[Rich, 21:48]
We've moved. All future activity will be at http://arlington.town-meeting.org. See you there!

[Rich, 03:06]
Some thoughts

What the heck was up with Brian Lavalle screeching at Ruderman and the Moderator after Ruderman made a joke about the rebuild likely overrunning its estimate? Very rude. As were many of the back-of-the-hall crowd, who often booed people they disagreed with. It's one thing to boo someone who is snarky or who takes a shot at someone. But booing someone for calmly and politely stating an opinion you happen to disagree with? Humph.

Anyone else notice the irony that by objecting to Jamieson's & Lewiton's request for five more minutes the objectors cost the meeting more than five minutes by forcing a vote on the matter? And I wonder if the joke was on them when J & L came out in favor of the rebuild, which I hazard a guess that many of the objectors were not expecting.

Well, I've been wrong a bunch of times so far on when I thought we'd finish, but I am confident we'll finish up on Monday. The only question is how long it'll go. We have a couple of trivial FinComm articles, the tabled 8 (zoning - stormwater) and 19 (noise regulation), and of course Iraq (70). If the first ones take us to the break, I wonder how many people will bother to come back from the break for 70. For that matter, I wonder how many people will show up Monday at all?

As for 70, I think the discussion will either be rather long or rather short and I actually lean towards short. If someone who wants to move the previous question manages to get near the front of the list, I think there will be a good chance people will vote to terminate debate to finally get the ATM over with. On the other hand, I can see there being lots of people who want to talk about it if no debate terminator is early on the list. A warning -- people who want it short should not get excited if they see me get up. I have something to say on it, though I promise that if I get to talk I'll be brief :-).

Speaking of terminating debate, I was amused when, after my motion, the Moderator said "Thank you." And then there were something like 30 responses when the Moderator called for a second.

Finally, for something probably only of interest to me, I discovered that a friend's father is a moderator (Westborough) and worked on the 3rd edition of Town Meeting Time and that his grandfather was also a moderator (Wenham) and worked on the 2nd edition of TMT. Ironically, then, my friend has never been able to participate in a town meeting as he has spent his entire adult life either in MA cities or out-of-state. I need to tell him he needs to get back in MA and start getting cracking on keeping the streaks alive.

[Rich, 02:42]
Session 11 -- the end is in sight

• Called to order at 20:03.
• Voted that when we adjourn we adjourn to 20 June at 20:00.
• Mr. Abbott offered a resolution that the Town endorse the result of the non-binding vote in favor of a constitutional amendment to have a non-partisan board do districting in Massachusetts.
• The Moderator said that only non-controversial resolutions may come before the meeting without a warrant article and that he felt this one was non-controversial enough.
• Mr. Daly said he could not hear it and had some questions about it.
• Ms. Harrington suggested postponing it until more copies could be made.
• The Moderator reversed field, decided it was too controversial after all, and 86ed it.
• Article 2 removed from table.
• Article 2 - Committee Reports
  • Town Manager's report on Fees and Charges received.
  • Mr. Sullivan said this was being provided per a vote of Town Meeting last year and that while it is missing some requested detail because said detail had never been requested before, it will have that detail in the future.
  • Tabled
• Article 47 - Capital Budgets
  • FinComm recommended a capital budget without the Park Circle station rebuild.
  • The CapPlanComm moved a substitute motion that was the same as FinComm's except for the addition of the rebuild.
  • The Moderator said that first only the Park Circle part of the capital budgets would be discussed and then the rest. He also explained how he planned to choreograph the opening of the discussion, designating the first four speakers he would recognize before going to the list.
  • Mr. Foskett presented the slide presentation he had handed out on Monday. Some key points were that the external engine shelter is tough to work in, living conditions are bad, Engine 3 is first on-site in Morningside for 91% of the critical life calls, Engine 3 is first on-site in East Arlington for 92% of critical life calls, that when Highland has to serve the "Park Polygon" it fails the 6 minute test 35% of the time, and when HQ has to serve the "Park Polygon" it fails the test 42% of the time. Because of all this, the CapPlanComm recommends spending the $2,300,000 to rebuild the Park Circle station.
  • Mr. Loreti asked for five additional minutes, receiving it on a voice vote after objections. He offered an amendment to spend the $2,300,000 on preparations for rebuilding Highland and HQ instead of Park Circle, saying that two fire stations are sufficient. He said Arlington is very high in terms of stations per square mile and that even with two stations, Arlington would still be in the top 10% and that density statistics show densities significantly less than Arlington's achieve the 90% in less than six minutes standard. Mr. Loreti also noted that fire losses are much less now than 80 years ago. He criticized the data in Mr. Foskett's presentation saying that much of the data was not for "true emergency" calls, noting that none of the Highland-to-Park Polygon runs were true emergencies. He Highland ambulance runs were left out and that no distinction was made between Basic Life Support (BLS) which is non-time-critical and Advanced Life Support (ALS) which is time critical. He said that because of the the OSHA 2-in/2-out rule, even if a Park Circle engine is first on the scene it only carried three people, so no one can go in until more equipment arrives. He said the CapPlanComm data is "deeply flawed" and invalid to base a decision on and that since the other stations also need to be renovated, they should be done first while a disinterested professional party helped the Town study if a third station is needed.
  • Mr. Tosti asked for ten additional minutes, receiving it on a voice vote after objections. He said the bonded cost of rebuild will start at $215,000 and will tail off to around $125,000 by the time the bonds are paid off and that FinComm did not think that was a good use of funds. He said FinComm believes two stations are sufficient and that it does not recommend reducing any positions. He said FinComm stood by the MMA study and also did its own peer community study and that many towns with significantly more land area use two stations. Mr. Tosti said he was also worried that rebuilding now would foreclose more strategic thinking, such as regionalized dispatch (noting that New York City only uses three dispatch centers for 8 million people), regionalized service, fire districts, etc. He noted that police are often the first responders and therefore we should consider training up officers to be EMTs. He urged that the money not be spent just because it's always been that way. He also noted the FinComm original vote was 10-5, followed by a later vote of 8-7 against reconsidering the original vote.
