington but does approve the
changes to the other two intersections.
Ms. Ciccolo sees a safety problem at the Mass. Ave. and Waltham Street intersection and noted
the congestion is from people rather than vehicles. Pedestrian accommodations should be
increased there so that people have somewhere to stand as they wait to cross.
Ms. Ciccolo said she would like to see the 5-6 spaces on Edison Way made as “No Parking” in
the morning hours and agrees that the sidewalk should be widened with a bump out at the Post
Office. She asked if more territory is reclaimed there, could a cycle lane be added to safely and
quickly move bicyclists behind the commercial block.
Mr. Pato said a seasonal seating area with trees with furniture would be an interesting idea to
pursue and is consistent with Center Streetscape Design Review Committee recommendations.
Ms. Barry asked if the two “temporary” parking spaces at Waltham Street created as a result of
the trial were used. Mr. Wasilewski said those parking spaces were used frequently since there
was no meter charge.
Dawn McKenna, 9 Hancock Street said she had never seen a bicycle accident at Harrington Road
until the trial. She attributed the crash to the false sense of safety created by the trial barriers and
lane closure. Ms. McKenna said she feels most of the accidents are speed-related, in her opinion,
squaring off the intersection for vehicles turning right onto Harrington from Bedford St, for
example, would slow down the turning speed.
Ms. McKenna said “pushing out” the parking area at Edison Way would remove the margin of
safety for opening car doors.
71-41
Selectmen’s Meeting – January 23, 2017
Jerry Michelson, Chair of the Center Committee, said his committee would like time to look at
BETA’s recommendations. He asked the Board to delay its decision on locations 1 and 2 since
those would affect the commercial area.
Ms. Barry asked if the Board members were comfortable moving forward with any of the three
motions before them. Consensus determined that the Board would wait on motions involving
locations 1 and 2 but move forward on location 3.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve the
recommendations to NOT implement the one-way configuration at Harrington Road as part of
the Center Streetscape project.
Update: Community Center Sidewalk Project
John Livsey, Town Engineer, presented the latest conceptual plan for a sidewalk to connect the
Community Center to the existing sidewalk on Marrett Rd. Recent discussions with the Scottish
Rite have confirmed that previously presented concepts—using various materials, pedestrian -
level lighting, and including cost estimates—would be acceptable to them.
Mr. Livsey said the 6-foot wide path is a serpentine design beginning at Marrett Rd with a cut in
the stone wall would continue through the field above the museum and follow the best grade
around trees. Mr. Livsey said the location for a crosswalk on Marrett Road is still under
consideration.
Cost estimates are based on five different materials options. From least to most expensive, the
choices are: all bituminous; all concrete; concrete with wire-cut brick border; wire-cut brick
with asphalt underlay; and wire-cut brick with concrete underlay. The brick is the same type
being recommended by the ad hoc Center Streetscape Committee.
Lighting options include solar and hard-wired. Solar lighting, however, was found to not provide
the desired brightness and the price was surprisingly close to the hard-wired option.
Mr. Pato said he likes the “path” concept more than a “sidewalk” and, at least initially, prefers
the lower-cost bituminous option, especially through the park-like setting.
Mr. Kelley said the path is only one of a number of questions the Town needs to work out with
the Scottish Rite. He does not see how the route presented makes sense for the museum since it
does not provide access from Marrett Rd to the Scottish Rite. The only pedestrian access now is
via the museum driveway. If he were to choose a surface material, asphalt is the easiest but he
prefers brick.
Ms. Barry asked about the grade of the path, hoping it would not attract skateboarders. Mr.
Livsey said the grade varies and this is the reason the path was designed to meander. Using this
route, there would be no need for a retaining wall.
71-42
Selectmen’s Meeting – January 23, 2017
Ms. Barry also likes the bituminous surface but asked why the path could not be parallel to the
museum driveway. She is not enthusiastic about the presented location. Mr. Valente said this
was the Town’s original concept but the Scottish Rite has no interest in altering the stone wall at
the entrance.
Mr. Cohen said the new path should match the existing walkway. Mr. Livsey said that material is
not salt-tolerant. Mr. Valente is not sure if the Town owns the existing sidewalk or merely has an
easement.
Mr. Valente said the Scottish Rite is enthusiastic that the Town’s plan will make it safer for
pedestrians so that do not have to walk in the driveway.
Ms. Ciccolo said that Mr. Kelley’s point about having the path closer to the road makes good
sense. If the path is as meandering as the drawing indicates, people will cut across the grass to
take the most direct route. Mr. Livsey said part of the route Ms. Ciccolo suggests is not owned
by the Town and the hill is steep.
David Kanter, 48 Fifer Lane, asked if bikes would be allowed on the path and if it would be
ADA compliant and will 6 feet wide enough. Mr. Livsey said 8 feet is considered minimum for
mixed-use paths but the intent is not to restrict bikes.
Dawn McKenna, 9 Hancock St, asked if the path could start at Mass Ave and go along the
property owned by Youville to provide better walking options for that community.
Mr. Valente noted the Community Center Sidewalk is one of the Capital projects for FY18 using
CPA funding. Because the Selectmen have indicated their preference for bituminous material,
costs can now be determined.
Ms. Ciccolo said she is ambivalent about the need for lighting and also wonders if the holder of
the conservation restriction would need to weigh in on the materials choice. Mr. Pato said he
believes the Town would have to verify the surface material but noted it is compatible with the
pathways in other Town parks.
Continue Review—FY18 Town Manager’s Preliminary Recommended Budget and Financing
Plan
The Board is scheduled to vote the budget on February 13, 2017. Mr. Valente requested feedback
on the budget or questions on the Capital Plan. He highlighted several items:
On the Capital Plan, the Town Manager recommends removing from the list the
$1, 784,160 for Bridge School roof replacement because the project will be eligible for
MSBA funding in two years. Facilities believes it can keep the roof tight with aggressive
patching in the meantime.
71-43
Selectmen’s Meeting – January 23, 2017
Mr. Valente suggested that a small number of Capital projects be held in abeyance until
then outcome of the debt exclusion votes is known in the fall. He asked for feedback on
these items.
Ms. Barry voiced her displeasure that the $800,000 in sidewalk funding is on the abeyance list.
Mr. Pato agreed that he does not want to defer that allocation. Mr. Valente said he is open to
finding alternative abeyances.
Looking at the other Capital projects, Mr. Kelley asked why the entire $150,000 for the hydrant
replacement project isn’t slated to be paid for via water rates. Mr. Valente said the hydrants serve
two purposes, one of which is fire protection which the Town covers from the tax levy, usually
with Free Cash. Mr. Kelley felt whether the hydrants are used for fire suppression or system
flushing, it could all be funded by the water enterprise funds.
Ms. Ciccolo asked if the $760,000 dam project could be deferred for a year. Mr. Valente said he
would discuss this with the DPW.
Dawn McKenna, Chair of the Tourism Committee, asked that it be noted the request for staff
time to be made available to the committee. The additional $2.5M (over the original $5M) now
slated to go toward the Capital Stabilization Fund should be considered a source of funds for the
Visitor Center project.
Mr. Cohen said the hydrant program should not be deferred for any reason.
Mr. Valente said the funds to be held in abeyance are not a FY18 issue but are instead an FY19
issue. The debt service in FY18 is manageable but in FY19 it becomes less so.
Mr. Valente added that the $150,000 for Hill St. sidewalk design will lead to a $1.5M project.
Again, this is not an FY18 issue but an FY19-and-beyond issue. Mr. Valente said the Board
should consider whether it is comfortable spending $150,000 in design for a project that is 25%
of the $6M in debt the Town wants to issue in a given year.
Mr. Valente noted if the Board decides to go forward with Munroe Cemetery Improvements,
funding needs to be identified, possibly from funds earmarked for the Capital Stabilization.
Ms. Barry said this agenda item will again appear on the February 6 meeting agenda.
Approve Letter of Support for LexHab Regarding Lowell Street Housing Project
This agenda item was not taken up during this meeting since edits made to this letter were not yet
reviewed by the Selectmen.
Adjust Sidewalk Permit Fees
Mr. Valente said it has been the Town’s practice to allow food establishments in the center to use
the adjacent sidewalk for seasonal dining. The Town Manager recommends increasing the fees
71-44
Selectmen’s Meeting – January 23, 2017
by 3% for 2017, consistent with the increase in the tax levy. Outdoor seating is allowed from
April - October. The revenue is directed to the General Fund. Mr. Valente said he will discuss
with Bertucci’s how to better delineate the table area, consistent with ABCC guidelines.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted 5-0 to establish the monthly sidewalk
permit fees for Bertucci’s at $460 and for Pete’s Coffee at $72.
Adjourn
On motion duly made and seconded, at approximately 11:20 p.m. the Board voted 5-0 to
adjourn.
A true record; Attest:
Kim Siebert
Recording Secretary
71-45
Selectmen’s Meeting
Public Meeting on Proposed Massachusetts Avenue Center Streetscape Project
January 30, 2017
A meeting of the Lexington Board of Selectmen was held on Tuesday, January 30, 2017 at 7:00
p.m. in the Cary Memorial Building – Battin Hall, 1605 Massachusetts Avenue. Ms. Barry,
Chair: Mr. Kelley; Mr. Cohen; Mr. Pato; and Ms. Ciccolo; Mr. Valente, Town Manager, Mr.
Pinsonneault, DPW Director; Ms. McIntosh, Executive Clerk; Ms. Katzenback, Assistant to the
Executive Clerk, were present.
Also Present; Ad Hoc Center Streetscape Design Review Committee Members - Mr. Levin;
Chair; Ms. Buckley; Ms. Cororan-Ronchetti; Ms. Eccles; Ms. Enders; Mr. Frey; Mr. Himmel;
Mr. Kalsow; Mr. Lee; Ms. Shadley.
Prior to the start of the meeting agenda, Ms. Barry allowed Ms. Ciccolo to address the meeting
attendees. Ms. Ciccolo announced that the Town of Lexington is the recipient of a $292,000
grant from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. This grant money comes from the
state's Complete Streets program, which aims to provide safe and accessible options for all travel
modes and for all people, taking into account the ages and abilities of individuals. Ms. Ciccolo
presented the certificate to Mr. Valente and Mr. Pinsonneault.
Discuss the Ad Hoc Center Streetscape Design Review Committee Report
For this agenda topic, Ms. Barry indicated the meeting would be structured as follows:
Presentation from the Ad Hoc Center Streetscape Design Review Committee, a question period,
a Comment period, Board Deliberation.
Center Streetscape Report Presentation
Mr. Levin provided an overview of the proposed Streetscape improvements and presented the
following recommendations made by the Committee for Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 of this project:
Tier 1 Committee Recommendations for Sidewalks and Lighting
Sidewalks: replace existing old brick with new, tight-laid, square-edge brick.
Deteriorated existing cement sidewalks would be replaced with new cement concrete
with a brick border, primarily on the east end of Mass. Ave.
Lighting: install slender pole and base lighting designed to improve safety of sidewalks
and crosswalks taking into consideration the new brick surface.
Tier 2 Committee Recommendations for Overall Layout, Landscaping and Hardscape, Street
Furnishings, Buffers and Edges, Roadway Features
Buffers and Edges: minimize the use of walls, and eliminating bollards, posts and
fencing.
Trash Receptacles & Recycling: keep the existing trash and recycling receptacle, both the
“big belly” solar compactors and recycling bins, plus the ornamental metal trash
receptacles.
71-46
Selectmen’s Meeting – January 30, 2017
Tree Well: install a tree grate system or a suspended pavement system where the tree pits
are flush with the pavement in order to eliminate soil compaction.
Planters: replace the existing barrels with a durable, lighter wood planter of similar size
that is consistent with the benches
Tier 3 Committee Recommendations for: Educational and Interpretive Elements, Signage
and Wayfinding, Budgeting and Project Management
Interpretive and Educational elements: embed sidewalk medallion.
Signage and Wayfinding: wayfinding, street name and directional signs consolidated on
new black posts
Question Period
Ms. Barry asked Town staff for a clarification on the state of the infrastructure in the section of
Massachusetts Avenue being discussed. Mr. Pinsonneault explained that the infrastructure,
which include the water & sewer lines and drainage system, is not failing and at this time does
not require repairs.
Ms. Barry asked if any part of the Center Streetscape project would qualify for funding through
the Community Preservation Act. Mr. Valente said there may be certain aspects of the project
that might request CPA funding which in turn would require a vote for approval.
Wendy Mantz, Capital Expenditures Committee, asked how soon road repair will need to be
done. Mr. Pinsonneault explained the reasons the roadway will need to be reconstructed and that
an evaluation needs to done to determine the start of these repairs.
David Kantor, Capital Expenditures Committee, stated he would like to see a summary from the
Town Engineering Department providing a cross sectional view of this project to ensure all
parties involved are in alignment.
Pam Hoffman, 4 Rangeway, Town Meeting Member Precinct 7, asked if the Center Streetscape
project could be broken up into segments if the cost is too high to complete in whole. Ms. Barry
explained that an updated 25% design and updated cost must be reviewed before that can be
determined.
George Sacerdote, 15 Loring Road, asked if other road repair projects have been put on hold in
order to move forward with the Center Streetscape project. Mr. Pinsonnault explained how the
repair of the roadways are decided based on a repaving needs index. Mr. Sacerdote expressed
concern about Outlook Drive needing repair. Mr. Kelley explained there is a section of Outlook
Drive which is not maintained by the Town since it is designated as private.
71-47
Selectmen’s Meeting – January 30, 2017
Gerry Paul, 43 Highland Ave., expressed concern of cost issues related to disruption to
businesses during construction and asked if the Committee had looked to methods used by other
communities to lessen the disruption.
Jill Hai, Capital Expenditures Committee, asked what the position of the DPW is on a curb to
curb only project. Mr. Pinsonneault explained that the repair of the roadway curb to curb can
affect the condition of the sidewalk, therefore coordination of all activities is necessary.
Comment Period
Margie Sharfin, 9 Loring Road, complimented the Design Advisory Committee on the work
done. Ms. Sharfin appreciated the amount of attention that was given to disability access and
recognition to historic value in this project.
Joel Adler, 22 Village Circle, Town Meeting Member Precinct 1, stated that he feels that the
portion of Massachusetts Ave. near CVS is in need of reconstruction. Mr. Adler expressed
concern that slippery walking conditions may occur when brick gets icy.
Vicki Blier, 41 Shade Sreet, Town Meeting Member, said she would like concrete areas to be
replaced with concrete. She stated fundraising should be considered to cover costs of this project
so that CPA funding can be preserved.
Michelle Bokun, 15 Middleby, stated she supports the Commission on Disability minority report
asking that the streetscape project support function in addition to beauty.
Tim Lee, Chairman of Design Advisory Committee, read a letter from the Design Advisory
Committee which outlined their recommendations and stated support to the Center Streetscape
project.
David Holzman, 33 Peacock Farm Road, expressed concern that the changes may be
implemented sooner than they are physically needed causing an increase to his taxes.
Sara Chase, 4 Peacock Farm Road, spoke of the Town planting trees in the center of Lexington
and read partial quotes of the importance of restoring the beauty of cities.
Sophia Ho, 351 North Emerson Road, Council of Aging, conveyed her feelings that Lexington
has been and should continue to be a town for everyone.
John Rosenberg, 64 Bloomfield Street, commented he feels the right amount money spent will
lead to longevity in regards to the repairs being considered for the Center Streetscape project.
David Kanter, 48 Fifer Lane, asked for clearer definition of the phases, stated he feels
reasonableness and costs of the plan need to be brought forward and agreed that the 25% design
project scope be revisited to get to the best estimate of the plan.
71-48
Selectmen’s Meeting – January 30, 2017
Andy Friedlich, 22 Young Street, Town Meeting Member, complimented the Committee on their
detailed work and noted there are still concerns.
Janet Perry, 16 Ellison Road stated she is visually impaired and expressed that she is in favor of
concrete sidewalks with brick trim.
Dawn McKenna, 9 Hancock Street, expressed concern that there is not adequate consensus to
move forward at this time to make changes.
Bridger McGaw, 89 Meriam Street, thanked the Committee for their work on this project. He
stated he feels appropriate investments should be made to maintain the opportunity of economic
development for the businesses in the center.
Margie Sharfin, 9 Loring Street, stated she feels there is no perfect solution that will meet all the
needs.
Bijan Afshartous, 5 Green Lane, Town Meeting Member Precinct 2, asked if a final decision has
been made regarding the sidewalk replacement. Mr. Afshartous asked about the longevity of the
materials being used for sidewalk replacement. Mr. Pinsonnault replied each material will have
longevity.
Jerry Michelson, thanked the Committee for their work and said he is in full support of the
project.
Board Discussion and Deliberation
Ms. Barry asked the Selectmen if an updated 25% design needs to be requested in order to move
forward. The Selectmen agreed 4-1 to request an updated 25% design.Mr. Kelley was not in
agreement.
Ms. Barry asked each Selectmen for their feedback in regards to the Ad Hoc Center Street
Design Review Committee’s recommendations.
Tier 1
Sidewalk Material – Ms. Barry, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Pato, and Ms. Ciccolo stated they
need more detailed information regarding each of the materials being considered including cost
analysis and lifecycle maintenance costs.
Lighting – Ms. Barry, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Pato and Ms. Ciccolo were in agreement with
the Committee recommendations.
Tier 2
Landscape/Hardscape/Irrigation/Furnishings/Buffers & Edgers/Stormwater Infiltration – Ms.
Barry, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Pato and Ms. Ciccolo were in agreement with the Committee
recommendations noting the size of trees should be substantive.
71-49
Selectmen’s Meeting – January 30, 2017
Bicycle Parking - Ms. Barry, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Pato, and Ms. Ciccolo were in agreement with the
Committee recommendations. Mr. Cohen stated he had no comment.
Tier 3
Embedded Interpretive & Educational Elements - Ms. Barry, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Cohen and Ms.
Ciccolo were opposed to the Committee recommendations. Mr. Pato commented that while he
was not a fan of the recommendation, he had no objection.
Signage and Wayfinding - Ms. Barry, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Pato, and Ms. Ciccolo were in
agreement with the Committee recommendations. The selectmen noted that the Tourism
Committee should be included in this portion of the project and that signage and wayfinding
needs to be consistent with the Master Plan.
Ms. Barry, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Pato and Ms. Ciccolo were in agreement that it is
necessary to keep disruption to a minimum as much as possible to lessen impact to business,
which may include phasing of the project.
Sign the 2017 Annual Town Meeting Warrant
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve the 2017
Annual Town Meeting Warrant and authorize staff to make non substantive edits as necessary or
recommended by Town Counsel or Bond Counsel.
Sign the Special Town Meeting 2017-1 Warrant
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve the Special
Town Meeting 2017-1 Warrantand authorize staff to make non substantive edits as necessary or
recommended by Town Counsel or Bond Counsel.
Approve Letter of Support for LexHab Regarding Lowell Street Housing Project
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to provide a letter of
support addressed endorsing LexHAB’s application to the Department of Housing and
Community Development’s Local Initiative Program for a comprehensive permit for the
affordable housing project at the Busa Farm Property on Lowell Street with the non-substantive
edits provided by Mr. Cohen.
Approve Certification for Bond Counsel – 173 Bedford Street Property
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 that the Town does not
currently anticipate that the property to be acquired with the $4,443,000 Land Acquisition
Bonds, 171-173 Bedford Street, or any portion thereof, will be leased, rented, managed or
otherwise exclusively committed to a third party, or sold for so long as any bonds are
outstanding. This property is anticipated to be used for municipal purposes, including swing
Selectmen’s Meeting – January 30, 2017 space while the main Fire Station is renovated and
swing space while the Police Station is being renovated, or possibly for a permanent Police
Station location.
71-50
Selectmen’s Meeting – January 30, 2017
Executive Session
Mr. Valente stated that an executive session will not need to be held.
Adjourn
Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 5-0 to adjourn at 9:45p.m.
A true record; Attest:
Kim Katzenback
Assistant to the Executive Clerk
71-51
Selectmen’s Meeting
February 6, 2017
A meeting of the Lexington Board of Selectmen was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Monday,
February 6, 2017 in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room of the Town Office Building. Ms.Barry,
Chair; Mr. Cohen; Mr. Pato; and Ms. Ciccolo were present as well as Mr. Valente, Town
Manager and Ms. Siebert, Recording Secretary.
Town Manager Report
Mr. Valente reported the Town will sell $47M in bonds and notes, largely related to the middle
school and elementary school projects but also including some Town projects such as 173
Bedford Street. Rating agency Moody’s re-affirmed Lexington’s AAA designation this week, as
did Standard and Poor’s which, at the Town’s request, evaluated Lexington for the first time in
th
12+ years. At the February 13
Selectmen’s meeting, Mr. Valente will announce the results of
the bond issue and ask the Board to make the award.
Ms. Barry thanked and congratulated Mr. Valente and the Town’s finance staff for keeping
Lexington in a strong position.
Grant of Location Petition: Eversource, Maguire Rd.
Ms. Barry opened the Public Hearing at 7:04 p.m.
Maureen Carol, Eversource, spoke on behalf of the company’s petition for the purpose of
obtaining a Grant of Location to install 384+ feet of conduit in Maguire Rd. The reason for this
work is to connect the Town’s proposed solar farm.
The property manager for 4 Maguire Rd. asked for details of the construction timeline and if any
power outages are anticipated. Ms. Carol said once the petition is approved, the Town will
dictate work hours and other stipulations. There should not be any loss of power. Pole #8, which
Eversource will be working on, is in the public way, not on the Maguire Rd property. The
property manager will contact Ms. Carol with the 4 Maguire Rd pole number to verify there will
be no loss of service.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 4-0 to approve the petition of
Eversource, formerly NSTAR Electric, to construct a line of conduits and manholes with the
necessary wires and cables therein to be located in Maguire Rd., southerly from pole 399/8
thence turning and running southeasterly approximately 471 feet northwest of Hartwell Ave. a
distance of 384+ feet of conduit.
Ms. Barry closed the Public Hearing at 7:07 p.m.
71-52
Selectmen’s Meeting – February 6, 2017
Joint Meeting with School Committee—Receive Report of the Subcommittee on Asian
Communities
Mr. Alessandrini, School Committee Chair, called his committee to order at 7:08 and introduced
members: Judy Crocker, Eileen Jay, and Jesse Steigerwald and Dr. Mary Czajkowski,
Superintendent.
Ms. Barry welcomed Susie Lee-Snell, Vision 20/20 Subcommittee on Asian Communities, who
presented findings and recommendations of the study. The goals of the subcommittee were to
examine the role of Town and School officials in responding to the Town’s changing
demographic profile and, building on progress made, to welcome and integrate Asian families
into the community. The subcommittee was formed to identify ways to foster a
community/Town government that reflects a diverse population and to encourage social
integration that makes interactions more seamless.
Ms. Snell noted that she was standing in as presenter due to member Dan Krupka’s skiing
accident over the weekend. Ms. Barry expressed the Board’s wishes for Mr. Krupka’s speedy
recovery.
Ms. Snell said the subcommittee members included representatives from the Chinese-American
Association of Lexington (CAAL), Faith Lin and Bin Zhou; the Indian Americans of Lexington
(IAL), Shoba Reginald and Manasi Singhal; the Korean Organization of Lexington (KOL), Susie
Lee-Snell and Jordan Shin; the PTA/PTO, Becky Barrentine and Tanya Gisolfi; the Vision 20/20
Committee, Margaret Coppe and Dan Krupka; and three Members-at-Large, Nancy Corcoran-
Ronchetti, Pat Costello, and Margaret Heitz.
The full report is available electronically on the Town website or in hard copy form at the
Selectmen’s Office.
Ms. Snell noted that an estimated 25% of Lexington’s residents and 37% of Lexington Public
School students are of Asian ancestry. An underlying question of the subcommittee’s work asked
if Lexington’s civic leaders had a responsibility to plan strategically for the growth of
Lexington’s Asian population and if should they deal with consequences as they occur.
Communities that bore similarities to Lexington were identified in New Jersey (19) and
California (16). That list was narrowed, ultimately, to 12 communities that were studied in
greater depth. Online surveys were conducted with groups in those towns/cities and results were
tabulated in a collaborative effort with Sociology professor Marian Cohen and quantitative
research students from Framingham State. Follow-up dialogues took place with mayors,
PTO/PTA leaders, Town Managers, and community leaders of Asian ancestry in these
communities. The Superintendent of Schools and School Board Chair from Walnut Valley, CA
came to Lexington to share strategies implemented by their district.
71-53
Selectmen’s Meeting – February 6, 2017
Report recommendations included:
Establish a Diversity Think Tank with a primary task of funding and selecting diversity
training programs for Schools and Town (Superintendent and Town Manager);
Establish a higher priority for getting personally acquainted with leaders of Lexington’s
Asian community organizations (Town Manager, Board of Selectmen, Superintendent,
School Committee);
Leaders of Chinese American Association, the Indian Americans, and the Korean
Organization should likewise make it a priority to become personal acquainted with the
Town Manager, Selectmen, Superintendent and School Committee. They should also
strengthen programs to integrate newcomers into the community and consider sponsoring
leadership training for potential leaders;
Encourage hiring more Town employees of Asian heritage, explore broadening
Recreation Department programming and develop a pilot Block Party program (Town
Manager);
Continue to host forums fostering participation in school volunteer programs Also,
request a seat on the Diversity Think Tank (PTO/PTA Presidents’ Council);
Increase efforts to hire more principals who reflect the demographics of the student body
and encourage principals to hire more diverse staff. Adopt a practice of annual meetings
with guidance counselors, students, and parents. Consider adopting Walnut Valley
practices such as a wellness center to assist with stress and integration challenges and the
formation of a Student Advisory Council (Superintendent);
Continue to monitor progress towards improved integration of Asian residents and
convene a session in May to assess progress (Vision 20/20);
The report concluded with the statement that all recommendations were created with the Asian
populations in mind but could equally apply to all backgrounds.
Mr. Pato said Lexington’s strength is derived from how the community is brought together. He
thanked the subcommittee for its work and said the community should move forward with
alacrity to implement the recommendations.
Ms. Barry asked about outreach to businesses so that engagement between those businesses and
Asian patrons can be successful and desired goods can be stocked. Ms. Barry also asked if
language barriers present obstacles that translation services could overcome.
Ms. Snell said she would discuss these points with the group. The subcommittee had not
considered either the retail perspective or translation services, although language often holds
residents back.
Subcommittee member Tanya Gisolfi said translation support was strong within the schools. Ms.
Barry encouraged the subcommittee to reach out to the Chamber of Commerce and the Retailers
Association.
71-54
Selectmen’s Meeting – February 6, 2017
Mr. Cohen noted that the Library has done a stellar job of welcoming Lexington’s Asian
communities. During recent fundraising efforts, the Chinese community came forward in great
numbers and was very generous.
Ms. Ciccolo echoed Mr. Pato’s sentiments about embracing multi-culturalism and tackling the
issues. She asked the subcommittee for advice about how to envision the proposed Diversity
Think Tank and what the charge for such a group might be.
Ms. Ciccolo said the Citizens Academy has been successful in bringing new people into Town
government and its processes. There has been good participation from the Asian communities.
She asked the Town to gather feedback from graduates to gauge how well the program has
served them.
Ms. Ciccolo added that the Town is potentially going to embark on an update to the
Comprehensive Plan, which presents an opportunity to look holistically at the community,
including some of the issues the subcommittee has raised. Ms. Ciccolo said it is critical to the
success of the Plan to have citizens from all populations participate.
Mr. Alessandrini said the School Committee would discuss the subcommittee’s findings and
recommendations when it reconvenes after leaving the Selectmen’s meeting.
Ms. Crocker suggested that public safety staff have translated materials with them at all times in
order to be able to communicate with non-English speaking residents.
School Committee members expressed gratitude to the subcommittee members and supported
the recommendations. They added their appreciation that the Town Manager and Board of
Selectmen have consistently supported Vision 20/20 efforts over the years.
Elaine Ashton, 32 Cliffe Avenue, offered the advice and facilitation assistance of the East
Lexington Community Association to help develop the block party concept. She does not think
responsibility should be placed solely on elected officials when community groups can assist.
