Category Archives: Downtown Revitalization

Unofficial Results – May 17, 2010 Town Election

2279 ballots were cast today, out of 9578 registered voters, a turnout of 23.8%.
Winners are highlighted in yellow below.

SELECTMEN – For three years – Vote for TWO
544 Blank

894 Todd S. Holbrook Republican Caucus Nominee 894
1243 Benjamin L. Palleiko Republican Caucus Nominee

999 John M. Mosher

876 Joseph E. Nealon 

TOWN MODERATOR – For three years – Vote for ONE
668 Blank
1572 Bruce G. Karlin, Candidate for Re-election, Democratic Caucus Nominee
TOWN CLERK – For three years –  Vote for ONE
 519 Blank
1751 Ann M. Click, Candidate for Re-election, Democratic Caucus Nominee
BOARD OF ASSESSORS – For three years – Vote for ONE
739 Blanks
1537 Mary Jo LaFreniere, Democratic Caucus Nominee
BOARD OF HEALTH – For three years – Vote for ONE
273 Blank
681 Margo R. Roman, Democratic Caucus Nominee
1324 Vincent J. Lawler
CEMETERY COMMISSIONER – For three years – Vote for ONE
697 Blank
1574 Lynn M. Fournier, Candidate for Re-election
COMMISSIONER OF TRUST FUND – For three years – Vote for ONE
786 Blank
1488 Maureen K. Bumiller, Democratic Caucus Nominee
CONSTABLES – For three years – Vote for THREE
3733 Blank
1603 Patrick K. O’Brien, Candidate for Re-election, Democratic Caucus Nominee
1410 Don S. Creswell, Sr. Candidate for Re-election
46 Patrick Mahon  Write-In
1440 Blank
822 Kevin G. Kohrt, Candidate for Re-election, Democratic Caucus Nominee
1176 Ronald M. Clark, Republican Caucus Nominee
808 Nancy J. Peters, Democratic Caucus Nominee
1248 F. Eric Sonnett, Republican Caucus Nominee
1322 Kenneth R. Weismantel, Republican Caucus Nominee
HOUSING AUTHORITY – For five years – Vote for ONE
851 Blank
600 Patricia A. Kuehne
827 Marilyn K. Stearman
672 Blank
1602 Patrick J. Mahon, Candidate for Re-election, Republican Caucus Nominee
PLANNING BOARD – For five years – Vote for TWO
822 Blank
930 Sandra King Altamura, Candidate for Re-election, Democratic Caucus Nominee
1401 John M. Coutinho, Republican Caucus Nominee
1397 Deborah A. Thomas, Republican Caucus Nominee
PLANNING BOARD – For unexpired term – 2014 – Vote for ONE
354 Blank
1232 Richard A. MacDonald, Republican Caucus Nominee
692 Francis J. D’Urso
SCHOOL COMMITTEE – For three years – Vote for ONE
737 Blank
1534 Rebecca L. Robak, Candidate for Re-election
Question 1:
Shall the Town of Hopkinton be allowed to exempt from the provisions of proposition two and one-half, so-called, the amounts required to pay for the bond issued in order to pay for the repair, maintenance, renovation and improvement of the boiler and heating system at the Elmwood Elementary School, located at 14 Elm Street in Hopkinton, Massachusetts?
Blank 80   Yes 1633   No 566
[Note from Educate Hopkinton: This article #27 passed unanimously at Town Meeting on May 3, 2010.]
Question 2:
Shall the Town of Hopkinton be allowed to exempt from the provisions of proposition two and one-half, so-called, the amounts required to pay for the bond issued in order to pay for the design of traffic, roadway and streetscape enhancements in the downtown area of the Town?
Blank 73   Yes 1444   No 762
[Note from Educate Hopkinton: This article #18 passed by clear 2/3 majority at Town Meeting on May 3, 2010.]

Don’t Forget To Vote Tomorrow! Monday, May 17

Polls are open 7:00 AM – 8:00 PM in the Middle School Gym, 88 Hayden Rowe St (enter by Grove Street. There are several Offices up for election including Selectmen and Planning Board. Read the full ballot at Here’s what’s going on:


Question #1 Elmwood School Boiler – Needs Repair
This ballot question pertains to “the repair, maintenance, renovation and improvement of the boiler and heating system at the Elmwood Elementary School.” The Elmwood School has two boilers; one is out of operation and the other is failing. The funds are needed to ensure proper heating for the students at the Elmwood School. Fortunately when the boiler was replaced at Center School, the project came in under budget. There is money remaining in the Center School account that should cover the cost of the Elmwood boiler replacement. However approval of ballot question #1 is needed to transfer these funds to the Elmwood Project. A yes vote on Question #1 simply allows the transfer of the funds to the appropriate account. There is no additional cost to the taxpayer. This transfer of $145,000 was recommended by both the Appropriations and the Capital Improvements Committees.

