[Rich, 15:17]
Welcome to those seeing this site for the first time due to the Arlington Advocate article which is available here. Hope you find it interesting. You can click on the How to Join link to get my email address if you would like to send me any comments.

[Rich, 10:34]
I have changed my mind on the budgets -- I now think they should be tabled until after the override vote. I had thought that voting them before the election, even after Mr. Tosti notified us the DOR would not allow a contingent appropriation would be fine. However, I now believe waiting until after the election will be a big time-saver since it will spare us from getting bogged down dealing with a host of amendments that may well be made moot if the override passes.

As for the deliberations on Article 71, I think both sides had some very good points. Mr. Lyons scored by asking why what was OK for Peirce was not OK for Dallin. People on the other side scored by pointing out the need for a more solid plan in case reimbursements do not come in within seven years. I for one would like to know what the DOR actually said with respect to the 37% issue. Some speakers (including some I consider to be quite detail-oriented, regardless of whether or not I generally agree with them) stated that DOR position was that expenditures beyond 37% of the stated exclusion amount could not be excluded from the levy limit. Others said that the DOR stated all expenditures up to the stated exclusion amount could be excluded from the levy limit. I suppose I shall defer to the Treasurer, who (by way of saying that TM should stick to the 37% figure) said that the DOR stated the whole amount was excludible.

Speaking of re-financing, is any of the Town's outstanding debt callable? If so, are the relevant officials working to get it refinanced at today's historically low rates?

Having praised the Moderator after last week's session, I think I have to take some of that back for this week. While the Moderator is not statutorially bound to his list, I think letting Mr. Bilafer use answering someone else's question as a way to move ahead on the list was unfair to the intervening speakers and to the meeting, and will only encourage further speakers to use similar dubious tactics. I still think on balance speakers are too-often allowed to get away with stunts like that and with abuse of points of privilege, information and order. This is not to claim that the Moderator has an easy job to do, however.

[Rich, 01:47]
Mr. Dunn's summary is available.

[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.

[Bill, 11:05]
Rich, I agree completely with the statement about the chorus and felt the same way when they had the High School chorus. We are running so far behind and this delays the meeting start by 1/2 and hour. While I'm ranting, it drives me crazy when the moderator tells everyone to speak into the mike and he doesn't even do it.

[Rich, 14:13]
The Open Space Report is now available.

[Rich, 14:03]
Blogger/Blogspot is being lame again. Grrr! If you're seeing various network and/or timeout errors you are not alone. Try again or try later. And thanks for reading!

[Rich, 11:24]
I had hoped to have more of a chance for personal notes and not merely be limited to summaries, but time has conspired against that more than I have liked. In any event, some thoughts about the past week in no particular order.

I was glad to see the Moderator tightly interpreted points of personal privilege both on Monday and last night. In my seven years as a TMM I have seen far too many people, especially long-time TMMs who really should know better, try to use points of information, order, or privilege to attempt to continue the debate. The Moderator is pretty good at shooting them down, though he is better at it some times than others. This week he was particularly good.

That brings to mind another point -- that while what we do at TM is called "debate," it is not "debate" as the term is colloquially used. There is no real-time give-and-take or charge and rebuttal. TM "debate" (perhaps "deliberations" are a better term) is really a series of mini-speeches. Perhaps this is the reason for the continued attempts at abusing points of order, etc.? That people feel they should be able to immediately rebut instead of having to get back on the list and give their rebuttal in turn?

I think TMMs would do well to follow the admonishment in the "Decorum" section of Town Meeting Time that while it is perfectly acceptible to heap scorn on a proposed motion, one should not, in TM debate, impugn the motives of the advocates of a motion.

While I appreciate Mr. Bernardin's passion and sincerity, I think his proposal was extremely badly done. Making an amendment to the capital budget when it was not even clear if capital work was involved was not a great start. Trying to insert an item to cover nebulously defined work when the items he cited (the Thompson/Stratton item) as justification for his amendment has been spec'ed out, evaluated, and priced did not improve the situation. I would have had more sympathy for Mr. Bernardin's amendment if he had gone through the standard channels (such as bringing it up with the School Committee back when SchoolComm was formulating its capital requests) and was rejected, vs. bypassing the entire process and making a hasty amendment. I think TM was right to defeat the amendment overwhelmingly and make (I believe) a statement against abuse of process.

I do not believe Mr. Tosti was on the most solid of ground when he cited the major drop in major crimes in Arlington over the past twenty years as evidence of why it would be OK to temporarily drop below "minimum manning" levels. That is not to say he was necessarily wrong. But cause and effect are so intertwined in those types of statistics that I do not think people on either side of the argument can really claim any support from them. I think he was on more solid ground attacking the study which claimed the police department (before the current cuts) was understaffed. If it really did compare Arlington to Chelsea, Everett, Leominster, Haverhill, etc., that seems very odd. And I would definitely like to see someone answer Mr. Roselli's question of why we keep commissioning studies whose conclusions we ignore.

Do advocates of any particular motion or cause really think anyone is fooled into believing there is more support than there really is due to obvious, exaggerated applause on their part? It is particularly amusing when the applause is very scattered and overwrought clapping of a few individuals becomes exceedingly obvious. I noticed this a few times, particularly when the override was mentioned.