Gretchen Reisig, 9 Victory Garden Way, asked to whom comments or suggestions should be
directed. Ms. Snell said they could be forwarded to her or to Dan Krupka who heads the 20/20
Vision Committee. The email address is: 2020VisionCMTE@ Lexingtonma.gov
The Chairs of CAAL, IAL, and the Human Rights Committee (HRC) offered the support of their
organizations to implement the recommendations of the subcommittee.
Mr. Pato said the think the tank was a topic of discussion at the most recent HRC meeting.
Formation of the group, and the subsequent discourse, should take place before goals are set.
Ms. Jay of the School Committee asked who would take the lead on the next steps. Ms. Barry
said the Town Manager and the Superintendent will determine how to proceed.
71-55
Selectmen’s Meeting – February 6, 2017
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 4-0 to receive the report of
the Subcommittee on Asian Communities: Lessons on Integration of Residents of Asian
Ancestry Offered by California and New Jersey Communities with Large Asian Populations—
December 16, 2016.
Update—Purchase of Pelham Property
Ms. Ciccolo recused herself from the discussion due to a conflict of interest.
Mr. Valente said, in the last month, the negotiating parties have at last reached agreement on a
purchase price. The details are not quite ready for disclosure but due diligence steps can now be
discussed that will take place after purchase and sale documents are finalized. Due diligence will
encompass two main areas: an engineering survey and a phase one environmental study. For
these purposes, Mr. Valente asked the Board of Selectmen to authorize a request for a Reserve
Fund transfer of $17,115, which includes a $3,000 contingency.
Under Mass General Law 30B (procurement), the Board must certify that Pelham is a unique
property that is being purchased because of this quality.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 3-0 to authorize the
Chairman to sign a request to the Appropriation Committee for a Reserve Fund transfer of
$17,115 for professional services related to the Town’s due diligence for the purchase of 20
Pelham Road.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 3-0 that it has determined
that advertising under General Laws Chapter 30B for the Town’s acquisition of the following
parcel of real property will not benefit the governmental body’s interest due to the unique
qualities of the property:
Land and the improvements commonly known as 20 Pelham Rd in Lexington and identified
on Lexington’s Assessor’s Map 31 as Lot 65A, consisting of approximately 8.4 acres (the
“Property”)
Specifically, the Property contains a sufficient amount of land in a highly advantageous central
location for which the Town can use the Property for municipal and/or school purposes. Further,
the property abuts existing Town owned land, including the Town community center, and would
serve as an important link for the Town’s municipal and educational purposes.
Mr. Alessandrini thanked the Selectmen and the Town for their efforts and moved the School
Committee into recess, after which it will reconvene at 8:15 p.m. in Cary Hall.
ATM 2017 Warrant Article Update—Article 10—Community Preservation Committee
Operating Budget and Community Preservation Projects
71-56
Selectmen’s Meeting – February 6, 2017
Marilyn Fennollosa, Chair of the Community Preservation Committee presented the details of
Article 10 and gave an overview of the CPC’s financial position.
The available balance is $3.4M which is the total of the amounts in the designated reserves for
the categories of Open Space, Historic Preservation, Affordable Housing plus an undesignated
fund balance. The estimated surcharge of $4,498,110 for FY18 comes from taxes plus the State
match, projected for the coming year as $923,370, or 25% of the taxpayer contribution. Ms.
Fennollosa noted the State match has been steadily declining but help could be on the way. The
170 communities now participating in the CPA are applying pressure and there is legislation
pending to improve the match to a guaranteed 50% annually. Lexington’s representatives have
all co-sponsored the bill.
This year, there are 16 projects that will come before Town Meeting. All have been vetted and
approved by Town Counsel.
a) Interpretive Signage Project - $38,400
b) Parker’s Revenge Interpretive and Public Education Signage & Displays -$41,350
c) Greeley Village Rear Door and Porch Supplemental Request - $56,712
d) Affordable Units Preservation–Pine Grove Village/Judges Road - TBD
e) Willard’s Woods and Wright Farm Meadow Preservation- $40,480
f) Cotton Farm Conservation Area Improvements - $301,300
g) Wright Farm Supplemental Funds - $37,900
h) Stone Building Feasibility Study - $25,000
i) Munroe School Window Restoration - $620,000
j) Center Streetscape Improvements - TBD
k) Community Center Sidewalk - $220,000
l) Park Improvements - Athletic Fields - $125,000
m) Town Pool Renovation - $1,620,000
n) Park and Playground Improvements - $60,000
o) CPA Debt Service–$2,404,259
p) Administrative Budget - $150,000
If all of these projects are approved, the CPC will end Annual Town Meeting 2017 with a
remaining balance of $3M. Ms. Fennollosa noted, however, that the Center Streetscape and
Judges Road do not have price tags at this time. Those will affect the final balance.
David Kanter, Capital Expenditures Committee, asked if the subsection under Article 16 for the
Munroe School restoration is the same as subsection I and, if so, would Article 16 be indefinitely
postponed. The Selectmen agreed that it would be.
ATM 2017 Warrant Article Update—Article 32—Establish Cannabis Committee (Citizen
Article)
ATM 2017 Warrant Article Update—Article 39—Amend General Bylaws—Right to Farm
(Citizen Article)
71-57
Selectmen’s Meeting – February 6, 2017
ATM 2017 Warrant Article Update—Article 46—Amend Zoning Bylaw—Chapter 135 Medical
Marijuana (Citizen Article)
Ms. Barry noted that the citizen bringing forward these three articles is under the weather and
unable to make presentations this evening. These items will be rescheduled for a future date.
Continue Review—FY18 Town Manager’s Preliminary Recommended Budget and Financing
Plan
Mr. Valente asked for the Selectmen’s feedback on Program Improvement Requests (PIRs) so
they can be included in next week’s budget approval vote. He also asked for responses to the
Capital program.
There are also some updates to the budget that Mr. Valente recommends:
The Minuteman Regional High School Assessment has increased. The School Committee
has already voted to approve the revision;
Under benefits, since the School Committee has voted to its recommended budget,
benefit amounts for new hires can now be transferred to Shared Expenses;
In the Public Works Operating Budget, it is recommended the Town extend the current
refuse and recycling contract for another year. JRM has provided a price so the
placeholder can be replaced by the actual amount, now that it is known;
Under Capital, the white book was carrying an amount of money for Bridge School roof
replacement. Since this project is being postponed until it is eligible for MSBA
reimbursement, the project can be put on the deferral list for FY18;
Under Capital, the LHS Security Upgrade project will be amended to include only the
camera system and eliminate the door hardware part of the request, pending on input
from the new Principal on how to proceed;
Under Capital, the Community Center Parking Lot had been intended for bonding; the
Town Manager now recommends this be paid for with Free Cash/Unreserved Fund
Balance instead.
Ms. Barry asked if the $5,000 in Munroe Cemetery project has changed or been eliminated. Mr.
Valente said that originally the funds were slated to come out of the Munroe Cemetery Trust
Fund but those funds have already been committed to another project. It is up to the Board
whether to continue with the Munroe project under these circumstances or defer it.
Mr. Pato asked why the Pavement Markings project is not fully funded this year after deferral
last year. Mr. Valente replied that Engineering determined the original amount to be too high.
The scale of work is the same. Ms. Ciccolo asked if the budgeted amount would allow additional
bike lanes to be created. Mr. Valente said FY18 will be the first of three years that the Town will
expand the number of bike lanes, thereafter focusing on maintenance only.
71-58
Selectmen’s Meeting – February 6, 2017
Ms. Ciccolo asked if the PIR for funds for Arts grants is supplemental. Mr. Valente said the State
contributes a modest amount, only, so the Town proposes to supplement.
Ms. Ciccolo asked if the bike share funds would be a one-time or an annual item. Mr. Valente
said it would be an annual item and the funds would come from the remaining $90,000 in the
Center Stabilization Fund. The White Book recommendation is that the bike share program go
forward only if funds from that account are used. Ms. Ciccolo repeated a previous request that
Ms. Tintocalis pursue the same bike share program, Hubway, used by Boston and Cambridge,
even though it is more expensive because it will be more user-friendly for commuters and
visitors.
Feedback regarding the 8 PIRs not recommended for inclusion by the Town Manager:
Ms. Ciccolo asked of any of the Comprehensive Plan (CP) funds might be shared so that at least
part of the Economic Development Department’s request for additional funding might be
satisfied. Mr. Valente said he didn’t believe this would be possible. Ms. Ciccolo said perhaps the
scope could be adapted so that CP funding would serve a dual purpose.
Mr. Cohen asked where Comprehensive Plan funds would come from. Mr. Valente said from the
tax levy, not from borrowing.
Mr. Pato asked if not hiring a Compost Turner heavy machinery operator would negatively affect
the Town’s ability to resume accepting yard waste from Arlington. Mr. Valente said he believes
the Town will eventually need to hire for this position but until the solar farm is in place and the
full space impact is accessed, it is premature to fund the job. Once the job is posted, the salary
will be funded by the facility’s Revolving Fund, not from the tax levy. If during the year the
Town determines it’s appropriate to move forward to hire an operator, it can be done by a vote of
the Board of Selectmen.
The Selectmen reached consensus that Mr. Valente’s PIR recommendations met with their
approval.
Capital projects in abeyance:
Based on the Governor’s proposal for State Aid to municipalities, it appears as though Lexington
will receive more than originally expected, although the State budget is still a work in progress.
If State Aid does come in higher, this could provide the necessary cushion for Capital that would
allow the Town to move ahead without singling out projects for abeyance.
Mr. Pato said he is comfortable with using the higher State Aid as a buffer. If the Town has to
fall back to postponing projects, however, he does not want to forego sidewalks. Mr. Valente
said the Board’s sentiments on sidewalks was noted at the last meeting. In lieu of that, Public
Works has recommended delaying the Grant Street bikeway bridge for a year, if necessary.
Together with an equipment purchase deferral, the abeyance total was reached.
71-59
Selectmen’s Meeting – February 6, 2017
The Board conveyed its agreement with the State Aid approach and abeyance fallback plan list.
Capital Budget:
Mr. Valente said Engineering estimates $1.5M for the Hill Street sidewalk project in FY19.
Funding for FY18 would commit $150,000 for engineering design work. The large price tag has
given staff pause as to whether so much of the yearly allowed within-levy debt should be
committed to this one project. Ms. Barry said she is sympathetic with the concern but sees the
Hill Street sidewalk as an important piece of connectivity on a busy street.
Mr. Pato agreed with the need for the sidewalk and added that the Town has been discussing this
for years with residents. Now that a satisfactory conclusion has been reached about sidewalk
location, he does not want to lose momentum. He asked if the cost has been included in the
within-levy debt modeling. Mr. Valente said this specific project has not been included, only the
full $6M limit of cumulative in-levy debt. The Hill St. project would entail about 25% of one
year’s limit.
David Kanter, Capital Expenditures Committee, asked if it should be clarified that construction
costs are not included for projects that only bear design funding requests for the coming fiscal
year. Mr. Valente said he will discuss with Ms. Kosnoff if article presentations should be
adjusted to make clear future funding implications of approving design requests.
Selectmen Committee Appointment—Human Rights Committee
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 4-0 to appoint Mary
Anton-Oldenburg to the Human Rights Committee for a term to expire March 31, 2018.
Liquor License—Change of Corporate Name—Yangtze River
The Yangtze River Restaurant has submitted all the paperwork needed to request a change of
corporate name from Ong, Ong, Inc to Yangtze River Restaurant, Inc. The change was registered
with the Secretary of State’s office in 1989 but not registered with the ABCC at that time.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 4-0 to approve the
application for a change of corporate name and issue an amended 2017 All Alcohol Restaurant
Liquor License to Yangtze River Restaurant, Inc. d/b/a Yangtze River Restaurant, 21-25 Depot
Square.
CONSENT AGENDA
Approve Minutes & Executive Session Minutes—April 2016
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 4-0 to approve the minutes of
April 4, 2016, April 5, 2016, April 6, 2016, April 11, 2016, April 13, 2016, April 14, 2016, April
25, 2016 (2 sessions), and April 27, 2016
71-60
Selectmen’s Meeting – February 6, 2017
Further, on motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 4-0 to approve but
not release the Executive Session minutes of April 4, 2016, April 5, 2016, April 11, 2016, April
13, 2016, April 25, 2016 (2 sessions) and April 27, 2016.
Approve One Day Liquor License—EMACT—Lexington Players
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 4-0 to approve the
EMACT—Lexington Players’ request for a one-day liquor license to sell beer and wine in the
lobby of Cary Hall on August 26, 2017 from 6:00 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. for the purpose of a
recognition event.
Approve One Day Liquor License
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 4-0 to approve the request
from St. Brigid Parish, 2001 Mass Ave for a one-day liquor license to sell beer and wine and
other alcohol in Keilty Hall on Saturday, March 18, 2017 from 6:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. for the
purpose of a St. Patrick’s Day Scholarship Fundraiser.
Approve One Day Liquor License—Maria Hastings PTA
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 4-0 to approve the Maria
Hastings PTA’s request for a one-day liquor license to sell beer and wine in Cary Hall on
Saturday, March 17, 2017 from 7:00 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. for the purpose of a Hastings Adult
Social and Fundraiser.
EXECUTIVE SESSION—Update—Belmont Country Club Parcel
On motion duly made and by roll call at 8:50 p.m. the Board of Selectmen voted 4-0 to enter into
Executive Session under Exemption 6 to consider the purchase, exchange, lease or value of real
property, Belmont Country Club land, and to reconvene in Open Session only to adjourn.
Further, it was declared that an open meeting might have a detrimental effect on the negotiating
position of the Town.
Adjourn
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 4-0 to adjourn at
approximately 9:30 p.m.
A true record; Attest:
Kim Siebert
Recording Secretary
71-61
Selectmen’s Meeting
February 13, 2017
A meeting of the Lexington Board of Selectmen was called to back to order at 7:15 p.m. on
Monday, February 13, 2017 in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room of the Town Office Building
following a Joint Session of the Planning Board and the Board of Selectmen that began at 6:02
p.m. in Estabrook Hall in the Cary Memorial Building. Chairman Barry, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Cohen,
Mr. Pato and Ms. Ciccolo were present as well as Mr. Valente, Town Manager and Ms. Siebert,
Recording Secretary.
Selectmen Concerns and Liaison Reports
Mr. Kelley expressed his concern about snow bank height in the town center commercial district.
He suggested the Town should do a one-time removal to ensure traveler’s safety to get in and out
of cars along Massachusetts Avenue.
Ms. Barry provided an update on Vision 20/20’s request to form a Diversity Think Tank group.
Ms. Barry noted the School Committee identified two members who will serve. The Think Tank
will also include Mr. Valente, Town Manager, and Superintendent Dr. Czajkowski. Ms. Barry
stated that two Selectmen are requested to participate. Ms. Barry, Mr. Pato, and Ms. Ciccolo all
expressed interest in representing the Selectmen.
Ms. Barry commended the Department of Public Works (DPW) for the successful undertaking of
clearing the volume of snow from the recent storms.
Town Manager Report
Mr. Valente reported that the DPW also had to deal with water main breaks on East Street and
Harding Road in addition to snow removal during the recent storms.
Mr. Valente also reported that the DPW will address removal of the enormous snow piles from
the Town parking lots. This will be an overnight operation.
Mr. Valente noted removing snow piles from the Center would also be an overnight operation
and also an expensive one. Mr. Valente said the Town would only go in that direction if the
Board feels there hasn’t been sufficient melting. Another option would be to run snowblowers
along the curb edge, achieving curb-to-curb clearance. This would take one night only and
require less traffic diversion and DPW manpower.
Ms. Barry said the Town would revisit the question after the parking lot piles have been cleared
to reassess and deploy snow blowers if necessary.
Award Bond and Note Sale
Ms. Kosnoff, Assistant Town Manager for Finance, said the Town put $47M in long term bonds
out for sale last week plus an additional $13M worth of bond anticipation notes. The bonds were
for a variety of projects, mainly middle school additions/remodeling but also waste water and
sewer projects and DPW equipment. Some of the bonds—particularly the School bonds—have a
71-62
Selectmen’s Meeting – February 13, 2017
30-year term. Ms. Kosnoff presented the bond documents and asked the Selectmen to sign the
paperwork associated with the sale and sign the necessary paperwork.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve the bond and
notes sale as presented.
FY17 Second Quarter Financial Results
Ms. Kosnoff was joined by Ms. Hewitt, Budget Officer, to present a review of revenue
collections and expenditure through the second quarter of FY17 (through 12/31/2016).
Ms. Hewitt said the analysis is presented in two parts: General Fund and Enterprise Fund. Ms.
Hewitt stated that expenditures and revenues, for the most part, were at or above the 50% level at
the halfway mark through the fiscal year. The following line items were noted:
Motor vehicle excise is only at 15% because bills will not be issued until next week;
An uptick in penalties and interest has caused the Treasurer to look more closely at
delinquent tax bills. Targeted collection efforts have yielded good results;
License and permit revenue from residential and commercial construction activity
continues to be healthy and above projections;
Ms. Hewitt said none of the areas on the Expenditures side have consumed more than 50% of
what was budgeted.
Ms. Hewitt indicated the higher water enterprise revenue projection is due to higher-than-
projected usage during the dry summer. She pointed out that the Sewer enterprise fund revenues,
on the other hand, seem low but it was noted the largest bill was not due until mid-January.
Mr. Cohen asked how back tax collection is faring. Mr. Valente said the Town regularly collects
99% of its annual taxes but the 1% of taxes not collected equals $1.7M. The first step is toward
collecting back taxes is sending a letter to the property owner, stating that proceedings will be
commence unless arrangements are made by a certain deadline. The letter has yielded seven
responses from the top ten delinquent accounts.
Vote the FY2018 Recommended Budget and Financing Plan
Mr. Valente stated the feedback the Board provided about the budget during the last few
meetings have resulted in revisions to the budget. Mr. Valente asked the Selectmen to vote on
these revisions this evening so that the Brown Book for Town Meeting can be finalized and sent
to Town Meeting members.
Mr. Valente noted the revised Capital numbers will also require a vote, following the
presentation by the Capital Expenditures Committee.
71-63
Selectmen’s Meeting – February 13, 2017
Mr. Valente asked the Selectmen for the authority to revise the debt service numbers based on
the bond sale which have the effect of reducing principal and interest and reduce the amount to
be used from the Capital Stabilization Fund.
Comments by Capital Expenditures Committee
Ms. Hai, Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Chair, referred to the revised Initial Review of
FY2018 Town Manager’s Preliminary Budget & Financing Plan (‘White Book’) for her
discussion. Ms. Hai noted the following questions/concerns from the CEC.
Affordable Units Preservation: Pine Grove/Judges Road still has no dollar amount;
Hill Street New Sidewalk: Design cost (FY18) plus construction cost (FY19 or later) add
up to $1.65M. The Committee recognizes the value of connectivity for that area of town
but has not yet worked through its discomfort with the total cost of the project;
Visitors’ Center: CEC supports deferral and asks the Selectmen to release funds still
available to the Visitors’ Center for a value engineering study that includes program-
specific considerations to reduce projected construction cost;
Hastings School Renovation/Replacement Design & Construction Dollar Amounts: The
Committee asks that the gross amount for the project be listed in the Brown Book as
opposed to the net amount listed in the White Book;
LHS Security Evaluation and Upgrade: CEC voted against this project, 4-1. The original
project has been withdrawn and the Committee supports the revised request of $150,000;
Center Streetscape Improvement: Committee supports the decision to postpone this
project and seeks better definition and clarity, especially with regard to phasing;
Automatic Water Meter Reading: A majority of CEC now supports this request;
Hydrant Replacement Program: with one abstention, the Committee now supports the
request;
Street Acceptance: 4 members for, 1 member against.
Dam Extraordinary Repair: Support with expectation of $150,000 cost saving;
Bikeway Bridge Renovations: Four members supported this with tax-levy capital
funding. One member considers this an expenditure best drawn from the Operating
budget;
Community Center Sidewalk: The Committee has now received design and scope
information and will discuss the project at the next CEC meeting;
Staging for Special Events; 4-1 approve deferral of the project.
Ms. Hai noted that CEC supports removing the roof repair request for the Bridge School based
on assurances from the Facilities Department that it can be maintained until 2021 when the
project will be submitted to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) for
reimbursement.
Mr. Valente said Pine Grove/Judges Road remains in Executive Session discussions but is
anticipated to come before Town Meeting.
71-64
Selectmen’s Meeting – February 13, 2017
Mr. Valente stated the gross amount for the Hastings School project will be listed in the Brown
Book.
Mr. Kelley asked why the MSBA reimbursement rate has decreased to 25% from 30%. Mr.
Valente said the change was not one of policy but of how the MSBA formula works. The MSBA
says it will reimburse Lexington 30-32% (based on bonus points for sustainable buildings) but it
caps the reimbursement at $330 per square foot. The cost of building for Lexington is $500/sq.
ft. Mr. Valente said the budget tries to reflect the percentage reimbursement in projected building
costs.
Comments by Appropriation Committee
John Bartenstein, Chair of the Appropriation Committee, noted that Appropriation is on a
slightly different cycle from CEC; CEC works all fall on understanding the Capital projects but
Appropriation see the Capital list for the first time in January in the White Book. Since
Appropriation’s meeting schedule has been hampered by bad weather cancellations, Mr.
Bartenstein did not have official Committee positions to impart but he did have a number of
personal observations and questions the committee has of which he is aware:
The first question was about why the Hastings School reimbursement percentage dropped
and he appreciates the explanation Mr. Valente has just provided;
The Minuteman Tech construction costs have gone up for each remaining member of the
consortium due to the way State Aid is allocated. The Town’s assessment was 5% and is
now 15% which is a matter of concern;
Mr. Bartenstein spoke with Ms. Kosnoff about this concern that was also discussed at the
last Selectmen’s meeting: the estimated State Aid amount is increased, year to year, by
2% but the most recent projections from the State indicate there will be a 16% increase
over last year. The consequence of underestimating State Aid is that revenues then
exceed budget and the overage is then placed in Capital Stabilization Fund. Mr.
Bartenstein does not see an immediate problem but noted that the State Aid formula is
based, in part, on school enrollment which, in Lexington, has increased substantially. For
transparency, Mr. Bartenstein recommended a footnote that explains the Cherry
Sheet/Chapter 70 aid revenues so there is not the appearance of “a big surprise” at fall
Special Town Meeting;
Mr. Valente said he could add such a footnote but said there was already some language to this
affect within the budget assumption language. He said he preferred putting an explanation in the
narrative.
In closing, Mr. Bartenstein introduced two of Appropriation’s newest members—Ms. Jian Yang
and Mr. Sanjay Padaki.
Mr. Valente then took the Selectmen through the changes that have occurred between the White
Book and the Brown Book. Because many of these were discussed at a previous meeting, Mr.
Valente have a high-level overview. He said there were few substantive changes and that most of
the revisions were merely “a truing up” of amounts.
71-65
Selectmen’s Meeting – February 13, 2017
Prior to taking a vote on the FY18 Budget and Financing plan, Ms. Ciccolo said that the Board
has discussed these subjects for many months and the lack of questions or comments at this point
reflects thorough vetting of material rather than a lack of due diligence.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve the FY18
recommended budget and authorize staff to make non-substantive changes to the debt service
line items and appropriation to the Capital Stabilization Fund to reflect the bond and note sale
approved by the Board on February 13, 2017.
The Brown Book will be published electronically on February 27 and the printed version will
come out the following week.
ATM 2017 Warrant Article Update—Article 18—Appropriation for Visitors Center (Citizens
Article)
Dawn McKenna (Chair), Margaret Coppe, and Trisha Perez Kennealy from the Tourism
Committee presented information about Article 18 that asks “if the Town will vote to raise and
appropriate a sum of money for planning, constructing, originally equipping, and furnishing a
new Visitors Center” and to determine how project will be funded.
Ms. McKenna included in the presentation data provided by the Massachusetts Office of Travel
and Tourism on Lexington’s tourism profile. According to the data, Lexington ranks third in
tourism spending the Greater Merrimack Valley with 126,000 visitors generating $89,150,501 in
revenue in 2016. Ms. McKenna said tourism creates 744 jobs in Lexington.
Ms. McKenna presented a short history of the current facility that went back to 2011 when the
Visitors Center was added to the Capital plan for the first time. After several steps since that
time, the Tourism now asks if the Town can commit staff time to help develop a financing
strategy for the new Visitors Center so that the project could move forward.
th
It is important to move the project forward, Ms. McKenna said, because of the upcoming 250
anniversary of the Battle of Lexington and Concord. The Federal government is investing in the
celebration and the Town needs to be prepared for the influx of visitors at that time. The siting of
the Visitors Center and landscaping is also an integral part of the Battlegreen Master Plan, Ms.
Kenna said. Also, the State is planning to spend $400M to underwrite the events around the
anniversary of the landing in Plymouth. If the timing of the new Visitors Center is delayed
longer, Lexington may risk missing out on its ability to maximize the economic opportunity
these events represent.
Ms. McKenna said her committee will present this information again before the CEC tomorrow
evening. Ms. McKenna also heard three funding opportunities during tonight’s meeting that
could help with Visitors Center funding: the deferral of the Center Streetscape project which
potentially frees up funds; the Bridge School roofing project now delayed; and the increase in
Chapter 70 State Aid funds.
71-66
Selectmen’s Meeting – February 13, 2017
The members of the Tourism Committee asked the Selectmen for direction on how to proceed.
Ms. McKenna said the group is uncertain whether to ask for design funding or for complete
funding that would expedite the project.
Ms. Ciccolo said she is concerned that travel patterns may shift given what is happening at the
federal and international levels. However, she feels strongly that Lexington should do what it can
to promote tourism. One of the reasons the Visitors Center has been deferred for so long is the
high cost estimate the Town received in 2015 that caused the funding article to be withdrawn
from that year’s Town Meeting warrant. She hopes that the Center can be kept in the Capital plan
while keeping costs under control. She asked the other Selectmen their thinking on releasing
some of the remaining funds in the Visitors Center account to underwrite value engineering for a
more reasonable design.
Ms. McKenna said the Tourism Committee was also dismayed at the cost of the project as
designed in 2015 and the Committee agrees that value engineering should be done. However,
there are not enough remaining funds to pay for value engineering. The Committee’s position
now is to ask Town Meeting for design funds at the very least and perhaps to ask for full
construction costs so that the project can more quickly move ahead.
Mr. Cohen asked how much more money is needed than the sum remaining in the Visitors
Center account. Ms. McKenna said this is one of the reasons the Committee needs the help of
Town staff to figure out costs and the best way to finance the project.
Mr. Kelley said that he has been an advocate for renewing the Visitors Center for a long time.
The original re-design that was rejected for high cost could have been adjusted to better suit the
Town’s needs, according to the consultant at the time, Don Mills. Mr. Kelley said that even more
than a source of economic opportunity, the Visitors Center is “the vestibule or the front door of
this community” and the most important question is how it serves the citizens and their guests.
He believes a new Visitors Center should have public facilities; making these improvements is
“way overdue” and there are ways to get the project done, possibly with creative financing of the
type recently identified to fund a new building at Westview Cemetery.
Mr. Kelley said he is in favor of moving the remaining funds over so that they can be used to re-
hire Mr. Mills to provide adjustments to the original design. He also recommended that Town
staff be authorized to work with the Tourism Committee as the Committee has requested.
Mr. Pato agreed that the Visitors Center is important to Lexington and the accommodating
tourists is an important obligation for the community as steward of the Battle Green. However,
he does not agree that the problem is one of value engineering. The expense of the project as
presented ($3.4M) was significantly higher than what can be afforded, especially considering the
number of School and Municipal Capital projects in the pipeline or on the horizon and the rise of
operating expenses.
Mr. Pato is also not convinced that a new visitor’s center is likely to increase tourism. At the rate
of revenue over expenses quoted by Ms. McKenna, it would take 250 years to pay back the
investment.