Question #2 Downtown Design – Gives the town state money to improve our downtown at minimal cost to us – town supported by a 2/3 majority at town meeting, but must also pass tomorrow at the polls. This ballot question pertains to the Downtown Revitalization Plan. If Hopkinton voters approve the $400,000 Proposition 2 1/2 debt exclusion, Hopkinton will qualify for up to $4 million in state construction grants, which will be used to beautify downtown, improve pedestrian access and safety, improve traffic flow and driver safety. The Plan applies to the stretch of Route 135 from Ash to Wood Street. The $400,000 loan will increase taxes by a maximum of $16/year, over five years and is supported by all Town Boards and the Hopkinton Chamber of Commerce. Click to read a summary of this question by Peter LaGoy, Chairman, Downtown Revitalization Committee.

Hopkinton voters face property tax requests
By Michael Morton/Daily News staff

HCAM News Special
2010 Ballot Question #2, Downtown Revitalization with Town Manager Norman Khumalo and Downtown Revitalization Committee Chair Peter Lagoy.
Watch the Video

There are four running for two seats – choose wisely. Hopkinton will undergo more change in a matter of years than it has in decades. Your Board of Selectmen play a critical role in how our town develops. 
Todd S. Holbrook 508-435-3116
John M. Mosher 
Joseph E. Nealon 508-435-2312
Benjamin L. Palleiko 617-548-1970

Hopkinton selectmen candidates tackle taxation issue
By Michael Morton/Daily News staff

HopNews Video
Four Hopkinton Selectmen Candidates Introduce Themselves & Andrew Sweeney Interviews Each Selectman candidate

Recap of Selectmen’s Debate
by Mark Collins, HCAM Staff Reporter
Read the Summary
Watch the Video

These are important positions. They make vital decisions that shape the buildings and infrastructure/zoning/resources of our town.

Planning Board, Department of Public Works candidates
By Michael Morton/staff writer GateHouse News Service

Women’s Club Candidates’ Night 2010
by Michelle Murdock, HCAM News Director
Read the Summary
Watch the Video

Hopkinton candidates: Balance town charm vs. growth
By Michael Morton/Daily News staff
Read the Article

A Blog Debate – Five Questions and Responses from the Four Board of Selectman Candidates

Educate Hopkinton posed the following five questions to our Selectman Candidates, covering school system funding (question #1), downtown revitalization (#2), Library expansion (#3), support for a “Green Community” (#4), and support for an override to fund a new elementary school (#5). We thank them for their responses and for their commitment to Hopkinton.

Todd S. Holbrook 508-435-3116, Republican Caucus Nominee
Benjamin L. Palleiko 617-548-1970, Republican Caucus Nominee
John M. Mosher
Joseph E. Nealon 508-435-2312

Here are their responses:

Question 1. The schools have lost a lot of ground over the last five years. Per pupil spending is 11.5% lower than the state average and lower than comparable districts; and class sizes have ballooned with the reduction of 34.7 staff members. When the Board of Selectmen set the budget message in the fall, should they ask the schools to cut costs, keep costs level, keep services level or increase costs in order to bring back some of the teaching positions and programs previously lost?

Todd Holbrook: Much depends on what happens with the larger economic picture over the coming months. Should we remain on course as coming out of the recession, which could mean an increase in (or at least leveling off of) state aid and a better job picture, then I would support increasing the school budget. I would welcome input from the School Committee and Appropriations Committee on whether to keep services level or increase funding to regain some lost ground. At the same time, we must be mindful of the increased strain that building a new school will put on town resources. And if the economy were to worsen (for example if the Greek crisis were to widen and cause a renewed recession), I would do my best to ensure at least level funding for the schools.

John Mosher: Bring back some of the lost teaching positions. Should they increase costs? That will likely happen to cover the increase in teaching positions but it can be offset somewhat by implementing energy saving measures. Some of these have already been proposed and can help add to the bottom line. The priority issue I keep hearing about is the number of teachers and I personally believe that the teacher student interaction is not only essential to teaching a child but also inspiring them. We all have teachers we remember that had a great influence on us.

