[Rich, 03:06]
Session 6 -- can YOU tell us what's different between the motions?

• ATM called to order at 20:05.
• The Moderator remarked that reconsideration needs a 2/3rds vote and not the simple majority Town Meeting Time says since the by-laws specify to the contrary. He said the in some towns the moderators rule reconsideration out of order unless there is "new information". He also instructed tellers to not count people unless they are standing in front of their chairs, in order to reduce confusion with respect to non-TMMs who violate the rules and stay in the back of the enclosure. He noted that the hall used to be 15' longer before the elevator and handicapped bathroom required the size reduction. The Moderator also said that "signs and banners" are prohibited in the hall with the exception of the United States, Massachusetts, and Arlington flags.
• Voted that when the ATM adjourns, it adjourn to 16 May at 20:00.
• Motion to remove Article 2 from the table. Approved.
• Article 2 - Reports
  • Second supplemental BoS report was received.
  • Field Maintenance and Users Fee Study Committee report was received.
  • Mr. Olsen of the FMUFSC reviewed the report's executive summary and further noted the importance of developing a proper field rotation and rest policy. He said the Committee believes more resources are needed to properly maintain the fields and will be discussing this with user groups.
  • The Vision 2020 report was received.
  • Ms. Howard read the opening pages of the report.
  • Mr. Jamieson presented the report's study of the Town's inflation-adjusted spending since 1991. His main point was that in inflation-adjusted terms, spending has fallen since 1991.
  • Article 2 tabled.
• Mr. Tosti announced that after consulting with TMMs, the Town Manager, the Moderator, and others "up front", FinComm would be presenting an hour-long information session on the cuts that would be made if the override fails. One-half hour would be for department heads to explain the specific cuts in service or personnel the given dollar cut would translate to. Another half-hour would be for questions only. Then it will be moved that the budgets be postponed to 13 June.
• Mr. Bernardin announced the Zoning Bylaw Review Committee had a substitute motion available on Article 58.
• Ms. LaCourt announced that on Monday TMMs would receive copies of the impact statements department heads turned in as part of the budget process as well as goals/accomplishment statements and the organizational chart.
• Mr. Lavalle asked if we would be "rushed" with the budgets not coming up until 13 June. The Moderator said they do have to be done a week before the end of the fiscal year, but since everything else in the meeting would be done by then, there should be enough time.
• The Moderator declared the ATM in recess.
• Voted that when the STM adjourns, it adjourn to 16 May at 20:00.
• Article 4 - Home Rule Legislation/Symmes (cont'd)
  • Ms. Harrington asked for and received 12 additional minutes. She said the BoS recommendation would take authority from TM and "balkanize" the tax system. She moved a substitute motion that would only let debt service be paid from the fund with any surplus rolling into the general fund. She said that paying municipal expenses out of the Symmes fund was never mentioned in the debt exclusion campaign or in any TM vote. She said the debt should be paid off as quickly as possible and it was never promised that the debt payments would be kept off the tax rate, reading the portion of a pro-exclusion pamphlet that stated the cost of the exclusion would be about $65 per year for around four years. She said no one would be betrayed by the repayment hitting the tax rate, that TM should not give up any appropriating authority, and that balkanization should not be endorsed.
  • Mr. Jamieson said that $65 a year for four years would be around $4,000,000 and could quickly pay off remaining debt. He asked how long the debt would be paid off over. Mr. Sullivan said current thinking was to pay off the debt in around 10 years. Mr. Jamieson asked why such a long schedule and why bond instead of BANs. Mr. Sullivan said the intent is not to pay municipal costs from the fund and it is a commitment to stay revenue neutral. He said aside from debt service, only costs directly related to the project such as legal or environmental remediation expenses would be paid from the fund and any surplus would go to the general fund. Mr. Jamieson asked if any NPV modeling had been done of different debt scheduling schemes. Mr. Sullivan said he was not privy to any. Mr. Jamieson said he supported the substitute motion.
  • Mr. Judd rose to a point of order and said it was not fair that after declaring signs and banners were prohibited, the Moderator was not doing anything about people wearing "Yes" (on the override) buttons. The Moderator said he would allow buttons.
  • Mr. McCabe asked if the BoS supplemental report had been received in the STM. The Moderator said it had.
  • Mr. Doherty moved the previous question. Defeated.
  • Mr. Rehrig said the Harrington motion would make it more difficult to keep commitments. He said there never was a promise that the project's return would be in a lump sum but rather over time, as one of the original ideas was that the Town would rent it out. He said he believed there were two kinds of revenue neutrality -- using the debt exclusion authority as little as possible and operating budget neutrality and that the BoS motion would make sure enough revenues flowed into the general fund to offset the load put on the operating budgets as people move into the new development and start to consume municipal services. He also moved to amend the BoS recommendation by adding Ms. Harrington's reporting language so that the Treasurer and BoS would be required to report on the account's activity each year at TM and asked people to vote for the BoS recommendation.
  • Ms. LaCourt, speaking as a TMM, asked for a clarification of the differences between the two proposals. Mr. Foskett said the Harrington proposal would take the funds out of the urban renewal plan and reduce the ability to keep unforseen expenses from hitting the tax rate. He said the BoS plan allows a reserve to be built up to pay debt service if the development has problems, while the Harrington proposal would not do so, thus allowing debt service to hit the tax rate. Ms. LaCourt said she felt the BoS proposal was more financially conservative because it allowed flexibility to deal with increased operating costs as people began to occupy the development.