71-67
Selectmen’s Meeting – February 13, 2017
Ms. Perez Kennealy said the design submitted by the consultant in 2015 was far beyond anything
required—or even desired— and not an effective use of taxpayer dollars. The Committee was
looking for “a purpose-built, simple, functional building that will serve the needs” of tourists and
citizens. In order to get beyond current roadblocks, Ms. Perez Kennealy said the Committee
requires staff assistance and design funding so the Town can ask the architect to come up with a
cost-effective plan.
In reply to Ms. McKenna’s request for guidance from the Board, Ms. Barry said she does not
believe the Visitors Center project is ready to be built. At this point, it would be best to direct
energies toward design, value engineering, and communication. Ms. Barry said she would be
comfortable with rejuvenating the Visitors Center project but not moving toward construction
yet. Looking at the numbers left in the account and deciding how much a design phase would
cost are appropriate steps at this time. Ms. Barry is interested to dig into the grant funding
potential Ms. McKenna identified.
Ms. McKenna said the Board’s willingness to allow the project to move ahead with staff support
is a positive development. The Committee still plans to bring an article of some type to Town
Meeting but perhaps the request would be more modest than full construction funding. After
having a chance to meet with staff and do some research into grant opportunities, the Committee
will have a better idea about the gist of Article 18. She believes that some amount will be
required to move ahead even incrementally.
Appropriation Committee and Precinct 8 Town Meeting member Mr. Padaki, speaking for
himself, said it will be helpful for Town Meeting to know how the previous allocation for the
Visitors Center was spent and how much remains in the account. He asked why the Tourism
Committee did not direct the original design project so that it was not over-designed and what
the guarantee is that new funding will not run similarly afoul of the desired goal.
Elaine Ashton, 32 Cliffe Avenue, said she supports the Tourism Committee’s efforts to bring
more visitors to Lexington. She agrees that tourism is a revenue generator, although the numbers
may not fully support the construction of a new facility.
Ms. Ciccolo indicated she would not support bringing a construction article before Town
Meeting and she is not sure she would support the full design costs until more is known through
a value engineering process. However, she does not think the project should be stopped entirely.
She finds it unacceptable that busloads of international visitors come to Lexington and there are
no bathroom facilities. The bike path also brings people to town who should be accommodated
more hospitably.
She asks that staff update the Board with information about what funding remains in the Visitors
Center account and how much it would require to support a 25% design initiative.
Mr. Cohen agreed with Ms. Ciccolo and advised the Tourism Committee to defer efforts to
calculate construction costs. He believes if Article 18 attempts to request full construction
funding, the article will be resoundingly defeated for lack of concrete detail. The amount of work
to be done to ready the request for Town Meeting cannot be done in the next two weeks.
71-68
Selectmen’s Meeting – February 13, 2017
Mr. Kelley encouraged the Board to revisit the presentation by the architect. Mr. Kelley
remembers that Mr. Mills said he felt confident he could deliver the building the Town wanted at
a price it could support. He believes it is possible to go to Town Meeting and request design
money, coupling it with funds remaining in the account and with possible outside funding
sources.
Mr. Pato said he feels more fiscally cautious because there are so many competing priorities. He
wants to research outside funding to supplement taxpayer support. He recommends careful
definition of the program before asking Town Meeting to approve design funding.
Ms. Barry agreed with her colleagues about using the remaining design money to figure out how
to move forward. She agreed with Mr. Cohen’s point that the project is not at a stage where full
construction funding should be requested.
Ms. McKenna thanked the Board for its feedback and said, at minimum, the Tourism Committee
would like staff support to determine how much funding would be needed beyond what remains
in the account and what financing options exist. Ms. McKenna noted that an exhibit designer was
to be included in the original design but was not so that piece of the project has never been
addressed.
Ms. Barry asked Ms. McKenna is she felt comfortable discussing nest steps with the Town
Manager and two Selectmen sometime after the meeting. Tourism Committee members said this
was agreeable as did the Selectmen.
ATM 2017 Warrant Article Update—Article 17—Appropriate for Advice and Analysis—
Getting to Net Zero
Mark Sandeen, Chair of Sustainable Lexington, and Lisa Fitzgibbons from Mothers Out Front,
presented details for Article 17 that requests $40,000 in funding for Phase 2 of a three-year
initiative to achieve zero greenhouse gas emissions from Lexington’s residential, commercial,
and municipal sectors by transitioning to renewable energy sources.
Phase 2 will be supported by a Task Force of major stakeholder convened during Phase 1 that
will develop a final action plan that includes recommendations, a timeline, and key milestones.
Mr. Sandeen said there are four steps to achieve zero emissions: Report/Assess building
performance; Reduce/Make improvements in energy efficiency; Produce/Maximize onsite
renewable energy; Purchase/Buy renewables.
Mr. Pato said he would normally expect this request to be included in the Operating budget but
because the project spans over several fiscal years, the request is made instead in a warrant
article.
Mr. Kelley asked if last year’s $40,000 has been expended. Mr. Sandeen confirmed that it had.
This request should take the initiative through to the final action plan but it was noted that the
71-69
Selectmen’s Meeting – February 13, 2017
original proposal before Town Meeting named $120,000 as the potential full cost. Mr. Sandeen
said he hopes to conclude during FY18.
Ms. Ciccolo said there are opportunities for Sustainable Lexington to partner even more closely
with the Planning Board during the Comprehensive Plan process. Mr. Sandeen said the Task
Force has presented to the Planning Board and has discussed further collaboration.
Ms. Barry indicated the Board of Selectmen will take positions on Article 17 and all other
articles on March 8, following the Town Elections.
ATM 2017 Article Update—Articles 32,39,46 (Citizen Articles)
Ethan Handwerker, presenter of these articles, was not at the meeting so the presentation was
deferred to a later meeting.
Review and Approve Payment-in-Lieu-of-Parking Policy
Melisa Tintocalis, Economic Development Director, presented revisions to the PILOP policy
following review by the Center Committee. The Center Committee’s primary concern was that
the $10,000 per parking space mitigation fee was not adequate, given supply and demand in the
Center.
The PILOP policy has been developed as a tool to be used when a developer or re-developer
cannot otherwise meet onsite parking requirements as mandated by zoning bylaws.
Changes since the December 2016 draft include that the PILOP applies only to new net square
footage; removal of the “change of use” provision; and a parking factor and use table has been
added.
Highlighting three PILOP triggers, Ms. Tintocalis said an increase of new construction equaling
more than 35% of existing square footage; new construction on vacant lots; and demolition and
construction of a new building that exceeds net sq. footage of the previous building would all fall
under the new policy.
The Center Committee believes the $10,000 mitigation fee creates incentive for developers to
pay rather than to provide parking. The Center Committee also believes the threshold the PILOP
application should be triggered at is 10% expansion of existing square footage rather than 35%.
Town staff justified the mitigation fee saying they believe it to be a meaningful amount that is
not so high that it discourages redevelopment.
Mr. Kelley asked if developer must go back to zero if the 35% threshold is broken. Ms.
Tintocalis stated the calculation must indeed start again, as if no parking had been provided for
the original building.
Mr. Kelley said people often find it hard to interpret the difference between gross and net square
footage. He asked if the policy matches the zoning bylaw on this point. Ms. Tintocalis said the
71-70
Selectmen’s Meeting – February 13, 2017
definition of net square footage is in the current zoning bylaw and there are two ways to
calculate it: square footage that cannot be occupied can be subtracted from the gross or 80% of
the gross can be used as an estimate.
Ms. Tintocalis said a key change was made to the calculation methodology. Going forward, 325
net square feet will be used as the basis to calibrate parking requirements.
Ms. Tintocalis asked the Board to vote on the PILOP policy as it now stands.
Mr. Pato said Ms. Tintocalis described well the Center Committee’s concerns about the
mitigation fee. His personal assessment is that it is time to move forward, even though not
everyone will be happy with every part of the policy.
Mr. Kelley said Selectmen approval of the PILOP sends a message to the ZBA but the ZBA does
not have to heed it. Unless the policy becomes a bylaw, there is no guaranteed effect. Mr. Kelley
believes the 35% threshold is too high and he agrees that the mitigation fee is too low. If the
objective is to bring more parking online or to improve use of current space— as has been done
recently with signage and parking meters— the incentive to create/provide additional parking
should be stronger.
Mr. Cohen said the PILOP has been reviewed a number of times at this point and there are
always going to be those who question the numbers or the methodology. He is ready to adopt the
policy, noting that—as a policy—it can be changed in the future.
Ms. Ciccolo said she still has some concerns but, like her colleagues, she would like to move
ahead with the initiative. She asked if a smaller payment—such as $5,000—should be considered
for projects that do not break the 35% threshold.
David Kanter, Precinct 7 Town Meeting member, stated the Town would be allowing an increase
in parking demand but not assuring an increase in supply. Additionally, the dollar amount for
mitigation is insufficient for the Town to create additional spaces. He agrees that the 35%
increase is too high unless there is no increase in demand caused by the change of use but the
change of use factor has been removed from the policy, although he can see that a Special Permit
might be granted based on a change of use that requires less parking. If the current parking
zoning use table is too aggressive, the table should be reduced to something more reasonable and
eliminate the option for developers to “buy out” their parking requirements.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to adopt the Payment in
Lieu of Parking (PILOP) policy as presented.
Harbell Street Acceptance—Vote to Layout
Town Engineer John Livsey reviewed the Harbell Street Acceptance effort initiated by a resident
petition. The latest version of the petition has the signed agreement of 10 of the 15 residents to
whom a betterment assessment would be applied.
71-71
Selectmen’s Meeting – February 13, 2017
This new petition requests a different formula for assessment and is based on 50% of the
frontage and 50% of the usage or, in other words, the distance from Paul Revere Road to a
residence. Additionally, the petition requests the Town to pay 25-40% of total project cost.
Mr. Cohen met with one of the residents and said he was impressed with the formula that has
been devised. However, he thinks it unwise for the Selectmen to agree to the request for shared
costs and he believes the request would not prevail at Town Meeting.
Mr. Pato confirmed with staff that the formula is legal allowable, then echoed Mr. Cohen’s
thoughts about the shared cost concept.
Mr. Kelley said he, too, agrees that the Town should not set a precedent with sharing the cost.
Ms. Ciccolo agreed that the formula is fine but asked if the residents signed the petition thinking
the Town would contribute part of the expenses. She is reluctant to approve the request without
knowing they will go ahead despite the Town’s position on not sharing costs.
Ms. Barry agreed the formula is inventive but also agreed the Town is not in the position to
contribute to acceptance costs.
David Kanter, Precinct 7, said it is crucial that the Selectmen not commit the Town to sharing the
acceptance costs and important to be sure that the abutters are aware, before Town Meeting, that
the Town is not a participant in the project.
John Taylor, 21 Harbell St, said the residents have discussed the possibility the Town would not
contribute and asked how abutters can communicate their willingness to forge ahead.
Ms. Barry asked what the timeline for Town Meeting is to confirm the acceptance request. Mr.
Livsey said a survey of the land/road is in progress which must be completed and on file 30 days
before the voting date.
Mr. Cohen said the Selectmen should approve the layout request but that does not assure Town
Meeting approval. If the neighbors change their minds about fully funding the project
themselves, they can move for indefinite postponement at Town Meeting.
Dan Hesse, the originator of the petition and resident of 25 Harbell, said it is clear to him the
petition will never get more than 10 signatures. He asked if the Board feels the article is worth
going forward to Town Meeting with that level of support.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to layout Harbell Street
with a betterment assessment determined by: 50% of the cost based on the distance from the
beginning of the street to the center of an abutting parcel’s frontage; and 50% of the cost based
on the frontage of each abutting parcel.
71-72
Selectmen’s Meeting – February 13, 2017
Update Options—Woburn Street/Mass Ave Intersection Project
Mike Wasielewski and Ken Ho from the BETA Group presented four design concepts for
roadway configuration and vertical adjustment to control speed at the Woburn
Street/Massachusetts Avenue intersection.
A traffic analysis was conducted, yielding four main design options:
Concept 1: Modify geometry of the intersection, add crosswalks on Massachusetts Avenue, no
signal. BETA suggests a raised intersection and raised crosswalks on all four approaches could
have rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) added although none of the concepts
automatically come with flashers.
Concept 2: Modify geometry, do not add Massachusetts Avenue crosswalks. This is essentially
the same but without crosswalks.
Concept 2A: Modify geometry, do not add crosswalks on Massachusetts Avenue, create two
storage lanes on Woburn Street. This would require a land taking from the Dunkin’ Donuts
property. The availability of the second lane improves queuing on Woburn Street. compared to
the other non-signalized concepts but it does not improve it enough to equal current queue
lengths and wait times.
Concept 3: Similar geometry as existing configuration. The raised intersection is added, the
triangle at the intersection is tightened.
Concept 4: Realigned Woburn Street approach. The approach to Massachusetts Avenue would
be squared up. The Woburn waiting queue would increase with this scenario.
BETA said that differentiated road materials and raised intersections should be used in tandem to
provide drivers with clues to navigate the raised terrain.
Mr. Kelley encouraged the Board to weigh any road changes using safety as the primary
measure. There are simpler ways to improve safety than to resort to mechanical changes and the
Town should experiment with those first. Mr. Kelley recommends lowering the speed limit in the
Center to 20 mph and introducing the concept of sharing the space to change the driving culture
in the center of town. Back-ups at the intersection do not happen with enough frequency to
warrant drastic, expensive reconfigurations to the roadway.
Ms. Ciccolo said none of the concepts capture the ideal solution: when the intersection is
improved for pedestrians and bicycles, those improvements worsen vehicle queuing. She agrees
that the back-up is only for a brief time in the morning and the BETA recommendations may be
examples of over-engineering. If a traffic light is installed, GPS navigation systems will route
even more drivers through the center of town.
Ms. Ciccolo is troubled by the concepts that do not include crosswalks on Massachusetts Avenue
because it does not serve pedestrians, or cyclists well who must cross the wide street. She is
71-73
Selectmen’s Meeting – February 13, 2017
particularly concerned about high schoolers walking to school.However, adding the crosswalks,
according to BETA’s study, increases the Woburn Street vehicle queue. Ms. Ciccolo agrees that
slowing the traffic through town is an important change and she likes the raised intersection idea,
but she wonders if textured road surfaces on the Massachusetts Avenue intersection approaches
would result in wider gaps between cars that create opportunities for pedestrians to cross and for
the Woburn St queue to exit on to the Avenue. She would like this scenario to be modeled.
Of the four concepts, Ms. Ciccolo favors Concept 1 because she believes crosswalks are needed,
if not at this point than further up Massachusetts Avenue. Transit users get off in Lexington and
if the elements of their trip become too arduous, they will abandon use of public transportation.
Mr. Pato said he, too, is looking for the ability to provide safer crossings at the intersection. He
noted that the latest statistics show a substantial increase in the number of bike accidents at the
intersection, a total of 15 crashes in one year.
The reconfiguration of the intersection that creates a more direct approach from Winthrop Road
to Woburn Street would create additional challenges for how to mitigate the traffic moving
through that side of town. Adding a signal could reduce the incentive to cut across the
intersection but absent of light control, Mr. Pato remains concerned it would not represent an
improvement. A raised intersection would slow traffic, as would lowered a speed limit, although
the Town may not have that option since the road is a State numbered route.
Mr. Cohen agreed that lowering the speed limit would be an important mitigation strategy. He
noted there is an article coming before Town Meeting to accept new provisions passed by the
State that would allow the Town to create a Special Zone with a 20 mph limit.
Ms. Barry favored Concept 1 as well but she is not a fan of adding a crosswalk to this
intersection, noting there is already too much commotion there. She likes the idea of a raised
intersection and of revised geometry, rather than a signal.
As for Concept 2A, Ms. Barry likes the idea but she does not favor land taking. Mr. Ho said that
it would require approximately 6 feet, which is the width of a sidewalk. However, the sidewalk
would not be removed; it would be shifted in by 6 feet. Ms. Barry added it is her impression that
people use navigation apps to discover creative ways of getting through town, which impacts
residential side streets, a situation that should not be worsened by changes made to the
intersection.
David Kanter, Precinct 7, raised the following concerns: The squaring off of the Woburn St.
approach to Massachusetts Avenue is an important safety feature for drivers trying to make a left
at the intersection so he is confused by the acquiescence of leaving the current geometry in place;
People will cross streets where they want and not providing a safe route to get across the
intersection courts danger; There is no mention of costs in the presentation; How do the various
proposals affect the potential for cut-through traffic; Are there signage requirements for changes
to roadway height and if a raised intersection is chosen, what sort of signage would have to be
added to the streetscape?
71-74
Selectmen’s Meeting – February 13, 2017
Dawn McKenna, 9 Hancock St, supported the idea of lowering the speed limit to 20 mph. She
also supports the idea of signage to announce entrance into historic Lexington Center.
John Rosenberg, 64 Bloomfield St, said he has followed this issue closely and appreciates the
concepts presented. He is pleased to see flashing crosswalk signals recommended and approves
of reinforcing slower traffic speeds with differentiated road surface textures. Although outside
the immediate target area of the study, he hopes that flashing signals and differentiated texture
will be considered for other crossing areas throughout town.
Ms. Barry said perhaps bus stop locations could be shifted to safer spots. The MBTA is currently
looking at the number of stops on its routes with an eye to eliminating some of them to improve
delivery times. Mr. Livsey said he has met with the MBTA and usage data is being used as
criteria for stop elimination. The Town could suggest that certain stops be targeted.
Ms. Barry followed up on the question of the addition of RRFBs and in which of the concepts
they were recommended. Mr. Wasielewski said decisions on the flashers are separate from the
other elements of the proposed changes. The flashers are compatible with the crossings at the
Police Station, Hunt Road or either/both of the crosswalks at Dunkin’ Donuts and the
Minuteman Bikeway.
Mr. Pato asked if any of the concepts are compatible with the future installation of a traffic signal
at the intersection. Mr. Wasielewski said resetting the curb line would be required for all
concepts.
The Board conveyed their preferences regarding concepts, raised intersection, textured pavement
and RRFB’s as follows:
Concepts: Mr. Pato expressed his preference for Concepts 2A or 4. Mr. Cohen had no
preference. Ms. Ciccolo said she was not sure but perhaps Concept 1 or Concept 4. Ms. Barry is
intrigued by Concept 2A but not comfortable with the land taking requirement. She also likes
Concept 4 with the provision that, if it is chosen, some type of traffic mitigation should be done
for the Winthrop Road neighborhood, such as speed bumps or one-way traffic flow. Mr. Kelly
does not like any of the concepts, preferring his own recommendations to lower the speed limit
and change the driving culture. He would like to look into moving/eliminating the bus stop at the
intersection.
On the issue of raised intersection, Mr. Kelley indicated he was not in favor; all other Selectmen
indicated they are in favor.
On the issue of textured pavement, Mr. Kelley indicated he was not in favor; all other Selectmen
indicated they are in favor.
In regards to RRFBs: Mr. Kelley was not in favor; Ms. Ciccolo said she is unsure and all the
users of the intersection need to be considered. She would like to consider crosswalk design that
features lights in the pavement, which she understands is being used even in snowy climates.
Additionally, constituents have commented that signage at crosswalks can add to the visual
71-75
Selectmen’s Meeting – February 13, 2017
confusion and therefore not improve safety. She believes the bus stop should be moved if a
crosswalk is not provided at the stop location; Ms. Barry was in favor of an RRFB at the bike
path on Woburn Street and possibly at the Police Station; Mr. Cohen was in favor. Mr. Pato was
in favor for an RRFB at the Police Station but he would need to hear more about the other
locations
To Ms. Ciccolo’s comment about in-pavement lighting for crosswalks, Mr. Wasielewski said an
example of this type of crosswalk on the Arlington/Somerville town line did not last more than a
year before it was damaged and rendered useless. Ms. Ciccolo said she would like to research
this in any case to find our whether improper installation was the issue.
Ms. Ciccolo added that slowing cars down in the vicinity of Hunt Road would be best. The
merging area on Mass Ave in front of the Town Offices is another problem area as vehicles
speed up to adjust position. She believes that textured pavement may be a solution but smooth
pavement bike accommodations at the road edge are an important feature to include.
Ms. Ciccolo agreed with Ms. Barry that traffic mitigation should be done for the Winthrop Road
neighborhood if Concept 4 is selected but she would like to see some modeling data to determine
whether Concept 4 would indeed cause additional cut-through traffic.
Mr. Pato agreed with Ms. Barry and Ms. Ciccolo about considering the impact to Winthrop Road
but noted that the raised intersection would be present for any route a driver takes. Ms. Ciccolo
said the effect of the raise platform would ideally discourage vehicles from coming through
town. Mr. Pato said that existing traffic patterns already result in substantial cut-through traffic to
the Winthrop neighborhood.
Mark Connor, 16 Highland Ave, asked if the speed table would influence the Massachusetts
Avenue back-up. He believes it might cause cut-throughs on Bloomfield Street or Percy Road.
Mr. Wasielewski said there should not be a change on Massachusetts Avenue because the speed
is just being lowered but the road is not otherwise obstructed.
Consent Agenda
Water & Sewer Commitments
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve Water &
Sewer Commitments as follows: December cycle 9 for $272,314. 66; November finals for
$181,480.20; December finals for $4001.61
Water & Sewer Adjustments
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve Water &
Sewer Adjustments from WSAB 1/12/17 ($9,374.70).
71-76
Selectmen’s Meeting – February 13, 2017
Sign Eagle Scout Letters—Dimitri Psyhojos
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to sign a letter of
commendation congratulating Dimitri Psyhojos for attaining the highest rank of Eagle in Boy
Scouting.
Approve One Day Liquor License—Lexington Historical Society –Buckman Tavern
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve a one day
liquor license request for the Lexington Historical Society to serve beer at a Tavern Night at
Buckman Tavern, 1 Bedford Street, on Saturday, March 4, 2017 from 7:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m.
Approve One Day Liquor License—Cantata Singers
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve a one day
liquor license request for the Cantata Singers to serve wine at a post-concert reception at Cary
Hall, 1605 Massachusetts Avenue on Sunday, February 26, 2017 from 3:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m.
Executive Session—20 Pelham Road and Scottish Rite Parking Lot Purchase
On motion duly made and by roll call, the Board voted 5-0 to enter Executive Session to consider
the purchase, exchange, lease or value of real property at 33 Marrett Road, owned by the Scottish
Rite, and to reconvene in Open Session only to adjourn. Further, it was declared that an open
meeting might have a detrimental effect on the negotiating position of the Town.
Adjourn
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 4-0 to adjourn at
approximately 10:30 p.m.
A true record; Attest:
Kim Siebert
Recording Secretary
71-77
Joint Meeting
Board of Selectmen and Planning Board
February 13, 2017
A joint meeting of the Board of Selectmen and Planning Board was held on Monday, February
13, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in Estabrook Hall of the Cary Memorial Building, 1605 Massachusetts
Avenue. Board of Selectmen (BOS) Ms. Barry, Chair; Mr. Kelley; Mr. Cohen; Mr. Pato; and
Ms. Ciccolo were present along with Mr. Valente, Town Manager; Ms. Kowalski, Assistant
Town Manager for Development; and Ms. Siebert, Recording Secretary.
Also present were Mr. Henry, Planning Director; and Planning Board (PB) members: Mr.
Canale, Chair; Mr. Dunn; Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti; Mr. Hornig; and Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Barry called the Selectmen’s meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. and introduced the Board
members. Mr. Canale called the Planning Board meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
Procedure for Meeting Minutes
The Selectmen’s Recording Secretary will take the minutes. Draft copies will be shared with the
Planning Board (PB) for review prior to approval by the Board of Selectmen (BOS).
Discussion—Brookhaven Expansion Project: Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) and Affordable
Housing Mitigation Payment
Mr. Cohen stated that he will recuse himself from the discussion because he has recently been a
Trustee of Brookhaven.
The Town Manager provided background and updates to negotiations with Brookhaven. Last
year, Brookhaven proposed an addition to their facility that would add independent units and
assisted care units, and reduce the number of nursing beds. In response to that proposal, the
Selectmen asked a team, on behalf of the Town, to negotiate a revised Payment in Lieu of Taxes
(PILOT). The team consisted of members from the Board of Selectmen (Ms. Barry and Ms.
Ciccolo), the Planning Board (Mr. Hornig and Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti), and staff (Planning
Director Mr. Henry, Assistant Town Manager for Development Ms. Kowalski and Town
Manager Mr. Valente). Representing Brookhaven on their negotiating team was the CEO, Jim
Freehling, Attorney Bill Dailey, and Chairman of the Brookhaven Board Jeanne Kreiger.
Discussions centered around two main concepts:
By adding 49 independent living units, Brookhaven would adversely affect the Town’s
affordable housing ratio if it did not set aside 10% of the new units as affordable. The
Town therefore requested that Brookhaven provide 5 ½ affordable units on site. For a
variety of reasons, including their business model, Brookhaven’s team declined the onsite
option. Instead, a cash payment was negotiated.
71-78
Joint Meeting – February 13, 2017
The second question the Town discussed was that, given the expansion, how much
should the current PILOT payment increase? Eleven years ago, when the facility
expanded, Brookhaven increased the PILOT based on the number of additional units. In
this round of expansion, the Town is also looking for an increase. The teams discussed
the methodology by which a new PILOT amount would be calculated.
The proposal now before the Selectmen and Planning Board is the result of the negotiations
between the two bargaining teams that concluded only minutes before this meeting began.
Mr. Valente displayed a document showing the Town’s calculations of cost to mitigate the 5 ½
affordable units: $1,536,369. This number was reached by taking the cost of land ($249,738 per
unit), adding construction costs ($214,602) and subtracting the allowance for affordability
($185,000 per unit), arriving at a unit price of $279,340. The unit price was then multiplied by 5
½ to reach a total of $1,536,369.
Brookhaven said paying that amount upfront would be challenging and asked to be allowed to
pay over time. The Town agreed but added interest over the 15 years of term. These interest
payments bring the full cost of mitigation to $1,900,474. Brookhaven’s negotiating team agreed
to the methodology and indicated it is willing to recommend the proposal to their Board of
Trustees.
Mr. Canale (PB) asked why 5 ½ affordable units were used in the calculation rather than another
number previously discussed. Mr. Valente said 5 ½ is based on 49 independent living units. It
does not take expansion of assisted living into consideration because it is unclear that the Census
will count assisted living in the Town’s total housing inventory. If reason arises to change this
supposition, the mitigation agreement will be reopened.
Mr. Kelley (BOS) said the rules and circumstances surrounding affordable housing have changed
over his time as a developer. He asked if the percentage of affordable units is calculated on the
net number of added units rather than on the number of allowable by-right units that could be
constructed.
Mr. Hornig (PB) said the Planning Board’s practice regarding affordable unit calculation has
always been based on the number of units being constructed, not on the number that could be
constructed under another development model.
Mr. Valente addressed the PILOT payment question. The Board of Assessors must reaffirm
yearly that Brookhaven is not subject to property taxes. However, Brookhaven has always paid a
PILOT as specified by the conditions of its Special Permit, although there is no guidance in the
Special Permit for how the PILOT should be calculated. Currently, the payment is close to
$500,000. The Town then looked back at the application Brookhaven submitted—the PSDUP
(Proposed Site Development and Use Plan) and found the developable site area will go from 23.4
acres to 28.16 acres, about a 20% increase. The building coverage is also going up a little over
20%. The average of the two factors is 20.5%; this became the basis for calculating the PILOT
increase.
71-79
Joint Meeting – February 13, 2017
Brookhaven said an increase of this magnitude was not reasonable, based on its financial model.
Instead, the Town proposed phasing in the 20.5% increase over time with incremental increases
at three points over the 15-year period. In year one, the PILOT would increase 6.85% and stay
the same until year five when it would again increase by another 6.85%. In year ten, the final
6.85% would be levied and the PILOT would remain the same until year sixteen when the
affordable housing payment is paid off. At that time the yearly PILOT increase will return to
3%, as is now the arrangement. The basis for the 3% increase is meant to closely mirror 2 ½%
increases in annual residential property taxes.
Mr. Kelley asked if the PILOT was considered in relation to the number of units on the property.