Speaking of the override, does anyone else think the pre-campaign for another override (i.e. after this one) has begun? I thought it was telling that in his statements against the CPA substitute motion Mr. Greeley brought up the possibility of further overrides and debt exclusions in the near future (to negative-sounding grumbles from the floor). The possibility is certainly no secret -- anyone who has looked at the budget forecasts over the next few years knows that. But I am trying to remember if a public figure had prominently mentioned the possibility before that.

Speaking of Mr. Greeley, what was the deal with that police and overtime amendment? While he had the $85,000 offset from reduced tip fees handy right away, the "I don't know" for the rest of it managed to turn into "from the stabilization fund" within a few speakers' turns. There really is no excuse for an answer (or lack thereof) like that. The BoS had apparently approved the amendment well over a week ago. Did they really think that no TMM (let alone a FinComm member) would not ask what the proposed offset would be? They had plenty of time to come up with some concrete proposals for offsets. Yes, it is true that it is ultimately TM's job to make the final budget decisions. But that fact does not get the BoS off the hook on providing TM guidance and options on what they think should be cut to pay for a spending increase they proposed on their own initiative. And I do not think fobbing it off on the Town Manager is a terribly acceptible answer, either.

Since we only have three hours a night to work with, and since overhead eats up a non-trivial fraction of that, would it not be possible to have events like the Ottoson singers (which was very nice) be before the session starts, so that the mini-concert could end at 20:00? Have the Moderator announce at the session prior to the planned appearance that [whoever] would be performing at 19:45 and that TMMs were strongly encouraged to show up a few minutes early to hear it.

[Rich, 01:53]
Mr. Dunn's summary is up as well.

[Rich, 01:50]