  • Fire Chief McEwen said he believes three stations are best, resulting in faster response times, which are important.
  • Mr. Sullivan said Arlington had the third highest housing density in the peer group and more severe topography. He also said ambulance runs were left out of the data because the data only records the first responder and the engines always beat the ambulances. He said it would be a mistake to close the Park Circle station.
  • Ms. Munsey said that keeping the Park Circle station open will protect homes and property in the community and noted that many people who have been opposed to the rebuild in the past had changed their minds. She said the firefighters are unanimous in believing it should stay open and she also feels that it should have been rebuilt years ago.
  • Mr. Ruderman said he supported the Loreti amendment and said we need to consider the conditions of today and not of the past when deciding where fire stations should be. He said both people for and against the rebuilt wanted to save lives, but disagreed on how. He noted that only 77 calls were for fires and said fire service siting, equipment needs, and deployment strategies need to be geared around demands, conditions, and technology of the future, not demands, conditions, and technology of the past.
  • Mr. Carrigan said the Town has always tried to be fair and that the rebuild would be fair to both the firefighters and to citizens, especially those in the Park Circle area. He said he has two children in the AFD and that they and all firefighters deserve a clean, safe place to live and work. He said most Town officials support the rebuild and that the MMA study is wrong because it contradicts them.
  • Mr. Dunn said he was against the rebuild because he was not satisfied that anyone knows how many stations there should be and where they should be sited. He said the data in the Foskett presentation does not tell if other locations would be better. He said virtually all variables affecting the number and siting of stations has changed since the stations were built and by rebuilding now we would lose our chance to think that out. He said the Foskett presentation was only the beginning of a study that needs to be done.
  • Mr. Belskis, noting he lives in an area which would be affected by the closing, said that municipalities close to our population density use three or four stations and that population density increase the risk of loss. He urged that the rebuild be supported.
  • Mr. Abbott said he was surprised by the lack of any contingency fund for a project being built on a certified hazmat site and that it will be very likely we will be asked to bond more money in the future because of this. He said the Winchester station just over the line could be a first responder to Morningside and that since the Highland station is almost as bad as the Park Circle station, it should be renovated first and therefore he supported the Loreti amendment.
  • Mr. Burke said that the Park Circle station was necessary, but that it (and the others) should be repaired instead of rebuilt. He strongly criticized override supporters and the Town's tendency to shirk proper maintenance, allowing buildings to fall into disrepair. He said a study on rebuild vs. replace is needed.
  • Mr. Kazarian said it was a tough decision but that ultimately it would not be a "big deal" for taxpayers to spend an extra $20/yr to keep the station open and that he would vote to keep it open.
  • Mr. Bernardin asked if Park Circle has any effect on ambulance reponse times. Mr. Sullivan said it had no direct effect, but closing it would affect response times of EMTs, since the engines beat the ambulances. Mr. Bernardin said it was a very tough decision, but also said he believed that if there was not already a station there, people would be against putting one there if it were proposed to put one there.
  • Mr. O'Neill said that he appreciated the response data and that it validated his belief that the Park Circle station is not strategically located and that he did not believe a station would go there if all three stations were being built from scratch. He said the NFPA 1710 standard is coming and that it will be a requirement to get DHS money. He said Park Circle should not be kept just because it is already there and that the reasons the Park Circle station was built no longer exist. He urged a review of the strategic locations of all stations and support for the FinComm motion.
  • Mr. Rosselli said a more realistic reponse time goal is three minutes since the fumes from burning modern materials can kill in that time. He said five minutes goes by very fast and that a station is needed in the Park Circle area. He said that Arlmont would be in "dire need" if crews had to go all the way out there from Highland and pointed out that mutual aid is becoming more difficult as all municipalities cut back. He noted some difficulties that had arisen over the years when an engine has been out of service and said that hometown firefighters would fight a fire in their town harder than out-of-towners. He urged support for the rebuild.
  • Mr. Jones said it was hard to argue against all the people in favor of the rebuild but that he did not feel the data justified the rebuild. He said the money should be spent on improving fire services and that he was against any staffing cuts. Mr. Jones also said there would be "no way" the rebuild cost would only be $2,300,000. He said he believed two stations were sufficient and that he supported the Loreti amendment. He said the statistics are skewed the because the dataset of time-critical fire runs is very small and that in the vast majority of the Town responses would be four to five minutes with or without Park Circle.
  • Mr. Jamieson and Mr. Lewiton received five additional minutes on a 115-21 vote. Mr. Lewiton said he had been against the rebuild until last week and now believes a station should be up there, though he believes a single-bay station would be fine. He noted that NFPA 1710 is a voluntary standard and that it is AFD practice to send a 2-person rescue along with the engine so that in fact the 2-in/2-out rule is quickly met. Mr. Jamieson went through their slide presentation. He said he supported the Park Circle rebuild but that if it did not get rebuilt, he recommended that Highland not be rebuilt where it is, but rather somewhere on Summer Street and therefore if Park Circle was not rebuilt, the HQ should be rebuilt first.
  • Mr. Carreiro moved the previous question on the Park Circle station discussion. Debate terminated.
  • The Moderator explained the order in which he would be taking the votes.
  • Loreti amendment defeated.
  • CapPlanComm substitute motion approved 106-53.
  • FinComm recommendation as substituted approved.
  • There were no questions on the rest of the capital budget, so the Moderator called for the rest of the votes.
  • Section 1 approved.
  • Section 2 approved unanimously.
  • Section 3 approved 127-30.
  • Section 4 approved unanimously.
  • Section 5 approved.
• Motion to adjourn approved.
• Adjourned to 20 June at 20:00.