Mr. Valente said the calculation was based on land area and structure size rather than the number
of units.
Mr. Pato asked if Brookhaven’s current financial model is unsustainable. Mr. Valente said that
Brookhaven’s response was, with to the higher calculations, it would not be able to afford the
$1.9M in mitigation.
Mr. Canale (PB) suggested that the 3% PILOT payments could be set aside to create affordable
housing just as easily as the 1-year, 5-year, and 10-year incremental payments could be.
Mr. Hornig (PB) said the agreement was structured to create a dedicated income stream over 15
years, stable enough to fund borrowing for affordable housing.
Ms. Krieger, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Brookhaven, said the expansion was
important primarily because it would allow changes to me made to the current facility that would
keep Brookhaven current with health care practices. The Board of Trustees can accept the
proposal as presented but she noted that it represents “a zero sum”.
Mr. Freehling, CEO of Brookhaven, commented the expansion concept has been delayed for
about a year from going to Town Meeting. There are currently 280 people on the waiting list, a
number that will grow if additional units were built. The demand for senior housing is great and
Brookhaven is one way Lexingtonians can stay in Lexington.
David Kanter, Precinct 7 Town Meeting member, expressed concern about the ability of the
Town to produce affordable housing. With regard to the PILOT, Mr. Kanter stated he is
unhappy with the loss of revenue that temporary discontinuation of the PILOT represents and
uncomfortable that the total revenue under the terms of the agreement is less than it would be if
the 3% PILOT were continued. Finally, Mr. Kanter said the Town should not acquiesce to the
limitations of Brookhaven’s financial model.
David Wells, 33 Forest Street and member of the Brookhaven Board of Trustees, asked if the
only source of money for affordable housing comes from developers. Mr. Valente said 10% of
the Community Preservation Act surcharge is the only other source. Mr. Wells noted that 34% of
the Brookhaven budget is used for health care but the Town contributes nothing towards the
health care of affordable housing residents. He said negotiations had been very difficult for him
71-80
Joint Meeting – February 13, 2017
as a board member and noted that the Trustees are not developers and that the process kept
changing.
Ms. Barry asked if the two Boards could support the agreement in concept based on what was
presented tonight.
Planning Board: Mr. Hornig and Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti voted yes; Mr. Canale voted “not yet”;
Mr. Dunn supported the affordable housing component but is not ready to support the PILOT;
Ms. Johnson was between “not yet” and “yes with conditions” saying this agreement should not
be seen as a precedent for future MOAs.
Board of Selectmen: Ms. Ciccolo and Ms. Barry voted yes; Mr. Pato said he agreed with the
affordable housing agreement but not with the PILOT model; Mr. Kelley voted no.
Adjourn
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 4-0 to recess at
approximately 7:00 p.m. and reconvene in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room at 7:10 p.m.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Planning Board voted 5-0 to adjourn at 7:00 p.m.
A true record; Attest:
Kim Siebert
Recording Secretary
71-81
Selectmen’s Meeting
February 27, 2017
A meeting of the Lexington Board of Selectmen was called to order at 6:34 on Monday,
February 27, 2017 in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room of the Town Office Building. Chairman
Barry, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Pato and Ms. Ciccolo were present as well as Mr. Valente,
Town Manager and Ms. Siebert, Recording Secretary.
Also present were Ms. Kowalski, Assistant Town Manager for Development; Mike DiMinico,
Cambridge-based King Street Properties; and Tom Ragno, Cambridge-based King Street
Properties; Jennifer McClain, Mothers Out Front and Amy Smith, National Grid; Mark Sandeen,
Sustainable Lexington;, John Shortsleeve, Baystate Energy; and Paul Gromer, CEO Peregrine
Group; Melissa Battite, Director of Recreation and Community Programs; Mr. Goddard, Director
of Facilities; Fire Chief John Wilson, and Jeff McElravey, Tecton Architects
Public Comments
Elaine Ashton, 32 Cliffe Ave, President of the East Lexington Community Association, thanked
the Town Manager, staff, Board of Selectmen, and Community Center for supporting the
th
Candidates Coffee on February 25. Ms. Ashton praised the new Community Center as a
wonderful facility and Town resource.
Derek White, 4 Baskin Rd, spoke for a group of residents in attendance from Baskin Rd.
regarding concerns with Verizon cell towers being erected near their homes. Mr. White feels
that Baskin Rd residents will be exposed at a level of radiation between 46% and 170% of
maximum, not 1% as Verizon has stated. The neighborhood group asked the Town to have a
more accurate safety analysis done or to have the antennae installed somewhere closer to traffic,
away from homes.
Review and Approve Amended Memorandum of Understanding for 45, 55, 65 Hayden Ave
Mr. DiMinico and Mr. Ragno from Cambridge-based King Street Properties provided the context
for the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and an update on King Street’s activities in
Lexington.
Mr. Ragno said in November, King Street purchased the 400,000 sq. ft., three-building former
Cubist campus on Hayden Avenue. King Street plans to lease to several companies instead of to
a single renter. To attract tenants, a more vibrant corporate environment will be created. Mr.
Ragno said King Street must internally modify existing buildings and add parking. The company
met with Town staff to hear Lexington’s concerns about parking and traffic; it has been able to
address these concerns, navigate the ZBA process, and work toward agreement with
Conservation.
As an outcome of the meetings, King Street will make a payment to the Town of $283,000 in
exchange for the ability to create extra parking spaces and it will develop a parking and
transportation demand management plan. Mr. Ragno said King Street is committed to reducing
single-occupancy vehicles use among its employees. The company will also increase its yearly
71-82
Selectmen’s Meeting – February 27, 2017
contribution to the Lexington Nature Trust to $10,000 to demonstrate support for the Town’s
conservation lands and natural resources.
Ms. Ciccolo asked if the Planning Board, Greenways Corridor Commission, and Transportation
Advisory Committee have received updates on the modifications to the original MOU. Ms.
Kowalski said the Conservation Administrator and the Planning Director were involved in the
revisions but the Greenways Corridor was not.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve and sign the
Memorandum of Understanding between CRP/King Hayden Owner, LLC and the Town of
Lexington, Massachusetts for 45, 55, 65 Hayden Avenue, Lexington February 17, 2017.
Approve and Sign Proclamation and Support Letters—Human Rights Committee
Human Rights Committee (HRC) Chair Mr. Osborne presented a proclamation of human rights
drafted by the HRC. The goal of the proclamation is to maintain a cohesive sense of community,
regardless of where individuals stand politically.
Ms. Barry read the proclamation in its entirety into the record.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve and sign a
Proclamation declaring the Town of Lexington’s commitment to inclusivity.
Dan Fenn, 59 Potter Pond Rd and member of Lexington First Parish Church, said he was
deputized by the congregation to speak in regards to the support letters. First Parish believes it is
critical in the current political climate to reach out to any who have suffered prejudice and
hatred.
Ms. Barry read into the record the letters to the Islamic Center and the Lexington family.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve and sign two
letters of support condemning acts and words of hate and bigotry.
ATM 2017 Warrant Article Update—Article 30-Adjust Retirement COLA Base for Retirees
Ms. Barry recused herself due to a conflict of interest. Ms. Ciccolo assumed the role of Chair.
Mr. Cunha, Chairman of the Retirement Board, presented information about Article 30,
scheduled to come before Town Meeting. The subject of the article is an increase to the cost of
living base from $13,000 to $14,000. Since 1997, the COLA base has been raised just once. Out
of 104 nearby communities, 77 have approved COLA base increases; 24 have increased to
$14,000 and 29 have increased to $15,000. Mr. Cunha stated there are currently 428 retirees and
beneficiaries in Lexington’s retirement system. Most retirees receive less than $20,000 in annual
benefits. Mr. Cunha presented a graph that showed the median annual benefit as $19,800 and the
average annual benefit as $24,233. Most retirees do not receive Social Security benefits because
they worked only in the public sector. Raising the COLA base to $14,000 effective July 1, 2017
71-83
Selectmen’s Meeting – February 27, 2017
increases annual benefit payments by $9,400. Mr. Cunha said the Retirement System will be
fully funded in 2024; it is currently 85.6% funded, the highest percentage of any municipality in
the Commonwealth.
Mr. Pato asked if the Appropriation Committee has analyzed the effects of the COLA increase
on the Operating Budget. He also asked what the rationale is for raising the COLA base only
once in 20 years (in 2015) and then raising it again only two years later.
Mr. Cunha said the Retirement Board takes a conservative approach and waited to see the effects
of the raise before advocating for another one. He is not sure why there were no raises in the 20
years before 2015 but perhaps it was due to efforts to fully fund Other Post-Employment
Benefits (OPEB).
Mr. Pato noted there would be a $1.8M impact to the Operating Budget in FY2024 from the
COLA increase. Before voting on the article, he would like to better understand the effects of
and motivations behind the raise.
Ms. Ciccolo asked Mr. Valente if the matter could be referred to the Appropriation Committee
before taking further action. Mr. Valente said there is time to do this before a vote is needed.
Mr. Cohen said he had no objection to referring the matter to Appropriation but since this is his
last meeting as a Selectmen, he wanted to express admiration for the work of the Retirement
Committee.
Ms. Barry resumed the chair.
Town Manager Report
Mr. Valente said the Selectmen’s recommended FY18 budget and financial plan have been
released. The documents can now be found on the Town website under the “Budget” page. Town
Meeting members and the financial committees have been notified. The printed version of the
so-called “Brown Book” will be ready in about a week. Mr. Valente offered congratulations to
Budget Officer Jennifer Hewitt and Assistant Town Manager for Finance, Carolyn Kosnoff for
completing their first Brown Book within six months of assuming their positions.
Mr. Valente noted Narcan is now available in all Police cruisers as well as on all ambulances and
Police have been trained to administer the opioid overdose antidote.
Mr. Valente announced the appointment of Kelly Axtell to fill the position of Assistant Town
Manager with a start date of March 6, 2017. Ms. Axtell will be responsible for managing all the
internal operations of Town government and coordinating delivery of the Town’s programs and
services. She will also serve as the Americans with Disability Act Coordinator and the Records
Access Officer.
Selectman Concerns
71-84
Selectmen’s Meeting – February 27, 2017
Ms. Barry reminded the community that the Town Election will take place next Monday, March
6. Polls are open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.
On behalf of the Board of Selectmen, Ms. Barry thanked out-going Assistant Town Manager
Linda Vine for 32 years of stalwart, capable, and patient service to the Town in a variety of
capacities.
Ms. Barry noted that this is the last official meeting for retiring Selectman Norman Cohen, who
served in that role for 12 years. Prior to that, Mr. Cohen worked 29 years as Town Counsel and
he is now a candidate for Town Meeting. Members of the Board and Mr. Valente spoke in tribute
of Mr. Cohen and his many contributions, saying it has been a privilege and honor to serve with
him. Mr. Cohen, in turn, praised Town staff and volunteers, saying that local government is
important and admirably non-partisan.
Ms. Barry invited residents to attend a reception for Mr. Cohen to be held in the Cary Memorial
Library living room Thursday, March 2 from 4:30 p.m. until 5:30 p.m., co-sponsored by the
Selectmen and the library Trustees.
Ms. Barry amended the order of the agenda to Approve and sign the proclamation for Aurio J.
Pierro
th
Approve and Sign Proclamation—Aurio J. Pierro—100 Birthday
Ms. Barry read the Proclamation in its entirety into the record.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve and sign the
th
Proclamation in honor of the 100 birthday of life-long Lexington resident Aurio J. Pierro.
Ms. Barry returned to the order of the agenda.
BEGIN JOINT MEETING WITH SCHOOL COMMITTEE (Items 5-7), APPROPRIATION
COMMITTEE AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE
Update: Proposed Capital Project for Special Town Meeting, Article 4: 20 Pelham Road Property
Ms. Ciccolo recused herself from the Pelham Road discussion item due to a conflict of interest.
Mr. Alessandrini called the School Committee to order at 7:40 and introduced members Eileen
Jay, Jesse Steigerwald and Judy Crocker and Superintendent of Schools Dr.Mary Czajkowski.
Mr. Goddard, Director of Facilities and Donna DiNisco, DiNisco Architects, presented details to
repurpose 20 Pelham Road. Mr. Goddard said he and Ms. DiNisco met twice with the
Community Center staff to discuss space use for the portion of the building that will not be used
by the Lexington Children’s Place (LCP) integrated pre-school program. The Community Center
can be connected to 20 Pelham by walkways and a shared expanded parking lot currently owned
by the Scottish Rite.
71-85
Selectmen’s Meeting – February 27, 2017
Ms. DiNisco said LCP will fit well into the existing facility. The Community Center portion of
the building could also use the gym and cafeteria with some improvements to the kitchen. Most
of the partitions will remain in place, although bathroom enhancements and alterations to some
of the administration spaces may be warranted.
Foreseen changes to the building include:
Complete abatement
New roof
New windows
Updated mechanical systems
Fire protection
Plumbing
ADA accessibility
Expansion of lockers and showers for Community Center use
Project cost projections are: $18.3M for the LCP portion, $6.1M for the Community Center
portion for a total renovation project cost equals $24.4M.
Ms. DiNisco said that a 2013 cost evaluation for Community Center expansion, independent of
the Pelham property, yielded a $8M to $9M estimate for facilities similar to those Pelham
provides. She noted that the renovation estimate of $6.1M falls below that estimate. Following
funding approval at Annual Town Meeting, community space renovations could begin in late
spring of 2017; design development for LCP would take another 6 months with construction
starting as early as summer of ’18 for an opening in the fall of ’19.
Ms. Jay (SC) asked if considerations had been made to lower LCP renovation costs, as requested
by the School Committee. Ms. DiNisco said there have not been any further evaluations for cost
containments but now that the program has been determined for the Community Center, costs
can be re-examined holistically. Ms. Jay asked Ms. DiNisco if the whole-building costs—such as
abatement and roofing—were apportioned separately to the two building uses. Ms. DiNisco said
whole building costs are under LCP and not divvied up. Ms. Jay asked if costs will be
apportioned as the project moves forward. Mr. Goddard said if a break out needs to be done, it
can be.
Ms. Steigerwald (SC) said it is important for the public to be able to transparently evaluate the
costs per use. She asked the Selectmen if it would be better to pay for the Community portion of
the project through private funding, as the recent Cary Library initiative was, instead of through
the Capital Budget or a debt exclusion.
Ms. Steigerwald (SC) asked if an itemization would be done and asked if the current estimate is
based on square footage. Mr. Goddard said the broad estimate number was calculated by a
professional estimator and is based on sq. footage. Ms. Steigerwald asked if costs could be
broken down simply into needs versus wants. Mr. Goddard replied that a cost/benefit analysis for
71-86
Selectmen’s Meeting – February 27, 2017
components of the project will be provided.
Ms. Crocker (SC) asked whether Pelham is eligible for MSBA reimbursement for roofing and
windows. Mr. Goddard replied it is not eligible.
Mr. Alessandrini (SC) asked the age of the boiler and the type of fuel it uses. Mr. Goddard said
the boiler was installed in 1961 and uses natural gas. Mr. Goddard noted the plans currently
under consideration anticipate upgrades to the heating and mechanical systems. Mr. Alessandrini
asked if any of the upgrades would have a green component. Mr. Goddard said he will look at
various options for heating and cooling systems and let the policymakers decide which
alternative to use.
Mr. Pato asked if the estimates originally made for LCP were for whole-building systems. Mr.
Goddard said the heating estimate was but air conditioning was not.
Mr. Kelley asked what the cafeteria and gymnasium capacities are. Ms. DiNisco replied that the
gym holds 320 if used as a dining space and 440 as an auditorium space. Cafeteria seating adds
another 192.
Mr. Cohen said he prefers the option of improving the space in phases but even if that cannot be
done he remains a strong supporter of purchasing the property.
Ms. Barry said she is committed to the shared-use concept but $24.4M is too large a price tag.
Ms. Crocker (SC) asked if the skylights on the LCP side would be kept or eliminated. They
provide natural light and improve the space. Ms. DiNisco agreed and said they will be evaluated
when the new roof is addressed and kept if possible.
David Kanter, Precinct 7 Town Meeting and Capital Expenditures Committee member, said he
fully supports the shared-use concept but the cost needs to be put into the context of the Capital
Plan and other major projects on the horizon.
Mr. Kanter asked if there is a need for an emergency exit from the Pelham property and if the
one-way, single entrance/exit traffic flow design takes that into account. Mr. Goddard said the
intent of the one-way concept is not to add any more traffic to the Marrett Road intersection with
Massachusetts Avenue. From a cut-through perspective, the public safety staff recommended
one-way flow. If there is an emergency, Town personnel would direct traffic as appropriate.
Ms. Barry asked if it was premature for the Board to request updated projections for the Capital
financing plan. Mr. Valente said staff is working on that now and it should be ready for the
TMMA information session on March 16.
Jill Hai, Precinct 4 and Chair of Capital Expenditures, asked for a breakdown of what systems
would be done if only LCP used the building. She also asked what the differential would be if
the Town wanted to preserve the possibility of bringing the community portion online later.
71-87
Selectmen’s Meeting – February 27, 2017
Helen Yang, Appropriation Committee, asked what it would cost to build a new LCP building
since the cost of acquiring Pelham plus the renovations make the project very expensive. Also,
what is the lifespan of the renovated building be compared to that of a new building?
Ms. DiNisco said the cost estimates were calculated for a 50-year lifespan. The costs of a new
LCP building would be $20M including some site work. Ms. Yang noted that $18M and $20M
are not far apart and that the cost of new construction compares favorably with the cost of
renovation.
Galina Raynus, 15 Pelham Rd, said that Pelham Rd is narrow and already experiences a lot of
traffic from Youville Place. If the plan was only to have LCP at 20 Pelham, there would be less
additional traffic but adding community programs will cause an unacceptable volume of traffic
for the neighborhood. She hopes traffic can be rerouted.
Mr. Kanter, asked if there is a timeline difference between new construction and renovation. Mr.
Goddard said this has not been evaluated at the Pelham site, although it has been at Old
Harrington. If Harrington was used, the occupancy date would be fall 2019. The reservation
about doing new construction at Harrington is that the site is already overcrowded.
Ms. Hai said if the Town is to allocate the cost of the roof and systems between the two uses—
School and Municipal—and come up with prices that reflect that allocation, the project could
foreseeably come before Town Meeting as two separate articles, one of which might not pass. If
that came to pass, the cost of systems upgrades would be borne by the part of the project that did
pass, changing that cost. Future estimates should be calculated with this in mind.
Mr. Cohen recommended the project should not be broken into two separate articles.
Mr. Valente said Special Town Meeting Article 4 is specific to LCP appropriation of funds for
design engineering and architectural services. Expanding the project to include the Community
component cannot be done under STM Article 4, however he believes it can be accomplished
under Annual Town Meeting Article 16, a generic Capital article for design purposes.
Review Draft Policy—Integrated Building Design Guidelines
Ms. Ciccolo returned to the Selectmen’s table.
Mr. Goddard said the Facilities Department has developed integrated design process guidelines
that were reviewed by members of the Permanent Building Committee, Sustainable Lexington,
the Energy Conservation Committee, the financial committees, the Hastings School Principal,
and representatives of the School Committee and the Selectmen. The goal of the policy is to
achieve high performance building standards in the categories of health and indoor environment
quality, cognitive performance, energy demand and emissions, onsite renewables, resilience, and
building operations and management.
Mr. Goddard said Lexington is currently in the MSBA process for the Hastings School and must
set the budget in the schematic design phase. To this end, the DiNisco team asked the Town to
71-88
Selectmen’s Meeting – February 27, 2017
accelerate the design timeline in order to meet the March 1 deadline. The purpose of the
presentation tonight is to obtain direction and approval from the Selectmen for which approach
to take on the Hastings School design, adopting a resilience standard; a heating/cooling
technology; and a CO2 air quality guideline.
Mr. Goddard has told the MSBA that Lexington will design to a LEED Silver building standard,
which requires making choices between various methods of achieving the necessary 50 points or
more. In addition to LEED credits, there are attributes that will not be counted toward
certification that are nonetheless potentially desirable to include in new building design.
The baseline cost for construction is $450/sq. ft. The stakeholders committees provided input as
to which attributes were of greater interest and which did not warrant investment. Some of the
attributes were rejected based on the length of time it would require for the investment to be
recouped. There are trade-offs in how much different technologies—geothermal or VRF—
would cost, either upfront or over time. Mr. Goddard said if the option is chosen to go with an
all-electric design, the geothermal method appears to have favorable life cycle rates of return,
even though costs would be higher upfront than for a Variable Refrigerant Flow system (VRF).
Regarding indoor air quality, the stakeholders were largely in agreement to adopt the goal of
600parts per million of CO2, which matches Mass Department of Health and Harvard School of
Public Health recommendations for school environments. Estabrook School currently measures
between 800 and 900 ppm and Hastings would measure similarly if nothing is done to
intentionally lower CO2 levels. Introducing fresh outdoor air might lower the count to 720 ppm
without significant cost. To introduce enough fresh air to lower CO2 to 600 ppm would require
an additional investment of $500,000 to upsize the systems, Mr. Goddard said, and it would also
represent an $800,000 increase in annual operating costs.
Bringing in cold, dry winter air and then heating it also results in drier indoor conditions.
Increasing the influx of outdoor air by 30% is uncharted territory, Mr. Goddard said. The effects
of increased outdoor air may or may not increase instances of sick building syndrome.
Most stakeholder groups were uncomfortable weighing in on questions of health. Similarly, the
groups did not comment on the resilience category. However, Mr. Goddard reported that the Fire
Chief has said Hastings need not be designed as an emergency facility.
Stakeholders did agree to design the building as all-electric using either geothermal or VRF and
to choose a ventilation/air quality strategy that did not increase building costs. It remains for the
Selectmen to provide definitive direction on these questions.
Ms. Barry noted the updated Policy draft is not in the material before the Board tonight. She
asked whether the Selectmen are being asked to approve the update or if taking a vote on the
three Hastings-related questions will suffice. Mr. Valente said the Hastings questions are time-
sensitive but decisions made about Hastings can also be extended to the policy as a whole for
future construction projects if warranted.
71-89
Selectmen’s Meeting – February 27, 2017
Mr. Goddard said that MSBA reimbursement grants subtract funding from other reimbursement
sources such as from the Utilities so, as a result, the cost to the Town would not be lower.
Nonetheless, Mr. Goddard will take advantage of all available funding sources, even though the
net effect is unchanged.
As for solar onsite generation, Mr. Goddard said it would be evaluated in the schematic design
phase how much energy can be produced. There are areas in which solar panels can be installed
other than the traditional roof-mounted approach, although roof-mounted solar capacity would be
maximized. Mr. Goddard said fuel pricing for Hastings was calculated based on the Town’s
current energy contract.
Mr. Pato said he is inclined to vote for an all-electric building, rather than natural gas, to avoid
having fossil fuels onsite. However, he does not know enough about the site to know whether
geothermal wells would be possible and he would like to have a more holistic analysis before
making a choice. Mr. Goddard said a government study has determined that VRF is a
mechanically intense system more appropriate for renovation of older buildings than for new
construction. Very few communities are opting for VRF in new buildings of large dimension.
Mr. Pato asked Mr. Goddard to confirm that the Hastings School would not be needed as
emergency shelter during the foreseen high school renovation. Mr. Goddard indicated Hastings
will not be required in that capacity.
Ms. Ciccolo asked if the general consensus of the stakeholders was to go with geothermal to
achieve all-electric. Mr. Goddard clarified that he supported geothermal but none of the other
stakeholders weighed in specifically on geothermal because they didn’t have the information
before them when their choices were made. They did, however, reach consensus about an all-
electricity powered building.
Mr. Alessandrini (SC) said that the Town’s thinking long term on the design that is chosen for
Hastings should focus on the long term. He noted that energy technology— electric,
geothermal—has advanced over time.
Ms. Steigerwald (SC) said one of her concerns is that it is easier to make a decision for Hastings
on the three aspects of integrated building design rather than necessarily apply these decisions to
the entire integrated building policy. Ms. Steigerwald asked what would happen if geothermal is
chosen but found not to be viable on the chosen building site. Mr. Goddard said the design team
is confident wells can be drilled on the site but exactly where they will go can be decided during
the next phase. Ms. Steigerwald asked if any of the recommendations fall outside what MSBA
will reimburse. Mr. Goddard said MSBA caps what it will pay per square foot which is less than
the currently prevailing construction cost of $450 per square foot.
Ms. Crocker (SC) stated she prefers the all-electric, geothermal option and expressed concern
about air quality.
Dr. Czajkowski asked if there is a current Town policy for building design. Mr. Goddard said the
Town designs to LEED Silver.
71-90
Selectmen’s Meeting – February 27, 2017
Ms. Jay (SC) said she is also in favor of the all-electric, geothermal option for reasons of
sustainability, health, and cost.
Sanjay Padaki, Appropriation Committee, said that even without comprehensive data, it is
known that lower CO2 is better for cognitive levels. He recommended using indoor plants as a
mitigation strategy.
Ricki Pappo, Precinct 2 Town Meeting member and representing Lexington GWAC, said the
Town has adopted Net Zero and the integrated building policy should acknowledge that. She
supports the all-electric option for Hastings and added that the ventilation question is something
to watch as research provides more information. She said having more resiliency in Town
buildings is a better option because future climate conditions are uncertain.
Fran Ludwig, Precinct 7 and GWAC member, said she – as a 40-year Science teacher in
Lexington — is heartened to hear the Town is discussing building sustainability.
Mark Sandeen, Chair of Sustainable Lexington, clarified that studies show increased air flow
lowers, not raises, the instance of sick building syndrome, not raises it. When fresh air is
introduced, CO2 is lowered as well as other toxins. He added that increasing the air flow
capacity by 30% does not mean that level of introduction needs to be used all the time.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 not to adopt the 5-day
resilience design,
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to adopt the all-electric
design with geothermal.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 4-1 to adopt the 720-810ppm
CO2 design goal. Mr. Pato’s dissenting vote was based on his preference for the lower 650-
730ppm level.
Discussion: Fall Special Town Meeting and Consideration of Debt Exclusion Question(s)
Mr. Valente provided revised May 2016 debt exclusion totals plus projections for Fall 2017,
saying the bottom line has increased from $93,950,000 to $103,936,000. Mr. Valente asked the
Boards in attendance whether they would like Town staff to update the debt financing model to
reflect the changes that include Hastings, LCP, the Fire Station and related land purchase
projects.
Ms. Barry polled the Selectmen who were unanimous in approving the model update. Mr. Pato,
however, expressed concern about the Community Center portion of the Pelham project.
The School Committee members unanimously approved the revisions as well.
71-91
Selectmen’s Meeting – February 27, 2017
Mr. Valente said in order to meet the timing necessary for the Hastings School, the Special Town
Meeting must take place in October, after which a town-wide debt exclusion vote will take place
4-6 weeks later.
Ms. Steigerwald (SC) asked if a whole building cost break down for the 20 Pelham Road Facility
could be made available if the shared use concept moves forward. Mr. Valente said it could be
estimated on a sq. foot basis.
Mr. Kanter, Capital Expenditures, reiterated that it is important to decide whether the LCP
project should be bundled with the Community Center portion costs.
Dawn McKenna, Tourism Committee, said the Visitor Center also needs to be included in the
th
debt exclusion conversation if a new building is to be available for the 400 celebration of
Plymouth in 2020.
Mr. Valente said, in order to be ready, Town leadership needs to start working in earnest toward
the STM and debt exclusion vote dates.
Mr. Valente said even though the debt exclusion total has grown, so has the Capital Stabilization
Fund. Following an ATM vote, there is expected to be $28M in the fund, rather than the current
balance of $21M. Utilizing Capital Stabilization funds, the effect of the two middle school
projects and the elementary school modular classrooms on the average FY18 residential tax bill
is expected to be modest, about $65 -$75.
The joint meeting disbanded, with the School Committee leaving to reconvene at 9:45 p.m. in
Estabrook Hall.
The Board of Selectmen took a brief recess and Ms. Barry called the Board of Selectmen
meeting back to order at 9:55 p.m.