• The Ottoson Select Singers sang the national anthem and gave a mini-concert.
• Article 2 - Reports: Ms. Galkowski presented the Annual Report. Ms. Howard presented the Vision 2020 report. Article tabled.
• Article 56 - Capital Budget: Continued from prior session.
  • Ms. Galkowski said we simply cannot afford to have the Park Circle firehouse in the FY04 capital budget. She said it is very important to be redone but it cannot start in FY04.
  • Mr. Bernardin offered an amendment to insert $20,000 for Dallin School infrastructure improvements into part (3) of the capital budget. He said it was only fair since $40,000 is in the capital budget for improvements at Thompson and Stratton. He talked about the terrible conditions of the girls' lavatory at Dallin. He noted that his amendment does not compel any money to be spent. Mr. Foskett asked where Mr. Bernardin got the $20,000 figure from and if the proposed work was capital or maintenance, and if the work had been itemized and priced. Mr. Bernadin said it was not and asked if the Thompson/Stratton work was. Mr. Foskett said that work was itemized and priced and went into the capital budget at the request of the School Committee. He said the proper approach is to bring the problems/suggestions to the School Committee, which would evaluate and prioritize the issues. Ms. Donovan said the lavatory problems are on the repair list to be fixed this spring.
  • Mr. Carabello said he supported the Capital Budget Planning Committee. He said the firehouse work would consume half of the capital budget and we cannot afford to leave so many other things unattended.
  • Mr. Judd asked if there were any reassuranced that the Park Circle firehouse would be in the FY05 capital plan. Mr. Foskett said it is in the proposed capital plan and will remain there if the revenue forecast holds up, but cannot promise more than that. Ms. Galkowski agreed with Mr. Foskett.
  • Mr. Leonard asked why we have spent close to $1,000,000 to renovate the Robbins Memorial Gardens and why field maintenance is in the operating budget while that renovation is in the capital budget. Mr. Tosti said the Robbins work involves much rebuilding and is therefore a capital item like when some playing fields were torn up and rebuilt, but day-to-day maintenance is an operating expense. Mr. McClennan said the Robbins work has been preceding under a master plan approved by TM a few years ago, and all the moneys have come from federal and state grants. He said no work will be done on it this year since there is no grant money this year and that the same is true for the garden wall near the library, which will collapse soon.
  • Mr. Foskett noted that grant money given for one purpose cannot be moved to another item in the budget.
  • Ms. Galkowski explained the difference between capital and operating expenses.
  • Ms. Fiore said she supported Mr. Bernardin's amendment.
  • Mr. Ruderman asked if we really needed three fire stations, and pointed out we spent $25,000 on a study which said we only needed two, and rejected the study.
  • Mr. Cleinman said he suppored the capital plan and was opposed to the amendment, though he did not doubt its sincerity. He asked if there were any chances of getting security-related federal grants for the firehouse. Mr. Greeley said that there have been some discussions with Belmont about the possibility of a combined station and that the Town was trying for grants but did envision anything being available this year.
  • Ms. Friedman moved the previous question on all matters, which carried 126-44.
  • Bernadin amendment defeated 34-129.
  • Section (1) approved, and $300,000 stabilization fund transfer approved unanimously.
  • Section (2) approved.
  • Section (3) approved 151-7.
  • Section (4) approved unanimously.
  • Section (5) approved.
• Article 35 - CDBG: Had been postponed to tonight. Tabled.
• Article 54 - Operating Budgets:
  • Mr. Lavalle moved to consider the budget sections one at a time instead of following the usual process of only consider those sections anyone yells out to hold. Motion carried.
  • Mr. Tosti said that the Department of Revenue will not allow a contingent budget vote, so TM will have to have a session after the override vote and act accordingly. He took us through a number of tables and charts in the FinComm report, some key points of which are that we are burning reserve funds at an unsustainable rate (FY04 proposed budget uses up about $6,000,000 of the remaining $10,000,000 of reserves) but that the Town is hoping such use will buy the Town time by allowing it to help maintain services as it wait for federal and state economic conditions to turn around. He said that health insurance costs are really hurting the Town. He urged TM to hold the line against amendments presented to increase spending and cut revenues and to keep a balanced budget.
  • Mr. Greeley moved to table sections (1) through (16) of the budgets so that Mr. Ryan could comment on the Police Services piece of section (17), as he would not be present for the next session. Motion carried. Mr. Greeley moved to amend section (17) by adding $90,000 of police overtime spending and $70,000 of fire overtime spending.
  • Mr. Ryan said the police increase would fund "minimum manning", and would keep 5 officers on the day shift, 7 on the night shift, and 5 on the graveyard shift. He said he would be comfortable with that level of staffing but that it is not ideal. He said this would not be replacing cut positions.
  • Ms. LaCourt asked where the offsetting $160,000 was. Mr. Greeley said $85,000 was offset by reductions in tip fees. Mr. Tosti said he did not know where the rest would come from and that this year revenues were not estimated conservatively and thus there is no wiggle room in revenues to make up for increased spending. He said that proponents of increased spending should propose offsets along with their spending increases. Mr. Ryan said this was about safety and that even 5-man shifts are "way below" the staffing he would like to see.
  • Mr. Caggiano introduced Patrolmen's Association president Jim Smith. Mr. Smith urged us to approve the amendment and said the Association believes the failure to do so would compromise the safety of the public and the officers.
  • Mr. Carreiro said that Mr. Tosti had said most of what he wanted to say, but reiterated that he would like proponents of spending increases/revenue cuts to also provide the meeting with formal or suggested offsets.
  • Mr. Roselli said that when he was appointed to the police force in 1963 there were 11-man shifts and the department had 40 more men than now. He said he felt 5-man shifts were "ludcirous" and also asked why we keep spending money on studies we ignore.
  • Mr. Taber asked what the relationship was between the extra overtime and the position add-backs that will happen if the override passes. Mr. Ryan said that if the override passes the "minimum manning" problem would be solved. Mr. Taber asked what would happen to the amendment money if both it and the override passed. Mr. Greeley said it would go into free cash if not spent. Mr. Greeley also said that the $75,000 of the increase not covered by the tip fee reduction would come out of the stabilization fund.
  • Mr. Tosti asked why FinComm had not heard about the proposed amendment before last week and said he felt it was unfair to propose changes like that this late. He cited sharply declining crime numbers over the last 20 years (the totals of the seven "major" crimes dropped from 1760 to 495) and wondered if given the fiscal crisis we were in, minimum manning was necessary. He said the study that said the Police Department was understaffed was "ridiculous" since it compared the Town to places like Everett, Chelsea, Haverhill, etc. and that Arlington had more officers per 100 crimes than any of the places the report compared us to.
  • Ms. Mahon said that money to pay for the proposal could come from lots of places, such as reserves or "cutting the fat." She talked about eliminating/reducing car allowances and travel. She said we are "whacking" on direct services too much and that perhaps more upper-level positions should be eliminated. She said that she had been discussing this since December and that the amendment was not "sneaky". She said the Acting Town Manager will simply have to cut spending to balance the budget. She said we would lose the drug officer and the domestic violence officer.
  • Mr. Hughes asked how long it takes for a patrolman to go from appointment to the street. Mr. Ryan said a took a year. Mr. Hughes said he has a permanently injured wrist and that he hoped it did not happen to any other officers.
  • Ms. Mann said that everyone who feels strongly about the effects of cuts should vote for the override. She said that as a Middlesex County prosecutor she sees the effects of police staffing cuts and that it is very frustrating, but is still against the amendment. She said the approach is improper and that budget planning should be done comprehensively. She said that as much as she would like the higher staffing she could not in good conscience support the amendment.
  • Mr. Bernardin moved to postpone section (17)(b) until after the override vote. The Moderator made it clear that subsequent debate would only be on the motion to postpone.
  • (on motion to postpone) Mr. Foskett said that TM must be courageous and decisive, and to vote against postponement.
  • (on motion to postpone) Mr. Tully said he felt upset about being rushed and was "outraged" that people who present new options are treated as "disruptive."
  • (on motion to postpone) Mr. Roselli said he was opposed to postponing and in favor of the amendment.
  • (on motion to postpone) Mr. Berkowitz moved the previous question on postponement, which carried.
  • Motion to postpone defeated.
  • Mr. Holman said he supported the amendment. He said police are a critical municipal function. He said he did not know how to work the finances but that it should be done.
  • Motion to adjourn made and carried.
• Mr. Bernardin, Mr. Foskett, and possibly others served notice of reconsideration on Article 56.
• Meeting adjourned to 20:00 on Wednesday, May 28. (Monday is Memorial Day)

[Rich, 10:46]
The summary below is now complete. Also, Mr. Dunn's summary is now available.

[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.

[Rich, 12:42]
The report of the Capital Planning Committee is now available.

[Rich, 12:38]
My view on every budget article (which I will state for the record under the first budget article I happen to have the chance to speak on) is that I will be predisposed to vote against any spending increase or revenue cut (pushes for both of which have begun) unless the proponents of the change can offer a concrete, coherent, and realistic proposal of what should be cut (or where extra revenue would come from) to offset their proposal.