[Rich, 23:45]
How hot was it?

It was so hot that for the first time I can remember since being a TMM, the Moderator did not wear his usual dark three-piece suit but instead wore a beige two-piece summer suit.

This session also had perhaps the line of this year's meeting. While answering one of Mr. Tully's questions, Mr. Maher said something like "You're a lawyer too, Joe, so you know how this goes." Mr. Tully replied, "You weren't supposed to give away my secret. My mother thinks I play piano in a brothel."

[Rich, 23:43]
Session 10 Notes - it's getting hot in here

• Just before the session started, I received a phone call and had to leave to handle a minor family emergency. I was finally able to get back to the meeting at 22:00.
• Upon returning, I was told that all the budgets had been passed and that Mr. Foskett was just finishing up the initial Capital Planning Committee report presentation. I talked to some people after the session and was told that the FinComm budget recommendations had been passed as printed with the exception of a $13,000 increase in the Police budget for an additional part-time parking enforcement officer whose cost will be offset by the additional parking ticket revenues resulting from the extra work.
• Article 47 - Capital Budgets
  • Mr. Foskett was wrapping up his initial presentation on the CapPlanComm report as I arrived.
  • Mr. Foskett said Mr. Maher and Ms. Donovan would discuss the Pierce Field items in Section 3 of the recommended vote.
  • Mr. Maher said that the actual bids on the athletic improvements (as opposed to the remedy work) came out about $492,000 over what the Industrial Parties (IPs) had agreed to pay, resulting in the appropriation request.
  • Ms. Donovan recapped the site's history. She said all environmental aspects had been completed by December 2004 and that the little remaining work at the DPW yard would be finished by September 2005. She said there was 24-hour real-time air quality monitoring and that unsafe levels were never observed on or near the site, that exposure to contamination is now eliminated, and that the remedy was minimally disruptive to education.
  • Mr. Maher recapped the 2001 agreement with the IPs and said it was the Town's position that the IPs are responsible for all remedy expenses in excess of the $7,200,000 agreed upon. He also noted that nothing he or Ms. Donovan said before us could be used against the Town, persuant to a written agreement with the IPs. He said that in 2004 the parties agreed to defer any dispute resolution and that the IPs agreed to pay $1,750,000 of the $2,000,000 cost of replacing the Mill Brook culvert under the field and also agreed to front some athletic improvement money in lieu of post-construction partial reimbursement of a field house. Mr. Maher then listed the $6,000,000 in overruns, which are all subject to dispute resolution. He also noted it was decided to replace the Mill Brook culvert now rather than leaving it to collapse in the future, requiring a large expense of penetrating the engineered barrier.
  • Mr. Tully asked of the Town could be liable for the entire $6,000,000. Mr. Maher said anything is possible but that it would be "very unlikely". Mr. Tully asked what the dispute process would be. Mr. Maher said first the Town and IPs would discuss the issues themselves, then if that failed, they would discuss the issues with a mediator, then if that failed they would go to either binding arbitration or litigation. Mr. Tully asked where the $6,000,000 would come from. Mr. Maher said the Town's exposure was minimal and that since the dispute resolution process would take two to three years, there would be time to plan.
  • Mr. Deyst said he was shocked to find out that $6,000,000 of overruns due to "choices" had accumulated and asked how things got out of hand. Mr. Maher said he did not agree the overruns were due to choices and that the IPs and not the Town managed the project and that the Town has not yet paid anything, though the Town was in constant discussions with the IPs. Mr. Deyst said it looked like most of the overrun was due to choice items. Mr. Maher said one must distinguish between remedy work and choice work. He said the remedy work is what was $6,000,000 over and that the choice work was only over by the $492,000 being asked for in the vote. He said there were no choices about the remedy -- that the original remedy work agreed to was carried out, but came in $6,000,000 over budget.
  • Mr. Dumyahn asked for the name of the company that did the air quality monitoring. Mr. Maher, going back to Mr. Deyst's question, said that the Town is contesting how the IPs ran the project and contends that the IPs did not run it well, contributing to the overrun. He also introduced Thor Helgasson, one of the consultants to the Town. Mr. Helgasson said the company is Air Logics LLC of Norwood, who did the monitoring and reported it to the IPs and that the monitoring records are publically available. Mr. Dumyahn asked if monitoring was done for hexavalent chromium and hydrocarbons. Mr. Helgasson said monitoring was done for hexavalent chromium, particulates, and BHA.
  • Mr. Garballey asked how long the $6,000,000 was known about and wished he know about it when he was elected. Mr. Maher said it was known in late fall 2004 and January 2005.
  • Mr. Leonard asked if there was a maintenance agreement on the work. Mr. Nangel, the Town's licensed professional for the work, said that the remedy improvements are covered by a thirty year performance warranty backed by monies set aside for the purpose, while non-remedy improvements were backed by manufacturers'/installers' warranties. Mr. Leonard asked if Town Meeting would be asked for more money to fix problems on the work. Mr. Nangel said it would not be for the remedy items due to the set aside funds and should not be for the non-remedy items because of their warranties.
  • Mr. Holman asked when the Mill Brook culvert was put in. Mr. Nangle said original work happened in the 1920s and it was finished in the 1960s. Mr. Holman asked if various water authorities were responsible. Mr. Nangle said the culverting was an MWRA project and that the culvert replacement was a separately negotiated item outside of the remedy. Mr. Holman asked if the culvert work was part of the $6,000,000. Mr. Nangel said it was not.
  • A man from Precinct 20 (I think either Mr. Nauman or Mr. Putnam) asked if there was a process for ensuring the quality of the work done. Mr. Helgasson said there was and that a third party has been doing various tests. The original questioner asked what the monitoring plan is and what happens if further hazards are identified. Mr. Nangel said there will be a long-term monitoring and maintenance program. He said that while the remedy cost went up the remedy did not change and that the negotiated remedy also includes fixing problems that arise as part of the remedy. He also said that if something new comes up, that is still part of the remedy.
  • Mr. Abbott said the Board of Health should have received the air quality reports. Mr. Helgasson said the reports were submitted on a regular basis, were shared weekly with the Town, and that the BoH never asked for them.
  • Mr. Lavalle asked who oversaw the work for the Town. Mr. Maher said that he, Ms. Donovan, Mr. Sanchez, outside counsel, and various consultants did. Mr. Lavalle asked where the Town would get $6,000,000 from. Mr. Maher said talking about $6,000,000 was "not realistic" and that even in the worst-case scenario, the Town's liability would be "far less" than $6,000,000.
  • Mr. O'Riordan asked what the Town's reponsibilities were in the future. Mr. Nangle said part of the remedy is a document which spells out in great detail what the Town can and cannot do on the field, how to take care of it, and so on.
  • Mr. Doherty asked how lights, bleachers, etc. would be put through the barrier. Mr. Nangle said all the necessary posts, slabs, foundations, etc. have already been constructed, so no barrier penetrations are needed to finish the work.
  • Mr. Dumyahn asked if the DPW yard work was next. Mr. Nangel said it was. Mr. Dumyahn asked if the Town's liability would be greater for that phase. Mr. Nangel said the phase consists of digging up and hauling away for disposal some concrete boxes filled with dirt and that everything else is done. Mr. Dumyahn asked why the BoH did not request the reports. Mr. Maher said that there was nothing to report since there never were any adverse conditions.
  • Mr. Carreiro moved the previous question on the Pierce discussion. Debate terminated.
• Motion to adjourn approved.
• Adjourned at 23:00 to 16 June at 20:00.