  • Mr. Bayer said it appears both proposals assign excess revenue to the general fund. He said that even if both were voted down, TM can keep the project off the tax rate by exercising the discipline to not appropriate the revenue thrown off by Symmes on non-Symmes expenses.
  • Mr. Judd said TM is the proper appropriating body and that the BoS can call STMs if further appropriations need to be made to cover unexpected expenses. He said it is harder to sway many TMMs as opposed to a few "up front" people and urged a vote for the Harrington substitute motion.
  • Mr. Trembly asked when the account would terminate. The Moderator said it would terminate when the bonds were paid off. Mr. Trembly asked if the account could be kept open indefinitely by continually issuing bonds. The Moderator said it could not.
  • Mr. Deyst said he would ordinarily be in favor of Ms. Harrington's motion but believes this time that the extra flexibility to handle short-term contingencies that the BoS motion provides is needed and urged a vote against the Harrington motion.
  • Mr. Abbott said the Harrington motion was sound and does not see why the current practice of using a reserve fund to handle contingencies could not be used here. He said the Harrington motion locks up Symmes revenue for debt reduction and preserves TM appropriating authority and urged a vote for it.
  • Mr. Fischer said he did not understand the benefit of the BoS motion and asked what would happen if in a given year the account ran a surplus while the overall budget had a shortage and if layoffs could then be avoided. Mr. Maher said neither motion would allow the Treasurer and BoS to use the money to avoid layoffs and the BoS motion does not allow funds to be used to pay municipal expenses. He said it could only be used for debt service and costs directly related to the development. Mr. Fischer said he would vote no on both proposals.
  • Mr. Bernardin asked for a clear statement of objections to the Harrington proposal. Mr. Sullivan said the Harrington proposal would allow the fund to only cover debt service. He said the BoS proposal is tightly constrained and that annual income would be at most around $1,500,000 and that unlike the SchoolComm budget where they get $30,000,000 and can spend it how they like, TM would be giving up very little authority in approving the BoS motion. Mr. Bernardin said one's vote would have to depend on how many meetings one is willing to go to and that he would go to all the meetings it took and endorsed the Harrington proposal.
  • The Moderator announced the BoS motion was being amended administratively to make it clear that aside from debt service, only expenses "directly related to the project development" could be paid for by the fund.
  • Ms. Fiore asked if the BoS motion was inconsistent about who was paying. Mr. Maher said the BoS motion is within the framework of the urban renewal plan, which gives oversight to the ARB. Therefore, the ARB would have the authority to pay bills out of the fund but not the authority to decide when debt would be paid, which would be with the Treasurer and BoS.
  • The Moderator explained that while the BoS recommendation spans two reports, it is all one motion.
  • Mr. Ford asked what happens when there is a surplus in the fund. Ms. Harrington said under her proposal the surplus goes into the general fund. Mr. Maher said under the BoS proposal, the surplus after direct expenses goes into the general fund. Mr. Ford said he supported the Harrington proposal.
  • Mr. Ellis asked if the Harrington motion would interfere with spending. Mr. Maher said it would not interfere with borrowing, but could interfere with spending except that it would not interfere with borrowing and spending the remaining $2,900,000 under the $14,000,000 cap. Mr. Ellis asked if FinComm had taken a position on the BoS motion. Mr. Tosti said it had not, but had supported the identical language last fall. Mr. Ellis asked how FinComm would deal with circumstances that could arise. Mr. Tosti said that for smaller things they could use transfers from the reserve fund but that it was important for at least one of the motions to pass, though the BoS motion gives more flexibility on direct costs. The Moderator said Mr. Maher felt that if the article were tabled, a compromise could be worked out. Mr. Ellis moved to table, which was defeated.
  • Mr. DeCoursey said he was inclined to support the BoS motion but suggested that Ms. Harrington's motion be amended to make it the same as the BoS motion in all aspects except for what could be paid from the funds, so that TMMs could more easily compare them. Mr. Maher said adding the language from the BoS supplemental report would accomplish that and complained that Ms. Harrington's motion would undermine the urban renewal plan.
  • Ms. Harrington was furious that Mr. Maher had not told her this earlier and accused him of trying to sandbag her. After disclaiming that it was only being done on Mr. Maher's claims of necessity, she moved to amend her motion to make it clear it would in no way derogate the urban renewal plan.
  • After waiting at the lectern for many minutes as the amendment was hashed out, Mr. Gilligan moved the previous question. Approved on a voice vote, doubted, approved 121-34, so debate terminated.
  • Harrington amendment to Harrington substitute motion approved.
  • Motion to substitute Harrington motion (as amended) approved, doubted, approved 86-68.
  • BoS recommendation as substituted approved 146-2.
• Article 5 - Transfers
  • Mr. Tosti said FinComm recommended no action because no transfers were needed.
  • Recommendation of no action approved unanimously.
• STM adjourned at 23:00 to 16 May at 20:00.
• ATM adjourned at 23:00 to 16 May at 20:00.