[Lisa, 12:16]
The amendments to the stm article 5 WERE important points that needed to be made. I will sign a petition to remove the sunset clause! I also felt that the overriding sentiment was that we can't trust the committee not to abuse variance power. If we can't trust our committees, why did the individuals there get appointed in the first place? What are everyone's thoughts on the letter from the presidents of the youth sports, which was on chairs last night? I will be proposing the amendment to the budget to delete this fee.

[Rich, 01:21]
Musings on poor happy doomed motion night...

• Is there some strange force field that prevents otherwise very competent people from being able to talk into a microphone? If nothing else helps, consider emulating Mr. Kohl and remove the mike from the gooseneck.
• I knew my amendments were doomed but I had to try, if only to make what I still think is an important point. I also thank the people who expressed their support to me personally before and after.
• I note sardonically that Mr. Maher did not answer Ms. Fiore's question at all, but made a big, theatrical show about how the BoS vote would not aid Mugar at all.
• If the ConComm cannot be trusted (which apparently a significant number of people believe, judging from remarks made during the debate), why do we not replace the allegedly untrustworthy people instead of making unfair, hypocritical, one-off exceptions to the rules?
• Related to that, just what is wrong with our ConComm that makes people feel they are incompetent to wield a power that almost every other ConComm has?
• Speaking of Mugar, I can appreciate some of the fears of people in that part of Town, but I do not think that it is right to hold the rest of the Town hostage to that fear by denying ConComm a meaningful variance power.
• I wonder why the Moderator referred to my amendments as Mr. Tully's amendments when calling the vote, before being corrected by Mr. Maher. I was amused.
• If I manage to remember, I will at least be going after the sunset clause at next year's TM. If there are nine+ of you out there willing to sign a petition to insert an article into the warrant, get in touch.
• Even though PAYT was doomed, I wish more of the proponents could have gotten on the list to counter some of the more particularly shoddy arguments put up against them.
• I voted against the LEEDS proposal. Mr. Foskett was right on. And why not simply ask the PTBC to try the LEEDS process for a couple of buildings instead of writing it into the bylaw, if LEEDS is so great? Is this another one of these "well, we don't really trust the committee" things?
• I was unhappy with Ms. Rowe's motion to adjourn with fifteen minutes left. If the CPA crowd was not ready, they could have tabled or postponed their articles and let us move on.

[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.

[Rich, 01:18]
Mr. Dunn beat me to the net yet again.

[Lisa, 12:23]
In an attempt to further educate myself before voting on Article 5 in the special town meeting… Can someone fill me in on details of the Pierce Field cleanup settlement? As in, what is the expected total cost? Do we have access to studies showing that partial removal and capping it is the best course of action? Who has the control over this project – is it the School Committee because it’s at AHS, or another town board? A friend with a background in geology raised concerns about capping it, and the future effects of that. What will happen if we do not pass this article? Will the cleanup still happen, but it would prohibit elevating the lower part to level the field? Will the whole project still happen, but at higher costs? What are the town’s costs for this as it is (i.e. will the settlement fully cover the proposals we have to complete it?) Why include the sunset provision? I would be more inclined to support this if the Conservation Commission were given authority to grant variances in ALL situations that meet whatever criteria we feel is appropriate for it. Why do we have this law anyways, when the wetlands are already protected by state legislation? I hope someone can answer these questions before tomorrow night… I was initially certain that I would vote in favor of anything that would facilitate the rebuilding of the fields there. That is still very important to me. However, after hearing Ms. Mahon speak last night, I am a lot more concerned about the implications of selectively enforcing the law. -Lisa Reale Town Meeting Member, Precinct 6

[Rich, 11:29]
Mr. Dunn's summary is here.

[Rich, 00:59]
Business...