[Rich, 15:07]
What happens next?

So, we all get to exhale until 13 June. How things go from there will be...intriguing. If the override passes, I think things will be relatively smooth, with the big exception of the Park Avenue fire station rebuild.

However, if the override does not pass, I think it will be a very grinding final few sessions. I'd expect that there will be motions from the floor to try to help areas that various TMMs favor (my own plug -- keep the library certified!), in addition to intra-leadership squabbles (such as the difference between the Manager and FinComm re: the youth services budget).

[Rich, 14:58]
Correction to Session 8 notes - statue donor mistake

I misunderstood a speaker during Session 8. When that speaker referred to Mr. Barnaby, I thought the context was such that the referent was the Uncle Sam statue donor. The referent was actually the Uncle Sam Committee founder. The statue was actually donated by a Mr. Frederick Hauk of Cincinnati. Many thanks to the Moderator for catching the error and providing the true name.

[Rich, 02:28]
A reprieve!

I'd be lying if I didn't admit I'm thankful for the 3-week break in having to write these...

[Rich, 02:26]
Session 9 notes -- the ides of June?

• Annual meeting called to order at 20:04.
• The Moderator said that 86% (303 of 351) MA municipalities are towns (42 using representative town meeting, making cities the "aberration". He said around 1/3 of towns have less than 5,000 inhabitants, 1/3 have 5,000 to 12,500, and 1/3 have 12,500+.
• Voted that when we adjourn, we adjourn to 25 May at 20:00.
• Mr. Tosti moved to take Article 2 from the table. Approved.
• Article 2 - Reports
  • Mr. Shea gave the report of the AHRC. He said among other things it supported the Goodridge decision, has hosted some diversity activities, and investigated and resolved a complain by a disabled person against a restaurant. He said it is everyone's collective job to work for tolerance.
  • Mr. Tosti moved to table. Approved.
• Article 43 - Appropriation/Minuteman
  • FinComm recommended an appropriation of $2,573,384 to cover the Town's Minuteman assessment.
  • Ms. Morrissette, the new Arlington representative on the Minuteman SchoolComm said she has been impressed with Minuteman's programs and sensitivity to member towns. She said it has been trying to increase in-district enrollment and that Arlington is lucky to be able to send students to it.
  • Mr. Callahan, the Minuteman Superintendant, said he had spent three years as the dean and then 25 years as the principal before becoming the superintendant. He said he appreciated Arlington's support and that Minuteman increases the overall value of Arlington's educational offerings. He said that 13 towns had approved the budget and hoped all 16 would. He noted that because Minuteman has many specialized equipment needs, is regional, and has no municipal support for things like snow plowing, the school has additional and higher expenses than regular schools do. He said the overall budget is up 2.3% and that state aid cuts have hurt. He introduced the assistant superintendant.
  • Mr. Markham said that while the overall budget is up 2.3%, Arlington's assessment is up by 14.3%. He noted this is the first time in three years Minuteman has proposed a budget containing an overall spending increase. He said there have been cuts in Chapter 70 aid, cuts in state transportation reimbursement, and state-mandated increases in what local communities contribute.
  • Mr. Carreiro asked if the FinComm recommendation represented an approval of the budget, if the computation used the state education formula method, and if Arlington was already bound to the assessement. Mr. DeCoursey answered affirmatively to all three questions.
  • Mr. Leone moved the previous question. Debate terminated.
  • FinComm recommendation approved
• 23 May Special Town Meeting called to order at 20:43.
• Article 1 - Reports
  • BoS report received.
  • ARB report received.
  • Mr. Tosti moved that the recommended votes in the reports be before the meeting without further motion. Approved
  • Mr. Tosti moved to table. Tabled.
• Article 2 - Zoning/Menotomy Manor
  • ARB recommended the "wood-side" portion of Menotomy Manor be rezoned from R2 to R5.
  • Mr. Tsoi asked for and received a total of 15 minutes for the ARB/AHA presentation. He said we should support this because it would allow $7,000,000 of state money to be used to renovate MM, make some accessible units, and create three new units.
  • Mr. Mitropoulos thanked the ARB for its support and introduced the architectural consultant, Mr. Pollack.
  • Mr. Pollack said the plan was to change three of 25 houses from two-family to three-family as part of an overall renovation of MM where all houses would get new kitchens, bathrooms, and wiring. He said DHCD was paying for it and had approved the plans but that 5% of the units in the development must be accessible for the Town to get the money. He said the plan was to make four of the "brick-side" units accessible and to make six of the "wood-side" units accessible. The latter would be done by converting three two-story, two-family townhouses into three structures with two first-floor accessible units and one second floor unit. But without the zoning change, the three second-floor units would have to be left empty. He said state law prevents the AHA from doing any further redevelopment even given a R5 zoning.
  • Mr. Bernardin asked why not R3. The Moderator said that would be a spot zone. Mr. Bernardin asked why not go for a variance. The Moderator said use variances are not allowed.
  • Mr. Cleinman, noting he was an abutter, said it was a wonderful idea. He asked if failing to approve this would jeopardize getting federal funds. No one had an answer for while, but eventually Mr. Maher said it would not have an effect.
  • Ms. King said she lived in MM and that the tenants are thrilled to be upgraded. She said if upgrades are not done, the buildings would eventually become unlivable. She said that MM is a veterans' preference development and that more accessible units may help server war returnee needs.
  • Mr. Daly moved the previous question. Debate terminated.
  • ARB recommendation approved unanimously.
• Article 3 - Home Rule Legislation
  • BoS recommended a vote to send in a home rule petition requesting an Other Post-Retirement Benefits Trust Fund (OPEB).
  • Mr. Bilafer said that in FY08 the GASB requires putting unfunded retiree pension and medical benefits on the books as a liability, which for Arlington would be $70,000,000 to $80,000,000. The petition would create a separate fund into which monies could be appropriate to fund that liability.
  • Mr. Tosti said FinComm unanimously supported the recommendation as it formalizes and makes available better investment choices to a process that is already being done.
  • Mr. Abbott moved that the actuary's report be sent to Town Meeting and asked why it would not start in FY07 instead of FY08. Mr. Bilafer said the actuary indicated that was unwise.
  • Mr. Roselli said he supported the recommendation and said that previous, similar action by Mr. Bilfer had helped save retirement benefits for many.
  • Mr. Deyst moved the previous question. Debate terminated.
  • Abbott amendment approved unanimously.
  • BoS recommendation as amended approved unanimously, but a standing vote of 180-0 was taken as the Legislature wants to see numbers.
• Mr. Tosti moved to take Article 1 from the table. Approved.
• Mr. Tosti moved to dissolve the STM. Approved unanimously.
• Back in the Annual Town Meeting.
• Article 55 - Appropriation/TAC: FinComm recommendation of a $17,000 appropriation approved unanimously.
• Article 56 - Appropriation/Technical Assessment/Treasurer's Systems: FinComm recommendation of no action approved unanimously.
• Article 57 - Appropriation/Spy Pond Weeds
  • FinComm changed its recommendation to no action.
  • Mr. Tosti said that due to weather and other factors, the treatment needed to be done now, so it has been paid for in the current FY via a $20,000 reserve transfer, thereby making moot next year's appropriation. He said the $20,000 would be kept within the DPW budget.
  • FinComm recommendation of no action approved unanimously.
• Article 58 - Appropriation/ZBRC
  • FinComm recommended a vote of no action.