Joe Nealon: I support our schools. I have four children currently attending the High School, Hopkins and Center School and continue to be amazed at the level of service, talent and commitment of our teachers and administrators. The school budgets are a priority to me and I can not see asking for a level budget without a loss of vital services. I will work with the Superintendant of the schools and the School Committee to make sure that we are continuing the level of service that has given us our reputation.

Ben Palleiko: As I have said all along, budgets for the past few years have been very tight and we need to begin to consider how to rebuild the level of services across town that have been in decline. That includes many departments, not just the schools. If elected, I would propose that the budget message that goes out in the fall would be along the lines of “responsible rebuilding”.
Rather than a top-down decision on overall budget size as has been the case for the past few years, I would recommend a bottoms-up approach where the Selectmen would ask each department to create a budget that begins to add back important elements that have been cut or eliminated in the past few years. That is the “rebuilding” part.
The “responsible” part refers to the fact that we must still keep close control over expenses and not create the expectation across departments that increased spending is assured in all cases. I would expect each person or group responsible for a budget to tie any proposed increased spending to their defined priorities (for the schools I expect that would be the strategic plan), rather than just recommend across-the-board increases or increases that aren’t tightly linked to improved or restored services. We don’t want to grow expenses simply because we can.
A final point is that the level at which we can pursue rebuilding will depend upon many factors that I can’t predict at this time, including the overall state of the economy and our future expectations on state aid. Budget holders may need to prioritize in cases where there are a number of unmet needs, but not all may be addressable at once. The Selectmen may also still need to adjust budgets to reflect areas of greatest need across departments. Rebuilding will likely be a several year process, not a one-shot set of increases. However, in most circumstances, I hope there will be much less need for the Selectmen to drive this process from the top down in the future.

Question 2. At Town Meeting, the Town voted by a 2/3 majority to support the $400,000 override for Redesigning Downtown Hopkinton, which could result in a $3-4 million state grant for Hopkinton. This override question will now go to Town Vote on the May 17 ballot. Do you support this initiative?

Todd Holbrook: Absolutely. A critical aspect of keeping Hopkinton’s budget balanced and taxes in check must be the attraction of new business to our community, in the right areas. A revitalized downtown district would help attract the types of businesses we need to generate additional revenue without overly burdening our schools and school budget.

John Mosher: Yes. We are gaining a significant increase in the value of each dollar we spend through the state assistance. Some of the $400,000 cost will be offset by current maintenance costs to repair what we have (this makes it an even better choice for Hopkinton). When this was presented it was stated that similar projects have brought 40+ jobs to the area that was revitalized.

Joe Nealon: I do. When was the last time you and your children walked the sidewalks of our downtown? I do so a number of times a week and I am frustrated at the dilapidated look of our town center. I want to see commercial growth in downtown and the sidewalks full of people walking, shopping and enjoying our town.
The $400,000.00 is the first step in obtaining the state grant and giving our town a face lift. Build it and they will come; maybe. Do nothing and they won’t come; certainly.
I would encourage everyone to vote in favor of the override.

Ben Palleiko: Yes. I have continually said that I favor projects and services that increase our quality of life in town, and the project to enhance downtown is clearly one of them. I also hope that a more attractive downtown would help bring additional businesses to that area, which would be a further benefit.
The state requires this expense be incurred in order to be eligible for the grant. The proponents of this article have represented that the grant is highly likely to be awarded following this project. As Selectman, I would do whatever I can to help the town obtain this grant.

Question 3. The Town will be seeking a state grant for expansion of the Library. Do you support an expanded library, and would you be in favor of the Town contributing 25% of the cost of the project in order to receive a state grant?

Todd Holbrook: Yes. Like other aspects of downtown revitalization, having a welcoming library within walking distance of downtown will assist in attracting new business while maintaining the town character which brought and keeps us all here. I am therefore in favor of the town participating in reasonable funding for an expanded library. I am also in favor of seeking private grants to assist with this cost in ways to minimize the burden on taxpayers.

John Mosher: Yes. Our community is clearly interested in promoting education. This culture of learning should be accessible to the entire community regardless of age or income. A library is a critical part of a vibrant town. This is another opportunity where the dollars the town spends are significantly supplemented by state aid, and, donations.