• Veteran TM watchers might be interested to know that Caryn Cove, the Personnel Director and former executive secretary of the Board of Selectmen is engaged to be married. Mr. McCabe announced Ms. Cove's news to the meeting, to the obvious surprise (and perhaps some sheepishness) of Ms. Cove.
• The Annual Town Meeting was opened and notices of reconsideration from the prior session were taken, since it had been forgotten to ask for them. Ms. Harrington served notice on Article 28. The Annual Town Meeting was then immediately recessed to place us back in the Special Town Meeting.
• STM - Article 3 - Symmes Advisory Committee Report: The BoS recommended a vote essentially to "accept and fully endorse" the SAC report. Mr. Foskett (SAC Chair and TMM) briefly reminded us that the recommended vote to accept and endorse the SAC report leaves control with TM (since any plans would require a rezoning of the site which requires TM approval), that the report had been endorsed by the BoS and the Redevelopment Board, and that the SAC believes its guidelines allow for a financially viable redevelopment of the site. Ms. Worden intensely read a long statement expressing dissatisfaction with the SAC's treatment of proposed medical uses and apparent distrust of the SAC in general. Mr. Kohl asked what the actual legal effect of the proposed vote was and if it bound the Redevelopment Board at all. Town Counsel replied that the ARB is not bound but that "everyone expects" it will follow the SAC recommendations. Mr. Kohl reminded the boards that TM has to approve any development plan and that TM should reject the plan if it does not conform to the SAC guidelines. Mr. Dohan (member of SAC Residential Working Group) said that the report has lots of tradeoffs and that no one got what they wanted. Ms. DiBona reported that the Arlington Housing Corporation and the Arlington Interfaith Alliance endorsed the SAC guidelines, especially on the need for affordable housing. Ms. Thomas echoed previous speakers in saying the report is a compromise and said she respect Ms. Worden's dissent. Mr. Gilligan moved the previous question, which failed 93-84 (needs 2/3rds). Mr. Taber likened the process to hiring an employee requirements are set, but one does not know what one has until an actual employee is hired. Mr. McCabe asked how the ARB had authority over the site, to which the Moderator replied that the terms of the site purchase gave the ARB jurisdiction. Mr. Fischer asked if it would be possible to separately vote on "accept" and "fully endorse" since he could not fully endorse the report. He said he would like to see the existing buildings reused. Mr. Ellis offered an amendment to strike "fully" from the phrase "fully endorse", saying he was doing so as a symbol and reminder that the report is not a proposal. Ms. Rowe said she supported SAC's work and asked it to continue in operation, especially once the proposals come in. She would also like to see the ARB to get the neighborhood involved in the development process and put in specific protections for open space. Ms. O'Donnell offered an amendment to make a Community Center a requirement (conditioned on traffic not being excessive), not merely a preference. Ms. Fiore asked what medical facilities would be on the site. Mr. McClennan replied that 30,000 sq. ft. of space is currently being actively used, that some organizations are interested but probably will not be able to afford the space, and that some medical providers are "eagerly awaiting" the RFP. Ms. Friedman (a SAC member) said the report guidelines are in keeping with the goals of health care, housing, open space, and revenue neutrality that have been expressed by the public. Mr. Roselli move the previous question. Mr. Ellis's amendment was approved on a voice vote. Ms. O'Donnell's amendment was rejected on a voice vote. The BoS recommendation as amended was approved by a unanimous voice vote.
• STM - Article 4 - Urban Renewal Plan: The ARB recommended a vote to make some minor changes to the Urban Renewal Plan adopted by TM last year to bring the plan more into line with current market conditions. One of the main changes proposed is to change "to promote the conservation and improvement of the existing buildings..." to "to promote new construction and/or the conservation of existing buildings...". Ms. Harrington offered an amendment to replace "and/or" with "as well as" because she was concerned that the "or" would give the ARB authority to have the buildings demolished and felt it was too early to do so. Mr. Chaput said that the ARB did not object to the amendment and believes some sort of "medical presence" will continue. Mr. Gilligan asked if the amendment would mandate that the buildings be used, if it would adversely affect the RFP, and if the buildings would have useful rehabilitative value. Mr. McClennan said the change would tell developers to not draw up plans that would involve demolition but otherwise would not affect the RFP. He said that if no good plans leaving the buildings came up, TM could always undo Ms. Harrington's amendment next year. He also said SAC's architects say the buildings are useable but are not perfect. Mr. Foskett said the buildings are old, might not be economically rehabbed, and as rehabbed may not be competitive with new buildings. He believes that the amendment could discourage proposals that do not reuse the buildings. He pointed out that the site currently costs the Town $500,000/yr (though that is not currently funded out of the tax rate) and urged TM to give the ARB full flexibility to work with developers. Mr. Jones opposed the amendment, saying he would like to see the buildings come down because they are "butt-ugly". He said he would like to see them replaced with attractive, energy-efficient buildings. Mr. Fischer asked if the amendment would preclude an RFP allowing for the buildings to be demolished. Ms. Harrington and Mr. Chaput replied in the negative. Mr. Fischer said he supported the amendment. Mr. Rehrig said he beleived the amendment had no effect but would appose it. Mr. Reed moved the question, which carried. Ms. Harrington's amendment was approved 101-51. The ARB recommended vote as amended was unanimously approved.
• STM - Article 5 - Wetlands Variance: The BoS recommended a vote giving the ConComm a narrowly-drawn and time-limited power to grant hardship variances with respect to compensatory storage. Mr. McClennan explained that the recently approved wetlands by-law allows no provision for variances and that this could cost the Town extra millions of dollars when fixing up Pierce Field (at the high school), and implored TM to approve it. Mr. Trembley noted that the Sullivans, Dothan Street residents, have been trying to fix their street for 13 years and have cleared all hurdles except the final one, which cannot be cleared due to ConComm's lack of power to grant a variance. He asked if the proposed vote would remove that hurdle. Mr. Stevens (ConComm Chair) said it would. Mr. Trembley asked if the sunset provision would prevent the Sullivans from repairing the road in the future. Mr. Stevens said it would not, since the special permit that would be issued could allow for repairs and the permit would survive the sunset. Mr. Trembley asked if the proposed vote would allow the Sullivans' telephone pole to be replaced. Mr. Stevens said it would if it were included in their plan and application. Mr. Trembley urged TM to approve the recommeded vote and said the entire scenario, both at the Pierce Field and with the Sullivans should make TM think twice when adopting new zoning or wetlands regulations. Mr. Bernardin asked if the site was on the state list. Mr. McClennan said it has been on the list since 1994. Ms. Mahon said that while she was convinced about the need for the local wetlands by-law two years ago, she is concerned about the precedent the proposed vote sets, wondered if the vote can be successfully defended in court if it came to that, did not like the idea of the Town bending the rules for itself and holding itself to a lower standard than it holds others to, questioned whether the by-law adopted two years ago should stay in place, and cautiously asked TM to vote against the recommended vote.
• Special Town Meeting adjourned to 20:00, 14 May 2003.
• Annual Town Meeting adjourned to 20:00, 14 May 2003.

