[Rich, 01:44]
Tonight's business. A reminder -- the next TM session will be next Wednesday (4 June), not next Monday.

• Mr. Hurd announced that there will be a fundraiser for the Fox Library at 18:30-20:30 on Monday, 2 June.
• The Moderator read a passage of the Town by-law which says that TMMs are to observe proper decorum and respect one another.
• Article 2 - Reports: Removed from the table to allow the PTBC report to be presented by Mr Cole. It consisted of status reports on the Park Circle firehouse (preliminary design complete, $2,222,000 project estimate), Brackett status (two rounds of noise abatement completed, another to come this summer, costs being reimbursed), Hardy status (parapets and lintels repaired, in negotiations about noise issues), Peirce status (school is open, project closeout underway), Dallin status (construction documents 75% complete, estimated total cost $11,800,000), Thompson and Stratton status (preliminary design complete, SBA submission on hold due to moratorium on submissions) along with a discussion of the uncertain state of SBAB reimbursements for Thompson and Stratton and a chart showing the current projected total cost of the last four schools at $49,800,000 vs. the $34,500,000 debt exclusion. With report received, article was tabled.
• Mr. Greeley moved to table Article 54 (budgets) because of changing figures from the state and flux in the layoff figures. He said the BoS wants the Budget Revenue Task Force to meet and come back to TM. Meeting (a public one) is at 18:00 on 2 June at Town Hall. Article 54 tabled.
• Mr. Greeley moved to tables Articles 57-70 so Article 71 could be discussed while PTBC members were present. Tabled.
• Article 71 - Dallin Construction:
  • FinComm recommended a vote of no action.
  • Mr. Greeley presented a substitute motion to appropriate and borrow $2,230,000 to augment the existing Dallin appropriation (it was not clear to me if he did this as a TMM or for the BoS).
  • Mr. Lyons said the voters had exempted the school rebuild costs from Prop 2.5, that Peirce is #96 on the reimbursement list, Dallin is #97, and that reimbursement at a 63% rate is guaranteed, though that is not the case for Thompson and Stratton. He said that since 1948 the SBAB has never defaulted and that the FinComm recommendation came before the House and Senate put $22,000,000 into the SBAB budget for FY04. He said that low interest rates and construction costs make this is good time to start, that reimbursement will happen within 7 years and that we should honor the will of the voters.
  • Mr. Carreiro asked for FinComm's position on the motion. Mr. Tosti said they stood by their no action recommendation. Mr. Carreiro asked what happens if state reimbursement does not come by the time BANs can no longer be issued. Mr. Maher said the principal and interest payments would come out of the tax rate.
  • Mr. Bernardin said that approving the subsitute motion would be the fair thing to do. He said the DOR agrees with the exclusion interpretation of the PTBC and the BoS and not the interpretation of Article 74 proponents and that we cannot wait until Peirce reimbursements begin to start Dallin.
  • Mr. Bilafer said he supported the no action vote, as it gives officials time to see where the reimbursement situation is going. He said he wants time to put together a backup funding plan, since he believes there is no source of funds for Dallin unless TM wants to cast aside representations made to the voters during the campaign for the 2nd successful exclusion. He said that while the DOR said representations that taxpayers would only bear 37% of the cost are not legally binding, TM must hold that line or else no one can believe any officials' representations. He said that the financing scheme proposed by proponents of not waiting another year on Dallin are "ludicrous" and "financially irresponsible" and that as Treasurer he could not bring such a plan to the rating agencies. He said he wants to see consensus on a backup funding plan to get the rest of the schools rebuilt and that if one does not develop, he will submit his own warrant article next year to present his own ideas if need be.
  • Mr. Shea said he supported the substitute motion. He said that the DOR has assured us that proceeding before funding is in hand is acceptible. He said the Dallin has been suffering because much maintenance has been justifiable deferred in light of an impending rebuild, further enhancing the need to rebuild the school sooner than later.
  • Mr. Tosti said the town and state are in a huge financial crisis, that 240 schools are waiting to get on the "B" list, and that the House is against FY05 SBAB funding (though the Senate is not). He said that bond counsel is demanding prospectus language stating that state reimbursement may not be timely or come at all. He said that he and the other leaders of the pro-exclusion campaigns are committeed to getting all the schools done, but that the representations to the voters must be upheld and that we should wait-and-see for a year and supports the no action vote.
  • Ms. Mann asked SchoolComm and the Superindentant for their positions on the substitute motion. Ms. Owayda said SchoolComm recommended that Dallin work not go ahead this year and that SchoolComm supported FinComm's recommendation. She said that waiting a year will move Dallin closer to the top of the list and that Dallin is not in as bad condition as Brackett and Peirce were.
  • Mr. Foskett pointed out that he was one of the co-chairs for the 2nd successful pro-override campaign and that he is committed to seeing all the projects done. He said that there were three aspects to the question -- ethics (voters were repeatedly promised that they would only have to pay 37% of the cost and that the Town must stick to that representation), fairness (the proposed appropriation puts Thompson and Dallin at greater risk, and it does not lay out a financing plan), and risk (going ahead on another school without reimbursement in hand is risky, will we really start getting reimbursements within 7 years?)