Joe Nealon: I do support the expansion of the library and in doing so also support the commitment to fund 25% of the construction costs in order to receive the grant money. Town meeting approved the transfer of the library property to the Town for just that purpose. As a user of the library I know that it has exhausted its life cycle. Hopkinton needs a new library to meet our needs.

Ben Palleiko: I have vigorously supported the Library and their expansion goals since my time on the Appropriation Committee from 2003-2007. The library is one of the few resources in town that can truly serve all the different age groups, and so it must be supported.
As I understand it, the town contributing 25% of the cost is a requirement to receive the grant. I consider this an important investment for the town to make. I would also help to whatever extent I can as the Library seeks to raise another 25% in private funding.

Question 4. Do you support Hopkinton’s application to become a “Green Community”? To receive this designation Hopkinton must meet five criteria and, once met, would become eligible for a portion of the annual $10 million state grant to energy conscious communities in the state.

Todd Holbrook: Yes. Earlier I did not support the Stretch Code solely on the basis of timing: While we are in, or just starting to come out of, the worst recession since the Great Depression, I question the need to impose little-understood costs on our current residents and detract from efforts to attract new business due to increased development costs. No one – including myself – could argue with the need to conserve resources and cut reliance on foreign energy. Now the people have spoken and adopted the Stretch Code, and I accept that decision. The remaining two prongs necessary to become a “Green Community,” adopting a policy for energy-efficient town vehicles and setting an energy conservation policy for town usages, are much more readily achievable and should impose minimal if any costs. Having passed the largest hurdle, we should move forward rapidly on these last two criteria and apply for grants to offset the costs we will incur under the Stretch Code. Additionally, upon receiving the “Green Community” designation, we should aggressively market Hopkinton with that designation to the types of low-impact businesses which would seek that designation and would benefit from our location.

John Mosher: Yes. This goes hand in hand with a town where open space, the environment, and education are important to the community. This is a program that supplements environmentally responsible programs with further savings. It also allows town government to demonstrate a commitment to the environment while reducing operating costs.

Joe Nealon: I voted no on the stretch code at town meeting not because I oppose a greener community, in fact I support it, but from a business standpoint we have put our town at a disadvantage to attracting new building.
If a company is looking for a community in which to build its new office building it has many options along 495. Each town has similar attributes and amenities. What a business owner is looking at is the bottom line. By requiring builders to now meet the 2012 code, their cost of construction rises considerably in Hopkinton as opposed to Westborough, Milford or Marlborough.

Ben Palleiko: The vote at town meeting makes it clear that Hopkinton is in favor of being more environmentally conscious, and so I would support reasonable efforts to achieve “Green Community” status. Based upon information provided at town meeting, it seems that Hopkinton is quite advanced in meeting the criteria to be eligible to apply for the grant. The materials state that the two major items remaining are: to establish the energy benchmark and reduction plan; and to purchase only fuel efficient vehicles.
However, I would want to spend at least as much effort on trying to use this status to attract commercial development to town as on applying for the grants. We need to develop a comprehensive plan for bringing appropriate commercial growth to town that emphasizes the town’s many positive attributes, including this status when it is achieved. The key issue from my perspective is to use this status to generate increased revenues, whether from grants or appropriate development.

5. The Elementary Building Committee is in full swing and on target to build a new school soon. They hope to bring a preferred option for the renovation or replacement of the Center School to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) at their July 2010 meeting. Will you support an override to build a new elementary school to replace Center School?

Todd Holbrook: To answer this question requires clarification. If intended to ask if I support replacement rather than renovation, I would want to hear the Building Committee’s recommendations first. Proper renovations would require work during the school term, so logistics would be a problem facing renovations, but the central location of the present school is a good one. For these and many other reasons replacement versus renovation is a complex question which deserves consideration of the significant efforts being invested by the Building Committee. If instead the question is asking whether I would support an override for either replacement or renovation, the answer is easier: The largest expenditure of any town like Hopkinton must be for local education. If an override is necessary to fund a school needed for our children, I would support that override.

John Mosher: Yes. This is speculation but I am assuming that if it is the recommendation of the MSBA, the Center School Feasibility Study, and the School Committee, that the demand, population data, and finances support the need. It is my understanding that there are several different scenarios (possibly nine?) that are under review. Detailed studies have been completed that show an increase in the school age population (contrary to studies from several years ago). There would be significant state aid as well. This would also be a wonderful opportunity for Hopkinton to have a building to educate our children in that is energy efficient and healthy! LEED’s ( rated buildings show higher productivity and health for workplace occupants, I would think the same would be true of children. We are all aware of the health problems some children incur in specific buildings, or other distractions (such as the overly warm temps at Center School). We need to keep in mind that a building can be more than just a space or a number.