Update: Proposed Capital Project for Special Town Meeting, Article 3: 173 Bedford Street, Fire
Station Swing Space
Mr. Goddard, Fire Chief John Wilson, and Tecton Architects’ partner Jeff McElravy presented
the preliminary concept plans and estimated budget for fire station swing space at 173 Bedford
St. Tecton Architects was chosen by the Permanent Building Committee to work in collaboration
with Pacheco Ross Architects, experts in the field of fire station and public safety design. The
design presented this evening was reviewed by the Permanent Building Committee.
173 Bedford St. is about 16,400 sq. ft. but it does not have space to house fire apparatus. Mr.
McElravy recommended that the Town rent or purchase temporary, lightweight metal frame
shelter for the 12 to 18 month interim while the current fire station is undergoing renovation. The
temporary structure will be sited at an angle to the building at 173 Bedford St. to accommodate
vehicular flow. It will include 4 bays plus auxiliary equipment storage. A temporary walkway
will be constructed between the building and the temporary vehicle shelter.
71-92
Selectmen’s Meeting – February 27, 2017
The building at 173 Bedford St. has 2 floors plus a partial basement. The main floor will house
operations including offices, training rooms, kitchen, dining room and dormitory space. Showers
will be added to the bathroom facilities but costs will be kept to a minimum. The partial
basement will be used primarily as a fitness area. The HVAC system will be slightly expanded
but left largely as it is. The dormitory area must be sprinkler equipped as required by code. The
second floor will not be used.
Mr. McElravy said the estimated cost of the swing space is $2,092,121 which includes $958,525
for the temporary apparatus bays, interior renovations, and site work; traffic equipment
construction for $171,457; and project development and equipment costs of $344,957.
Timeline estimates following design funding approval at ATM 2017 will produce a design
development documents by STM 2017 and firmer construction cost estimates by ATM 2018.
Renovation/construction cost development for the permanent fire station can occur
simultaneously.
Mr. Kanter, Capital Expenditures, asked if the connecting walkway was elevated or ground level.
Mr. McElravy said it was ground level.
Ms. Barry indicated there will be $50,000 in final design funding requested at Special Town
Meeting, Article 3.
Letter of Support—Super-emitter Gas Leaks Pilot Program
Ms. McClain, Mothers Out Front and Ms. Smith, National Grid asked the Board of Selectmen to
support the town’s participation in a gas leak pilot study. The study would collaborate with
National Grid to understand the volume of gas emitted. Ms. McClain said the study is consistent
with the letter Selectmen sent to the Governor and State Legislators seeking support for
addressing gas leaks in a more thorough and productive manner. The Home Energy Efficiency
Team (HEET) is also a partner in the study process.
David Kanter, Capital Expenditures, applauded the effort but asked why the study focused only
on super-emitters. Ms. Smith said National Grid has proposed a plan to eliminate all leaks over
the next ten years. Mr. Kanter stated he feels this study will help prioritize the work.
Dawn McKenna, Chair, Tourism Committee, hoped disruptive roadwork will be conducted after
the tourist season has ended.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted 5-0 to approve and sign a letter of support
to National Grid to participate in a pilot study with National Grid and the Home Energy
Efficiency Team (HEET) to identify high volume gas leaks in Lexington.
Community Choice (Electricity) Aggregation
Mark Sandeen, Sustainable Lexington, John Shortsleeve, Baystate Energy, and Paul Gromer,
CEO Peregrine Group, asked the Board of Selectmen to approve a municipally-sponsored,
71-93
Selectmen’s Meeting – February 27, 2017
residential electric aggregation program. They asked that the Town Manager be granted authority
to execute a supply agreement when prices are most favorable.
Mr. Gromer said the program is one in which the Town chooses an electricity provider in behalf
of the citizens. Lexington’s key objective is to provide 100% green electricity supplier at or
below the Eversource fixed service price. Town Meeting voted to pursue community choice at
Town Meeting 2015.
Ms. Barry asked if the team plans to translate program information into languages other than
English. The presenting group indicated it was possible to do so.
Mr. Kanter, Precinct 7, asked how the community outreach effort was funded. The presenting
group said the Town does not pay a fee for education or support.
Ms. Barry asked how long it will take for the Department of Public Utilities to approve
Lexington’s adoption plan. Mr. Gromer said the DPU process has become slow but he feels
confident it will be in hand by early May.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to authorize the Town
Manager to execute an aggregation supply agreement if the price is below the price of Basic
Service at program launch.
Proposed Programming for Community Space at 20 Pelham Rd. Facility
Ms. Ciccolo was recused due to a conflict of interest.
Ms. Battite presented recommendations for programmatic uses of the municipal side of the 20
Pelham Rd. facility.
Ms. Battite said the additional space would allow the Community Center to expand health and
wellness programs, cultural performance offerings, and increase classroom availability. The
gymnasium will provide as many as 6 partitioned basketball courts, depending upon the age
group being served. She stated current lack of space precludes offering some programs entirely
or limiting participation. General Board discussion ensued.
Mr. Kanter, Precinct 7, asked what the custodial and Community Center staffing needs would be
for Pelham. Ms. Battite said the format at Pelham would be similar to the Community Center
with a welcome desk and membership check-in. Mr. Kanter said the Town should have a sense
of what the impact on the Operating budget.
Ms. Ciccolo returned to the Selectmen’s table.
Update: Conversation on Guns
Mr. Pato said at ATM 2016 Meeting, Article 34 asked to amend the current general bylaw
regarding guns. He stated Town Meeting asked the Selectmen to initiate a community dialog
71-94
Selectmen’s Meeting – February 27, 2017
about assault weapons and gun violence that would lead to fully considered proposals to be
conveyed to the State for strengthening of assault weapon laws. This was adopted last year by a
vote of 105 yes/ 62 No/5 Abstentions. To this end, the Board formed a Task Force last April,
including Selectmen representatives Ms. Ciccolo and Mr. Pato and a wide variety of
stakeholders. The group identified goals including having an inclusive process that did not
predetermine outcomes.
Mr. Pato explained the report of the process to date currently before the Board is intended to
provide an account of what will be reported to Town Meeting this spring. Mr. Pato said the
Task Force made the following recommendation: As a result of the change in interpretation of
state law—which is currently the subject of a court challenge—the working group advises that
the Town should delay action on a community conversation of gun issues. In addition, the Town
is investigating training a cadre of facilitators to enhance the community dialogue process.
Ms. Barry thanked Mr. Pato for the update and asked him to report this back to Town Meeting
during ATM 2017.
Selectmen Committee Appointments and Resignations
Historic Districts Commission—Appointment
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to appoint Thomas Fenn
to a Historic Districts Commission Associates position to fulfill the unexpired term of Jon
Wardell ending 12/31/17.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to appoint Lee Noel
Chase to the Historic Districts Commission Associates for a term ending 12/31/22.
Board of Registrars—Resignation, Appointment
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted 5-0 to accept the resignation of Jean
Barrett from the Board of Registrars.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to appoint Mark Vitunic
to the Board of Registrars for a term ending 3/31/18.
Transportation Advisory Committee—Appointment
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to appoint Su Shen to the
Transportation Advisory Committee for a term to expire 9/30/19
Center Committee—Resignation
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted 5-0 to accept the resignation of Ellen
Basch from the Center Committee.
71-95
Selectmen’s Meeting – February 27, 2017
Approve New Limousine License—Bostantrans Car Service
Ms. Barry noted that Bostantrans Car Service has submitted all the necessary documents, passed
the CORI application with no comment, and the Police have provided a favorable inspection
report on the vehicle. This license will expire on April 30, 2017.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve the
application and issue one (1) Limousine License to Bostantran Car Services LLC, 137
Massachusetts Avenue.
Consent Agenda
Approve Minutes & Executive Session Minutes
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve the minutes of
September 7, September 12, September 21, September 26, 2016 and a joint meeting between the
Board of Selectmen and School Committee on September 13, 2016.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve but not release
the Executive Session minutes of September 12 and September 26, 2016.
Water & Sewer Adjustments
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve the Water and
Sewer Adjustments per WSAB meeting 1/12/17 ($24,573.24)
Town Celebrations Committee Request—Approve Sending Sponsorship Letters
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve the request of
the Town Celebrations Committee to send out sponsorship letters as proposed.
Approve One Day Liquor License—St. Brigid Church
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve a one day
liquor license for St. Brigid Parish, 1981 Massachusetts Avenue, to serve beer and wine on
Sunday, March 12, 2017 from 5:00 p.m. until 9:30 p.m. for the purpose of a wedding celebration.
Approve One Day Liquor License—Bowman PTA
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve the request
from the Bowman PTA for a one day liquor license for the purpose of the “All that Glitters…is
Gold” fundraiser to be held at the Scottish Rite Masonic Museum, 33 Marrett Road on March 25
from 7:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m.
71-96
Selectmen’s Meeting – February 27, 2017
Approve One Day Liquor License—Manicures for Melanoma
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve a request for
one day liquor license from MiniLuxe, 1718 Mass Ave for the purpose of a fundraiser to benefit
the Melanoma Foundation of New England (MFNE) on Thursday, March 23, 2017 from 4:00
p.m. until 10:00 p.m.
Approve One Day Liquor License—Spectacle Management
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve a one day
liquor license request from Spectacle Management for the Capital Steps performance at Cary
Memorial Hall, 1605 Massachusetts Avenue, March 5, 2017 from 2:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve a one day
liquor license request from Spectacle Management for the Chris Botti performance at Cary
Memorial Hall, 1605 Massachusetts Avenue on March 24, 2017 from 7:00 p.m. until 11:00 p.m.
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve a one day
liquor license request from Spectacle Management for the Jordan Smith performance at Cary
Memorial Hall, 1605 Massachusetts Avenue, March 26, 2017 from 6:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m.
Approve One Day Liquor License—Munroe Center for the Arts
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve a one day
liquor license request from Munroe Center for the Arts for the purpose of the Lexington Open
Studios Private Artist Reception at the Munroe Center for the Arts, 1403 Massachusetts Avenue
on Sunday, April 30, 2017 from 5:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m.
Adjourn
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to adjourn at 10:45 p.m.
A true record; Attest:
Kim Siebert
Recording Secretary
71-97
Selectmen’s Meeting
March 8, 2017
A meeting of the Board of Selectmen was called to order at 7:02 p.m. on Wednesday, March 8,
2017 in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room of the Town Office Building. Chairman Barry, Mr.
Kelley, Mr. Pato, Ms. Ciccolo and Mr. Lucente were present as well as Mr. Valente, Town
Manager and Ms. Siebert, Recording Secretary.
Selectman Concerns
Mr. Kelley reported that he and Ms. Barry had attended a meeting with members of the Tourism
Committee and Town staff to discuss how to move forward with designs for a new Visitors
Center. Mr. Kelley is optimistic that enough progress will be made for a project proposal to be
ready for presentation in the fall.
Mr. Lucente, newly elected to the Board, thanked the citizens of Lexington for their support and
said he looks forward to working with Town staff, committee and boards, and his new
colleagues.
Ms. Barry said Selectmen liaison assignments and future BOS meeting dates will be reviewed at
the upcoming Selectmen’s meeting on March 13.
Ms. Barry indicated that Planning Board Chair Richard Canale has asked the Board to appoint a
Selectmen to co-present Comprehensive Plan Article 7 to Town Meeting. Ms. Ciccolo agreed to
play that role.
Ms. Barry, on behalf of the Board of Selectmen, acknowledged custodian Chris Gaffron for his
6-year service to the Town of Lexington and wished him well in his new job.
ATM 2017 Warrant Article Update—Articles 32, 39, 46 (Citizen Article)
Ethan Handwerker, 17 Pine Knoll Road, the sponsor of the articles to be presented to Town
Meeting, updated the Board.
Article 32—Establish Cannabis Committee
Mr. Handwerker proposed the establishment of an ad hoc advisory committee so there is an
official process to respond to the 2016 statewide passage of adult-use of cannabis. Mr.
Handwerker recommended that representatives from other Town committee and boards populate
the Cannabis Committee. One of the purposes of the committee would be to provide
transparency and forthright engagement in what can be considered a difficult subject.
Article 39—Amend General Bylaws—Right to Farm
Mr. Handwerker stated this article would establish a process by which the Town will provide
information to residents about existing State laws pertaining to agriculture. The article does not,
however, propose additional benefits or protections beyond those explicit in current law.
71-98
Selectmen’s Meeting – March 8, 2017
Article 46—Amend Zoning Bylaw—Chapter 135 Medical Marijuana
This is a 6-part zoning article that would require a 2/3 vote in order to pass. For the first three
amendments, Mr. Handwerker said he is proposing three definitions—marijuana distribution
center, medical marijuana processing center, medical marijuana cultivation center— to replace
two definitions currently in the bylaw that describe medical marijuana treatment centers and
medical marijuana distribution center. The second three amendments are to associated zoning
permitted use tables so that facilities will be sited in appropriate parts of the community.
Medical marijuana distribution centers –RMDs—are non-profit and would require State
licensure from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. Mr. Handwerker said Article 46
would also limit the number of RMDs in Lexington to two rather than the three that would be
permitted under State law.
Ms. Barry asked Mr. Handwerker to provide proposed RMD zoning maps to the Board before
Town Meeting. Mr. Handwerker said he would do so.
Mr. Pato asked Mr. Handwerker to provide a list of other communities similar to Lexington that
have adopted Right to Farm bylaws. Mr. Handwerker agreed to provide such a list.
Mr. Lucente asked Mr. Handwerker to also provide a list enumerating other communities that
have formed a Cannabis Committee, including the scope of the committees’ charges. Mr.
Handwerker noted the language of Article 32 was modeled after other communities’ cannabis
committees.
Ms. Barry asked Mr. Valente to check to see if the Board of Health and Planning Board plan to
provide opinions on these articles prior to Town Meeting and if so, the Selectmen would like to
hear from them before adopting positions.
Update—Hartwell Avenue/McGuire Road Intersection Project
Mr. Cannon, Assistant Town Engineer, reported that the DPW met with Conservation regarding
proximity of the intersection to wetlands. The design material has not changed since it was first
th
presented at the January 9 BOS meeting. Mr. Cannon asked the Board for direction as to which
of the two designs, roundabout or light controlled (both with variations), to pursue in light of
monetary cost and wetland impact.
Mr. Cannon recalled the Board indicated on January 9 that the roundabout design was preferred
if the cost and wetland impact differentials were not significant. Mr. Cannon said that from an
engineering standpoint, the DPW does not have a preference between the proposed designs.
David Kanter, Capital Expenditures, asked if the supplemental appropriation for $2.185M under
Article 10L for the construction intersection is sufficient for the chosen design. Mr. Valente
replied that now that the Board has reached consensus, his office will work with the DPW to
hone the estimate, including contingencies.
71-99
Selectmen’s Meeting – March 8, 2017
Mr. Kanter asked how the signals at the intersection will interact with the signals at the bike
path. Mr. Cannon said the design is still in the early stages but there will most likely be
coordination between the two. The bike path light would act similarly to a pedestrian crossing,
timed with the traffic signal.
Mr. Kanter asked how the multi-use path down Hartwell will interact with the intersection
project. Mr. Cannon said the path and the intersection will be integrated.
The Board expressed support of signalized option #3 out of the designs that were presented.
Update on Exempt Debt Financing Model
Ms. Ciccolo was recused due to matters relating to 20 Pelham Road.
Mr. Valente and Ms. Kosnoff, Assistant Town Manager for Finance, presented changes to the
excluded debt financing model for upcoming Capital projects: Hastings School, Lexington
Children’s Place, purchases of 20 Pelham Road and 173 Bedford Street and the fire station
renovations including modifications to the interim swing space. The LHS HVAC project has
been dropped since the last update and the purchase price for the Pelham property has been
added, increasing the anticipated exempt debt total from $93,950,000 to $103,936,000 (or by
about 10%).
The budget the Selectmen have recommended to Town Meeting would increase the Capital
Stabilization Fund by $7.8M which can be used to mitigate debt impact to the taxpayers.
Based on the supposition that close to $8M will be added to the fund, Ms. Kosnoff has revised
the ten-year the impact analysis: Based on a median home value of $831,000 and use of the
Capital Stabilization Fund, taxpayer impact would range from $321 to $451 or 2.1% to 3.4%
annually in the ten-year period from FY18 to FY26.
The yearly drawdown from the $28,160,585 Capital Stabilization Fund between FY18 and FY23
for Exempted Debt mitigation is projected to be as low as $2,200,000 in FY23 and as high as
$6,400,000 in FY20.
Mr. Kelley asked about revenues for the Capital Stabilization fund and how should the future
Police Station project be positioned within the Capital investment landscape?
Mr. Valente said two preliminary designs for the Police Station will be presented to the
Selectmen at a future meeting by the project’s architects. The cost of a new station has been
estimated at $19M which has been built into the debt model and taxpayer mitigation figures,
even though the project will not be voted for a few years. As for the question Mr. Kelley raised
about where the money for the Capital Stabilization Fund has come from, Mr. Valente said there
are a number of sources. First, the Town came out of the last recession in a good position, with
many of the “elastic revenues” (motor vehicle excise taxes, New Growth construction, building
permits, etc.) stronger than expected. Additionally, this has been a period of low inflation. Third,
pressures on the Operating Budget from either personnel or expenses have been eased because,
71-100
Selectmen’s Meeting – March 8, 2017
at the Selectmen’s direction, the Town has intentionally limited Operating Budget growth by
adding only a limited number of Project Improvement Requests (PIRs) beyond maintenance of
service budget bases. This action has been taken with full understanding of the number of large
Capital projects on the horizon. Last, the Town’s enrollment in the State’s GIC insurance group
has held employee health insurance costs down to a lower level than they would have otherwise
been. Increases in cost have not been negligible but they have been far less than if the Town had
not joined the GIC.
Mr. Valente and Ms. Kosnoff believe it is reasonable to expect the Town will continue to be able
to put funds into the Capital Stabilization Fund.
Mr. Pato asked if the Town should search for alternate funding sources for some projects, like
the community space in the Pelham property to be shared with LCP.
Ms. Barry asked if the revised debt model has been provided to Capital Expenditures and
Appropriations. Mr. Valente said the numbers will be re-checked and then passed on to these
committees. He asked for the Board’s approval to present the figures to the TMMA on March 16
and also to Special Town Meeting. The Selectmen agreed the figures could be presented.
David Kanter, Capital Expenditures Committee, noted there is nothing about a new high school
included in the debt model. He added that he believes the amount of funding dedicated to OPEB
runs contrary to the need to address Capital projects.
Dawn McKenna, Chair of the Tourism Committee, asked if any of the modeling has included a
new Visitors Center. Mr. Valente said it has not.
Mr. Valente said the within levy mitigation Capital Stabilization Fund drawdown is as
challenging as the excluded debt drawdown. If more projects are added to either within levy or
excluded debt, more resources from the mitigation fund will need to be used. Or, alternatively,
the more money that’s used to fund projects directly, the less that will be available to replenish
the Fund.
Ms. Kosnoff said all projects have been modeled using a 30-year debt window.
Article Positions & Presenters ATM 2017 & STM 2017-1
Potential Consent Agenda Articles
This year, there are at least four articles proposed to be bundled into a single Consent Agenda
because they are considered routine and not in need of deeper discussion. Those articles are:
Article 6: Appropriation for Senior Service Program; Article 11: Appropriation for Recreational
Capital Projects; Article 23: Rescind Prior Bond Authorizations; and Article 26: Appropriation
from Debt Service Stabilization Fund. The Capital Expenditures Committee has also proposed
several more articles to be included.
Mr. Pato suggested adding Article 13: Appropriation for Water System Improvements and
Article 14: Appropriation for Wastewater System Improvements, saying these articles or their
71-101
Selectmen’s Meeting – March 8, 2017
equivalents are present routinely, on a yearly basis. Mr. Valente noted these two articles are also
on the CEC’s list. The other Board members agreed to support inclusion of Articles 13 and 14.
Ms. Barry asked whether Article 19—Getting to Net Zero—should be included since it is the
second of three identical $40,000 appropriations. The other Selectmen, after discussion,
supported inclusion of Article 19 in the Consent Agenda.
David Kanter, Capital Expenditures Committee, asked if the Board would entertain a short
discussion of the other articles recommended by CEC for inclusion:
Special Town Meeting Articles 5 and Annual Town Meeting Article 22 are administrative and
identical. Ms. Barry noted if STM Article 5 was put on a Consent Agenda, it would be the
only article. The proposal regarding Article 5 was therefore dropped.
Article 10 o & p—CPA debt and administrative budget— are obligatory and need no
discussion.
Article 12v—Appropriation for Municipal Capital Projects and Equipment—Transportation
Mitigation—is a fixed program that comes up every year.
Article 16 a, c, and f are all routine facilities maintenance articles with fixed amounts.
Articles 25—Stabilization Fund will be indefinitely postponed so it could be included in
Consent.
Article 28—Amend FY17 Operating could be included if indefinitely postponed.
Article 29—Appropriate for Authorized Capital Improvements
The Board of Selectmen supported all CEC suggestions with the exception of Articles 28 and
29.
Dawn McKenna, Precinct 6 Town Meeting member, suggested including Article 30—Adjust
Retirement COLA Base for Retirees. Mr. Pato said he is still waiting for further information on
Article 30 because the proposed increase of the COLA threshold poses a non-trivial impact to the
Town budget. He therefore does not support including Article 30.
Because Ms. Barry is recused on Article 30, Ms. Ciccolo stepped in to chair the discussion. She
noted that the Board does not yet have a sense of its position and would therefore prefer to
include Article 30 for regular consideration.
Ms. Barry went through the Special and Annual Town Meeting articles one by one to record
members’ votes:
STM Article 2: Appropriate Design Funds for the Fire Station: yes: 5, no: 0.
STM Article 3: Appropriate Design Funds for the Fire Station Swing Space: yes: 5, no: 0.
71-102
Selectmen’s Meeting – March 8, 2017
Ms. Barry will present Articles 2 & 3 together, as recommended by the Town Manager and
Town Moderator.
STM Article 4: Appropriate Design Funds for Lexington Children’s Place/20 Pelham Road: yes:
4, no: 0, recused: 1 (Ciccolo). Mr. Kelley will present.
STM Article 5: Appropriate Bond and Note Premiums to Pay Project Costs: yes: 5, no: 0. Mr.
Lucente will present.
Article 4: Appropriate FY18 Operating Budget: yes: 4, no: 0, wait: 1 (Lucente). Ms. Barry will
present.
Article 5: Appropriate FY18 Enterprise Funds Budgets: yes: 5, no: 0. Ms. Barry will present.
Article 6: Appropriate for Senior Services Program: yes: 5, no: 0. Mr. Kelley will present.
Article 7: Appropriate for Town Comprehensive Plan: yes: 5, no: 0. Ms. Ciccolo will present.
Article 8: Accept PEG Access and Cable-Related Funds: yes: 5, no: 0. Mr. Pato will present.
Article 9: Establish and Continue Departmental Revolving Funds and Special Revenue Fund:
yes: 4, no: 0, wait: 1 (Lucente). Mr. Lucente will present.
Article 10, FY 2018 CPA Operating and all sub-articles: yes: 0, no: 0, wait: 5.
Article 11: Appropriate for Recreational Capital Projects: yes: 5, no: 0.
Article 12: Appropriate for Municipal Capital Projects and Equipment
a)Center Streetscape: Indefinitely postponed
Mr. Kelley asked if all the sub-articles under Article 12 will be bundled into one vote or
presented separately. Mr. Valente said the items that were particularly out of the ordinary would
receive a fuller description, as has been done in previous years.
The Board elected to take positions on the Article 12 sub- articles at the next meeting.
Article 13: Appropriation for Water System Improvements: yes: 5, no: 0. Mr. Lucente will
present.
Article 14: Appropriate for Wastewater System Improvements: yes: 5, no: 0. Mr. Lucente will
present.
Article 15: Appropriate for School Capital Projects and Equipment: yes: 0, no: 0, wait: 5.
Article 16: Appropriate for Public Facilities Capital Projects: yes: 0, no: 0, wait: 5. Ms. Ciccolo
noted she would be recused from sub-item j and any other sub-item that is Pelham-related.
71-103
Selectmen’s Meeting – March 8, 2017
Article 17: Appropriate for Hastings School Replacement Design: yes: 5, no: 0. Ms. Ciccolo will
present.
Article 18: Appropriate for Visitors Center (Citizen article): yes: 0, no: 0, wait: 5.
Article 19: Appropriate for Advice and Analysis—Getting to Net Zero: yes: 4, no: 0, wait: 1
(Lucente). Mr. Pato will present.
Article 20: Accept Harbell Street: yes: 0, no: 0, wait: 5.
Article 21: Appropriate to Post Employment Insurance Liability Fund: yes: 4, no: 0, recused: 1
(Barry). Mr. Lucente will present.
Article 22: Appropriate Bonds and Note Premiums to Pay Project Costs: yes: 5, no: 0. Mr.
Lucente will present.
Article 23: Rescind Prior Borrowing Authorization: yes: 5, no: 0. Mr. Kelley will present.
Article 24: Establish and Appropriate to and from Specified Stabilization Funds: yes: 5, no: 0.
Mr. Pato will present.
Article 25: Appropriate to Stabilization Fund: yes: 5, no: 0. Ms. Ciccolo will present.
Article 26: Appropriate from Debt Stabilization Fund: yes: 5, no: 0. Mr. Kelley will present.
Article 27: Appropriate for Prior Years’ Unpaid Bills: yes: 0, no: 0, wait: 5. May be indefinitely
postponed.
Articles 28, 29, 30: yes: 0, no: 0, wait: 5. Ms. Barry will be recused from Article 30.
Article 31: Resolution to Reduce the Influence of Money in Politics (Citizen Article): yes: 3, no:
0, wait: 2 (Ciccolo, Kelley). Mr. Pato will present.
Article 32: Establish Cannabis Committee: yes: 3, no: 0, wait: 2 (Barry, Lucente). Ms. Ciccolo
will present.
Article 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39: yes: 0, no: 0, wait: 5.
Articles 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46: yes: 0, no: 0, wait: 5.
Consent Agenda
Approve One-Day Liquor License—Education Francaise of Greater Boston
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve a request for
Education Francaise of Greater Boston for a one-day alcohol license for a Gala Fundraiser to be
held at Lexington’s Depot at 13 Depot Square on April 1, 2017 from 6:45 p.m. until 12:00 a.m.
71-104
Selectmen’s Meeting – March 8, 2017
Approve One-Day Liquor License—Lexington Education Foundation
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve a request for a
one-day liquor license for the Lexington Education Foundation for a fundraiser at the Hayden
Recreation Lower Field on Worthen Road on Saturday, June 10, 2017 from 7:00 p.m. until 12:00
a.m.
Approve One-Day Liquor License—Lexington BBQ Festival
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve a request for a
one-day liquor license to serve beer, wine, and cider at the Lexington Battle Green BBQ Festival
on the Farmers’ Market Fairgrounds on May 19, 2017 from 5:30 p.m. until 8:00 p.m.; May 20,
2017 from 11 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. and May 21, 2017 from 12:00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m.
Use of the Battle Green—Fife & Drum Tattoo
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve a request from
the William Diamond Junior Fife and Drum Corps for permission to hold the annual Tattoo and
Lexington Muster on the Battle Green on Friday, May 5, 2017 from 7:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m.,
including a small parade from St. Brigid’s Parish to the Battle Green beginning approximately at
6:50 p.m. Approval will be subject to working out details with Town staff.
Approve Lexington Little League Opening Day Request
On motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve a request from
the Lexington Little League to hold the Annual Little League Parade on Saturday, April 29, 2017
from 8:30 a.m. until approximately 11:00 a.m. as outlined in a letter dated February 27, 2017.
The Town Manager, Fire, Police, and Public Works staff have approved the plans.
Executive Session
Upon motion duly made and by roll call, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to enter Executive
Session under Exemption 3 to discuss strategy with respect to collective bargaining with the Fire
union and, further, to enter Executive Session under Exemption 6 to consider the purchase,
exchange, lease or value of real property, 20 Pelham Rd and to re-convene in Open Session only
to adjourn. It was declared that that an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the
bargaining and negotiating position(s) of the Town.