  • Mr. Deyst said that passage of the override crucially depends on the credibility of TM and Town officials and therefore we should vote for no action to preserve that credibility.
  • Ms. Gormley said she has been a lifelong resident of the Town and that while growing up she managed to miss all the major renovations and rebuilds of that time. She said she has a daughter at Dallin and wants her to be able to experience a new school. If the substitution motion fails, she said she wanted there to be a guarantee that Dallin and the other schools would be properly maintained/repaired until they were rebuilt.
  • Ms. LaCourt said that she knows the various Town officials and residents of all parts of town support finishing all the schools, but that waiting a year solves her dilemma about which of the build-all-the-schools promise or the no-more-than-37% promise takes precedence.
  • Ms. Owayda said the override campaign has been very careful to be factual on its literature. She thanked Mr. Bilafer to committing to coming up with a funding plan, either via consensus or on his own if necessary.
  • Mr. Gee asked what the extra cost to the Town is if the reimbursements come in late. Mr. Tosti said that if floating BANs (which allow for interest-only payments) until reimbursement, the excess cost would be the interest incurred during those 7 years.
  • Mr. Jones said he was not as certain as others about the certainty of reimbursement and that he would prefer to come back in a year with a "credible" plan. He likened the situation to buying a new set of furniture right now because there was a "no payments until 2006" promotion going on, which he felt is not fiscally sound behavior. He said he would like to see a solid plan in place, including going back to the voters for another exclusion if necessary.
  • Mr. Lyons said the FinComm position feels funny since Peirce was #96 and was done but Dallin is #97 and is being delayed. He said that Dallin is "broken" and that it is "irrefutable" that the Town will be reimbursed for it. He said that lots of other schools getting on the list is good, not bad, since it keeps pressure on the legislature to continue the SBA program. He said voting down the substitute motion would be "putting a finger in the eye" of Dallin school residents.
  • Mr. Streitfeld indicated he would reluctantly vote against the substitute motion even though he is a Dallin parent as he hopes the delay will help the override pass.
  • Ms. Harrington moved to amend Mr. Greeley's substitute motion to only appropriate and borrow $1,455,000 instead of $2,230,000. She said this was to bring the Dallin cost back down to what it was estimated during the override. She said she had earlier pushed for the project to go ahead so that plans would be completed and an actual bid (and thus an actual price) could be before TM. She appeared disappointed that despite that, plans are not yet complete. She said that while she is willing to move ahead with Dallin now, she does so with "eyes open" about the risks of moving ahead with only an estimated cost instead of a hard cost. She said the DOR said only 37% of the exclusion amount can be excluded from Prop 2.5 limits. She said she would like to see plans and a real bid, and then have the whole thing come before a Special Town Meeting under a plan which fits within the original $34,500,000 exclusion figure.
  • Ms. Oringer said the DOR has interpreted that the entire $34,500,000 can be excluded from Prop 2.5, not just 37% of it. She said waiting a year means extra costs due to having to throw away the plans, increased construction and interest costs, and "substantial" maintenance costs. She said there is also the non-monetary cost of families and teachers "fleeing" the Dallin district due to the school's condition. She said she would like to know a date the Dallin construction would start, what the plan was for equity across districts, and would like to know about concrete maintenance plans and costs. She said she supported the substitute motion.
  • Ms. Weber said she agreed in part with both sides. She said the schools need to be kept habitable, but that her children went to Peirce at a time when it needed repairs but that they were still able to learn. She said she thought SchoolComm was being reasonable in recommending a year's delay until the SchoolComm chair spoke out in favor of the override. Ms. Weber said that made her think SchoolComm was putting the override over the rebuild and so urged support for the substitute motion.
  • Mr. Candelas said that the inequity between the new and older schools is not the way family and neighbors should operate. He said he supported the substitute motion.
  • Mr. Cleinman moved the previous question, which carried.
  • Harrington amendment defeated 50-105.
  • Greeley substitute motion defeated on a voice vote.
  • FinComm no action recommendation approved on a voice vote.
• Articles 57-70 removed from the table.
• Article 57 - Appropriation/Parks and Rec: FinComm recommendation of no action unanimously approved.
• Article 58 - Rescind Authority to Borrow: FinComm recommendation of no action unanimously approved.
• Article 59 - Appropriation/Minuteman: Tabled to allow Minuteman Superintendant Fitzgerald to be present for discussion under the article.
• Article 60 - Appropriation/Committees & Commissions: FinComm recommendation in their report (total $27,167) approved.
• Article 61 - Transfer/ConComm: FinComm recommendation of no action approved.
• Article 62 - Wetlands By-Law: BoS recommendation of no action approved.
• Article 63 - Appropriation/Town Celebrations: FinComm recommendation in their report (total $10,667) approved.
