Arlington Town Meeting

2006-03-20T21:48:00.000-05:00

We've moved. All future activity will be at http://arlington.town-meeting.org. See you there!

2005-06-16T03:06:00.000-04:00

Some thoughts

What the heck was up with Brian Lavalle screeching at Ruderman and the Moderator after Ruderman made a joke about the rebuild likely overrunning its estimate? Very rude. As were many of the back-of-the-hall crowd, who often booed people they disagreed with. It's one thing to boo someone who is snarky or who takes a shot at someone. But booing someone for calmly and politely stating an opinion you happen to disagree with? Humph.

Anyone else notice the irony that by objecting to Jamieson's & Lewiton's request for five more minutes the objectors cost the meeting more than five minutes by forcing a vote on the matter? And I wonder if the joke was on them when J & L came out in favor of the rebuild, which I hazard a guess that many of the objectors were not expecting.

Well, I've been wrong a bunch of times so far on when I thought we'd finish, but I am confident we'll finish up on Monday. The only question is how long it'll go. We have a couple of trivial FinComm articles, the tabled 8 (zoning - stormwater) and 19 (noise regulation), and of course Iraq (70). If the first ones take us to the break, I wonder how many people will bother to come back from the break for 70. For that matter, I wonder how many people will show up Monday at all?

As for 70, I think the discussion will either be rather long or rather short and I actually lean towards short. If someone who wants to move the previous question manages to get near the front of the list, I think there will be a good chance people will vote to terminate debate to finally get the ATM over with. On the other hand, I can see there being lots of people who want to talk about it if no debate terminator is early on the list. A warning -- people who want it short should not get excited if they see me get up. I have something to say on it, though I promise that if I get to talk I'll be brief :-).

Speaking of terminating debate, I was amused when, after my motion, the Moderator said "Thank you." And then there were something like 30 responses when the Moderator called for a second.

Finally, for something probably only of interest to me, I discovered that a friend's father is a moderator (Westborough) and worked on the 3rd edition of Town Meeting Time and that his grandfather was also a moderator (Wenham) and worked on the 2nd edition of TMT. Ironically, then, my friend has never been able to participate in a town meeting as he has spent his entire adult life either in MA cities or out-of-state. I need to tell him he needs to get back in MA and start getting cracking on keeping the streaks alive.