  • Mr. Loreti, ZBRC chair, presented a substitute motion to appropriate $16,000 for the ZBRC to carry out a study with the help of an outside consultant. He said residents are concerned with developments, that Town Meeting action happens too late, and that the ZBRC could help by providing a report that could best be provided by an outside consultant. He said the scope of the study would be determined by a public process. He said the ARB was receptive to such a study, though it would like it more focused on what state law does not allow in zoning. He recounted how an ARB member incorrectly said that floor-area plan ratio limits could not be imposed in R1 and R2 districts and discussed how a study on the effects of regulating them could be something the ZBRC could do.
  • Mr. Abbott said he had been on the ZBRC for a number of years and that the chance of achieving consensus on density between all interested parties in Town was essentially zero. He said that if $20,000 can be spent on weed remediation, $16,000 could be spent on studying density and that such a study is not within the expertise of any group in Town.
  • Mr. Dunn said he voted against the motion in FinComm and would do so again at Town Meeting. He said he did not believe the motion was ready because he was not convinced it could not be done by the planning department and because the scope of the study was not specific enough.
  • Mr. Holman said he supported the substitute motion and said that while he believed the ARB and Planning Department were capable of doing the work, he was unsure if they were willing or able to do it. He asked why they should be moved beyond. Mr. Loreti said he was sure they could do it but felt they did not have enough resources. Mr. Tsoi said it was a good idea but was wrong to have a special committee do it as it is a Planning Department function and that the assistant director of planning should be filled.
  • Ms. Fiore said she supported the substitute motion as she believed the ZBRC has been "stymied" whenever it has a good idea. She said it was "a dream" that an assistant director would be hired and that $16,000 for a study would be good value.
  • Mr. Tosti said FinComm voted no action after much discussion, feeling the money would be better spent by putting it toward funding the assistant director's position. He said FinComm thought the study was a good idea but should be done by the Planning Department supervised by the ARB. He said if the override passed the assistant director position would be filled and if it did not pass, it would be filled part-time but supplemented to full-time with CDBG funds. He urged a no-action vote, saying he expense was a "luxury".
  • Mr. Burke said much of what the article mentions should have been done, but by Town boards and not by hiring more outside consultants, especially since he believed the Town is top-heavy and has received "nothing" from past consultants we have hired. He said he would oppose the substitute motion.
  • Mr. Jones said he agreed with some of the previous speakers' points and asked if the ZBRC had looked into recruiting local, qualified volunteers. Mr. Loreti said the ZBRC had not looked into volunteers and noted that TAC had received $17,000 for outside help. Mr. Jones questioned that $16,000 would actually provide anything of value and asked if other towns has spent around that amount. Mr. Loreti said they had and have apparently been satisfied with the results. He said the $16,000 was four weeks at $100/hour.
  • Mr. Bernardin, a ZBRC member, said it was not a frivolous expense and that he has talked to many concerned residents. He said the ZBRC wants to get the town ahead of the curve and does not want more delays in doing a study.
  • Mr. McGann, another ZBRC member, said what mattered is who would do the study and noticed that neither the ARB nor Planning Department had volunteered. He said that if the ZBRC does not do the study, Town Meeting needs to make sure that someone does.
  • Mr. Deyst said letters every week in the Advocate urge us to spend money responsibly and that the real need is to staff up the Planning Department so it can continue its excellent work. He asked what the plan was for the assistant director's position. Mr. Sullivan replied that he had held off filling the position until he saw how the budget was going but now intended to fill the position regardless over the override outcome, as Mr. Tosti had previously explained.
  • Mr. Rehrig said he supported the substitute motion as the Planning Department was stretched so thin. He said that even with the assistant director slot being filled, the department would still only have 2/3rds the staff it should. He said the ZBRC had made a strong argument to be empowered to do the study.
  • Ms. Mann, as a TMM, said that equally-valid needs must be weighed. She said the $16,000 could pay for a part-time youth social worker, more textbooks for the schools, increased library hours, a parking officer who would bring in more revenue than he would cost, and so forth. She said defining "what we want" is very difficult and commended the ZRBC for being willing to try. But she said it was the wrong time, context, and amount of money and urged a no action vote.
  • Ms. Harrington said she supported the substitute motion, pointing out how the ZBRC had found flaws in the zoning bylaw in the past.
  • Mr. Carreiro moved the previous question. Debate terminated.
  • Loreti motion defeated 46-93.
  • FinComm recommendation of no action approved.
• Article 59 - Permissive Legislation: BoS recommended a vote of no action which was approved unanimously.
• Article 60 - Local Option Taxes: BoS recommended a vote of no action which was approved unanimously.
• Article 61 - Appropriation/Retiree Trust Fund
  • FinComm recommended appropriating $211,572 into the fund.
  • Ms. Fiore said she wanted "to hear something about it."
  • Mr. Tosti referred to the comments in the FinComm report and pointed out we have been doing this for years. He said the appropriations come from decreases in the non-contributory retirement pensions as the recipients die off and that it must be funded whether or not the override passes.
  • Mr. Abbott asked why both this and the OPEB are needed. Mr. Tosti said various changes have left the existing fund inadequate, especially around investment options. He said that in FY08 the existing fund would be closed into OPEB.
  • Mr. Leone asked what the current balance was and where it could be found. Mr. Tosti said it was around $800,000 and was in the Town's Annual Report.
  • FinComm recommendation approved.
• Article 62 - Appropriation/Tip Fee Fund
  • Mr. Abbott corrected a typo in the vote.
  • Ms. Harrington said she wanted this considered after the override for the sake of flexibility and moved to postpone to 13 June.
  • Mr. Tosti said he had no objections.
  • Motion to postpone approved.
• Article 63 - Transfer/Cemetery: FinComm recommendation of a $181,000 transfer to the cemeteries approved unanimously.
• Article 64 - Appropriation/Overlay Reserve: FinComm recommendation of a $400,000 transfer approved unanimously.
• Article 65 - Appropriation/Stabilization Fund: Unanimously postponed to 13 June.
• Article 66 - Free Cash: Unanimously postponed to 13 June.
• Article 67 - Health Information Resolution
  • BoS recommended a vote as set forth in its report.
  • Mr. Fischer presented a substitute motion that differed in some minor ways from the BoS resolution. He said he wants to encourage the spread of Arlington-specific information to help promote wellness initiatives. He noted that medical costs are a "budget-buster" in all levels of government and for private industry. He said studies show 50% of medical costs are due to "lifestyle diseases" and that wellness programs return $3 for every $1 spent on them. He said he hoped passage of the resolution would send a message that the public wants more Arlington-specific information to help decide what to do in the Town. He read through his resolution and asked it be supported.
  • Mr. Berkowitz hoped the substitute motion would be passed and discussed how there are other kinds of "health", such as how people with strong support networks have fewer colds and live longer. He said we should work to increase social connectivity in Town.
  • Mr. Jamieson moved the previous question. Debate terminated.
  • Fischer substitute motion approved.
  • BoS motion as substituted approved.
• Article 68 - Stablization Fund Transfer: FinComm recommendation of a $1,500,000 transfer approved.
• Article 69 - Override Resolution
  • BoS recommended no action.
  • Mr. Loreti moved to table.
  • Loreti motion to table defeated.
  • BoS recommendation of no action approved.
• Article 70 - Iraq Resolution: Mr. Hurd moved to postpone to 13 June which was approved.
• Mr. Hurd moved to reconsider the motion on when to adjourn to. Approved.
• Mr. Hurd moved that when we adjourn, we adjourn to 13 June at 20:00. Approved.
• Motion to adjourn approved.
• Adjourned at 23:04 to 13 June at 20:00.