It was noted that Ms. Barry would be recused from the Fire contract discussion and that Ms.
Ciccolo would be recused from the 20 Pelham Rd. discussion.
Adjourn
Upon re-convening in Open Session and on motion duly made and seconded, the Board of
Selectmen voted 4-0 to adjourn at approximately 9:45p.m.
A true record; Attest:
Kim Siebert
Recording Secretary
71-105
Selectmen’s Meeting
March 10, 2017
A meeting of the Lexington Board of Selectmen was called to order at 8:00 a.m. on Friday,
March 10, 2017 in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room of the Town Office Building. Chairman
Barry, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Pato, Ms. Ciccolo and Mr. Lucente were present as well as Mr. Valente,
Town Manager, Mr. Goddard, Director Public Facilities, Police Chief Corr and Ms. Katzenback
Assistant to the Executive Clerk.
Evaluation of 173 Bedford Street and 1575 Mass. Ave for Police Station Site
Mr. McElravy, Techton Architects, presented the conceptual designs and projected costs for
three building options, included pros and cons of each, as well as the conceptual design and
projected cost for a temporary building space to take into consideration for the Police Station
site.
Option 1: Tear Down and Rebuild 1575 Massachusetts Avenue Police Facility - Probable
Project Costs: $25,397,762
Pros:
Maintains the known location of the police station and keeps the Town Center active.
Provides improved floor to floor clearance at the lower level to better accommodate
police functions.
Enhances the “green” space along Massachusetts Avenue and incorporates Hosmer house
into the green on a new foundation.
Organizes parking more efficiently and removes excess paving that encroaches on green.
Allows all police functions to be located in a structure that conforms to the current code
standard for emergency services facilities.
Connects to bike path, bus routes, and downtown vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
Connects to alternative police response routes.
Central location is where all four patrol sectors meet; including Center walking beat;
routine activities and deployment will be easier to support from a central location.
Lexington center has a significant number of banks (and a few other high risk
businesses); close proximity to Cary Hall (town meetings & shows) and Town Offices
(treasurer’s office, BOS, senior management)
Better radio and fiber optic connectivity
365/24/7 access to a training / meeting room for Town Committees
Public paying tickets or inquiring at Town Offices can stop at current location; Center
businesses can walk to PD for permits and other business.
Cons:
Requires the use of a temporary facility which adds up to $5 million in additional
costs
New Police Station is not available until at least summer of 2021.
Continues parking issues on campus.
Limited future expansion potential.
Size of building may offend some people
71-106
Selectmen’s Meeting – March 10, 2017
Option 2: Salvage and add on 1575 Massachusetts Avenue Police Facility - Probable Project
Costs: $23,805,042
Pros:
Maintains the known location of the police station and keeps the Town Center active.
Reuses much of the existing police station structure and may qualify for CPA grant
funding.
May qualify for LEED credit for re-using structure.
Enhances the “green” space along Massachusetts Avenue and incorporates Hosmer house
into the green on a new foundation.
Organizes parking more efficiently and removes excess paving that encroaches on green.
Connects to bike path, bus routes, and downtown vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
Connects to alternative police response routes.
Central location is where all four patrol sectors meet; including Center walking beat;
routine activities and deployment will be easier to support from a central location.
Lexington center has a significant number of banks (and a few other high risk
businesses); close proximity to Cary Hall (town meetings & shows) and Town Offices
(treasurer’s office, BOS, senior management)
Better radio and fiber optic connectivity
365/24/7 access to a training / meeting room for Town Committees
Public paying tickets or inquiring at Town Offices can stop at current location; Center
businesses can walk to PD for permits and other business.
Cons:
Requires the use of a temporary facility which adds up to $5 million in additional costs
New Police Station is not available until at least summer of 2021.
Continues parking issues on campus.
Locates some police functions in a structure that does not meet the current code standard
for emergency services facilities.
Limited future expansion potential.
Size of building may offend some people.
Option 3: New Police Facility 173 Bedford - - Probable Project Costs: $22,130,756
Pros:
Locates all police functions in a new structure that could provide additional space if
desired.
Provides adequate and segregated police and public parking for current and future needs.
New Police Facility could be available as soon as the winter of 2020/2021.
Does not require a temporary facility which could save up to $5 million.
Opportunity to replace/rebuild an EOC, computer head end.
Cons:
The site is narrow and linear which is not an optimal arrangement for a police facility,
and it limits future expansion options.
71-107
Decentralized will have adverse impact on being a “go to” community space
Parking tickets, permitting, licensing, other services no longer connected to Town
Offices/Center
Selectmen’s Meeting – March 10, 2017
A single accident; downed tree, wire, water break could cut off Bedford Street location
(intentional obstructions could be worse)
Location is in a more restricted radio signal area and we will need a tower network or
fiber optic connections to other repeater sites
Emergency operations under final approach to Hanscom airfield; also, given prevailing
westerlies, any fire plume/crash on 95 from the notorious golf course hill.
Temporary Police Facility 173 Bedford Street - Probable Project Costs: $4,959,532
Ms. Ciccolo asked Chief Corr which site best meets the Police Department’s operational needs.
Chief Corr stated that a centrally located police department location provides the best
opportunity to connect with the community.
Mr. Kelley stated he agrees with the importance of a centrally located site in order to connect
with the citizens for public safety and noted the facility should be large enough to be able to store
and protect all equipment. Mr. Kelley expressed concern that the estimates do not cover all costs.
Ms. Barry asked if the communication issue will be addressed when the Fire Department moves
to Bedford Street temporarily. Chief Corr stated the Police Department is the dispatch center for
the Fire Department. Chief Corr noted as long as the dispatch center stays at 1575 Massachusetts
Avenue there will not be any issues, if the dispatch center moves to Bedford Street, an antennae
network or fiber optic system would need to be implemented to ensure signals are not blocked.
Ms. Barry asked if renovating the existing 1575 Massachusetts Avenue site will update it to
current code standards. Mr. McElravey explained the code requirements for renovated buildings
versus brand new structures necessary to meet emergency service codes.
Ms. Barry asked if the allocated prisoner space is suffice as designed in the temporary use of the
Bedford Street building. Chief Corr explained the space is adequate to accommodate short term
detention and that in the event long term detention is required, the prisoner would have to be
taken to another facility.
Mr. Pato asked if onsite renewables, such as rooftop solar, have been taken into consideration for
all site options. Mr. McElravy provided an overview of the evaluation of solar energy for both
173 Bedford Street and 1575 Massachusetts Avenue.
Mr. Adams (Historic District Committee) expressed there is general concern for sufficient
parking.
Ms. Barry asked if the Board is ready to take a position on this project. The Board agreed
additional information is needed in order to make a determination.
71-108
Selectmen’s Meeting – March 10, 2017
Executive Session - Exemption 6 (Purchase of Real Estate): Pine Grove/Judges Road Affordable
Housing
On motion duly made and by roll call at 9:13 a.m., the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to enter
into Executive Session under Exemption 6 to consider the purchase, exchange, lease or value of
real property, Pine Grove/Judges Road Affordable Housing, and to reconvene in Open Session
only to adjourn and the CPC to continue its meeting. Further, it was declared that an open
meeting might have a detrimental effect on the negotiating position of the Town.
Mr. Lucente stated he owns property in close proximity and he filed a 23(b)(3) form with the
Clerk’s office to dispel the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Adjournment
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to adjourn at
approximately 9:40 a.m.
A true record; Attest:
Kim Katzenback
Recording Secretary
71-109
Selectmen’s Meeting
March 13, 2017
A meeting of the Lexington Board of Selectmen was called to order at 7:01 p.m. on Monday,
March 13, 2017 in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room of the Town Office Building. Chairman
Barry, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Pato, Ms. Ciccolo and Mr. Lucente were present as well as Mr. Valente,
Town Manager and Ms. Siebert, Recording Secretary.
Public Comments
Dawn McKenna, Tourism Committee Chair, thanked the Board of Selectmen and Town
Manager for their support of the recent Voyages en Francophonie events. This year, the French
Consul asked Lexington to host the children’s program, attended by residents from across the
state. Due to the success of the program, the event will be held in Lexington again next year. The
Tourism Committee is also working with Spectacle Management to augment next year’s
program with a related Sunday performance.
Selectmen Concerns
Ms. Barry reported that a meeting was convened with Selectmen Barry and Pato, Town Manager
Valente, School Committee members Ms. Jay and Ms. Steigerwald and Superintendent
Czajkowski to discuss the creation of a Diversity Think Tank, based on recommendations from
the Vision 20/20 Committee. A second meeting of this group will be scheduled for some time in
April.
Town Manager Report
Claire Goodwin, Management Fellow, announced that the Vision 20/20 Committee has launched
its town-wide survey which is available online or in hardcopy at the Town Office Building,
st
Community Center, and Cary Library and the response deadline is March 31. The purpose of
the survey is to gather feedback from Lexington residents about which municipal services
citizens deem most important and to help the Town improve its services.
Mr. Valente said Town staff are actively preparing for tomorrow’s anticipated severe weather
event. Mr. Valente stated Town Public buildings will be closed, all public meetings have been
cancelled, Lexpress will not operate and trash collection will be delayed by one day. A parking
th
ban is in effect on public roads starting at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow, March 14, and continuing until
9:00 a.m. Wednesday, March 15 but Town lots will remain open. A Code Red message will be
sent out tonight via telephone and storm-related information has also been posted on the Town
website. Chief of Police Mark Corr said anyone with a Lexington phone—including households
with unpublished numbers—will be contacted via the Code Red system. Those with cell phones
that do not have a Lexington exchange are encouraged to sign up by visiting the Police website.
Update: Bikeway Signage Project
David Kucharsky, Town Planner, and Beth Isler, Toole Design, presented designs for wayfinding
and regulatory signs to be placed on, or in the vicinity of, the Minuteman Bikeway. Mr.
71-110
Selectmen’s Meeting – March 13, 2017
Kucharsky provided some background of this project: Ms. Isler showed examples of different
signs intended for the bikeway and stated that Toole Design proposes: 59 wayfinding signs on
the full length of the path; 24 wayfinding signs off the path; 14 street signs; 20 mile markers; 57
regulatory signs (Stop, Yield, etc.); 27 current signs removed; and 31 signs re-located. The signs
are intended to improve safety at path crossings to establish rights of way. Another goal of sign
placement is to encourage economic development by connecting the bikeway users to amenities
along the way.
Mr. Kucharsky said the next steps include: advertising the bid to fabricate and install the signs;
reviewing bids and awarding the contract; scheduling the work during 2017 construction season;
and beginning development of kiosks and other interpretive signage.
Mr. Kelley asked if the blue selected for the signs is a universal color for bike paths since Town
signs are green. Ms. Barry asked how bike path users will know which town they are in. Mr.
Kucharsky said there will be signs indicating town lines.
Mr. Kucharsky said Public Safety recommended that ½ mile markers be installed, which the
project now includes. Currently installed granite mile markers will be re-purposed. Ms. Isler
said the mileage markings begin at Alewife and end in Bedford. Emergency response would
know the town based on the mileage reported.
Dawn McKenna, Chair of the Tourism Committee, also thanked the team for their efforts and
suggested using the “Linger in Lexington” logo on the signs to help orient bikeway users. Ms.
McKenna encouraged the team to coordinate with the Tourism Committee so that kiosks and
interpretive signs throughout town are consistent.
ATM 2017 Warrant Article Update: Article 37—Amend General By-Laws—Trees
Nancy Sofen and Gerry Paul from the Tree Committee spoke about proposed amendments to the
tree bylaw that deal mainly with protected large tree removal mitigation, including fees and
dimensions of replacement trees. The goals are to discourage large tree removal and to provide
incentives to maintain/protect tree health.
Ms. Sofen noted there is currently no mitigation required if replacement trees are removed or die
shortly after planting. Language to correct this oversight is proposed within the amendments.
One of the key issues being addressed by the amendments is loss of tree canopy. The
amendments would also provide a re-planting bonus of ½ inch for every diameter inch removed
if the replacement species are selected from a list of recommended large shade trees. Species
diversity— to guard against decimation by pests— is a collateral goal of the list which does not
include host trees for the Asian Longhorn Beetle and the Emerald Ash Borer.
71-111
Selectmen’s Meeting – March 13, 2017
Higher payments would be mandated for choosing not to replant and replanted tree health must
be maintained for 2 years after a certificate of occupancy is granted. Enforcement of the bylaw
would rely of voluntary compliance and/or reporting by abutters.
In the case of the removal of trees 24 inches or larger, the amendment would require mitigation
of 4 times that amount, as if 96 diameter inches had been removed. The current fee for not
replanting is $50/inch; the proposed fee would increase to $100/inch. Ms. Sofen said even with
the increase, the mitigation amount is lower than many nearby towns with similar bylaws.
The recommended motion for Article 37 includes two addenda that Ms. Sofren asked to be
approved by the Selectmen so they can be included in the Tree Management Manual.
Ms. Ciccolo asked how the enforcement of replanting within two months of a certificate of
occupancy will be enforced.
Mr. Paul said the current practice is that the Tree Warden does not approve the certificate of
occupancy until trees have been replanted or the mitigation fee has been paid. Mr. Filadoro, Tree
Warden, said the owner or builder would have to pay into the Tree fund or make other
arrangements prior to the closing.
Ms. Ciccolo asked how the list of trees was chosen and if the addenda proposed would become
part of the bylaw Town Meeting would be asked to approve. Ms. Sofen said the addenda are
separate and the Tree Committee can propose changes to the manual to be approved by the
Selectmen without needing to seek approval from Town Meeting. The list was developed by
Tree Committee members with referral to tree species being planted in Worcester, closer to the
pest infestation. There are no maples, elms, or ashes on the list.
Ms. Ciccolo recommended that the list be included in the addenda so it can be changed easily if
other trees become susceptible or develop problems. She also expressed concern about the 4
times rule appearing in the addenda because Town Meeting might not be comfortable that this
can be changed without its approval.
Mr. Paul clarified that the language about replanting within 12 months is in current bylaw, not a
proposed change. He added that putting changes into the Tree Manual as opposed to the Tree
bylaw was done specifically to allow time for the Tree Warden to see how workable the new
regulations are. If they need to be adjusted, proposals can be presented to the Selectmen rather
than to Town Meeting. However, the Committee will consider Ms. Ciccolo’s comments.
Mr. Pato asked for clarification regarding replacement planting mitigation, asking if removal of a
24-inch tree would require replanting 96 inches under the 4 times rule. He believes the proposed
rule indicated that one inch should be replaced by one inch, unless the 24-inch threshold is
crossed. Ms. Sofen thanked Mr. Pato for this clarification and said the language will be adjusted
for the replanting mitigation.
A resident asked if there is a way to know if a neighbor is supposed to replace trees they cut
down. She lives in an area where a lot of white pine trees and beeches are being removed. Mr.
71-112
Selectmen’s Meeting – March 13, 2017
Paul replied that building permits, scanned digitally and accessible online, have trees marked for
removal. The Tree Warden and the Tree Committee can also be contacted as they have running
lists about tree removal. The lists are not available online.
Dawn McKenna, Precinct 6 Town Meeting member, asked if the article will be proposed in one
motion or in several. Ms. Sofen said the intent is to present it in one motion. Ms. McKenna
recommended it be broken up. Ms. McKenna said she is concerned about the 12-month
replanting stipulation and suggested the bylaw be changed to a shorter period of time. She does
not believe it is fair to make a builder/owner pay the fee if they cannot wait 12 months for a
certificate of occupancy.
Gloria Bloom, 17 Loring Rd, suggested owners/builders who pay into the Tree Fund be allowed
to reclaim their mitigation if they later offer proof of replanting. This way, the Tree Warden
would not need to check back; it would be up to the owner to request the reimbursement.
Ms. Barry said she believes it is premature for the Selectmen to approve the addenda before
Town Meeting approves the bylaw amendments. She asked the Tree Committee to come back
for those approvals after Town Meeting concludes.
ATM 2017 Warrant Article Update: Article 45—Amend Zoning By-Law—Balanced Housing
Development—Citizen’s Article
Christopher Locher, 242 Grove Street, is a proponent for this article which proposes that
Balanced Housing Development (BHD) applications be subject to Town Meeting approval
before a Special Permit can be issued, just as preliminary site plans now must be approved by
Town Meeting for planned developments (PRDs).
Mr. Locher said the article basically constitutes a change in process in the form of requesting
approval for changes to the Zoning Bylaws. Approvals and permits would be applied for and
obtained separately; Town Meeting would represent one such approval but would not grant the
Special Permit.
Mr. Locher stated the rationale for Article 45 is that there are issues that fall outside the purview
of the Planning Board and BHD offers no incentive to protect open space or to put land into
conservation. The original intention was for BHD to encourage smaller footprint housing but,
when analyzed, it has not resulted in more affordable housing alternatives. Quite the reverse,
BHD may actually threaten Lexington’s 10% SHI by creating a larger housing inventory without
compensatory affordable units. The financial incentive is significant for developers to propose
balanced housing developments; increased residential density erodes the town’s character, adds
to the school-age population, and impacts municipal services.
Mr. Pato asked if injecting Town Meeting into the BHD process by way of zoning bylaw
amendment is the goal of the article and, if so, if Town Counsel has deemed this appropriate. Mr.
Valente said Counsel’s early assessment of the article was that could not be proposed as written
under State law.
71-113
Selectmen’s Meeting – March 13, 2017
Mr. Locher said if this is the case, the bylaws pertaining to PRDs would also not pass muster.
Mr. Valente said that, in the case of PRDs, the parcels are rezoned as part of the process, which
clears the hurdle of legality. The way Article 45 is written, underlying zoning still exists.
Mr. Locher said he is not sure if Town Counsel has seen the revised version of Article 45. He
was initially concerned the way Article 45 was written would make Town Meeting the Special
Permitting authority. The revision makes clear this would not be the case.
Mr. Pato asked Mr. Locher if he could accomplish the goal by merely removing the BHD
classification altogether and ask instead for property to be re-zoned under the existing PRD
bylaws. Mr. Locher said he is amenable to this approach. Mr. Kelley agreed with Mr. Pato.
Ms. Ciccolo said the Selectmen are awaiting an understanding of what the Planning Board will
propose under Article 40—Amend Zoning Bylaw—Special Permit Residential Developments,
which may do some of what Mr. Locher proposes with Article 45. She, too, is concerned that
Article 45 does not seem viable as written.
Mr. Pato echoed Ms. Ciccolo’s desire to wait to see what the Planning Board proposes. His
understanding is that there will be provisions added to ensure a Public Benefit for higher density
development which would mitigate many of the concerns expresses by Mr. Locher.
Mr. Locher said he was called by the Planning Board just today. The most recent form of the
bylaw is not posted correctly on the Planning website but Mr. Locher found the updated version
on the Town website and was able to correct some of the acronyms and terms.
Mr. Lucente said he appreciates the intent behind Article 45 because it is an issue that needs to
be addressed.
Ms. Barry said the Planning Board, according to Chair Richard Canale, intends to take up BHD
at their next meeting on March 15. The Town Meeting Planning articles will also come before
the Selectmen prior to Town Meeting at the 6:00 p.m. meeting, Wednesday, March 22.
Proposed Local Acceptance Statutes from Municipal Modernization Legislation
Speed Limit Regulations (Sections 193-194): David Kucharsky, TSG
Town Meeting Article 36 deals with the adoption of Section 193, Mass General Law Chapter 90,
Section 17C Thickly Settled or Business District. It would allow the Town to reduce the statutory
speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph. MassDOT recommends communities opt in to the
legislation town-wide to avoid confusion. The revision is applicable to any Town-owned
roadway that has no posted speed limits and where no speed studies have been performed.
Adoption of Section 194, Mass General Law Chapter 90, Section 18B allows municipalities to
establish safety zones with regulatory 20mph limits.
71-114
Selectmen’s Meeting – March 13, 2017
The Selectmen asked the Transportation Advisory Group (TSG) to review the statutes to
recommend how they would be implemented if adopted. The pros of adopting a town wide speed
limit of 25mph, as recommended by MassDOT, are: global acceptance; quick implementation;
modest number of signs needed. The cons are:concern that drivers would not remain aware of
the lower limit; perception that the lower limit is merely a symbolic gesture; potential for
confusion on major entry roads with already posted limits.
Opting in on a street-by-street basis also carries a list of pros and cons. Pros: increased awareness
and improved effectiveness in reducing speeds where most needed; a potential tool for TSG to
use to improve safety. Cons: majority of streets may meet the criteria, resulting in the need to
erect signage which is costly, causes sign fatigue, and adds to visual clutter; extensive
installation and maintenance required.
Given the State’s recommendation and pro/con analysis, TSG recommends the statute be
adopted town wide. In addition to posting “Thickly Settled District 25 mph” signs on a limited
number of roadways, additional roadways would be evaluated for signage based on a set of
criteria: traffic volumes, pedestrian and cyclist activity, crash history, road condition, functional
classification, and whether the roadway has been accepted by the Town.
To establish a 20mph Safety Zone, TSG noted that adoption of the provision would be regulatory
rather than statutory and require a study by traffic engineers. MassDOT requires that a safety
zone be adjacent to land uses that are likely to attract “vulnerable users” and should contain one
or more areas where potential conflicts between motor vehicles and vulnerable users interact,
warranting the reduction of speed. The minimum length of the Safety Zone is no less than ¼ mile
and should not extend more than 500 feet beyond a side street unless applicable land use
continues along the adjacent block. TSG has added a fourth criterion which takes into account
the crash history involving pedestrians and cyclists.
Mr. Pato asked if the provision would come back before the Selectmen after Town Meeting is
over to be applied. Mr. Kucharsky said he will confirm the process. The Town is obligated to
inform the State that these provisions have been adopted.
Mr. Lucente asked how the Town would inform the citizens that the lower speed will be
enforced. He questioned if signs at the entry points would be enough.
Chief Corr said enforcement and achieving voluntary compliance is a large part of the Police
Department’s job. He believes a major public education push will be needed, including using the
electric sign boards, the website, and other available methods. For the beginning of the roll out,
he envisions issuing warnings rather than citations.
Ms. Ciccolo said, since already posted speeds will not change, lowering unposted streets to 25
mph may not achieve changes to the extent the Town would like. She cautioned citizens to set
their expectations accordingly.
Revolving Funds and PEG Special Revenue Fund
71-115
Selectmen’s Meeting – March 13, 2017
Town Meeting Article 38 is one of a number of articles on the warrant dealing with municipal
finances, Mr. Valente said. If adopted, future Town Meetings will no longer be required to re-
authorize individual Revolving Funds themselves, only specific dollar amounts.
The Rental Revolving Fund must be accepted by Town Meeting but no substantive change in the
way it operates is being proposed.
Another Municipal Modernization acceptance refers to how the Town would handle injured-on-
duty claims for Police and Fire. The new statute allows towns to appropriate funds and to be
allowed to carry these funds over to the next fiscal year, rather than returning them and re-
appropriating them for again next year.
The last Modernization acceptance deals with the issuance of tax bills under $100. If adopted,
the Town will send these bills out once a year instead of quarterly.
Separately, Article 8 asks that the current PEG Revolving Fund be converted to a Special
Revenue Fund. There are minor differences in how the two types of funds are administered.
Dawn McKenna, Tourism Committee Chair, recommended language changes for the items listed
under the Tourism Committee Revolving Fund. She asked it to be specified that both the Visitors
Center and the Liberty Ride can submit Capital requests.
Update: Article 28 of ATM 2016—Chapter 59 Section 2D of MGL
Mr. Pato stated Article 28 was indefinitely postponed at ATM 2016 pending deeper analysis.
Adopting Mass General Law Chapter 59 Section 2D would increase revenues to the Town
annually by a non-trivial amount because it would cause real time tax assessments to certain built
properties that increase in value over 50% in the course of a fiscal year. Current practice wait
until the next fiscal year to adjust the tax bill.
Mr. Pato recommends that the Selectmen rescind the 2003 Board of Selectmen’s rejection of the
statute in order to adopt the provision. Action on this provision must take place in the fiscal year
prior to the year in which it is applied; acting before the end of FY17 would permit application in
FY18.
Mr. Pato will make a brief presentation about these findings at Annual Town Meeting.
Ms. Ciccolo asked if adoption requires Town Meeting approval. Mr. Pato reported only
Selectmen action is needed.
Mr. Kelley asked if the Assessor has been consulted. Mr. Pato said he and Ms. Bloom worked in
conjunction with the Assessor’s Office. Mr. Valente said the question of administration is an
open one and it has not been determined whether the new system would require additional staff.
Mr. Lucente asked what the reasons were for the 2003 rejection. Mr. Kelley said, in his
recollection, the rejection was due to the mismatch of time and the amount of work required to
71-116
Selectmen’s Meeting – March 13, 2017
set up a new system. Mr. Lucente said he approved of the new system but did not want to have to
hire additional staff to carry it out.
Gloria Bloom, 17 Loring Road, thanked all involved for their work. To avoid the element of
surprise, property owners could be informed that a bill is coming. She added one reason the
provision was rejected in 2003 was because there was not such a large number of teardowns
then, a phenomenon that has since dramatically increased. She believes new owners expect to
pay bigger residential real estate taxes because their properties have increased in value.
Ms. McKenna said she was on the Board of Selectmen in 2003 and her recollection is there was
a small number of teardowns at the time. She believes also that there was an impediment in State
law. There was also the concern about administrative application, staffing levels in Town Hall
were minimal at the time.
Article Positions & Presenters ATM 2017 & STM 2017-1
Consent Agenda items were confirmed, noting some previously considered articles did not
receive unanimous support from the Appropriation Committee and have therefore been pulled.
Selectmen article positions still to be determined:
Article 15—Appropriate for School Capital Projects and Equipment: Ciccolo yes; Kelley wait;
Barry yes; Pato yes; Lucente wait. School Committee and Appropriation have not yet taken a
position. Mr. Pato will present/move.
Article 16—Appropriate for Public Facilities Capital Projects, items a through j: The
Appropriation Committee has voted to approve all but 16b, which they have not yet voted. The
School Committee has yet to take positions on any of the items.
Ms. Ciccolo recused on 16e because it deals with Pelham Road and will wait on 16b and 16j. She
is a yes on all others; Kelley wait on all; Barry wait on 16b and yes on all others; Pato yes on all
but 16b; Lucente yes on all but wait on 16b. Mr. Kelley will present/move.
Article 31—Resolution to Reduce the Influence of Money in Politics: Ciccolo remains a wait;
Kelley changed wait to yes.
Article 32—Establish Cannabis Committee: Lucente and Barry change from wait to no.
Article 33—Amend General Bylaws—Scenic Roads: The Planning Board voted 4-0 to approve
with one member recused. Ciccolo recused; Kelley wait; Barry wait; Pato wait; Lucente wait.
Mr. Lucente will present.
Article 35—Amend General Bylaws—NCD Technical Changes: Planning Board voted 5-0 to
approve. Ciccolo yes; Kelley yes; Barry yes; Pato yes; Lucente yes. Mr. Pato will present.
Article 36—Amend General Bylaws—Municipal Modernization Act: Ciccolo yes; Kelley yes;
Barry yes; Pato yes; Lucente yes. Mr. Kelley will present.
71-117
Selectmen’s Meeting – March 13, 2017
Article 37—Amend General Bylaws—Trees: Planning Board voted 4-1 in favor with Mr. Hornig
dissenting. Ciccolo wait; Kelley wait; Barry wait; Pato wait for language clarification; Lucente
wait. Ms. Barry will present.
Article 38—Amend General Bylaws—Revolving Funds: Ciccolo yes; Kelley yes; Barry yes;
Pato yes; Lucente yes. Mr. Lucente will present.
Article 39—Amend General Bylaws—Right to Farm: Planning Board has yet to take a position.
Ciccolo wait; Kelley no; Barry wait; Pato wait; Lucente wait. Ms. Ciccolo will present.
