[Rich, 00:46]
Business...

• The Moderator said that anyone wishing to purchase a copy of Town Meeting Time should contact:
     Edward Newman
     27 Whitney Road
     Stow, MA 01775
  Send a $25 check payable to the Massachusetts Moderators Association.
• Article 2 -- Reports: Received the report of the Open Space Committee. It is online at the town website and hardcopies are at the Library, the Planning Department office, the Town Clerk's office, and with some other boards and committees. It covers from 2002 to 2006.
• Article 33 -- Acceptance of CPA Legislation:
  • Board of Selectmen recommended a no action vote. Speaking for them, Mr. Greeley (speaking for the BoS) said the BoS felt the idea has much to recommend it, but that which the upcoming override vote, it would be too confusing and difficult to have this going as well.
  • Ms. Rowe and Ms. Mayer offered a substitute motion to have the Town accept the CPA legislation with a surcharge rate of 1.5%, a $100,000 exemption, and a total exemption for anyone eligible for low-income housing or low/moderate-income senior housing. Ms. Mayer said acceptance is not an end-run around Prop 2.5 or TM, that a match of 99% is virtually certain through 2008 even with a 37% drop in CPA fund revenues, and that Speaker Finneran is against "raiding" the CPA fund for the state's general fund. She said that voters could lower the surcharge in any subsequent year and can revoke it if matching funds go away. She pointed out that if the substitute motion passes, the ballot question would be in the spring of 2004 and thus not compete with the upcoming override vote. She said that CPA-allowed projects were high priorities of those returning the Vision 2020 surveys.
  • Mr. Ruderman said the Historical Commission endorsed the substitution motions under Articles 33 and 34. He spoke about a number of preservation/restoration projects which are languishing due to lack of funds and likened CPA to the state putting certain types of projects "on sale" for half off.
  • Mr. Foskett (who was filling in as FinComm Chair with Mr. Tosti absent) said that FinComm had voted 12-5 in favor of no action, but that the votes were for many different reasons. He said that the Capital Planning Committee unanimously supported the no action vote, but again for many different reasons. He said the committee felt putting another tax hike on the ballot (even months later) could hurt the override; that none of the CPA money could be spent on essential Town services; that there was concern about the unfinished business of the school rebuilds and big upcoming operating deficits; that the CPA improperly segregates tax revenues, places a higher value on CPA-approved projects, could distort the capital plan, and may dilute TM authority. He said that from his examination of the numbers, if 50% of the towns considering CPA approve it, matching funds would run out in three years. (Mr. Foskett also referred to a 3% surcharge a number of times and was corrected by the Moderator after Ms. Rowe raised a point of personal privilege).
  • Mr. Rehrig said it was too bad that the CPA would be used to help us do things we need to do instead of being used to do things we would not have done otherwise. He said that we have the right to revoke it at any time and that he liked the progressivity of the substitute motion and urged support.
  • Mr. Greeley (speaking for himself) said that the current crisis might require future overrides and that he is worried a CPA ballot question might hurt those, should they be necessary.
  • Mr. Lavalle said that the proposal sounded nice, but that none of the CPA-allowed projects are priorities to the Town and does not help the Park Circle fire station. He asked what was the response percentage of the surveys and was told 9%.
  • Mr. Caccavaro asked how much his tax would be raised. Ms. Rowe said $61 was representative. He talked about the bad condition of many sidewalks, streets, and services and urged the meeting not to raise taxes and to vote down the substitute motion.
  • Mr. Spengler said he was against the CPA but that the meeting should approve the substitute motion and leave it to the voters to decide.
  • Mr. Judd said he would vote no and that the Town needs to prioritize.
  • Ms. LeRoyer said that the Open Space Committee endorsed the substitute motion and that the open space plan has many projects CPA could be used to help. She introduced Mr. Stevens (ConComm chair) who said the ConComm voted to support the substitute motion.
  • Ms. Mann (speaking for herself) pointed out that an affirmative vote would only put the question on the ballot, and not until spring 2004. She said the discussion leading to the vote would help bring out the priorities of the town, and that some work on the Central Fire Station would be CPA-eligible. She reminded the meeting that TM would have the power to approve or disapprove (but could not amend) the CPA Committee's recommended spending plan each year.
  • Ms. Rowe said that the voters should be allowed to decide. She said CPA money could be used in the capital budget and for affordable housing. She asked why so many of the people "in front of us" were against it.
  • Mr. Starr said the override was desperately needed and was worried that putting a tax increase on the ballot, even next year, could hurt the override and so he would be voting against the substitute motion.
  • Mr. Sharpe said he was uncomfortable and torn. He said he liked the sort of things that could be funded with CPA money and that it has important goals and priorities, but is inherently elitist because it favors a limited set of goals and removes the relevant funds from the normal political process.
  • Mr. Kohl moved the previous question, which was approved.
  • Ms. Rowe's substitute motion was defeated 70-112.
  • BoS recommendation of no action was approved.
• Article 34 - CPA Committee: Proponents withdrew their substitute motion after their Article 33 defeat. BoS recommendation of no action approved.
• Article 35 - CDBG: Postponed to 21 May.
• Article 36 - Authority to Apply for Grants: BoS recommendation approved unanimously.
• Articles 37-39 tabled in case relevant legislation is proposed before the meeting dissolved.
• Article 40 - Revolving Funds: BoS recommendation approved unanimously.
• Article 41 - Disability Retirement:
  • BoS recommended a vote to allow all workers, not just veterans, to be eligible to go out on non-job disability after 10 years in the system.
  • FinComm recommended no action, saying the distinction should be reserved to veterans.
  • Mr. Maher said even with this vote, veterans would still have significantly better disability benefits than non-veterans. He said teachers already have this benefit by virtue of their membership in the state's retirement system.