Joe Nealon: Maybe……. Again I would be negligent to give you an answer. I have not seen the plan or the proposed costs. I can tell you I would support a renovation and potential expansion of Center School. We have a beautiful building in a central location. Before we undertake the expense of building an entirely new school on the outskirts of town (imagine the bus ride) I would explore the cost of renovating Center School.
I would need to look at all of the options available to the town in order to make an educated decision as to what would be best for our town.

Ben Palleiko: There is no question that the town needs to do something regarding Center School. I expect that I will support whatever recommendation is made by the Elementary Building Committee and I also expect that we will pay for this building the same way as we paid for all the others. However, in both cases I will certainly do the work to confirm that the recommendation makes sense and the payment mechanism remains the best option for the town and the taxpayers.

Town Meeting Day 1 Unofficial Results – 35 Articles Voted, 22 Articles To Go

For more details read the 2010 Annual Town Meeting Hand Warrant at

Article 1: Acceptance of Town Reports – YES unanimous

Article 2: Fiscal Year 2010 Supplemental Appropriations – NO ACTION unanimous

Article 3: Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Transfers – YES unanimous

Article 4: Unpaid Bills from Previous Fiscal Years – NO ACTION unanimous

Article 5: Amend the Salary of an Elected Official – YES clear majority

Article 6: Amendments to the Wage and Classification Plan – NO ACTION unanimous

Article 7: Fiscal Year 2011 Operating Budget – YES unanimous

Article 8: Fiscal Year 2011 Operating Budget – School Department – YES unanimous

Article 9: Property Tax Exemption Increase by 50% for Qualifying Exemption – YES unanimous

Article 10: Revolving Funds – YES unanimous

Article 11: Establish a Receipts Reserved for Appropriation Account for Parks & Recreation – YES unanimous

Article 12: Highway Department Chapter 90 Funds – YES unanimous

Article 13: Central MA Mosquito Control Project Membership – YES unanimous

Article 14: Pay‐As‐You‐Go Capital Requests – YES clear majority

Article 15: Improvements: Cedar Street Snow Dump – YES unanimous

Article 16: Radio Read Water Meters – YES clear 2/3 majority

Article 17: Water Department Service Truck – YES majority

Article 18: Downtown Design for Traffic, Roadway and Streetscape – YES clear 2/3 majority

Article 19: Design and Replacement of Water Main: Main Street – YES unanimous

Article 20: Traffic Beacon: Main Street/Church Street
– Motion by Appropriations for NO ACTION failed by a clear majority
– Motion by Peter LaGoy for $15,000 to be raised and appropriated YES passed by a clear majority

Article 21: Design and Improvements: Town Wells – NO ACTION clear majority

Article 22: Class “A” Fire Engine – YES clear 2/3 majority

Article 23: Firefighter Portable Radio – YES clear majority

Article 24: New Service Vehicle – YES unanimous

Article 25: Thermal Imaging Camera – YES unanimous

Article 26: Restoration and Replacement: Damage School Property – YES unanimous

Article 27: Repair, Maintenance, Renovation, and Improvement of the Elmwood Elementary School Boiler and Heating System – YES unanimous

Article 28: Design, Repair, Maintenance, Renovation, Improvement of the High School Loop Road – YES clear 2/3 majority

Article 29: Community Preservation Committee Recommendations
– Motion to delete item L (Maspenock Dam preservation) FAILED by a clear majority
– Motion to delete item H (Library Historic Digitization Project) FAILED by a clear majority
– Motion to delete item C (Landscaping at Town Hall) FAILED by a clear majority
– Motion to pass items A-L PASSED by a clear majority

Article 30: Extension of Vote on Fruit Street Fields Project – YES unanimous

Article 31: Establish a Capital Expense Stabilization Fund – YES unanimous

Article 32: Transfer a Stabilization Fund – YES unanimous

Article 33: Amend Ch. 5: Hopkinton Affordable Housing Trust Fund Board – Passed YES 84 NO 21

Article 34: Amend Ch. 195: Sewers and Wastewater Collection System – YES unanimous

Article 35: Amend Sec. 170‐1: Authority of Board of Selectmen, Recycling – Failed YES 39 to NO 69

11:14 p.m. Motion to Adjourn until Tuesday, May 4 at 7:00 p.m.