Article 46—Amend Zoning Bylaw—Chapter 135 Medical Marijuana: Planning Board will move
that Town Meeting strike from the Table of Uses all Ys except in zone CM. If Town Meeting
approves that, then the Planning Board supports the article. Mr. Valente said there are two
portions to the article and one is a definitions piece that the Planning Board supports. The other
piece would extend medical marijuana clinics to all districts and the Planning Board does not
support that. Ms. Barry pointed out this is not how the motion is written. Ciccolo is presently a
no but would support the Planning Board’s revision; Kelley no; Barry no as written; Pato no but
supports the Planning Board amendment; Lucente no. Ms. Ciccolo will present.
Article 12—Appropriate for Municipal Capital Projects a through x:
12a will be indefinitely postponed. The Appropriation Committee voted 9-0 in favor of all except
item q, the highway sign machine, on which they have not yet voted. Ms. Ciccolo asked if the
bikeway signs could be made with the machine instead of sent out to bid. Mr. Valente will check.
All except Mr. Lucente voted to approve sub-articles 12b though 12x. Mr. Lucente approved all
but project o: CPA Debt Service. He would like more information. Mr. Pato will present.
Article 20—Accept Harbell Street: Ciccolo yes; Kelley yes; Barry yes; Pato yes; Lucente wait to
hear if there is feedback from opposition. Mr. Pato said he would be willing to change his mind
if opposition is strong. Mr. Kelley will present.
Mr. Kelley said with regard to Article 10d—Judges Road, he would like the Board to consider a
different structure to address perpetual affordability. The Board will add an Executive Session on
the matter on March 20.
Review of Selectmen Liaison Assignments
The Board reviewed the committee liaison list. Community Center Advisory, Electric Utility Ad
Hoc, Grain Mill Alley (soon to be dissolved), Community Farming (soon to be dissolved), and
Sister City committees were eliminated. Mr. Pato will check with Richard Canale from Planning
to see if Scenic Byways is still active.
Retired Selectman Cohen will retain membership on the Community Preservation Committee
until June.
71-118
Selectmen’s Meeting – March 13, 2017
Ms. Barry took the Cary Library Executive Committee and LexHAB from Mr. Cohen’s list and
HATS from Mr. Pato’s list. Mr. Pato will take Policy Manual from Mr. Cohen’s list. Ms.
Ciccolo took Tax Deferral and Exemption, gave Youth Sports to Mr. Lucente. Mr. Lucente took
Recreation from Ms. Barry, Economic Development Advisory from Mr. Kelley, Energy
Conservation from Mr. Pato, and will join Ms. Barry on Community Coalition.
Ms. McIntosh, Executive Clerk, will update the list and redistribute for final approval.
Ms. Ciccolo drafted a liaison policy document to help guide members on the role they play. The
policy is also intended to help committee chairs understand how to interact with the liaison and
what to expect from Selectmen.
Ms. Ciccolo noted that reexamination of committee charges continues to come up on the
Selectmen’s work plan. Ms. Barry agreed that reviews should be conducted but perhaps not
every year. A rotation could be established.
Mr. Pato said he is glad for an articulation of minimum guidelines. His practice is to deal with
committees on a case-by-case basis. He is active on some, even though he is a liaison, and on
others in he merely checks in with the Chair and follows along by reading the minutes.
Mr. Lucente agreed the document is a good minimum guideline and noted committees often look
to the Selectman liaison for direction. He believes it is important for Selectmen to establish
accessibility with committees and chairs.
Mr. Lucente said it behooves the Selectmen to look at the charges with some frequency because
it helps work flow and because some charges are mandated by the State.
Mr. Pato said one of the recommendations the Selectmen received from Vision 20/20 was to look
at committee charges and create more accessible articulations of goal and scope. He
recommended each Selectman consider which of the committees on their own lists seem to be in
most need and attend to them in the next year.
Ms. Ciccolo agreed and added that working with committee chairs whose groups have strayed
off task will help make the committees more functional and successful.
Mr. Pato added that succession planning is an important component to address. Some of the
committees work well because there is a successful chair but the community needs to make sure
there is more than one potential leader for the group. The workload needs to be proportionally
distributed and not all on the shoulders of one dedicated person.
Future Board of Selectmen Meeting Dates July-December 2017
Board of Selectmen meetings were proposed for the following Monday evenings:
July 17 and 31
August 14 and 28
September 11, 18, and 25
71-119
Selectmen’s Meeting – March 13, 2017
October 2, 16, and 30
November 6, 13, and 27
December 4 and 18
A weekday daytime Goal Setting meeting will be added for mid-to-late June, 8:00 a.m. to 12:00
p.m.
stth
Meetings were also added on May 1 and June 26
Consent Agenda
Water & Sewer Commitments & Adjustments
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve Water &
Sewer commitments Special Billing BB116 ($19,928.00); Water & Sewer Commitments January
2017 Final Water Bills $3,401.72; Water & Sewer Commitments Special Billing BB1231
$7,111.32; Water & Sewer Commitments Cycle 9 January 2017 $242,973.91; and Water &
Sewer Commitments as recommended by WSAB February $2,611.06.
Approve Minutes & Executive Session Minutes—September 2016
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve and release
the minutes of September 7, September 12, September 21, September 26 and a joint meeting
between the Board of Selectmen and School Committee on September 13, 2016.
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve but not
release the Executive Session minutes of September 12 and September 26, 2016.
Approve Tax Bill Inserts
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve three tax
bill inserts from: the Lexington Business Directory that will be inserted in envelopes addressed
to those that pay personal property tax on a business (approximately 900); the Visitor Center,
inserted in all property tax bills; and the REV, inserted in all property tax bills.
Approve One-Day Liquor License—Lexington Historical Society
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve a request
for a one-day liquor license from the Lexington Historical Society for the purpose of a
Conservation Evening fundraiser at the Lexington Depot on March 23, 2017 from 6:00 p.m. to
8:00 p.m.
Use of the Battle Green—Historical Society Battle Re-Enactment
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve a request
from the Lexington Historical Society to use the Battle Green on April 19, 2017 for an annual
children’s Battle Reenactment from 10:00 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. and from 12:30 p.m. to 1:45 p.m.
71-120
Selectmen’s Meeting – March 13, 2017
Executive Session
Upon motion duly made and by roll call, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to enter Executive
Session at 9:30 p.m. under Exemption 3 to discuss strategy with respect to collective bargaining
related to Crossing Guards Union and, further, to enter Executive Session under Exemption 6 to
consider the purchase, exchange, lease or value of real property, Community Center-Adjacent
Parking Lot and Land, and to re-convene in Open Session only to adjourn. It was declared that
that an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the bargaining and negotiating position(s)
of the Town.
Ms. Barry will be recused from the Crossing Guard discussion and Ms. Ciccolo will be recused
from portions of the Community Center parking lot discussion that deals with Pelham Road
property.
Adjourn
Upon re-convening in Open Session and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of
Selectmen voted 4-0 to adjourn at approximately 10:20 p.m.
A true record; Attest:
Kim Siebert
Recording Secretary
71-121
Selectmen’s Meeting
March 20, 2017
A meeting of the Lexington Board of Selectmen was called to order at 6:30 p.m. on Monday,
March 20, 2017 in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room of the Town Office Building. Chairman
Barry, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Pato, Ms. Ciccolo and Mr. Lucente were present as well as Mr. Valente,
Town Manager and Ms. Siebert, Recording Secretary.
Selectman Concerns and Liaison Reports
Mr. Pato reported that the 20/20 Vision Committee is conducting an every-five-year Town-wide
survey that can be taken by Lexington residents online or in hardcopy format. He noted the
demographic questions in the survey are included to ensure the committee is getting a
representative sampling across sub-populations, compared to the Federal census, but these
questions should be considered optional.
Town Manager Report
th
Mr. Valente said the first hazardous waste collection of the year will be held on April 15 at 201
Bedford Street instead of at the Hartwell Avenue facility which is in the midst of solar panel
installation.
Amend Change: Economic Development Advisory Committee
Mr. Valente reported that the Economic Development Committee has requested a reduction in
member numbers from 11 to 9 as it has been difficult to reach a quorum with the higher number.
There are currently 9 members. A typo related to the number of Selectman liaisons will be
corrected to read “two” rather the “one.”
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to amend the charge of
the Economic Development Advisory Committee, reducing the number of members from 11 to
9.
Class II Auto Dealer—Corporate Name Change
Mr. Lucente was recused from this discussion due to a family relationship with the owner of the
company.
Ms. Barry stated that Lexington Auto Sales LLC has submitted all the necessary paperwork
needed to request reconsideration of their previous application to renew their dealer license
effective January 1, 2017. The application was returned by the State of Massachusetts as the
corporation name (Lexington Auto Sales, LLC) did not match the name on the license renewal
(Lexington Auto Sales).
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 4-0 to approve the
application reflecting the change of corporate name and reissue a Class II Dealer License to
Lexington Auto Sales, LLC, located at 542 Massachusetts Avenue.
71-122
Selectmen’s Meeting – March 20, 2017
Approve Common Victualler License for Dunkin’ Donuts
The Board has received a completed application from Dunkin Donuts for a Common Victualler
License, located at 277 Bedford Street. Requested hours of operation are Monday-Sunday, 5:00
a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Mr. Kelley said he assumes the application has received the required Special Permit from the
ZBA but he wonders if the hours of operation were granted within the terms of the Special
Permit or if the Board of Selectmen, as the license issuer, can name the hours. The closing hour
of 10:00 p.m. seems to be later than might be desired by the neighborhood. Mr. Valente said the
Selectmen are the appropriate authority and can determine the hours.
Ms. Ciccolo asked if license renewal will occur every year, thus giving the Board the opportunity
to change hours of operation if problems occur. Mr. Valente confirmed the license is on an
annual renewal cycle.
Mr. Pato noted this Dunkin’ Donuts is attached to a gas station which presumably keeps the
same hours.
Mr. Lucente said the neighbors should be informed of the hours so that they won’t be caught off-
guard when delivery trucks start backing up in the parking lot at 5:00 a.m.
Mr. Kelley said the ZBA, in the Special Permitting process, would have notified abutters, giving
neighbors the opportunity to attend the hearing, ask questions, and express concerns. If the
business was granted the Special Permit, it is entitled to the license.
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve a Common
Victualler License for Dunkin’ Donuts, 277 Bedford St, with the hours as proposed.
Selectmen Liaison Member/Committee Update
th
At the last meeting on March 13, the Selectmen reviewed the Board’s committee liaison
assignments. It was discovered that two committees—the Policy Manual Committee and the
Fund for Lexington—have 6 members listed in their charges rather than a preferred odd number;
Ms. Barry asked if her colleagues agree the number should be raised to 7.
She asked further if her colleagues agree that the Policy Manual Committee should have two
current, sitting Selectmen listed in the charge instead of one.
Ms. Barry said the amended language of the charge will brought back before the Board at a later
date.
Article Positions & Presenters ATM 2017 & STM 2017-1
Ms. Barry noted that the Article 5 text will be at the Selectmen’s places at tonight’s Town
Meeting.
71-123
Selectmen’s Meeting – March 20, 2017
The strategy for the evening is to open the meeting and complete Special Town Meeting-1, then
begin the Annual Town Meeting by addressing Article 3— Cary Lecture. The next article to be
taken up—Article 37—Amend General Bylaws—Trees— was postponed because of staff
concerns and the need for the Selectmen to re-visit article before it is presented. Ms. Barry
penciled in the discussion of Article 37 for the Wednesday, March 29 and asked that relevant
staff be asked to attend.
The remainder of the night’s agenda will cover articles 35—Amend General Bylaws—NCD
Technical Changes; 36—Amend General Bylaws—Municipal Modernization Act; and 38—
Amend General Bylaws—Revolving Funds, according to the latest from the Town Moderator.
Ms. Barry asked her colleagues if anyone wanted to update a previous vote on any of the articles.
Ms. Barry changed her “yes” vote on Article 36 to “recuse” because one of the subsections deals
with Police officer payment if injured and her husband is a Police Officer. She asked presenter
Mr. Kelley to amend the Selectmen’s vote from “5 in favor” to “4 in favor and one recusal”.
Ms. Ciccolo had been a “wait” on Article 31, in anticipation of receiving a revised copy of the
motion. Mr. Valente said the motions should be at the Selectmen’s places at Cary Hall. Ms.
Ciccolo said her vote could be changed to “yes” but she would like to see the revised article from
the petitioner before the Wednesday vote. Ms. Barry changed the Selectmen’s votes on Article
31 to “5 in favor”.
Ms. Barry noted that Mr. Kelley is the only Selectman to so far take a position on Article 39—
Right to Farm. Mr. Pato has not received the information he requested about what other
communities similar to Lexington have done about the issue. In the absence of that information,
he leans toward a “no” vote but will wait to make it official in the hope of receiving the
information.
Ms. Ciccolo asked if the Planning Board has weighed in on Right to Farm. Since the Planning
Board will present its articles to the Selectmen March 22, the Board opted to wait to hear from
Planning before taking positions.
This Wednesday, Town Meeting will take up anything not finished tonight and then Article 2—
Elect the Deputy Moderator, Article 31—Resolution on Money in Politics; Article 32—Establish
Cannabis Committee; Article 39—Right to Farm; and Article 46—Amend Zoning Bylaw—
Chapter 135 Medical Marijuana. If all of these articles are completed, Mr. Valente will begin his
Town Manager’s Report on Wednesday as well.
The ATM Consent agenda will be addressed on Monday of next week.
Mr. Valente added that he will deliver a report on Capital Financing and use of the Capital
Stabilization Fund tonight during the STM portion of the proceedings. Ms. Barry noted that the
totals have changed slightly; Mr. Valente said the updated figures are also at the Board’s places
in Cary Hall.
71-124
Selectmen’s Meeting – March 20, 2017
Consent Agenda
Water & Sewer Commitments
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve Water &
Sewer Commitments Cycle 9 November 2016 for $212,402.04; Water & Sewer Commitments
Special Billing January 2017 for $17,560.51; Water and Sewer Commitments Finals February
2017 for $4,504.48; and Water & Sewer Commitments Miscellaneous Required Adjustments for
$113.44.
Approve and Sign Letter of Appreciation—Town Meeting Members
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve and sign a
letter of appreciation to the following former Town Meeting members who were not re-elected or
chose not to run in the 2017 election cycle. The letter offers the appreciation of the Board for
their service to the Town and extends the opportunity to continue to serve on a board or
committee or some other way: Suzanne Abair, Diane Bigelow, David Burns, Lawrence Chan,
Joel Herda, Iang Jeon, David Kaufman, Kenneth Kreutzinger, Paul Minutti, Sharmila Mudgal,
Michael O’Sullivan, Judith Pappo, Paul Rubin, Kimberly Ryan, Carol Sampson, Thomas
Wanderer, David Williams, and Jeri Zeder.
Executive Session
Upon motion duly made and by roll call, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to enter Executive
Session at 6:50 p.m. under Exemption 6 to consider the purchase, exchange, lease or value of
real property, Community Center-Adjacent Parking Lot and Land, and to re-convene in Open
Session only to adjourn. It was declared that that an open meeting may have a detrimental effect
on the negotiating position of the Town.
Adjourn
Upon re-convening in Open Session and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of
Selectmen voted 4-0 to adjourn at approximately 7:15 p.m.
A true record; Attest:
Kim Siebert
Recording Secretary
71-125
Selectmen’s Meeting
March 22, 2017
A meeting of the Lexington Board of Selectmen was called to order at 6:02 p.m. on Wednesday
March 22, 2017 in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room of the Town Office Building. Chairman
Barry, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Pato, Ms. Ciccolo and Mr. Lucente were present as well as Mr. Valente,
Town Manager and Ms. Siebert, Recording Secretary.
Selectman Concerns and Liaison Reports
Mr. Pato stated he met with members of the community regarding questions about particular
demographic questions in the Vision 20/20 survey. The meeting was organized by members of
the Chinese American Association of Lexington (CAAL) and a subset of the Vision 20/20
Committee. He noted an email was sent to the Selectmen from the Chair of the survey
subcommittee, Mr. Enrich.
Mr. Pato said the Town Moderator has asked him to provide an update on last year’s Town
Meeting gun article and the supplemental tax model. Mr. Pato noted he sent the Moderator a
draft of the update with only slight edits from what he presented recently to the Board of
Selectmen. There have been no substantive changes.
Article 30—Review by Appropriation Committee
Ms. Barry was recused from the discussion as her husband is a Town employee. Ms. Ciccolo
assumed the role of Chair.
Ms. Ciccolo said the Selectmen requested a review of Article 30 by the Appropriation
Committee. The article was submitted by the Retirement Board and asks Town Meeting to
approve a $1,000 increase in the COLA base from $13,000 to $14,000. The base was increased
two years ago from $12,000 to $13,000.
John Bartenstein, Chair of Appropriation, delivered the review, saying the matter is a
complicated yet important one because projections show significant budget impact in FY23 and
FY24. The goal of the review was to understand why that would happen and what it means.
Mr. Bartenstein said the majority of committee members felt the Selectmen, working with the
Town Manager, should be able to determine all aspects of compensation as a complete package
with components that are inter-related. However, Mr. Bartenstein said the Appropriation
Committee is alright with the arrangement as long as the Selectmen remember the COLA base is
an element of the bigger compensation picture.
The proposed increase adds about $100,000 a year to the cost of the pension level for current
employees. The increase also has an estimated $1M impact on OPEB, although Mr. Bartenstein
said the actuarial studies are somewhat confusing.
The concern at hand is the way the impact was structured by the Retirement Board. The
unfunded liability was basically back-loaded, Mr. Bartenstein said, so the costs hits in FY23
when OPEB amortization increases by $330,000 and by $1,886,000 in FY24.
71-126
Selectmen’s Meeting – March 22, 2017
Through discussion with the Town Manager, Mr. Bartenstein said he is happy to learn there is
flexibility in how to move forward. Mr. Valente is concerned that the one of the effects of
deferring payments against OPEB liability is that interest accrued by those payments is also
deferred.
This year’s pension retirement is already fixed but future actions can be discussed. Mr.
Bartenstein noted an Appropriation Committee minority opinion opposes granting the increase at
Town Meeting. The majority, however, feels COLA to be important and believes the Town, as
an employer, should match consumer adjustment increases.
Ms. Ciccolo said Appropriation’s report was comprehensive and she appreciated the work that
went into it. Mr. Valente said the matter is scheduled to come up at ATM17 on Wednesday,
March 29.
Mr. Kelley asked if the 5-member Retirement Board was unanimous in approving the request.
Mr. Bartenstein said he asked for the minutes of the meeting at which the vote was taken but has
not yet received them.
Mr. Pato said he appreciates the work Appropriation has done and wants to take time to consider
the findings before the Selectmen take positions on the article.
Ms. Barry returned to the meeting.
Application for Common Victualler License—Great Harvest Bread
Ms. Barry said all license application requirements have been fulfilled by K & N Food Services,
doing business as Great Harvest Bread Co, 233 Mass. Ave.
Ms. Ciccolo asked Mr. Valente about the status of a crosswalk across Massachusetts Ave.
requested by Great Harvest. Mr. Valente had no news to report other than the business is also
hoping for a connection to the bikeway, which Ms. Tintocalis is working on.
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve a Common
Victualler License for Great Harvest, 233 Massachusetts Avenue for the hours of Monday
through Friday 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Article Positions & Presenters ATM 2017 & STM 20017-1
Town Meeting will take up articles 31, 32, 39, and 46 tonight.
Ms. Barry noted that Mr. Kelley is the only Selectmen to have voted so far on Article 39—Right
to Farm. Like Mr. Kelley, Ms. Ciccolo, Ms. Barry and Mr. Lucente also voted “no; Mr. Pato said
he had deferred his vote pending receipt of information he requested but, since he still has not
received it, he also voted “no”. Ms. Ciccolo will present the article.
71-127
Selectmen’s Meeting – March 22, 2017
Update—Zoning Articles for ATM 2017—Planning Board to join Board of Selectmen’s Meeting
Before moving on to the Article reviews, it was determined that the next joint meeting of the
Planning Board and Board of Selectmen would take place Wednesday, March 29 at 8:00 a.m.
The Selectmen’s office will post the meeting.
Planning Board members Mr. Canale, Mr. Hornig, Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti, Ms. Johnson were
present. Mr. Creech is out of town. Planning Director Henry and Planner Fields were also
present.
Mr. Canale said the board is still working on some of the articles and will have to give Selectmen
“live updates”. Article 46—Medical Marijuana—will come up tonight.
Article 33—Scenic Roads
Mr. Canale and Ms. Ciccolo are both residents of streets under consideration and were therefore
recused.
In Mr. Canale’s absence, Ms. Johnson presented, saying that the Scenic Roads initiative is one of
the follow up steps that came from the 2006 Freedom’s Way Landscape Inventory. It is a way to
document and protect historic roads under Commonwealth General Law, Chapter 40, Section
15c. Scenic Road protection applies only to trees and stone walls in the road’s right of way. The
designation can only be made to roads that are accepted by the Town.
The motion reflects what the regulation would state: in the interest of protecting scenic roads as
designated by the Town, property owners must meet with the Planning Board to review changes
to tree canopy and stone walls within the right of way. Changes are possible but should be done
in a manner sensitive to the historic road. Fines for offenses range from $100 for a first offense
to $300 for third and subsequent offenses.
Ms. Barry asked how a street would become designated. Ms. Johnson said everyone living on the
currently proposed streets has been notified that their street under consideration. Generally,
residents have been supportive, although some residents on Shade St. expressed concern.
Ms. Johnson said in the future, particularly with the Comprehensive Plan, residents will be able
to submit suggestions for the Scenic Roads list. The Planning Board and/or a group of ten
residents can nominate a road that meets eligibility requirements. The Planning Board notifies
abutters when their street becomes a candidate.
Mr. Pato said the list of Scenic Roads in enumerated in the bylaw so the only way the list can
expand is by Town Meeting vote. He said there should be a provision for informing new
residents that their street is a Scenic Road.
Article 34—Blasting Prohibition
71-128
Selectmen’s Meeting – March 22, 2017
Mr. Canale said this article is a continuation of what Planning has done with past residential
policy articles. Recent house building requiring removal of ledge, grading changes, and
excessively high retaining walls has caused resident outcry; the Planning Board has been trying
to address these problems and may return to Town Meeting next year with subsequent articles to
deal with associated development challenges.
Now that the town is almost entirely “built out” and dwellings are close together, particularly in
the RS district, the impact of blasting is excessive and risky, affecting both topography and
subsurface. Ms. Johnson said the motion proposed prohibits blasting unless authorized by the
Board of Selectmen as being “in the public interest” (such as utility projects, public building
construction, etc.)
Ms. Barry asked if Town Counsel has seen the latest version of the motion. Mr. Henry said
Counsel has not seen the motion as it now reads.
Mr. Kelley said he would not like to see blasting removed entirely as an option because it is
sometimes more appropriate than other methods. Regulations that govern blasting, administered
by the Fire Marshall, include important safeguards.
Mr. Pato said the members of the Economic Development Committee unanimously expressed
concern about this article and would prefer that it not go forward. Mr. Pato stated he finds the
language about the public interest to be vague and prone to being read in at least two ways.
Mr. Lucente said his main concern is with what alternate methods might be used in lieu of
blasting.
Mr. Canale said the Planning Board felt constituents were calling for action that would curtail
blasting. He agreed the solution is not easy. He asked if the Selectmen would form a subgroup
with Planning to examine the issues. Ms. Barry said the Board would entertain the request.
David Kanter, Precinct 7 Town Meeting member, said he believed that basing the article on
anything but measurable technical consequences would be too arbitrary. The idea of exempting
municipal projects from a ban is a slippery slope.
Article 40—Amend Zoning Bylaw Special Permit Residential Development
Mr. Canale said this article has taken the most Board time and garnered the most interest from
residents. There are two main ways Planning has now to approve residential development: by
conventional, by-right zoning statutes and by Special Permit. Planning now discourages
conventional, so-called cookie cutter development because it does not make the best use of
remaining developable land. With Special Permit balanced housing (BHD), developers can get a
“density bonus” which is intended to have less of an impact on abutters and town resources.
However, Mr. Canale acknowledged that the BHD process is flawed. Proposals have not been
what the Board envisioned. Planning would like to turn the process around so that developers
71-129
Selectmen’s Meeting – March 22, 2017
work collaboratively with the Board from the beginning of the project, rather than present fully-
conceived plans that the Board then reacts to.
Mr. Canale said increasing the number of smaller units is a goal as well. If more units are
constructed, 11.5% of them would be designated as affordable. The article would allow the
current minimum square footage to be reduced to a smaller number which the Planning Board
hopes will result in the creation of more workforce housing; currently, even the smallest new
construction units are being sold for $1M, beyond the reach of many.
Mr. Canale noted the Board is still discussing how small the footprint can go and how great the
density can be, but they are in agreement with changing the process.
Ms. Ciccolo said she will reserve judgement on the article until she sees the details. In an effort
to save historic homes on properties being developed, she asked that language be considered to
exempt historic homes from the Gross Floor Area equation. Mr. Canale agreed that Planning
wants to preserve stately homes. Ms. Ciccolo said the addition of the word “new” would make
this clarification. Ms. Ciccolo noted there was no mention of interior pathways becoming public
connections. Mr. Canale believes there is general agreement among Planning members that a
phrase should be added so that Planning can designate land as open to the public.
Mr. Kelley asked if BHD was not an option, are there other site-sensitive strategies to encourage
development that achieves Town goals. Mr. Canale said cluster housing is an option but the
advent of Gross Floor Area has complicated that style of development.
Mr. Pato said the proposed article goes in the right direction but he would like to see the
affordable housing factor of 11.5% raised, based on increased density. He questioned the
Minimum Percentage less than 2,700 SF in the Table under Section 6.9.2. Mr. Canale said the
percentage of affordable units in a given subdivision required to be less than 2,700 SF includes
the percentage required to be under 2,100 SF.
Mr. Pato also questioned percentages in the Table that were technically correct but confusing for
the reader to interpret. Mr. Canale said Planning would make this clear.
Article 43—Amend Zoning Bylaw & Zoning Map Amend GC, CM & CRO Districts
Mr. Hornig said Planning is recommending a series of changes to the dimensional controls of the
CRO office district located on Bedford, Hayden, and Spring streets. The biggest change is an
increase to the maximum allowable floor area ratio (FAR) to 0.35 from 0.15 and permitting
variance to the dimensional controls by Special Permit, as allowed now in the Hartwell Ave area.
The Use Table would also be changed to uses allowed on Hartwell and to allow Biotech
Manufacturing by Special Permit.
Minor map changes are also proposed to match parcel boundaries and re-organize orphaned
slivers of land so stray residential parcels are absorbed by the CRO or GC districts.
71-130
Selectmen’s Meeting – March 22, 2017
Two new TMOD overlay districts will also be created—one for the Forbes Road area and one for
the Hayden Road area.
Mr. Pato and Mr. Lucente reported the Economic Development Advisory Committee was in full
support of the provisions of Article 43.
David Kanter, Capital Expenditures Committee, asked if new TMOD funds would flow to the
existing TMOD Stabilization Fund and if the language of the current TMODs would have to be
modified. Mr. Hornig said what happens to the money is defined in the specific TMOD
regulation.
Article 46—Medical Marijuana:
The Planning Board unanimously recommends disapproval of Article 46 in its original form
finds some elements of it to be are valuable. Mr. Hornig says Planning hopes to salvage those
elements by including them in a substitute motion which is essentially identical to the original
motion except that each row of the Use Table is adjusted to match the current zoning allowances
in the CM district (Hartwell and Tracer Lane).
Ms. Barry said the Selectmen have already taken a position, unanimously rejecting Article 46.
Mr. Hornig asked for the Selectmen support of the alternate motion. Mr. Kelley asked if
replacement zoning proposals need to be on record a certain number of days before a Town
Meeting vote. Mr. Hornig said that is the case only for the former RD and CD districts.
Ms. Ciccolo, Ms. Barry, and Mr. Pato supported Planning’s motion. Mr. Kelley said he will
make his decision at Town Meeting but he is generally averse to supporting marijuana-related
articles. Mr. Lucente said he would wait to decide. Ms. Ciccolo will update her presentation on
Selectmen positions at Town Meeting.