[Rich, 09:33]
Notes completed

The balance of the Session 8 notes are done and have been added to the Session 8 entry.

[Rich, 09:31]
Session 8 - the train kept a-rollin' all night long...well, for part of the night, anyways.

• Called to order at 20:06.
• The Moderator noted that at the current 4.33 articles per session we would be in session through the end of June and attempted to discourage motions to postpone and table.
• Voted that when we adjourn we adjourn to 23 May at 20:00.
• Mr. Foskett moved to take Article 2 from the table. Approved.
• Article 2 - Reports
  • Permanent Town Building Committee report received.
  • Mr. Cole recapped the PTBC report. Of note is that the Brackett is now finally done and the Town will be getting paid back $70,000 spent on noise abatement. The Hardy noise abatement work is also done and the Town is in litigation to get money back. He said the state will approve the Ottoson costs and that the Town should be getting the first reimbursement check in a few months.
  • Information Technology Advisory Committee report received.
  • Ms. Galkowski recapped the ITAC report.
  • Mr. Foskett moved to table. Tabled.
• Article 29 - Home Rule Petition/Civil Service [cont'd]
  • Mr. Dunn supported the BoS recommendation. He said that even the state Civil Service chair says the system is broken and there there are many positions where it is not economically worth giving exams.
  • Ms. Phelps urged a vote for the BoS recommendation. She said the clerical personnel know what they are doing and that Town Meeting needs to stay out of union negotiations.
  • Mr. Thrope (as a SchoolComm member) said the union asked for the positions to be removed and that the contract includes protections the personnel felt more advantageous than Civil Service protections.
  • Mr. Carreiro moved the previous question. Debate terminated.
  • BoS recommendation approved by voice vote, then approved 142-13 because the Legislature likes a count on HR petitions.
  • In a (by his own admission) rare move, the Moderator allowed Mr. Rosselli to offer an amendment on what we had just approved.
  • Mr. Roselli offered an amendment saying the BoS could not send in the HR petition until a "neutral" had been appointed to give an opinion on the negotiated contract. He said there are problems with non-CS being hired for CS positions should they be laid off by the Town. He said a CS exam could be called in Arlington.
  • Ms. LaCourt (as TMM) was against the amendment saying that the clerical staff are adults, can understand the consequences of their actions, and would be insulted by it.
  • Mr. Lavalle said it is not an insult, arguing the staff did not have the information to evaluate the consequences rather than being unable to understand them. He asked if Ms. Donovan had ever called for exams. She replied she had done so many times and that the staff had ever paid for an exam but had never received anything but postponement notices. Mr. Lavalle said he disputed that answer and that an exam could be called. He supported the amendment.
  • Mr. Carreiro moved the previous question. Debate terminated.
  • Roselli motion defeated.
  • Mr. Roselli gave notice of reconsideration.
  • Mr. Deyst (angrily) moved for reconsideration.
  • The Moderator explained that if reconsideration were defeated, the article would be permanently closed.
  • Motion to reconsider defeated.
• Article 30 - Revolving Funds
  • A revolving fund is a way of sequestering income from the operating budgets. The designated income stream goes into the revolving fund instead of into the general fund and then certain expenses are paid out of them instead of being paid from the operating budgets. I believe state law requires them to be re-authorized every year. The numbers in the BoS report were a 31 December 2004 snapshot, though the report omitted that fact.
  • BoS recommended a vote to re-authorize the various revolving funds and to create a new revolving fund for Board of Health fees.
  • Mr. Hallee asked if creating a new fund was within the scope of the article (the Moderator said it was). He asked where the money is going now. Mr. Sullivan said that in the wake of the hepatitis scare the BoH wants to do additional inspections when it feels they are needed and to charge additional fees for that and use those to hire contractors to perform those additional inspections.
  • Mr. McKinney suggested the Uncle Sam fund be dissolved since it has had no activity for at least two years. Mr. Sullivan said the statue needs to be cleaned every three years and money would come from that. The Moderator asked if any Uncle Sam Committee members were in the hall and upon finding Ms. Weaver asked if she knew why there had been no activity. She said she did not know. Mr. McKinney said that if the fund had no reason to exist it should be eliminated and moved to amend the BoS recommendation to delete the re-authorization of the Uncle Sam fund.
  • Mr. Bayer asked why the Tuition Payment and All-Day Kindergarten fund balances were so high given how small the expenses were. Ms. Donovan said the funds would be zeroed by the end of the fiscal year. Mr. Bayer asked the same of the Building User Fees fund. Ms. Donovan said the fund was used to cover extra expenses such as a leaky oil tank.
  • Mr. Chaput said the US Fund should remain since the statute must be cleaned every three years.
  • Mr. Loreti asked why some of the ending balances were growing so much, such as the All-Day Kindergarten fund. Ms. Donovan said the Town was originally charging $500 and is now charging $1,500 and that while grants have been used as much as possible, the fund will be zeroed by the end of the fiscal year. Mr. Loreti asked why that matters since the fund would have similar receipts this year. Ms. Donovan said that salaries go up and that at the end of the fiscal year the fund would be zeroed.
  • Ms. Fiore said she supported leaving the US fund in and that Arlington has lost too much of its history. She said Town Meeting had refused to purchase the statue and that it was bought by a private citizen (who the Moderator told me later was a Mr. Frederick Hauk of Cincinnati).
  • Mr. Daly was opposed to the amendment and discussed why US is good for Arlington and why it would be wrong to abolish the Uncle Sam Committee (no typo).
  • Mr. McElhoe asked why funds that came in from after-school Building Use were used to fix a leaky oil take. Ms. Donovan said that the Hardy after-school program is privately run and the fees the Town charges the private group go into the fund and are used to help with school needs.
  • Ms. Harrington, noting that Ms. Donovan said the Tuition Payment and All-Day Kindergarten funds would be zeroed, asked how that was possible since their annual expense limits were set well below their current balances. She also asked why parents who pay the $1,500 do not get refunds when the schools get all-day kindergarten grants. Ms. Donovan said the schools are required to charge foreign students tuition and the costs of their education is paid through the fund and that the $20,000 cap is really $20,000 per student. As for All-Day Kindergarten, she said the fees and grants just cover the costs and that there are no refunds because the grants are anticipated in the budget and are not windfalls that could be returned to parents. Ms. Harrington asked why the Fox balance was negative. Mr. Hurd said the numbers are a 31 December snapshot and that the fund would be up to zero by the end of the fiscal year.
  • Mr. Sharpe asked how the Building Use fund could be zeroed this year given its $80,000 annual expense limit.
  • Mr. McKinney said he tried to join the US Committee as he wants to promote US but could find no one. He pointed out his amendment would only remove the revolving fund, not the committee and said that cleaning the statue is a DPW function, not a promotional one.
  • Mr. Jones asked that next year's report clearly date the balances.
  • Mr. Maher and Ms. Donovan corrected spending caps to $100,000 on the Tuition Payments fund, $550,000 on the All-Day Kindergarten fund, and $120,000 on the Building User Fees fund.
  • Mr. Hurd said the BoS wanted to keep the US fund.
  • Mr. Nauman moved the previous question on all matters under the article. Debate terminated.
  • McKinney amendment defeated.
  • BoS recommendation approved.
  • The amount of time we spent on the US fund thing was very frustrating. As was the number of people who (intentionally or not) conflated the US Fund with the US Committee (the latter, I note, echoes the former in not having much activity reported to Town Meeting). And for how many years have we had the bad cap numbers in the re-authorization vote?
• Article 31 - Revolving Fund/Parking: BoS recommended a vote of no action that was approved unanimously.
• Article 32 - Revolving Fund/ConComm: BoS recommended a vote of no action that was approved.
• Article 33 - CDBG EndorsementRevolving Fund/Parking: BoS recommended Town Meeting endorse its allocations. Approved unanimously.
• Article 34 - Grant Writing Authority: BoS recommended a vote to give the appropriate people/bodies the authority to apply for grants. Approved unanimously.
• Article 35 - Private Ways
  • BoS recommended a vote as set forth in its supplemental report to change the by-law by reducing the down payment by abutters to 1/3 of the cost but reducing the payback period from 20 to five years as well as tightening collection enforcement and charging interest on the unpaid amounts as well as to establish a committee to study the procedures and make recommendations.
  • FinComm recommended a vote to authorize up to $300,000 in bonding for the program.
  • Mr. Hurd said this would make it easier for private way abutters to take advantage of the by-law's provisions to have the Town involved in private way repair. He said the the current collection mechanism is essentially the honor system.