Town Meeting continues with 22 articles that remain to be voted at Hopkinton Middle School Auditorium, 88 Hayden Rowe St, Hopkinton MA 01748 (Also broadcast on HCAM-TV, Comcast Channel 8/Verizon Channel 30)

For more details read the 2010 Annual Town Meeting Hand Warrant at

Town Meeting Begins Tomorrow at 7:00pm – Includes 57 Articles to be Voted

Annual Town Meeting
Begins Monday, May 3 at 7:00 p.m. (continues on consecutive evenings until complete)
Hopkinton Middle School Auditorium, 88 Hayden Rowe St, Hopkinton MA 01748
(Also broadcast on HCAM-TV, Comcast Channel 8/Verizon Channel 30)

Town Meeting 101
Did you move to Hopkinton because of the great school system and the small-town feel? Do you want to ensure that Hopkinton remains a town that you want to call home? Then please attend Town Meeting. Town Meeting is a crucial decision-making event for our town. The town’s committees and staff have worked through budgets, recommendations, etc. It is now up to Hopkinton’s citizens to voice our opinions and determine the direction of our town by voting on the articles presented at Town Meeting.
Key articles include the Town Budget, the School Budget, repair of the High School Loop Road, the potential reduction of our Community Preservation fund contribution, and design enhancements for the downtown area (see below for more details). In total, there are 57 articles to be voted on. Most of these will be decided at Town Meeting. Only two of the articles (#18 Downtown Design and #27 Elmwood Boiler) require a passing vote both Town Meeting and Town Election (May 17). There are many hot button issues that will only be voted on at Town Meeting. Often, key articles are passed or defeated by a few votes. Your attendance matters.

Some Key Articles on the Warrant this Year:

#18 Downtown Design for Traffic, Roadway and Streetscape – DPW (Also on the ballot 5/17)
To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate, transfer from available funds, borrow or otherwise provide a sum or sums of money for the design of traffic, roadway and streetscape enhancements in the downtown area of the Town; and, to meet such appropriation, authorize the Town Treasurer, with the approval of the Board of Selectmen, to borrow said sum in accordance with Chapter 44, Section 7 (5, 6), of the Massachusetts General Laws, or any other enabling authority; and, further, to authorize the Town to apply for any grants or loans available for the purposes of this article; said sum to be spent under the direction of the Director of the Department of Public Works.
[Approximately $400,000 to be borrowed; recommended by the Appropriations Committee]
For more info:
Visions of Hopkinton: Steps toward Downtown Revitalization
Prepared For the Downtown Revitalization Committee, Winter 2010
by Gareth Crosby, Lily Jacobson, and Kristin Thomas • Conway School of Landscape Design

#27 Repair, Maintenance, Renovation, and Improvement of the Elmwood Elementary School Boiler and Heating System – School Committee (Also on the ballot 5/17)
This article involves replacing the boiler at Elmwood School. Fortunately when the boiler was replaced at Center School, the project came in under budget. There is money remaining in the Center School account that should cover the cost of the Elmwood boiler replacement. However Town Meeting approval is needed to transfer these funds to the Elmwood Project. In addition, there will be a question on the town election ballot, that requires a yes vote to transfer the money. Again, this will not increase taxes; this is merely a transfer of funds.
[Approximately $145,000 to be transferred; Recommended by the Appropriations Committee; Also recommended by the Capital Improvements Committee]

#28 Design, Repair, Maintenance, Renovation, Improvement of the High School Loop Road – School Committee
This article has been placed on the Annual Town Meeting warrant for several years, although the School Committee has pulled it before the town meetings were held. This article is to cover the costs to repair the High School loop road. The road bed has deteriorated in several spots, resulting in rutting in the roads. Over the years it, it has been getting worse. There have been recent accidents at that spot in the road, posing safety concerns as well. There is also a newly identified section of road, along the CAA property, that is also getting rutted. The loop road is on school property and is not owned by the town, so the schools must provide the money to repair it. The DPW has assessed it and agrees that it is in urgent need of repair. The School Committee is therefore asking for funding to repair it. The good news is that construction and supply costs have gone down as a result of the economy, and the costs are much less than were projected several years ago. The School Committee will be asking for $130,000 to repair the road.
[Approximately $130,000 to be borrowed; Recommended by the Appropriations Committee; Also recommended by the Capital Improvements Committee]