The remainder of the articles were deferred to a later time. The Planning Board moved to
adjourn.
Consent Agenda
Approve One-Day Liquor License—LHS Baseball Boosters
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve the request
from the Lexington High School Baseball Boosters for a one-day liquor license for the purpose
of a fundraiser to be held at the Lexington Depot at 13 Depot Square, Lexington, MA on April 8,
2017 from 7:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.
Adjourn
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to adjourn at 7:12 p.m.
A true record; Attest:
Kim Siebert,
Recording Secretary
71-131
Selectmen’s Meeting
March 27, 2017
A meeting of the Lexington Board of Selectmen was called to order at 6:00 p.m. on Monday,
March 27, 2017 in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room of the Town Office Building. Chairman
Barry, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Pato, Ms. Ciccolo and Mr. Lucente were present as well as Mr. Valente,
Town Manager and Ms. Siebert, Recording Secretary.
Selectmen Concerns and Liaison Reports
Ms. Barry made a follow-up statement to Selectman Pato’s comments of March 22, regarding
one of the demographic questions on the Vision 20/20 survey. A question that has caused
concern has been revised based on discussions with representatives from the Chinese American
Association of Lexington (CAAL), Indian Americans of Lexington (IAL), Koreans of Lexington
(KoLex), some members from the 20/20 Committee, the Chairman of the Human Rights
Committee, the Town Manager, and Selectmen Barry and Lucente.
The Board of Selectmen encourage those who have not yet done so to take the survey which is
available on the Town website or in hardcopy form available at the Town Hall, Community
Center, or Library. The paper version of the survey is available in English, Mandarin, and
Korean; the online version is only in English. The deadline to submit responses has been
extended to Friday, April 14.
Update—ATM 2017 Article 18—Appropriate for Visitors Center
Dawn McKenna and Kerry Brandin from the Tourism Committee presented details of Article 18,
stating timing is crucial if the Town is to be prepared for commemorative events in 2020.
Representatives of the Tourism Committee met with members of the Selectmen and Town staff.
Architect Don Mills has been asked to give an estimate of what it would take to bring the project
through the design development phase. Total funds needed for the schematic design phase are
$152,000; $131,000 remains in the Visitors Center account from prior appropriations. Therefore,
the initial phase is $21,000 short. Design development services would cost another $80,000.
Based on these calculations, Article 18 asks Town Meeting to approve a total of $100,000 to
advance the Visitors Center project.
Ms. McKenna said several people have approached her about identifying sources of funding
other than the Town. Some ideas are being floated that may bear fruit but until the project
officially moves forward, such sources cannot be pursued.
Mr. Pato said he believes the $4M building cost is at least two times too high is not inclined to
support Article 18 funding because he would reject a building plan if it remained elaborate.
Ms. Barry said in the context of prioritizing projects and funding, it is difficult to add yet another
capital project to an already challenging list. Ms. Barry said she can support the $21,000 shortage
to get through the exhibit design phase but, beyond that, she is not comfortable giving a green
light to anything that might draw from the debt stabilization fund, as Ms. McKenna suggests.
71-132
Selectmen’s Meeting – March 27, 2017
In response to comments, Ms. McKenna said allowing the schematic portion of the project to
move ahead will provide time to research alternative funding sources. Additional funding would
not be committed until a second approval threshold has been crossed. The Tourism Committee
regrets that architect Mills was not given narrower and more utilitarian guidelines that would
have resulted in a less elaborate building design. The Visitors Center project was put on hold to
make way for other projects and unless the Town recognizes the new Visitors Center as an
investment, it will be easy to keep postponing the project.
Ms. Ciccolo would like the project to go through the schematic design phase with the remaining
appropriated funds. Unless the project is deemed manageable within the context of competing
projects, she cannot guarantee her support after the initial phase.
David Kanter, Town Meeting Member Precinct 7 and Capital Expenditures Committee member,
urged the Board to support the use of the remaining appropriated funds plus the additional
$21,000. He believes addressing overall project costs should be the highest priority. Further
funding approval should rest with Town Meeting once the full scope of the project is known.
John McWeeney, Chairman of Economic Development Advisory Committee, said consensus of
EDAC at a recent meeting was that the Visitors Center project needs to be done and that the
Selectmen should determine the best way to accomplish that goal.
Ms. McKenna will present Article 18 to Capital Expenditures and Appropriation at upcoming
committee meetings. The matter is scheduled to come before Town Meeting on April 12.
Mr. Kanter said Capital Expenditures will want to know the funding source so this information
can be included in the committee report.
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 3-2 to support the
requested $100,000 from unallocated funds with the caveat that the project not go beyond the
schematic design phase without re-authorization by the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Pato and Ms.
Barry were the dissenting votes.
Reconsider Common Victualler License for Dunkin’ Donuts—Hours of Operation
When this matter previously came before the Board, there was an unresolved question about
whether the hours on the Common Victualler license mirrored the hours on the Special Permit.
Staff researched the question and found that the hours of operation on the Special Permit are
listed as 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., not 5 a.m. to 10 p.m.
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve the hours of
operation for the Common Victualler license to be as written in the Special Permit, 6 a.m. to 10
p.m.
71-133
Selectmen’s Meeting – March 27, 2017
Article Positions & Presenters ATM 2017
Mr. Pato will not attend Town Meeting tonight due to illness. Articles he had been assigned to
present have been re-assigned per an email Ms. Barry sent earlier in the day.
Mr. Lucente declared that he is in support of Article 4 and Article 9.
The Planning Board will move to indefinitely postpone Article 33 Scenic Roads.
Ms. Barry reported the Planning Board will also move to indefinitely postpone Article 34-
Blasting. The Selectmen unanimously supported indefinite postponement.
Positions on Article 41—Revise Definitions: Ciccolo yes; Kelley wait; Barry yes; Pato yes;
Lucente wait.
Article 27—Prior Years’ Unpaid Bills will be indefinitely postponed. The Board was
unanimously in support of indefinite postponement.
Wednesday night’s Town Meeting schedule is Articles 20, 37, 17, 15.
Mr. Lucente and Mr. Kelley both changed their positions on Article 15—Capital School Projects
and Equipment from “wait” to “yes”.
Article 12(o)—Westview Cemetery Building Design : Mr. Lucente remains a “wait.”
Update—ATM 2017 Article 37—Trees
Gerry Paul, Tree Committee, said he and Nancy Sofren met with Mr. Valente and staff and came
to an agreement to make two changes to Article 37.
1)In instances where a large tree must be removed as a requirement of a building permit,
the higher mitigation rate would not apply;
2)A section about maintenance of protected and replanted trees has been deleted to allow
further consideration.
Mr. Valente said Town Counsel is still working with staff to revise the wording of the motion for
Article 37.
Positions on Article 37: Ciccolo yes; Kelley yes; Barry yes; Pato yes; Lucente yes.
Consent Agenda
Water & Sewer Commitments
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve water &
sewer commitments February 2017 Cycle 9 for $213,842.67.
71-134
Selectmen’s Meeting – March 27, 2017
Sign Eagle Scout Letters—Peter Ekrem and Thomas Barry
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to sign a letter of
commendation congratulating Peter B. Ekrem and Thomas C. Barry for attaining the highest
rank of Eagle in Boy Scouting.
Approve Minutes & Executive Session Minutes—October 2016
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve the minutes
of Budget Summit 1 on October 6, 2016, regular meeting minutes from October 13, 2016 and
October 24, 2016 and a joint meeting with the BOS and Planning Board on October 25, 2016.
Further, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve but not release the Executive Session
minutes of October 13 and October 24, 2016.
Executive Session
Upon motion duly made and by roll call, the Board of Selectmen voted 4-0 to enter into
Executive Session at 6:38 p.m. under Exemption 6 to consider the purchase, exchange, lease or
value of real property 20 Pelham Rd. and to reconvene in open session only to adjourn. Further,
it was declared that an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the negotiating position of
the Town.
Ms. Ciccolo was recused from the Pelham Property discussion.
Adjourn
Upon re-convening in Open Session and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of
Selectmen voted 4-0 to adjourn at approximately 6:50 p.m.
A true record; Attest:
Kim Siebert
Recording Secretary
71-135
Joint Meeting
Board of Selectmen and Planning Board
March 29, 2017
A joint meeting of the Board of Selectmen and the Planning Board was held on Wednesday,
March 29, 2017, at 8:00 a.m., in Estabrook Hall, Cary Memorial Building. Ms. Barry, Chair;
Mr. Kelley; Mr. Pato; Ms. Ciccolo; and Mr. Lucente were present as well as Mr. Valente, Town
Manager and Ms. Arnold, Recording Secretary.
Also in attendance: Planning Board (PB) members: Mr. Canale, Chair; Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti;
Mr. Hornig; and Ms. Johnson. Mr. Henry, Planning Director; Mr. Kucharsky, Assistant Planning
Director.
Ms. Barry called the Selectmen’s meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. and introduced the Board
members. Mr. Canale called the Planning Board meeting to order at 8:03 a.m.
Annual Town Meeting (ATM) Warrant Article 44: Brookhaven
Mr. Valente reviewed efforts to develop an agreement between the Town of Lexington and
Brookhaven at Lexington (Brookhaven) that would allow Brookhaven to expand its facilities
while the Town receives increases in Brookhaven’s annual Payment In Lieu Of Taxes (PILOT)
plus an annual affordable housing mitigation payment over the next 15 years. Negotiations
resulted in a compromise that includes a payment schedule, adjustments to be made if
Brookhaven’s tax-exempt status changes, and steps to be taken after the 15 years. Mr. Valente
noted that an approved agreement would be signed by the BOS and Brookhaven, and it is
anticipated that the Planning Board would take a position on the affordable housing portion.
Planning Board and BOS members expressed appreciation for the work that had been done.
Ms. Barry noted that the BOS had received and read written comments sent by residents,
including those who live at Brookhaven.
The Planning Board members expressed general consensus in support of the agreement.
Mr. Canale and Ms. Johnson recognized that the agreement required both sides to adjust their
expectations, while expressing general support for the total package.Ms. Corcoran-Ronchetti
and Mr. Hornig expressed support for the affordable housing component without commenting on
the PILOT.
The BOS members expressed general consensus in support of the agreement, although Mr.
Kelley shared concerns about the affordable housing piece and was not prepared to take a
position at the time. He wants to see tangible efforts that result in increased affordable housing
in the near future. Ms. Kreiger, Chair of the Brookhaven Board of Trustees, thanked the two
Boards on behalf of the Brookhaven Board of Trustees. Mr. Henry expects the agreement to be
finalized by April 12.
Mr. Kanter, Precinct 7 Town Meeting Member, identified four concerns relating to the proposed
agreement:
71-136
Joint Meeting – March 29, 2017
The annual 2.5% percentage increase in the PILOT is less that the increases experienced
by residents and is not adequate.
Spreading the affordable housing mitigation payments over 15 years means the funds
may not be available when they are needed. Also, they may not be adequate to cover the
costs of affordable housing, which are likely to experience inflation-related increases, and
they may not be adequate to cover the cost of borrowing until the funds are available. He
noted that the 2020 census will be used for the next affordable housing calculations,
which could impact Lexington’s current exemption from Chapter 40B housing
development if the Town does not meet the affordable housing threshold that is required
to restrict such development.
Although Brookhaven’s assisted care units are not currently counted as part of
Lexington’s denominator for calculating its percentage of affordable housing, there are
no assurances that this will continue to be accepted practice.Brookhaven plans to add
assisted care units, and the agreement does not include an adjustment should past practice
change so that they are included in the affordable housing calculations.
It is not clear what happens to the agreement if the Article is not supported by ATM; in
that event, the current PILOT should continue.
Warrant Article Update - ATM 2017 - Zoning Articles
ATM Warrant Article 40: Amend Zoning Bylaw—Special Permits Residential Developments
Mr. Canale reported that the Planning Board has not yet reached consensus on this effort to
adjust the current “by right” regulations.
ATM Warrant Article 42: Amend Zoning Bylaw—Two Family Homes
Mr. Canale reported that the Planning Board is close to reaching consensus on this Article, which
is designed to encourage housing diversity by allowing additional two family structures. It is
anticipated that the constraints that are being be included in the Article would result in
minimizing the increase of such housing. Ms. Ciccolo expressed concern about monitoring and
enforcing restrictions. Mr. Henry said that there are mechanisms for monitoring affordable
housing, while monitoring senior housing requires some adjustments. Mr. Kelley reported that
he opposes allowing additional two family homes in Lexington because of monitoring challenges
and because they could change the Town’s character.
ATM Warrant Article 43: Amend Zoning Bylaw—Economic Development Refinements
Mr. Canale reported that two members of the Planning Board support the proposed ATM Motion
that was distributed and two members are requesting modifications. The fifth member is
traveling out of the country. Mr. Canale said that the concern with the current motion is that it
does not address the potential need for a special permit process regarding transportation
mitigation. All of the Selectmen expressed support for the Article’s effort to facilitate the
commercial development process in order to increase the commercial tax base. Mr. Valente
suggested that the Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC) be consulted. The
71-137
Joint Meeting – March 29, 2017
EDAC has previously expressed concern that the special permit process is a deterrent to
development.
Adjourn
Upon duly made and seconded motion, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 and the Planning
Board voted 4-0 to adjourn at 9:09 a.m.
A true record; attest:
Sara Arnold
Recording Secretary
71-138
Selectmen’s Meeting
March 29, 2017
A meeting of the Lexington Board of Selectmen was called to order at 6:03 p.m. on Wednesday,
March 29, 2017 in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room of the Town Office Building. Chairman
Barry, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Pato, Ms. Ciccolo and Mr. Lucente were present as well as Mr. Valente,
Town Manager and Ms. Siebert, Recording Secretary.
Public Hearing—Flammable Storage License—113-115 Hartwell Ave
Chairman Barry opened the public hearing at 6:05 p.m.
Mike DiMinico, Senior Director of King St. Properties, presented information and answered
questions about the company’s request for a flammable storage license at 111-115 Hartwell
Avenue. The license is intended to accommodate the needs of new tenant Wave Life Sciences, a
research and development concern involved with preclinical genetic medicine. Wave has signed
a long-term lease for this location.
Mr. DiMinico noted that King St. Properties obtained a Special Permit in 2015 from the Planning
Board for ground-up lab development at 113-115 Hartwell. King Street Properties keeps close
track of tenant flammable use but, until this time, no other tenants of King Street Properties have
exceeded the threshold that would require this form of licensure.
After receiving the license, Wave will review safety and material handling procedures with the
Fire Department and the Building Commissioner (Phase 1) in order to receive a flammable use
permit (Phase II).
Due to its substantial investment in the properties, King Street Properties has retained a team of
consulting engineers to advise on best practices. Mr. DiMinico said his company has met also
with Town staff and answered all questions pertaining to site development.
Assistant Fire Chief John Fleck confirmed Mr. DiMinico’s account and said that his department
has worked with King Street Properties over the last 6 months to meet necessary standards. He
emphasized that the property is not yet built-out and the license is needed so storage areas can be
designed and constructed. Assistant Chief Fleck foresees a 3-to-5-year horizon before the
property is fully functional. Once the Board grants the license, the Fire Department will continue
to work with King St and Wave to ensure compliance with standards. Assistant Chief Fleck
noted that if Shire was on one parcel instead of four, the same licensure would have been
necessary; flammable materials are a normal part of the bio-medical research business.
Mr. Lonardo, Building Commissioner, said King Street Properties needs to be granted this
license in order to obtain a building permit. He sees no impediments to moving forward.
Mr. Lucente asked if the license is subject to periodic review. Assistant Chief Fleck replied that
the registration card must be renewed every April, before which the facility will be inspected to
make sure everything is satisfactory.
71-139
Selectmen’s Meeting – March 29, 2017
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve a
Flammable Storage License for King 113 Hartwell LLC at 113-115 Hartwell Avenue for the
storage, operation, and maintenance for flammable and combustible storage at 113-115 Hartwell
Ave (Lot 5, Plan No. 31330B; Parcel ID: 10509) as presented.
Ms. Barry closed the public hearing at 6:10 p.m.
Discussions ATM 2017—Article 10—Appropriate for the FY2018 Community Preservation
Committee Operating Budget and CPA Project
Mr. Kelley referenced Article 10(d), Judges Road under Community Preservation requests. In
previous discussions, the Selectmen have been unanimous in support of keeping all 16 Judges
Road units affordable. CPC has voted 6-0 in favor of the $1.048M to secure perpetual
affordability.
After the most recent Selectmen deliberations about Judges Road, Mr. Kelley determined it is
wiser to move toward a 100% ownership model rather than keeping the status quo of eleven units
owned and five rented. In order to accomplish that, Mr. Kelley asked that the CPA funding be
released to the control of Selectmen so that the Board can manage the transition.
Ms. Ciccolo clarified that Mr. Kelley means he does not want to have the rental units under the
authority of the LHA. Mr. Kelley concurred, saying the five units would ultimately be purchased
by occupants rather than leased. Then, all 16 residences would contribute uniformly on a
monthly basis to the property’s mortgage and upkeep and the LHA would not become the de
facto “parents” of the property. Further, selling the units would mean the purchase revenue could
replenish dwindling CPA Affordable Housing coffers, putting the Town in a better position to
create/buy additional affordable housing.
Ms. Ciccolo agreed it would be better in the long run if LHA did not become the de facto parent,
as it has for other affordable housing properties.
Ms. Ciccolo asked Mr. Valente if the rental vouchers would stay with the tenant or moved to
another property. Mr. Valente was unsure.
Mr. Kelley contacted Lexington’s RHSO agent Liz Rust about his proposal. She deemed his idea
feasible but said it would add to the immediate complexity of the issue. Mr. Kelley said he does
not want to hold up progress but he thinks his proposal would ultimately be a better arrangement
for the Town.
Mr. Valente said there are three issues to be researched:
First: Under the current Town Meeting proposed, the LHA would own the 5 rental units.
Funding the article as it stands would create a grant that LHS would use to execute the purchase.
Does the LHA have the authority to sell those assets?
71-140
Selectmen’s Meeting – March 29, 2017
Second: If those assets can be sold, where does the revenue go? Would it come back to the
Town or stay with LHA?
Third: Are assets purchased with CPA funds allowed to be sold?
Ms. Barry said CPA is scheduled to come up on Monday, April 3. Mr. Valente will contact
Town Counsel about relevant questions. The matter will come back before the Selectmen on
April 3 prior to Town Meeting that night.
Article Positions & Presenters ATM 2017
Tonight’s articles:
Article 20 –Harbell St. Acceptance. Mr. Kelley will present.
Article 37—Trees has been moved to a later night TBA.
Article 17—Hastings School Replacement Design is on the agenda tonight. Ms. Ciccolo
presents.
Article 15—School Capital Projects. Ms. Barry will present.
Article 16—Public Facilities Capital Projects. Mr. Kelley will present. Ms. Barry indicated the
Capital Expenditures Committee has concerns about three items under Facilities and Site
Improvements.
Mr. Pato voted “yes” across the board on all Article 16 projects.
Time permitting, Town Meeting will return to Article 21—OPEB. Ms. Barry is recused. Mr.
Lucente will present.
Article 16 (j), the Town has reached an agreement with the Scottish Rite to purchase a 20-space
portion of their parking lot for $400,000. As part of that purchase, the Board has asked the
Pelham connection, the sidewalk issue, and the signage issue to be resolved. Mr. Valente said the
Pelham connection is close to agreement; the sidewalk issue is resolved and will be along the
driveway; and the Scottish Rite has agreed the Town can erect a sign on the wall.
Ms. Ciccolo said, out of an abundance of caution, she will recuse on the parking lot question—
Article 16 (j) because of the connection to Pelham Rd.
Mr. Pato said that even if the article passes at Town Meeting, the details can continue to be
deliberated. Ms. Barry, Mr. Pato, Mr. Kelley, and Mr. Lucente voted “yes” on project (j).
Mr. Lucente is a yes on Article 16 (a) through (c), remains a wait on project (d), and is a yes for
projects (e) through (j).
Ms. Ciccolo voted to support Article 16 (b).
71-141
Selectmen’s Meeting – March 29, 2017
Mr. Kelley will wait on Article 16 (a) through (i).
Ms. Ciccolo asked that items for which she is recused be held aside and voted separately.
Article 12—Municipal Capital Projects and Equipment: Mr. Lucente changed his vote on project
(o)—Westview Cemetery—from wait to yes. Ms. Barry will present.
Article 24—Specified Stabilization Funds: Ms. Ciccolo will present.
Article 30—Retirement COLA Base: Ms. Barry is recused. Mr. Lucente will present. Positions:
Kelley yes; Lucente yes; Pato yes; Ciccolo yes.
Article 10—CPA will come up on Monday April 3. Projects (h) and (k) are indefinitely
postponed. Positions: Ms. Ciccolo voted yes on all but (h). Mr. Kelley supported all projects
except (h) on which he voted no. Ms. Barry likewise supported all except (h) on which she voted
to wait. Mr. Pato voted yes on all but project (l) on which he voted to wait. Mr. Lucente voted
yes on all except (h) on which he voted no.
Mr. Valente said that if there is no Selectmen support for item (h)—Stone Building Feasibility
Study—there is no point in moving it on Town Meeting floor.
Mr. Kelley said it is true the Selectmen’s goals have included getting the Stone Building into
working order but he believes a citizens’ committee should be formed to study the matter. The
design work done in 2008 could be a strong starting point for program and design discussions.
Mr. Lucente agreed and added he does not believe that funding will take the project to where it
needs to go any faster than a study group.
Mr. Valente said the proposed funding is to accomplish what he hears Board members saying
they want. Ms. Ciccolo said perhaps the term “feasibility study” is misleading, then, because it
gives the wrong impression of the scope of the project being funded. Even if a citizens’
committee is formed, it is helpful to have staff or a consultant guide the project forward.
Mr. Pato said his understanding was that the next phase would be to hire a consultant to look at
possible market opportunities to attract renters. If this is indeed the next step, the logical choice
would be to expend funds on a consultant rather than form a citizens’ committee.
Mr. Valente said moving forward with the project at Town Meeting would not preclude forming
a citizens’ committee.
With the vote tally two yeses, two noes and one wait, Mr. Valente said the support was not
strong enough to move the article.
Mr. Lucente, Mr. Kelley, and Ms. Ciccolo voted for indefinite postponement. Mr. Pato voted no
on indefinite postponement and yes to the existing request. Ms. Barry voted no for indefinite
postponement. The article will be indefinitely postponed.
71-142
Selectmen’s Meeting – March 29, 2017
Purchase of Real Estate—Review and Authorize Town Manager to Sign Purchase and Sale
Agreement for 20 Pelham Road Property
Ms. Ciccolo recused herself due to conflict of interest.
Mr. Valente said the Town has completed its negotiation with the Armenian Sisters for the
purchase and sale of 20 Pelham Rd. The Selectmen reviewed a copy of the document at an
earlier meeting.
Since this is the first time the issue is being discussed in open session, Mr. Valente highlighted
several items:
The purchase price is $7.95M; the appropriation at Town Meeting for the purchase was
$8M;
The due diligence window was 3 weeks long, ending March 31. The site survey and
phase one environmental survey have been completed;
The closing is scheduled for April 19;
The Town has agreed to buy the property “as is” with known the defects of asbestos and
PCB, which must be removed.
Negotiations to purchase the property included reimbursement of $75,000 for underground oil
tank removal and cleaning the building of furnishings, academic materials, etc. Mr. Valente will
ask the Board on April 3 for authorization to request a reserve fund transfer from Appropriations
for $75,000.
Rose Zhao, 41 Bloomfield St., asked if the Town has the budget to fix up the property. As a
statistician and a realtor, she asked if the Town has done a forecast of the need for Special
Education facilities. Ms. Barry said the forecast question would be better directed to the School
Committee, however 20 Pelham has been determined by the School Committee as the best place
to house the LCP program. Design funds have been approved by Town Meeting for the Pelham
site. The renovation project costs have yet to be fully determined.
Ms. Zhao said she would want to know the exact cost of renovations before purchasing the
property. She has not heard any forecasts about how many children the LCP program is expected
to serve in the future. Ms. Barry said the School Committee’s enrollment working group has
determined that Pelham will satisfy LCPs needs for at least five years.
Ms. Zhao believes the projection for school age children is flat. Mr. Pato, a member of the
enrollment working group, replied that Lexington’s school age population is projected to grow at
2% a year for at least the next five years as it has done for the past six years. The LCP move to
Pelham in not only to accommodate Lexington’s pre-school students with special needs but also
to vacate space at Harrington School for regular ed. There are several documents such as the
Enrollment Master Plan and the Capital Plan that can be accessed for further information.
Ms. Barry thanked Ms. Zhao for expressing her opinion and encouraged her to reach out to the
School Committee and access the information Mr. Pato cited.
71-143
Selectmen’s Meeting – March 29, 2017
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 4-0 to authorize the Town
Manager with respect to 20 Pelham Rd., Lexington, Massachusetts (the “Property”), to enter into
a purchase and sale agreement for the Town’s acquisition of the property in substantially the
form presented to the Board at its March 29, 2017 meeting, with final changes to be approved by
the Town Manager in consultation with Town Counsel as reasonably necessary (the “Purchase
and Sale Agreement”); and to authorize the Town Manager to take all actions on behalf of the
Town that are reasonably necessary, in the judgement of the Town Manager, to complete the
purchase of the Property in accordance with the Purchase and Sale Agreement, including without
limitation delivering closing funds and signing deeds. Deed restrictions, closing forms, closing
documents, letters, and settlement statements.
Ms. Ciccolo rejoined the meeting.
Consent Agenda
Approve and Sign Proclamations
National Library Week—April 9-15, 2017
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve and sign the
National Library Week Proclamation for the dates specified.
National Public Safety Telecommunications Week—April 9-15, 2017
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve and sign the
National Public Safety Telecommunications Week Proclamation for the date specified.
Arbor Day—Friday, April 28, 2017
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve and sign the
Arbor Day Proclamation for the dates specified.
Approve One-Day Liquor License—Hindu Holi Festival
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to approve the request
by Thakali Samaj Boston for a one-day alcohol license for the purpose of a Hindu/Holi Festival
Fundraiser to be held at St. Brigid Parish Center Hall, 1955 Mass Ave., Lexington, MA on April
1, 2017 from 6 p.m. to 11 p.m.
Executive Session—Exemption 6: Update Belmont Country Club
Upon motion duly made and by roll call, the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to enter into
Executive Session at 7:03 p.m. under Exemption 6 to consider the purchase, exchange, lease or
value of real property Belmont Country Club and to reconvene in open session only to adjourn.
Further, it was declared that an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the negotiating
position of the Town.
71-144
Selectmen’s Meeting – March 29, 2017
Adjourn
Upon re-convening in Open Session and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of
Selectmen voted 5-0 to adjourn at approximately 7:10 p.m.
A true record; Attest:
Kim Siebert
Recording Secretary
Town of Lexington
SA
TO:Board of Selectmen
SUBJECT:Request for Transfer from Salary Transfer Account
Request is hereby made for the following transfer from the Salary Transfer Account as
appropriated via vote of Annual Town Meeting:
1.Amount requested:$3,900.00
2.To be transferred to:
PROP & LIAB INSUR REG WAGES 10092001-51110
Account NameAccount Number
3.Present balance in Appropriation:($3,876.10)
4.Explanation for purpose of transfer:
A portion of the Deputy Town Manager's salary is paid from the Property and
Liability Insurance account, in recognition of the time spent managing those
projects for the Town. Staff turnover this year, including sick and vacation buy-
out costs, caused the account to exceed normal spending levels. This request
reflects the amount needed to return the overall account to a positive balance
to close the year.
Department Head
Action of Board of Selectman:
Date
ApprovedDisapproved
Transfer voted in the sum of:$3,900.00
Chairman, Board of Selectman
Action of Appropriation Committee:
Date
Reviewed & Reviewed &
RecommendedNot-recommended
Chairman, Appropriation Committee
Salary Transfer - Prop & Liability Ins