  • Mr. Burke told on how his street three abutters did not want to repair the street and so it ended with one half of the street fixed and one-half not fixed. He asked if this vote would affect that. Mr. Hurd said if 2/3rds of abutters wanted the repairs, the holdouts would be forced to go along (and be billed). He said the vote is by owners.
  • Ms. Chaput asked if the new committee would administer the program. Mr. Hurd said the BoS would do that. Mr. Chaput asked who set construction specifications. Mr. Sanchez said the law requires 12" of gravel and 5" of bitumen tar and that thanks to a vote last year, some drainage work can be done where needed.
  • Mr. Jamieson wanted to clarify that the 20-year repayment period was being reduced to five and urged the new committee to look into the safety of the more deteriorated private roads.
  • Mr. McElhoe asked what construction costs are as he is concerned with the repayment period reduction. Mr. Sanchez said it could be from $50 to $150 per foot depending on how the work ranged from repair to rebuild. Mr. McElhoe, who lives on a private way, said that would be too much to repay in five years and was against the motion.
  • Mr. Abbott asked if abutters can be force to fix a private way that is so bad that one cannot drive on it. The Moderator said they could not be.
  • Mr. Ruderman asked if the proposal would change the principle that abutters repay in full with no subsidies. Mr. Hurd said it would not.
  • Mr. McHugh asked why the proposal charged interest over and above the Town's project costs. Mr. Foskett said it was to cover bond issuance costs. Mr. Hurd said it helped cover administratrive costs.
  • Mr. Ledwig asked how costs would be allocated among abutters. Mr. Maher said it would be per owner and that nothing in the recommended vote would change how petitions are currently counted or costs are currently allocated.
  • Mr. Ellis was bothered by the administration fees and said residents were already paying taxes. He asked if unwilling abutters could be forced to go along to which the Moderator answered yes.
  • Mr. Bernardin moved the previous question. Debate terminated.
  • BoS recommendation approved.
  • FinComm recommendation approved unanimously.
• Article 36 - Committee/Town's Fiscal Organization
  • BoS recommended no action but commented they would like to see a similar committee be formed under the auspices of the Budget and Revenue Task Force.
  • Mr. Howard asked what the size of the committee would be, what its charge would be, and when it would be appointed. Mr. Greeley said it would be 15, charged with investigating the Town's fiscal organization and would be appointed sometime after Town Meeting finished.
  • Mr. Abbott moved to postpone to 23 May.
  • Mr. Daly said we should go ahead and vote.
  • Mr. Greeley said the BoS felt there was no point in postponing the article since the BRTF would not be meeting until after Town Meeting anyway.
  • Motion to postpone defeated.
  • BoS recommendation of no action approved.
• Article 37 - Committee/SPPDIC
  • BoS recommended a vote as set forth in its report to create a Symmes Project Post Development Committee.
  • Mr. O'Riordan moved an amendment to sunset the committee five years after the final occupancy permit is issued.
  • Mr. Hurd said the BoS supported the amendment.
  • Ms. Fiore rhetorically asked why the issues the committee is charged with examining were not examined long ago.
  • O'Riordan amendment approved.
  • BoS recommendation as amended approved.
• Article 38 - Fire Station Renovation Postponement
  • Mr. Lewiton moved to table saying the proponents were waiting for the Town to supply information they were planning to present.
  • Mr. Foskett said he saw no reason to debate under this article as there would be plenty of fire station debate under the capital budget.
  • Motion to table defeated.
  • BoS recommendation of no action approved.
• Article 39 - Fire Station Renovation Capital Plan: FinComm recommended a vote of no action that was approved.
• Article 40 - Trash Fee
  • BoS, FinComm recommended a vote of no action.
  • Mr. Jamieson moved to postpone to 13 June to preserve the option in case the override fails.
  • Mr. Foskett said the override will determine if people want their taxes raised and that this would confuse the issue.
  • Mr. Jamieson said he agreed, but wanted to keep the option available.
  • Mr. Abbott said it was "dumb" to act on this article without knowing the result of the override and supported postponement.
  • Ms. Wylie supported postponement.
  • Mr. Foskett, noting he was co-chair of the Yes campaign, said a trash fee is effectively a tax so that if the override fails, Town Meeting should also vote against any trash fee.
  • Jamieson motion to postpone defeated.
  • BoS recommendation of no action approved.
• Article 41 - Trash Collection Plan
  • BoS recommended a vote of no action.
  • Mr. Jamieson said he would like to offer a post-override vote substitute motion to authorize developing a plan and moved to postpone to 13 June.
  • Mr. Lavalle said it was an attempt to hold the threat of tax fee over voters and that he would vote against the override just for that.
  • Ms. LaCourt said the BoS is committed to five years without an override and so is morally committed to no backdoor tax increases. She said the override was the overriding concern.
  • Jamieson motion to postpone defeated.
  • BoS recommendation of no action approved.
• Article 43 - Minuteman Appropriation
  • FinComm recommended an appropriation as set forth in its report.
  • Mr. Foskett moved to postpone to 23 May so the Minuteman superintendant could be present.
  • Mr. Jamieson asked if there was any point to waiting as our vote would likely make no difference.
  • Mr. DeCoursey said 11 of the 16 member towns had approved the budget making it essentially approved, but that the superintendant is new and would like the chance to talk to Town Meeting.
  • Foskett motion to postpone approved.
• Article 44 - Appropriation/Town Celebrations: FinComm recommended a vote as set forth in its report which was approved unanimously.
• Article 45 - Appropriation/Committees and Commissions: FinComm recommended a vote as set forth in its report which was approved.
• Article 46 - Appropriation/Misc: FinComm recommended a vote as set forth in its report which was approved unanimously.
• Article 47 - Appropriation/Misc: FinComm recommended a vote as set forth in its report which was approved unanimously.
• Article 48 - Rescind Borrowing Authority: FinComm recommended a vote of no action which was approved unanimously.
• Article 49 - Appropriation/Sewer Financing
  • FinComm recommended a vote as set forth in its report.
  • Mr. Foskett said this was to allow the Town to get an interest-free loan from the MWRA.
  • FinComm recommendation approved unanimously.
• Article 50 - Appropriation/Water Mains
  • FinComm recommended a vote as set forth in its report.
  • Mr. Foskett said this was to allow the Town to get an interest-free loan from the MWRA.
  • Ms. Fiore asked if developers have to pay a share of water main re-construction. Mr. Sanchez said the article was about existing lines and that developers pay if their development would have a detrimental effect.
  • FinComm recommendation approved unanimously.
• Ms. Fiore moved reconsideration of article 49 because she said the Moderator did not acknowledge her.
• Ms. Fiore asked the same question about article 49. Mr. Sanchez said that if a new development would have a detrimental effect, developers would have to pay for sewerage improvements. He said they have to improve flow by three times the amount of flow they expect to add.
• Fiore motion to reconsider defeated.
• Article 51 - Appropriation/Pension Adjustments: FinComm recommended a vote as set forth in its report which was approved unanimously.
• Article 52 - Position Reclassification
  • FinComm recommended a vote as set forth in its report.
  • Mr. Foskett corrected the report by deleting section A(3) of the recommended vote (eliminating reclassifying the superintendant of highway and sewer to assistant DPW director).
  • Mr. Abbott asked if the changes were in the budget and if making these changes obliged us to fund them.
  • Ms. Malloy said that additions were only changes to the plan and did not make salary changes to existing positions but that reclassifications would and that was why the article also called for a $5,764 appropriation.
  • FinComm recommendation approved unanimously.
• Article 53 - Establish 200th Anniversary Commmittee: FinComm recommended a vote as set forth in its report which was approved unanimously.
• Article 54 - Appropriation/Peirce School
  • FinComm recommended a vote as set forth in its report.
  • Mr. Foskett corrected the vote to be a total of $70,000 and to take $46,000 from the Elementary School Interest account instead of $43,000 from the Dallin account.
  • Mr. Chaput asked if some of the money was coming from the Brackett account. The Moderator said it would. Mr. Chaput said some landscaping work in the corner of the playground area is not done and asked if this meant it would never be done. Mr. Shea said that all Brackett work is done. Mr. Chaput asked when the landscaping would be done. Mr. Shea said it was never part of the project. Mr. Chaput asked if the account would be zeroed. Mr. Shea said it would be. Mr. Chaput said he was not happy.
  • Mr. Trembly asked what the $70,000 was for. Mr. Shea said it was for soils testing at the beginning of the project as the Town had mislaid the invoice and only just found it and for architectural services related to HVAC and accessibility issues.
  • Ms. Harrington suggested taking the entire $70,000 from the Elementary School Interest account and leaving the Brackett account alone. Mr. Shea said the PTBC felt the Brackett project was over and it was time for the BoS to make decisions on what would should be done there.
  • FinComm recommendation approved.
• Motion to adjourn approved.
• Adjourned at 23:04 until 23 May at 20:00.