[Rich, 10:46]
This is is not strictly TM-related, but I think it is important for TMMs to understand the basics of municipal finance and how Prop 2.5 works. The following documents produced by the Division of Local Services of the Department of Revenue are quite informative:

• Levy Limits: A Primer on Proposition 2 1/2
• A Guide to Financial Management for Town Officials
• Proposition 2 1/2 Ballot Questions Requirements and Procedures

[Rich, 11:27]
The FinComm report is now available.

[Rich, 08:03]
Mr. Dunn's report.

[Rich, 07:54]
Musings...

• Mr. Reedy (a SAC member) did a wonderful job, and may well have been the person to really turn the tide against even the amended AHA proposal. He emotionally, but nevertheless calmly laid out the problems he saw with it, namely that it was all about a "deal", thereby being in direct opposition to the methodology of the SAC.
• I wonder if the BoS were really in favor of the amended proposal, or if that apparent statement of support was really a tactical move to help make sure the original AHA proposal did not pass. Mr. Greeley did urge TM to support the amendment, but he never said that the BoS endorsed the substitute motion as amended, nor did he specifically urge TM to support it.
• I voted in favor of the Taber amendment (which failed), in favor of the main Foskett amendment (which passed), against the amended substitute motion (which failed), and in favor of the original vote of no action (which passed).
• I agreed with the Moderator's exercise of his statutory powers to clear the list on the Article 2 debate and start over. What came under debate was radically different than what was originally being discussed. The Moderator, by the way, is under no obligation to use any list at all. He has the power to recognize anyone he wants, when he wants. For example, it is no accident that the main proponents and opponents will almost always speak first, no matter how quickly after the article comes up you get your hand up. Over the years I have become convinced (though I obviously cannot prove it) that the list is sometimes modified mid-stream. I suppose the only thing I might have liked about the pro/con microphone scheme was that it would have allowed one to see who was planning to speak. Knowing the state of the list at any time would be interesting.
• I would love to have a dollar and poundage count of how much paper we end up receiving in toto and how much is wasted right from the start because it is placed on chairs that remain empty.
• My current position on the anti-PATRIOT ACT article is that I am personally in favor of the resolution, and that if it were on a ballot question or if Arlington used an Open Town Meeting I would vote for it. However, I think there is a lot of truth to what Mr. Kazarian said on the List some time ago about the proper magisterium of TMMs. So at the current time I believe I will abstain and also try to get a counted vote so that there will be some sort of indication of how many others abstained. I did suggest to one of the proponents that the wording be changed to substitute "Town Meeting of the Town of Arlington" in place of "Town of Arlington", as I would then be inclined to vote in favor of the resolution.

[Rich, 00:58]
If you are new to TM, you may also be new to the term "home rule petition." Massachusetts towns, like any Massachusetts municipalities, are creatures of the state and only have those powers The Great and General Court of Common Pleas of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (otherwise known as the state legislature) give them. When the General Laws or a special law does not give a town the authority to do something it wishes to do or to make a change to its charter, the Selectmen (after being authorized to do so by TM) may proffer a petition asking the legislature to pass the law laid out in the petition, thereby accomplishing the change the town wants. Like any other law, it must clear both chambers and be signed by the Governor (or passed over his veto).

You will note that Town Counsel will remind the Moderator to take a counted vote even though that is not strictly necessary. The legislature likes to see the actual level of support that existed in TM for the proposed change. If a home rule petition authorization passes only narrowly, there is a significant chance the legislature will deep-six it.

[Rich, 00:49]
Business...