• Article 64 - Appropriation/Misc:
  • FinComm recommended a vote as set forth in their report (total $11,313).
  • Mr. Bernardin asked how this year's out-of-state travel item related to last year's. Mr. Tosti said it was cut in half.
  • FinComm recommendation approved.
• Article 65 - Appropriation/Financing Sewers: FinComm recommendation of no action approved.
• Article 66 - Appropriation/Financing Water Mains: FinComm recommendation of no action approved.
• Article 67 - Appropriation/Transportation Study: FinComm recommendation of no action approved.
• Article 68 - Appropriation/Park Circle Firehouse: FinComm recommendation of no action approved.
• Article 69 - Appropriation/Permit Payment: FinComm recommendation of no action approved.
• Article 70 - Appropriation/Weed Treatment:
  • FinComm recommended no action.
  • Ms. Howard asked about the FinComm comment in the report. Mr. Tosti said FinComm generally supports the weed project and will recommend funding out of the override for $10,000 since the cost will be lower this year.
  • FinComm recommendation approved.
• Article 72 - Appropriation/Hardy: Mr. Tosti moved to table because negotiations with the contractor were still ongoing. Tabled.
• Article 73 - Appropriation/Healthcare Trust Fund: FinComm recommendation in their report (total $180,343) approved unanimously.
• Article 74 - Borrowing Cap/Elementary School Construction:
  • FinComm recommended a vote that the Town adhere to the representations made during the exclusion campaign and that borrowing in excess of 37% of the stated amount be issued as non-exempt debt or postponed until reimbursements allow continuance of the rebuild or voters approve additional exemptions.
  • Mr. Bernardin offered a resolution to increase the School Facilities Working Group (SFWG) by four TMMs appointed by the Moderator such that all school districts are represented in the SFWG, to direct the SFWG to draw up at least two continuance scenarios and to present at least one of them via warrant article at the 2004 Town Meeting, and to revert to its previous constitution when the 2004 TM dissolves. He said he added the TMMs so that there would be people on the SFWG that did not have have the competition for their time that many of the other SFWG members have.
  • Mr. Carreiro asked for the SFWG's position on the resolution. Mr. Bilafer said he had "no problem" with it. Mr. Carreiro asked how the additional 4 TMMs could represent all the districts. Mr. Bernardin replied that non-TMM SFWB members could be construed as representing districts and the TMM appointments would be made to fill in the gaps. Mr. Carreiro asked if a resolution could change the makeup of a committee. The Moderator said the version given to him stated it was a substitute motion, not a resolution.
  • Ms. Harrington said that the subsitute motion would not lock in a course of action the way the FinComm vote would. Mr. Maher said the FinComm vote might be considered to carry political or moral weight but could not be legally binding if adopted.
  • Mr. Judd said he took Mr. Bilafer at his word and so was inclined to vote for the substitute motion. He said the idea is to keep the faith with both voters and parents of schoolchildren. He said that forcing the issue one way or another at this time was not a good idea and that he hoped the moderator would appoint "big picture" people and not people focussed on a particular school. He vehemently expressed frustration at being tired of the Town building good buildings and failing to maintain them.
  • Ms. Boltz said she was confused on what we would be voting on, since the flyer Mr. Bernardin passed out some sessions ago was different than what he read. The Moderator said that he would make it clear when the time for a vote arrived.
  • Mr. McCabe said it was illogical to him and that he did not understand why all the borrowing would become non-exempt once the 37% mark was hit. Mr. Tosti said he believed the vote was worded in such a way as to list various options. Mr. McCabe said it still was not logical to him and he would vote against the FinComm recommendation.
  • Ms. Bakey said she would support the subsitute motion having heard Mr. Bilafer say he had no problems with it.
  • Mr. Kohl posited that changing the text to read "and the portion of any borrowing..." would make things clearer. He also asked if the FinComm recommendation and Mr. Bernardin's substitute motion could co-exist, since they appeared to be independent. Mr. Bernardin said it was not his intention to supplant the FinComm recommendation. The Moderator then ruled Mr. Bernardin's motion to be a supplemental motion and stated the meeting could approve both the FinComm motion and the Bernardin motion, either one of them, or neither of them.
  • Mr. Reedy urged the FinComm recommendation be defeated. He said it states that one promise is higher-ranking than the other and will create a "dangerous situation." He said he liked Mr. Bernardin's supplemental motion.
  • Mr. Taber moved the previous question - carried.
  • Bernardin motion was approved.
  • FinComm motion was defeated.
• (A flurry of notices of reconsideration that I was unable to keep track of).
• Ms. Mahon moved to reconsider the motion at the beginning of the meeting which called for TM to resume on Monday when it adjourned. She said that TM had disposed of most non-budget items and so there was little point to having an probably-truncated Monday session. She moved that the resumption be set to 20:00, Wednesday, 4 June - carried.
• Meeting adjourned to 20:00, WEDNESDAY, 4 June 2003.