  • Mr. Roselli (Retirement Board member) said the Retirement board, while happy to see the vote pass, would not not fight FinComm and would not persue the vote.
  • Mr. Judd asked if FinComm knew that veterans would have markedly better benefits even with the recommended vote. Mr. Foskett said "Yes."
  • Ms. Mahon said the BoS was convinced by the Retirement Board presentation.
  • Mr. Roselli repeated that he was personally in favor of it but did not want to force the issue.
  • Mr. Carreiro asked if the prospective $10,000 (increased actuarial liability cited in BoS report) was in the budget already and if it was $10,000 total or per year. He did not receive an answer about the budget question and sparked confusion with the second question.
  • Mr. Adams re-asked Mr. Carreiro's question about annual vs. one-time. Mr. Roselli said it would be an annual expense.
  • Mr. Gilligan moved the previous question, which carried.
  • BoS recommendation was approved on a narrow voice vote.
• Article 42 - Veterans Buyback: BoS recommendation to allow veterans to buy up to four years service time approved unanimously.
• Article 43 - Adjustment for Retirees: FinComm recommended an appropriation of $0 to implement MGL Chapter 32, Sections 90A, 90C, 90D, and 90E, ensuring that retirees continue to receive a pension of at least 50% of their salary. Approved unanimously.
• Articles 44-52 - Collective Bargaining: Tabled.
• Article 53 - Position Reclassification:
  • FinComm recommended a vote to change the personnel and compensation plan as laid out in the FinComm report. Mr. Foskett said no dollar amounts were shown because the actual budget line items contain the relevant funds.
  • Ms. Cove (Director of Personnel) said that there are many ways that classifications need to be changed: position re-evaluation when vacancies occur, job description changes due to re-orgs, simple changes in title, classifications changed forced by by-law, and creation of new positions not in the plan.
  • Mr. Roselli asked which changed involved new duties. Ms. Cove said 1(A)-(D) and 2(A)-(B) of the FinComm report were significant changes, 1(E)-(F) and 3(D)-(E) were just title changes, 3(A) used to be a consultant position, and 3(B)-(C) were new positions.
  • Mr. Adams said he was confused by what was being voted, since the vote did not contain a complete sentence. The Moderator agreed and inserted "To amend the classification and pay plan as follows:" at the head of the recommended vote.
  • Mr. Starr asked what the total financial impact of the changes were. No one knew.
  • Ms. Harrington said the report should have provided numbers for each change and/or explicit references to relevant budget line items so it would be easy to know the cumulative impact.
  • Mr. Bernardin wanted to know the dollar amounts.
  • Mr. Starr made a motion to table, which was approved.
• Article 54 - Budgets: Postponed to 21 May so Mr. Tosti can be there.
• Article 55 - Deferred Compensation: Tabled.
• Article 56 - Capital Budget:
  • FinComm recommended a vote as set forth in their report and in the report of the Capital Planning Committee. Mr. Foskett said that a lot of work had gone into the plan, but that the Town was facing tough times. He noted that since total Town revenues have dropped, so have the revenues available to the capital plan, since it is practice to have capital plan spending be 5% of Town Revenues. He said the capital plan has delayed the Park Circle firehouse work again.
  • Mr. Leonard asked why there are so many items for photocopiers. Mr. Foskett said there are many widely distributed offices with different photocopy needs, so there are many entries and for many different prices. Ms. Galkowski said they are all purchased through the state bid program, which allows us to get a volume discount.
  • Mr. Cleinman asked if the recommended vote would fund debt service. Mr. Foskett said it did, and in fact that about 90% of the capital appropriation was to fund debt service.
  • Mr. McCabe asked what the balance in the Antenna Fund (fund which received rents from cell antennas on Town property - can be used for park and recreation uses) was. Mr. Foskett said it was $180,000 and that $150,000 would be used for Spy Pond shoreline work and $30,000 to offset playing field fees.
  • Mr. Kohl asked if any of the Chapter 90 funds will be used for Forest Street. The DPW Director said no, but that next year he would be coming to TM with a 10-year plan and Forest Street would be on that. Mr. Kohl asked about the $482,000 reservoir dam item. The director said there is no design at the moment, but the process will start soon and residents and the public will be involved.
  • Mr. Carrigan asked what the problem was with the Ottoson roof (a $150,000 item). Mr. Foskett said there was a separation between the building and the deck and it is leaking. Mr. Carrigan asked why we are not going after the contractor. Mr. Shea (Permanent Town Building Committee member) said the problem is that an interior courtyard was constructed over an unknown, underground concrete slab and that water pools on the slab and leaks into the locker rooms and weight rooms. Mr. Carrigan asked how $482,000 can be appropriated for dam repairs when there is no plan. Mr. Foskett said the money is for design and early preparation work, and the the actual total will be around $2.3 million, with a better estimate known when the plans are actually drawn up. Mr. Carrigan said he was angry about the Park Circle firehouse.
  • Ms. Munsey said she was "outraged" at the Park Circle firehouse delay, questioned the priorities of the Town, and said she would vote against the capital budget.
  • Mr. Guy moved the previous question, which was defeated.
  • Mr. Judd moved to table, which was defeated.
  • Mr. Dunn asked for an explanation of the Park Circle firehouse delay. Mr. Foskett said that the renovation is a $10-$13 million project, that the Town cannot afford it now, and that he does not think it is wise for the Town to commit to an irreversible plan of that magnitude when the Town cannot guarantee that it can continue to afford to staff that station.
  • Mr. Lavalle also said he was "outraged." He asked how we can justify work on playgrounds, etc. while not working on the firehouse.
  • Mr. Norton moved to adjourn.
• Meeting adjourned to 20:00 on Wednesday, May 21.