• The Moderator announced that instead of going right into the STM, we would stick with the ATM for a bit, as the SAC, ARB, AHA, and BOS were working on a compromise.
• ATM - Article 2 - Reports: Removed from the table to receive the FinComm report, then tabled again.
• ATM - Article 26 - Gibbs: A slightly re-drafted motion was presented to fix the problem with the original motion where the language left a months-long gap where the ARB would not have jurisdiction over the property. Approved on a voice vote.
• ATM - Article 27 - Sale of Town Property: FinComm and BoS votes of no action approved on a voice vote. The Moderator noted that he believed no substantive vote could have had a legal effect because the article's wording was so broad that it did not sufficiently warn the town about what was to be discussed.
• ATM - Article 28 - Town Manager Requirements: The BoS proposed a home rule petition to ask the legislature to amend the Town Manager Act (essentially Arlington's town charter) to change the requirement that a prospective Town Manager have three years of city/town management experience to three years of that or of "substantial municipal management or administrative experience." Mr. Tosti, speaking as a TMM, offered an amendment to the BoS motion that would additionally strike the residency requirement, saying that he was disappointed in the number of applicants to fill the previous vacancy and believes people not wanting to uproot their families to take the job plays a significant role in that. Mr. Cleinman expressed concern about our ability to begin a search before the petition is acted on. Mr. Greeley said it was an uncontroversial (to the legislature) petition and should pass easily. Ms. Harrington offered an amendment that would increase the needed years of experience to five when the "significant municipal..." experience was being used to meet the requirement. After that, speakers split fairly evenly on the residency issue. Mr. Greeley, in addition to pointing out that he would not want to hire a Town Manager unwilling to live in Arlington also pointed out that in Arlington the Town Manager has more power over the Fire and Police Departments and therefore it is even more important that the Manager live in Arlington. The Harrington amendment was defeated 47-133, the Tosti amendment was defeated 70-117, and the (thus unscathed by any amendments) original motion of the BoS was approved 171-8.
• ATM - Article 29 - Tree Committee: Ms. Thomas offered a substitute motion to correct "misunderstandings" that she felt crept in to the BoS recommended vote. The differences are to make the Moderator the appointing authority, to give the DPW director to appoint any person instead of being restricted to the Tree Warden, and to make it clear the focus is on all trees, not just trees on private land. Mr. Greeley announced that the BoS endorsed the substitute motion. A couple of people expressed concerns about private property being under consideration and were worried about red tape being imposed when wanting to remove a tree on their own land. A number of other people expressed support for the motion, relating incidents where they felt trees had been too quickly removed. Mr. Fiore pointed out that the committee was not being given any power by the vote and that its job would be to make recommendations to a future TM. The substitute motion passed on a voice vote.
• Annual Town Meeting recessed.
• STM - Article 2 - AHA Proposal: The Moderator announced that under the sponsorship of the BoS, the AHA, ARB, and SAC had reached a compromise. Mr. Greeley said the BoS unanimously endorsed it and urged TM to approve it. Mr. Foskett presented the deal. It would significantly weaken the AHA's demands but would require that the ARB work "in good faith" with the AHA and involve the AHA prior to the development of RFPs. The (long) debate split into two streams. One stream was in favor of the amended proposal and supported the AHA's goals. The other side was against it on the grounds that it would be an end run around the SAC process and would create a precedent for interested town bodies to try to carve off parts of the site for their own desires and destroy the balance that SAC had worked out. Mr. Taber objected to the ARB being singled out and offered an amendment stating that the ARB, AHA, and SAC would work in good faith together. Ms. Fiore pointed out that the AHA has the power of eminent domain but had said it would not uses it because it wanted to be seen as co-operative. Mr. Starr suggested that if the AHA wanted to take anything by eminent domain, it should take the Osco lot. The Taber amendment was defeated on a voice vote. The amendment to the original AHA substitute motion effecting the compromise was approved 116-47. The AHA substitute motion as amended was defeated 55-107, and the BoS original motion of no action was approved on a near-unanimous voice vote.
• Meeting adjourned to 20:00 on Monday, 12 May.

[Rich, 22:27]
Mr. Oesterle said:

I heard some passing comments that waiting lists were much longer for low-income families.

During the Article 2 debate, one of the speakers (Mr. Lyons, I believe) said that there was only a two-week waiting list for elderly housing. I do not know how accurate that figure is. I do know anecdotally and from some acquaintences that the waiting list for general low-income housing is significantly longer.

[Jeff Oesterle (TMM--P.1), 22:02]

In an attempt to continue the discussion on Article 2 of STM a bit:

There definitely seems to be a stated and unstated undercurrent of feeling that the low-income elderly and disabled are an underserved population in our town (and/or region?). Since I can't claim to be connected to those populations, can someone provide information as to what these feelings are based on? Certainly helping people in need is a worthy pursuit, but as has been stated by several people involved in this discussion, there is no shortage of people in need among different populations.

Does anyone have good, current statistics on the profile of these local populations?

• Low-income elderly in need of housing
• Low-income disabled in need of housing
• Low-income families in need of housing

I heard some passing comments that waiting lists were much longer for low-income families.

I can understand the appeal and advantages of an undifferentiated piece of property to build a moderately large building to provide housing for elderly and disabled, as has been described in some detail by the AHA representatives.

However, I can see the credence to the questions and arguments raised by those advocating for the Symmes Advisory Committee's position that we need to maintain as much flexibility as possible given the size, complexity, and economics of the undertaking we're involved with here.

AHA should be encouraged for the role they're taking in this, of fulfilling their charge to come up with creative proposals to provide for their target populations. Perhaps they can come up with amendments to the SAC recommendations that would require a higher level than the minimum 15% provision for low-income housing; maybe we should make it 30%. Do the economics for the development as a whole get blown up by such a change? Maybe we should put in some type of hard requirements for working with AHA and allowing them to develop a facility (or some variation thereof) such as they're proposing in their Article 2. Perhaps the debate about the details of the full SAC proposal and recommendations and requirements will be a better context for figuring out such an additional provision.

[Rich, 14:18]
Mr. Dunn has his take on last night's session up.

His comments hit just about everything I would have said, so I only have a few things to add:

• If there was a real chance TM would have stayed all the way until 23:00 when starting at 19:30, I would have been in favor of a 19:30 start. The extra half hour per session would have allowed us to take care of a lot of extra business in each session, given the high overhead of getting a session going. However, at the first night it seemed pretty clear to me that the sense of the meeting was that if it started at 19:30 it would end at 22:30 and not work an extra 30 minutes.
• At the time I made my amendment, I had no sense of which time would be chosen. But once the person after me spoke to complain that he felt the change was unfair to people who ran for TM or decided to continue with their terms based on the entirely reasonable assumption that the start time would be 20:00, I was pretty sure that the 20:00 start time would hold up.
• Absent some radical change or announcement, I too plan to vote against the AHA substitute motion on Wednesday. Their motion, while well-intentioned, strikes me as half-baked. Not in the "that's crazy talk!" sense, but in the more literal "it's not done yet" sense. The AHA presentation gave me no sense that they had run their proposal through anything close to the level of analysis the SAC proposal has been through. As Mr. Lyons perhaps unintentionally said, the project is a "house of cards", and I would prefer to not disturb that with competing proposals, especially when one appears to me to be much less thought out than the other.
• I would love to know what the deal is with the AHA and its relations with SAC and the Arlington Redevelopment Board (ARB). The hostility toward SAC and the ARB emanating from Ms. Worden during her presentation was palpable. I am curious if this is a long-standing institutional rivalry, or if Ms. Worden has a particular beef, or something else. Well, I suppose that is part of the fun of being a TMM -- discovering and trying to ferret out the reasons for the various interesting if not always explicable grudges between various pieces of Town government.