[Rich, 21:39]
Some SchoolComm details

The actual School Department budget report that was handed out at TM last night does not seem to be anywhere online yet. So for the time being, you'll have to be satisfied with this possibly preliminary information.

[Rich, 21:25]
Vision 2020 report available

And here is the Vision 2020 report, which I believe is the most useful V2020 report I've seen since I've been in TM, mainly on the strength of the spending retrospective study.

[Rich, 21:05]
Town Manager's budget reduction presentation now available

Here is the report, which is a 77KB PDF. I've added a link to it in last night's notes, too.

[Rich, 01:31]
Session 7 -- and you thought TM was boring!

• Annual meeting called to order at 20:06.
• Arlington Madrigal Singers performed the National Anthem plus a four-song mini-concert.
• Voted that when the ATM adjourn, it adjourn to 17 May at 20:00.
• Mr. Hurd announced the World Series trophy will be on display at the Veterans' Memorial Rink from 14:00-16:00 on 18 May.
• Mr. Tosti moved to table articles 17, 29-41. Tabled.
• Article 42 - Budgets
  • The Moderator declared the meeting in recess so that no presenter or questioner would be counted as having spoken under the article.
  • The vast majority of the presentation was paraphrasing or directly reading a report the Town Manager's office had created and put in our seats and pages II-3 and II-4 of the School Department budget. Noting what presenters said would essentially be reproducing those reports. So for the presentations I only noted who spoke (and for what) and jotted down something here or there that was not in the reports and caught me interest.
  • Mr. Sullivan presented the opening of his report, the main point of which is that there is a $2,000,000 structural deficit. He feels that is caused by a revenue problem and not an expenditures problem.
  • Ms. Loud presented the libraries slide. She also noted that being decertified could cost the libraries an additional $31,000 in lost grants and $52,000 in lost state funds.
  • Ms. Kraemer presented the Department of Human Services slides.
  • Mr. Sanchez presented the DPW slides.
  • Chief McEwen presented the AFD slides. He noted that if the override did not pass, an engine company would periodically have to to be shut down.
  • Chief Ryan presented the APD slides. He noted there are only 5 patrol officers on duty at one time on average.
  • Mr. Sullivan presented the slides for general administration.
  • Ms. Donovan went over pages II-3 and II-4 of the School Committee budget report, which listed what would be cut if the override did not pass.
  • Mr. Roselli said the Town should get rid of staff cars and asked if car expenses had been looked at. Mr. Sullivan said it has been examined at that steps have been taken to reduce it. He said the cost of employees driving their cars home is minimal compared to on-the-job use. Mr. Roselli attempted to continue, but the Moderator shut him down to give other questioners a chance.
  • Mr. Abbott said he thought the Town was responsible for school building maintenance and asked what the delination was. Ms. Donovan said all the custodians are in the School Department budget, but that when they work on a Town-side building, the School Department bills the Town so each side pays its fair share.
  • Mr. Dunn noted that 57% of the dollar amount of the budget is for teacher pay but that 74% of the headcount reduction falls on teachers. Ms. Donovan replied that seniority requires the newest (and thus cheapest) teachers to be laid off first, so a given dollar cut in teacher pay will result in a higher number of teachers positions being cut than a given dollar cut in administrator pay would result in administrative position cuts. She also said the last round of cuts fell heavily on the administrative side.
  • Ms. Weaver asked how the assistant DPW director position and its SUV could be justified. Mr. Sullivan said that the DPW director is planning to move his office to the DPW yard which would eliminate the need for the position and that the recommendation is that the position would be eliminated. He said the SUV is necessary for the DPW director's job. Ms. Weaver asked about the position upgrade in the Recreation Department. Mr. Sullivan said the rec enterprise fund is self-supporting and that the upgrade does not affect operating budgets. He said the upgrade was, among other things, to do more grant-writing and that it had worked out well.
  • Mr. Berkowitz, saying that people in favor of the override were "preaching to the choir" at TM and asked TMMs to push the override. He said he worried override proponents were not doing a good enough job of making their case and asked how TMMs could better make a pro-override case. Mr. Sullivan said that as a Town employee he cannot promote an override but said he could make people and material available to state the facts. Ms. LaCourt agreed that it was not proper for Town employees to promote an override and told override supporters to talk to members of the pro-override campaign.
  • Ms. Friedman asked about a cut of a HS academic position and its relation to a cut of five secondary teaching positions. Ms. Donovan said the former was targeted in relation to student interests but that the latter could end up falling anywhere.
  • Mr. Smith asked how the comparable communities shown in the tables in the Town Manager's reports were chosen. Mr. Sullivan said he picked the 20 municipalities in eastern MA he felt were most similar by a number of demographics.
  • Ms. Stetson asked what elementary school "basic library services" were and how they would be offered with no school librarians. Ms. Donovan said if the override failed the professional librarians would be cut and volunteers and teachers' assistants would be used to man the elementary school libraries. Ms. Stetson asked how the Town library could pick up the slack. Ms. Loud said it could not and that even now co-ordination between Town and school libraries has suffered.
  • Ms. Carlyle noted a line on page II-3 of the School Department report that said there was "no current interest" in the business program at the high school and asked if that program would be eliminated even if the override passed. Ms. Donovan said it would.
  • Mr. Curro asked why the list of comparable municipalities in the APD slides were so different than those in all the other slides. Chief Ryan said they were drawn from a urban/suburban/rural mix that mirrors comparables used in collective bargaining.
  • Mr. Jamieson said the reason SPED expenditures are left untouched while in-district expenditures are cut is due to state law. He also asked if the library system would fail all three certification criteria if the override failed. Ms. Loud said that it would and that a spending cut would be looked at disfavorably by the waiver-granting authority.
  • Ms. Crowley asked if the cuts would accelerate redistricing and if redistricting would help class size. Ms. Donovan said it could help in a few instances.
  • Mr. Spangler asked if it would still be necessary to raise senior tax exemptions if the override failed. Mr. Tosti said the BoS recommended the change both to cushion the blow of an override but also because of taxes in general.
  • Ms. Kirby asked if there is a longer-term analysis of a failed override. Mr. Tosti said there was one in the back of the FinComm report. Ms. Kirby asked if it was at the budget level. Mr. Tosti said it was not. Mr. Sullivan said that even though the deficit is $4,000,000 this year, a $6,000,000 override was asked for to help build some cushion for following years.
  • The Moderator declared the ATM back in session.
• Mr. Tosti moved to postpone articles 42 and 47 to 13 June. Approved.
• Mr. Tosti moved to take articles 17, 29-41 from the table. Approved.
• The Moderator declared the ATM in recess.
• STM called to order.
• Voted that when STM is adjourned, it adjourn to 18 May at 20:00.
• Article 6 - Resolution/Naming
  • BoS recommended a vote of no action.
  • Mr. Carreiro offered a resolution requesting Town boards, committees, and employees to follow the Public Memorials Commission by-law.
  • Ms. Lovelace said SchoolComm had "permanently" changed its policy to refer namings to the PMC.
  • Mr. Jamieson moved the previous question, which passed unanimously. Debate terminated.
  • Carreiro resolution approved unanimously.
• Mr. Tosti moved Article 1 be removed from the table. Approved.
• Mr. Tosti moved the STM be dissolved. Approved unanimously.
• Back into the Annual Town Meeting.
• Article 17 - Bylaw/Lighting
  • BoS had recommended a vote of no action.
  • Mr. Gilligan replaced his previous substitute motion with a newer one that no longer banned specific lighting uses and that placed enforcement on the Building Inspector. He introduced Cindy Tollman, the main proponent.
  • Ms. Tollman said the motion had been revised with input from many people and thanked Mr. Maher for his drafting help.
  • Mr. Berkowitz said it was a reasonable balance between public welfare and individual rights and that he supported it.
  • Mr. Fitzmaurice said he sympathized with the proponent but would not vote for it because it appeared to outlaw porch lights.
  • Ms. Kirby said she was in support of it, because among other things it would protect the value of an astronomer friend's investment in his home.
  • Mr. Burke said he thought it was ridiculous and that one should just pull down the shade if light is in one's window. He said not many stars can be seen in Arlington and that all outdoor lights in town would be affected due to high housing density. He said the motion had no merit and Town Meeting had more important things to discuss.
  • Mr. Daly said he was concerned and worried about safety. He also said it infringed on individual rights and would ruin the value of lighting systems people have placed on their property. He said it would add workload to the Building Inspector. He said the intentions were good but that he opposed it.
  • Mr. Trembly asked if there was a specific problem. Ms. Tollman said she has had problems with neighbors deliberately shining lights at her and has heard of similar problems from other people. She said similar lighting restrictions were already in place on commercial properties. Mr. Trembly said it was not appropriate to regulate 45,000 people because of problems faced by a view and urged a vote against the motion.
  • Mr. Dunn asked why light shining on streets should be banned. Ms. Tollman said some lights are too bright and are a public safety issue. Mr. Dunn said specific, problematic lights should be dealt with instead of banning lights shining on streets everywhere and said he opposed the motion.
  • Mr. Foskett said that light is important for personal safety (such as climbing stairs) and in his view the motion would ban all useful-to-personal-safety lights.
  • Mr. Gilligan said the proposal would only swing into action if someone complained and that no reasonable Building Inspector would issue a citation over a porch light. He said this provides equity and a means of recourse and that it is not about "the light police".
  • Mr. Hayward worried that it could affect the Town's ability to light playing fields at night and was opposed to it.
  • Mr. Abbott said recourse is needed and that it is silly to have something covering commercial properties but not residential. He said the Building Inspector would ignore something like a porch light and urged support.
  • Mr. Bernardin moved the previous question. Debate terminated.
  • Gilligan motion to substitute approved 80-74.
  • BoS recommendation as substituted approved 80-73.
• Article 29 - Home Rule Petition/Civil Service
  • BoS recommended a vote to send in a home rule petition to remove School Department clerical workers from civil service, per the workers' request.
  • Mr. Roselli moved to adjourn. Defeated.
  • Mr. Roselli said he had more information coming and moved to postpone to 25 May.
  • Ms. Donovan said the clerical workers asked for this.
  • Mr. Daly said there were merits to both sides and that debate should be postponed until the information came.
  • Mr. Bernardin moved the previous question on the motion to postpone. Debate terminated on the motion to postpone.
  • Roselli motion to postpone defeated 65-68.
  • The Moderator asked if there were any substitute motions. Mr. Roselli said he had had one but the Moderator had ruled it outside the scope of the article. The Moderator asked if Mr. Roselli had another motion, which he did not.
  • Ms. Donovan said all the members of the bargaining unit (except for three who were absent) had signed a letter saying they wanted to be dropped from civil service and that Mr. Roselli was mistaken when he said they did not know what they were doing. Ms. Donovan read the letter.
  • Mr. Jamieson moved the previous question on all matters under the article. Defeated 84-56 (requires 2/3rds) and debate not terminated.
• Motion to adjourn approved.
• Adjourned at 23:07 to 18 May at 20:00.