HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-08-05-CSCII-minAd Hoc Crematory Study Committee 11
Minutes, Wednesday, August 5, 2026
Hybrid —Parker Room and Remote via Zoom
5:00-6:15 PM
Date/Time: Meeting called to order at 5:02 p.m.; adjourned at approximately 6:00 p.m.
Location/Format: Hybrid meeting, with in-person participants in the Parker Room and remote
participants via Zoom.
Attendance and Quorum
Members were present in the room except Rabbi David Lerner, who had informed the chair in advance
that he was unable to attend. Archan Basu initially attended remotely, confirmed audio access, and then
joined the meeting in person. After Archan joined in person, the meeting continued as an in-person
committee meeting, with Zoom continuing for public access.
Roll call was conducted, and quorum was confirmed.
Committee Members Present
• Joe Pato (SB Liaison and non-voting Chair pro -tem), Archan Basu (remote then in-person), Mike
Harris, Jyoti Puri, Joseph Su, Jillian Tung, Judy Zola
• Absent: Rabbi David Lerner
Liaisons / Guests
• Anil Ahuja — Appropriations Committee (remote)
1. APPROVAL OF PRIOR MEETING MINUTES
The committee reviewed the minutes from the June 10, 2026 meeting. A motion was made by Mike Harris
to approve the minutes, seconded by Judy Zola. Because the meeting was hybrid at that point, the vote
was taken by roll call. The minutes were approved unanimously.
2. REVIEW OF MAJORITY REPORT
The chair stated that the substantive purpose of the meeting was to review the committee's majority
report and a minority report prepared by several committee members. The chair noted that comments
received after the June 10 meeting had been incorporated into the circulated majority report. Members
discussed whether any additional edits or clarifications were needed.
Discussion included the report's assumptions regarding Westview Cemetery burials, Lexington -only
demand, projected cremation volumes, and maximum revenue calculations. Members noted that the
majority report assumes Westview generally does not accept burials from residents of other towns, with
limited exceptions, and that this affects expected demand. A member highlighted that even under a high -
use scenario involving all Lexington deaths and a 100 percent cremation rate, projected revenue would
be limited relative to capital and operating costs.
- 1-
3. REVIEW OF MINORITY REPORT/ DISSENTING VIEW
Members who prepared the minority report described it as a review of the same findings and data sources
considered by the full committee. The chair asked members to provide two types of feedback: comments
on the minority report itself and any elements of the minority report that should be integrated into the
majority report where they reflected the committee's broader voice.
Members discussed whether the final product should appear as two separate reports or as one integrated
committee submission. The consensus was that the report should travel as a single document for archival
and Select Board purposes, with the majority view and dissenting/minority view clearly identified. The
chair agreed to draft a short navigational introduction explaining the structure of the document.
Substantive Discussion Points
• Community need: Members agreed that serving end -of -life, cultural, and religious needs
of Lexington residents is a central issue. Several members emphasized that the committee
should distinguish between the underlying community need and the question of whether
a new crematory at Westview is the best way to address that need.
• Alternatives: Members discussed whether alternatives, such as working with existing
regional crematories to improve scheduling, witnessing, weekend availability, or
ceremonial access, should be emphasized more clearly in the report.
• Environmental and health considerations: Members discussed the need to clarify that
environmental controls and standards would be determined through a case-by-case
regulatory process involving MassDEP and the Lexington Board of Health. Members
referenced Best Available Control Technology analysis and noted that advanced
emissions controls, including mercury mitigation, could have significant capital,
operating, and staffing implications.
• Device and radiation -seed risks: Members discussed concerns about medical devices,
lithium -containing devices, and radiation seeds, noting that required removal procedures
reduce but do not eliminate the possibility of missed cases, especially if a process is
accelerated.
• Comparability of other facilities: Members discussed whether comparisons to Duxbury
and other crematories were appropriate, noting differences in catchment area, operating
schedules, advanced filtration, and costs.
• Demand and capacity modeling: Members raised concerns about the assumptions used
in the minority report's demand modeling, including county -level cremation estimates,
extrapolation of national or regional growth rates, application of uniform assumptions
across counties, comparison with actual facility volumes, and lack of stated assumptions
in some tables.
• Financial assumptions: Members discussed revenue, pricing, break-even calculations,
amortization of capital costs, and whether financing assumptions such as interest rates
should be included.
• Tone and presentation: Members encouraged the minority report authors to review the
tone to ensure disagreement is framed as differences in analysis and perspective rather
than criticism of committee members.
-2
4. NEXT STEPS AND ACTION ITEMS
• Joseph Su will provide written language describing the environmental regulatory process,
including the role of MassDEP, the Lexington Board of Health, and Best Available Control
Technology analysis.
• Jillian Tung and other members will provide detailed written comments on the majority
and minority reports, including comments on tables, assumptions, environmental
considerations, and tone.
• Judy Zola will continue revising the majority report and incorporate appropriate
clarifications, including greater emphasis on alternatives and the distinction between the
community need and the proposed Westview solution.
• The minority report authors will review comments received and consider revisions,
including clarifying assumptions and ensuring a constructive tone.
• Joe Pato will draft a navigational introduction for the combined report explaining that the
document contains the committee's majority view and a dissenting/minority view.
• The committee will combine the majority and minority/dissenting sections into a single
document for submission to the Select Board.
• The committee will schedule a future meeting to review the combined final draft, vote on
final minutes, and conclude the committee's work.
Select Board Process
The chair explained that after the committee votes on a final draft, the report will be submitted to the
Select Board. The Select Board may receive the report, ask questions, and deliberate later. Possible paths
include recommending that the crematory project be advanced into the five-year capital plan, declining
to pursue the project, or leaving the question open for future consideration. The chair noted that the
committee's report recommends not moving the project onto the capital plan at this time, which reduces
urgency for immediate Select Board action.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at approximately 6:00 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Joseph Pato, chair pro -tem from Zoom session transcript.
Approved 8/24/2026
-3