[Rich, 01:19]
Business...

• Annual Meeting opened.
• ATM - Article 2 -- Reports: Capital Planning Committee report received.
• Annual Meeting recessed.
• Special meeting opened.
• STM - Article 5 -- Wetlands Bylaw: Mr. Tosti recapped the history of the problem. Urged TM support of some form of the bylaw because it would be very bad if we had to renegotiate. Mr. Carreiro offered an amendment to remove the particularly restrictive language and an amendment to remove the sunset clause, saying that neither were fair and that the Town should have to play by the same rules its residents have to. Ms. Munsey said she supported the BoS recommendation though realizing it had fairness issues. She felt the recommended vote was the right vote for the present time. She introduced Heather Sullivan who said approval of the vote would allow them to be able to drive to their home, have normal trash and mail service, be assured that fire and ambulance can reach their house, and so on. She asked us to support the recommended vote. Ms. Donovan (Superintendant) pointed out that if the vote is not approved there will be a huge cost increase and several years' delay in the Pierce field rebuild. Ms. Leiberson(sp?) said that the LWV supported the recommended vote and was against the amendments. Mr. Berkowitz asked how many known cases were like the Sullivans. Mr. Stevens (ConComm chair) said there were none. Mr. Gilligan was in favor of the recommended vote and against the amendments. He said the underlying article had to pass and that the amendments would allow politics to take over. Mr. Rehrig said we had our own wetlands bylaw to deal with flaws in the state law and to deal with Arlington idiosyncracies. He said he was not against removing the sunset provision but was against a general waiver power. Ms. Fiore said she supported a bylaw that would allow for the Pierce field rebuild and for what the Sullivans wanted to do, but nothing else. She asked if the the Mugar's litigation would prevent them from filing an application. Mr. Maher said that the BoS recommended vote would not help Mugar. Mr. Fischer moved the previous question. Both Carreiro amendments failed. The BoS recommended vote was approved.
• The Special Town Meeting was dissolved.
• ATM - Article 25 -- Power Aggregation: Mr. Quinn of the Power Company Feasibility Committee presented their report on aggregation. If the town became an aggregator it may save residents 5% on their bills and residents could opt out at any time. The town could also administer the Energy Efficiency Plan (EEP) moneys that town ratepayers are charged. The BoS recommended a vote authorizing the committee to continue the process of getting the Town to be a power aggregator. Mr. Deyst asked what the "transition charge" is. Mr. Quinn replied that it is an unbypassable charge to compensate NSTAR for investments it had made which were rendered uneconomic by the deregulation legislation. Mr. Gee asked what some verbiage on a letter NSTAR sent to TMMs meant. Mr. Quinn replied that NSTAR claims it is willing to cooperate with municipal aggregators but not with municipalization. Mr. Kohl asked what the town would be allowed to do with the EEP moneys. Mr. Quinn said it was too early to be definitive. Mr. Judd asked if the process could be stopped later and was told it could be. He asked if the Town would have to hire anyone or start a new department. Mr. Quinn said the committee was still studying that. Mr. Tosti asked if aggregation would preclude later municipalization and was told no. He said we should do whatever we can to keep NSTAR worried. BoS recommended vote approve on a unanimous voice vote.
• Article 30 - PAYT I: BoS recommended a vote of no action. They said they saw the merits in the proposal but are against it at this point in time. Ms. Wylie-Jones offered a substitute motion to create PAYT effective July 1, 2004 (when the current collection contract expires). She introduced Mr. Allison (Recycling Committee chair). Mr. Allison said the Recycling Committee and Sustainable Arlington endorsed the substitute motion. He said the town has a pretty good recycling rate (26%) but that it has been flat. He said that PAYT would save the town $700,000 to $1.2mil now and the savings would increase under a new contract. He said it would make the bearing of costs more equitable. Mr. Ruderman opposed the substitute motion, saying it was philosopically wrong. He also said the numbers in the PAYT proponents' reports were based on national averages and were not necessarily applicable to Arlington. Mr. Carreiro asked if PAYT would be subject to a "recall" referendum (like in Lexington) and was (later) told yes. He pointed out that every tone recycled does save the Town money, despite a prior speaker's assertion and disagreed with Mr. Ruderman's claim that trash picking cannot be validly viewed as a utility. He said he would be voting against it due to worried about the override. Mr. Gee said that the Town has a fine recycling program that is not broken and that he was also worried about the override and opposed the substitute motion. Mr. Campobello said he received a large number of phone calls against PAYT, wondered how it could be made to work in a multi-family home environment, and thinks it cannot work in Arlington. Mr. Jefferson said that while it is a good idea to recycle and reduce trash, this is just another tax. He thought the business PAYT program is not working that a residential PAYT would muddy the override. Mr. Adams said he was very ambivalent but ultimately opposes the substitute motion. He said he likes the idea of increasing recycling but disagreed with almost everything else in the proponents' report, calling it half-baked and specious. He would like to see the Town cease collecting garbage altogether and let residents privately contract with trash companies, as is done in many other states. Mr. Cleinman said he opposed it, that it is a poor plan, and wondered what would happen to unpicked-up trash. The substitute motion was defeated on a voice vote. The BoS recommended of no action was approved on a voice vote.
• Article 31 - PAYT II: BoS recommendation of no action approved on a voice vote.
• Article 32 - LEEDS: The Selectmen reported that the proponents and the Permanent Town Building Committee (PTBC) had reached a compromise as laid out in the BoS supplemental report. The PBTC would have to RFP for LEEDS/Silver buildings unless they found that doing so would be "inappropriate". Mr. Benson said he appreciated the compromise and those who worked on it. He said LEEDS would save the Town money due to lower lifecycle costs. Ms. Howard of Vision 2020 emphasized that the PTBC can waive the LEEDS requirement if it would cost too much money. Mr. Benson said he did not believe the PTBC would find a case where they would have to waive the requirement, but that they could if they did. Mr. Trembley asked if there was a post-build check to see if a completed building met requirements. Mr. Benson said an independent 3rd party would do a check. Mr. Trembley asked if Pierce was LEEDS-compliant. Mr. Benson replied that he did not know. Mr. Trembley said he was in favor of anything to cut our energy costs. Mr. Foskett asked why if LEEDS had such great benefits and no significant extra costs that developers were not proposing it of their own accord. Mr. Benson said it was due to inertia and that moment was building. Mr. Foskett asked what constituted "inappropriate". Mr. Benson said it was entirely up to the PBTC to decide. Mr. Foskett questioned the wisdom of writing a standard accepted by only 3% of the market into our bylaws. Mr. Maher said the PTBC would only accept a recommended vote that gave them case-by-case discretion. Mr. Adams asked how expensive the certification process was. Mr. Benson said it was less than one year's operational savings and was expected to drop. Mr. Adams said he was in favor of it and wanted to see a couple of buildings built under it, after which TM could decide whether or not to eliminate the provision. Mr. Deyst said that he has had solar hot water for 25 years and it has been a great boon. Mr. Pachter said that he supported it and would have supported it had it had more teeth. Mr. Norton moved the previous question. BoS recommendation approved on a voice vote.
• Meeting adjourned to 20:00, Monday, May 19.