#29 Community Preservation Committee Recommendations – Community Preservation
(See also article #52 Change in CPA Surcharge)
[Approximately $1,428,250 to be used from available CPA funds]

#35 Amend Sec. 170‐1: Authority of Board of Selectmen, Recycling [Trash Barrel Limit] – Petition

This article is a citizen’s petition in response to the Selectmen recently reducing each household’s weekly trash barrel limit from 4 barrels to 2 barrels. If passed this article would change the Hopkinton General Law to:
“…Such rules and regulations may require the separation of designated recyclable material or materials from other solid wastes, may specify the point at which the ownership of such designated recyclables shall vest in the town, may prohibit removal without authorization by the
Board of Selectmen or its designee of such designated recyclable has vested in the town, and may establish fines for violation of such rules and regulations, provided that such fine shall not exceed $50 for each violation. Notwithstanding, the Board of Selectmen and its designee, if any, shall have no authority to limit the number of trash barrels holding non‐recyclables that shall be picked up by the town’s waste contractor on a weekly basis to fewer than four 39‐gallon barrels per household.
Background Information: According to Town Manager, Norman Khumalo, the proposal to reduce the number of weekly barrels per household from 4 to 2 had projected the following savings: $10,000 contractual, $15-25K in disposal fees and a minimum of $16,000 in recycling income. Based on the above the FY 11 budget built in the following changes: the town reduced the Harvey contract (Acct 90 Rubbish Collection) from $453,000 to $443,000 ($10,000 in savings). The town also reduced Acct 1074 Rubbish Disposal by $37,116.52 based on FY 10 performance and anticipated improved recycling. According to the Town Website, as of April 1 households wishing to put out more than 2 barrels of trash per week, must purchase additional bags at Colella’s or Hopkinton Lumber. The cost of the bags is $1.25 each, and are sold in packages of five ($6.25). Sales tax does not apply.

#38 Adopt Stretch Energy Code – Board of Selectmen/Sustainable Green Committee
Adopting the “Stretch Code” is one of the five criteria that Hopkinton must meet in order to receive a “Green Community” Designation under the Green Communities Act of 2008. Towns designated as Green Communities are eligible for a grant up to $1,000,000 annually from a $10,000,000 fund that is replenished annually from the Regional Gas Initiative. That means this fund is not dependent upon the state budget.
The ‘stretch code’ is an optional appendix to the Massachusetts building energy code that allows cities and towns to choose a more energy-efficient option. This ‘stretch code’ option increases the energy efficiency code requirements in any municipality that adopts it, for all new residential and many new commercial buildings, as well as for those residential additions and renovations that would normally trigger building code requirements. This code will be MA state building code standard in 2012. By being early adopters Hopkinton can access the grant program. If it does not pass we must wait another year and get in line.
In addition to allowing municipalities to take meaningful action on energy use and climate change, the adoption of the more stringent and more performance based ‘stretch’ energy code is anticipated to result in significant cost savings for local residents and businesses, and increase design and construction firm competitiveness in the growing green building marketplace. The Stretch Code is expected to result in a 20% reduction in energy costs with a 2-3 year payback. It applies to new construction homes over 3000 sq feet, commercial over 5000 sq feet and substantial renovation to existing homes that are over 3000 and commercial over 5000. Initial costs over the 2006 code are significantly offset by rebates and initiatives.
For more information:
Stretch Code FAQ
October 2009 – New England Planning Newsletter
Summary of the Massachusetts Building Code Appendix 120.AA, ‘Stretch’ Energy Code
Massachusetts Stretch Code Modeling and Cash Flow Analysis – April 2010

#46 Article 1, Sec. 210‐4: Design Continue Care Retirement Community, Assisted Living and Nursing Home – Petition
This article is a citizen’s petition related to the Golden Pond Assisted Living Residence.

#47 Article XVIII, Sec. 210‐124B (1) Parking Requirements for Continuing Care Retirement Community, Assisted Living and Nursing Home – Petition
This article is a citizen’s petition related to the Golden Pond Assisted Living Residence.