[Rich, 00:49]
Angered at Article 5...

I am going to step out of the generally flat tone I have been using here to state that I am incensed by the recommended vote under Article 5 of the Special Town Meeting, condemn it as hypocritical, and want to see it defeated as it stands.

The freely admitted purpose of the recommended vote is to remove a hardship the Town suffers with regard to the Pierce Field (at the high school) cleanup. To affordably complete the cleanup, the Town needs a variance re: wetlands from the Conservation Commission. However, the Town's wetlands by-law does not give the ConCom that power. In response, the powers-that-be are proposing a very narrowly drawn amendment that will essentially only give the ConCom the power to issue a wetlands variance for only the Pierce Field project.

I cannot countenance selective rule-bending like this. I was against it in the case of the George White vote, and I am against it here. Let the Town either live with the hardship like any residents in a similar situation would have to, or provide for a more general, fair variance power and not one rigged to let Town government have its cake and eat it, too (and note that Arlington is one of the only municipalities with a local wetlands by-law that does not give its ConCom variance powers).

Unless an amendment is approved which removes this rigging and allows for variances for residents, I will vote against the proposed vote and urge others to do so as well.

[Rich, 00:40]
Business...

• Starting Time: Mr. Greeley made a motion that when the meeting adjourn, it adjourn to 19:30 on 7 May. Mr. Carreiro moved to amend the time to 20:00. Someone (I missed the name) rose in support of the amendment and said that a different starting time is not fair to TMMs, especially newly elected TMMs, who took on the obligation assuming the start time would be 20:00. He suggested that a new start time be determined just before this TM dissolves, so that everyone would know what to expect for the following year. The amendment was approved and then the original motion as amended was approved.
• As I mentioned in a prior post, the Annual TM was recessed and the Special TM opened. Cognizant of the just-settled starting time issue, the motion fixing the time of adjourment of the STM specified 20:00, and it was approved.
• Article 1 - Reports: Mr. Foskett presented the report of the Symmes Advisory Committee, after some discussion about whether or not he should be given an hour to present it and whether or not it should be given under Article 1 or Article 3. It was too long and detailed to even attempt to summarize. See the Symmes Advisory Committee website for more details. One short important point is that the Urban Renewal Plan is essentially an enterprise fund -- think of it as a town-owned business. It owns its own income and expenses, with the provisio that if it runs out of cash the Town has to make it whole and if it generates surplus cash, that cash can be given over to the Town's general fund. But until and unless either of those two events happen, it has no effect on the tax rate.
• Article 2 - AHA Proposal: The Board of Selectmen recommended a vote of no action on the proposal of the Arlington Housing Authority to buy a to-be-determined 40,000 sq ft. Ms. Worden of the AHA set forth a substitute motion for the AHA to pay $800,000 for the 40,000 sq ft and develop a 75-unit elderly and handicapped building themselves (at this point it was already 21:45, and TM had its belated 10 minute break). Mr. Foskett said that such a proposal represents a significant discount to what the SAC believes that much land could be sold for and that it could make the remaining developable space uneconomical to be developed. Mr. McClennan made it clear that contrary to an assertion by one of the AHA speakers, that $800,000 would not go into the Town's general fund but would remain within the Urban Renewal Plan. Subsequent speakers talked about the AHA's track record and a desire for more elderly housing, or talked about how the AHA proposal would hurt bids or even render the redevelopment plan infeasible, depending on which side of the question they were on. Reaching 23:00 and with 16 people on the list to speak, the Moderator entertained a motion to adjourn, which was quickly offered and approved. Special Town Meeting adjourned to 20:00 on Wednesday, 7 May, 2003. (Annual TM remains in recess).

[Rich, 14:02]
I have decided to describe what is going to happen tonight so that any of you who are new to TM (or new to watching TM) will not be confused.

Decisions of a TM are generally not effective when that TM makes them (even leaving aside the whole reconsideration issue). Many decisions do not even become effective when the TM dissolves. Town By-Law and Zoning By-Law changes do not become effective until they are reviewed and approved by the Attorney General's office, which usually takes about three months after the dissolution of the meeting. Even appropriations do not take effect immediately, since certain appropriations by a TM can be challenged and overturned by town-wide referendum (as Lexington PAYT proponents discovered last year).

Because the effectiveness of decisions is delayed at least until a TM dissolves, items where time is particularly of the essence are often placed into an embedded Special Town Meeting. The idea is that the STM will convene, act on those few issues, then immediately dissolve, allowing the acts taken in the STM to become effective much sooner, even if the Annual TM goes on for weeks or months. That is what will be happening tonight.

The mechanics are fairly simple. The Annual TM will convene as scheduled, go through all its usual opening ceremonies, and will then be declared in recess. The STM will then be opened as its own entity, including the reading of the STM warrant and the constable's return of the STM warrant. The articles in the STM warrant will be acted upon and the STM dissolved, at which point the Annual TM will be called back from recess and will continue in its work.