#50 Transfer Ownership of Public Library from Library Trustees to Town – Board of Selectmen
Did you know that the Hopkinton Public Library is privately owned but publicly funded? This article will transfer ownership of the library to the town. Our library was created by private citizens in 1895 and has been managed by a seven-member Board of Trustees ever since. In 1955, the Town of Hopkinton began paying for the operating expenses, including staff salaries, utilities and insurance. Today the Town pays for about 80% of our Library’s entire budget. However, the library building is still owned by the Board of Library Trustees. The Trustees pay only for the maintenence of the Library building. In FY 2009, this expense was about $16,000, or just 3% of the total budget of the Library. Transferring the ownership of the building to the town will streamline management of the library, allow the library to utilize the buying power of the town, and make it easier for the library to apply for state grants. To pass Article 50, and make the library a town-owned building, a 2/3 vote is needed.

#51 Authorize Board of Selectmen to Seek Authority to Apply for Grants for the Expansion and Construction of the Public Library – Board of Selectmen
This article authorizes the Board of Selectmen to apply for, accept and expend any state, federal or other grants that may be available to defray all or part of the cost to design, construct and equip a new or expanded library building.

#52 Change in CPA Surcharge – Town Manager

(See also article #29 CPA Projects for 2010)
This article would change the surcharge on the taxes assessed annually on real property in the Town from 2% to 1.1%; provided, however, that this vote shall not take effect until the voters at the May 2010 Annual Town Election vote to change the surcharge on the taxes assessed annually on real property in the Town from 2% to 1.1%.
Background Information: Under the provisions of the Community Preservation Act (CPA), Hopkinton established a Community Preservation Committee in 2001. The Community Preservation Committee shall make recommendations to Town Meeting for the acquisition, creation, and preservation of open space; for the acquisition and preservation of historic resources; for the acquisition creation, and preservation of land for recreational use; for the creation, preservation, and support of community housing; and for rehabilitation or restoration of such open space, historic resources, land for recreational use and community housing that is acquired or created using Community Preservation Committee funds. The following projects were funded by CPA funds in Hopkinton from 2002-2009:

ADA Compliance – CAA building $50,000.00
ADA Compliance – Library $10,000.00
ADA Compliance – Town Hall $13,000.00
Athletic fields – Fruit Street $1,000,000.00
CAA barn restoration $200,000.00
Cemetery (Evergreen) – replace/restore sign $1,000.00
Cemetery fence – historical preservation $20,000.00
East Hopkinton Master Plan $200,000.00
EMC house, Hayward St. – affordable house $100,000.00
Fruit Street – land acquisition $2,000,000.00
Historic building survey update $5,000.00
Historic district signage $22,500.00
Historical preservation & restoration of records – Library $15,000.00
Historical preservation & restoration of records – Town Clerk $40,000.00
Historical Society building, Hayden Rowe St. – historical preservation, renovation $250,000.00
Hopkinton Center Trail – create multi-use trail $35,000.00
Lake Maspenock dam – historical preservation $10,000.00
Mayhew Court – 12 unit affordable housing development $450,000.00
McFarland-Sanger House, 146 Lumber St. – historical preservation $45,000.00
Old railroad depot – move to town land, renovate/historic preservation $18,000.00
Reed Park – restoration $30,000.00
Reed Park – tennis courts $150,000.00
Sandy Beach – benches $5,000.00
Sandy Beach – kiosk $3,500.00
South Mill St dam – historic restoration/preservation $91,000.00
Spring Street – open space land acquisition $97,000.00
Stewardship of town owned land $5,000.00
Stone arch bridge, Cedar St. – restore/preserve $5,000.00
Town Common – old fountain restoration $20,000.00
Town Hall – drainage/foundation work $49,000.00
Town Hall – landscaping & drainage $10,000.00
Whitehall conservation area – land acquisition, demolition of house, construction of trails and parking area $1,826,000.00
Whitehall gatehouse – restoration $40,000.00
Winter Street – open space land acquisition $300,000.00

For More Information:
The following budget documents are available on the Hopkinton town and school websites.
PDF 2009 Town Report
PDF Fiscal year 2011 Proposed Budget
PDF Annual Town Meeting Warrant May 3, 2010
PDF Ballot – Annual Town Election May 17, 2010
PDF School Committee’s Final FY 11 Budget Booklet
Video State of the Schools Forum

Meet the Candidates Night Sponsored by the Hopkinton Women’s Club

Thursday, May 6, 7:00 p.m.

HCAM Studios, 77 Main St, Hopkinton MA 01748
Comcast Channel 8/Verizon Channel 30