2005-06-16T02:42:00.000-04:00

Session 11 -- the end is in sight

Called to order at 20:03.
Voted that when we adjourn we adjourn to 20 June at 20:00.
Mr. Abbott offered a resolution that the Town endorse the result of the non-binding vote in favor of a constitutional amendment to have a non-partisan board do districting in Massachusetts.
The Moderator said that only non-controversial resolutions may come before the meeting without a warrant article and that he felt this one was non-controversial enough.
Mr. Daly said he could not hear it and had some questions about it.
Ms. Harrington suggested postponing it until more copies could be made.
The Moderator reversed field, decided it was too controversial after all, and 86ed it.
Article 2 removed from table.
Article 2 - Committee Reports
- Town Manager's report on Fees and Charges received.
- Mr. Sullivan said this was being provided per a vote of Town Meeting last year and that while it is missing some requested detail because said detail had never been requested before, it will have that detail in the future.
- Tabled
Article 47 - Capital Budgets
- FinComm recommended a capital budget without the Park Circle station rebuild.
- The CapPlanComm moved a substitute motion that was the same as FinComm's except for the addition of the rebuild.
- The Moderator said that first only the Park Circle part of the capital budgets would be discussed and then the rest. He also explained how he planned to choreograph the opening of the discussion, designating the first four speakers he would recognize before going to the list.
- Mr. Foskett presented the slide presentation he had handed out on Monday. Some key points were that the external engine shelter is tough to work in, living conditions are bad, Engine 3 is first on-site in Morningside for 91% of the critical life calls, Engine 3 is first on-site in East Arlington for 92% of critical life calls, that when Highland has to serve the "Park Polygon" it fails the 6 minute test 35% of the time, and when HQ has to serve the "Park Polygon" it fails the test 42% of the time. Because of all this, the CapPlanComm recommends spending the $2,300,000 to rebuild the Park Circle station.
- Mr. Loreti asked for five additional minutes, receiving it on a voice vote after objections. He offered an amendment to spend the $2,300,000 on preparations for rebuilding Highland and HQ instead of Park Circle, saying that two fire stations are sufficient. He said Arlington is very high in terms of stations per square mile and that even with two stations, Arlington would still be in the top 10% and that density statistics show densities significantly less than Arlington's achieve the 90% in less than six minutes standard. Mr. Loreti also noted that fire losses are much less now than 80 years ago. He criticized the data in Mr. Foskett's presentation saying that much of the data was not for "true emergency" calls, noting that none of the Highland-to-Park Polygon runs were true emergencies. He Highland ambulance runs were left out and that no distinction was made between Basic Life Support (BLS) which is non-time-critical and Advanced Life Support (ALS) which is time critical. He said that because of the the OSHA 2-in/2-out rule, even if a Park Circle engine is first on the scene it only carried three people, so no one can go in until more equipment arrives. He said the CapPlanComm data is "deeply flawed" and invalid to base a decision on and that since the other stations also need to be renovated, they should be done first while a disinterested professional party helped the Town study if a third station is needed.
- Mr. Tosti asked for ten additional minutes, receiving it on a voice vote after objections. He said the bonded cost of rebuild will start at $215,000 and will tail off to around $125,000 by the time the bonds are paid off and that FinComm did not think that was a good use of funds. He said FinComm believes two stations are sufficient and that it does not recommend reducing any positions. He said FinComm stood by the MMA study and also did its own peer community study and that many towns with significantly more land area use two stations. Mr. Tosti said he was also worried that rebuilding now would foreclose more strategic thinking, such as regionalized dispatch (noting that New York City only uses three dispatch centers for 8 million people), regionalized service, fire districts, etc. He noted that police are often the first responders and therefore we should consider training up officers to be EMTs. He urged that the money not be spent just because it's always been that way. He also noted the FinComm original vote was 10-5, followed by a later vote of 8-7 against reconsidering the original vote.
- Fire Chief McEwen said he believes three stations are best, resulting in faster response times, which are important.
- Mr. Sullivan said Arlington had the third highest housing density in the peer group and more severe topography. He also said ambulance runs were left out of the data because the data only records the first responder and the engines always beat the ambulances. He said it would be a mistake to close the Park Circle station.
- Ms. Munsey said that keeping the Park Circle station open will protect homes and property in the community and noted that many people who have been opposed to the rebuild in the past had changed their minds. She said the firefighters are unanimous in believing it should stay open and she also feels that it should have been rebuilt years ago.
- Mr. Ruderman said he supported the Loreti amendment and said we need to consider the conditions of today and not of the past when deciding where fire stations should be. He said both people for and against the rebuilt wanted to save lives, but disagreed on how. He noted that only 77 calls were for fires and said fire service siting, equipment needs, and deployment strategies need to be geared around demands, conditions, and technology of the future, not demands, conditions, and technology of the past.
- Mr. Carrigan said the Town has always tried to be fair and that the rebuild would be fair to both the firefighters and to citizens, especially those in the Park Circle area. He said he has two children in the AFD and that they and all firefighters deserve a clean, safe place to live and work. He said most Town officials support the rebuild and that the MMA study is wrong because it contradicts them.
- Mr. Dunn said he was against the rebuild because he was not satisfied that anyone knows how many stations there should be and where they should be sited. He said the data in the Foskett presentation does not tell if other locations would be better. He said virtually all variables affecting the number and siting of stations has changed since the stations were built and by rebuilding now we would lose our chance to think that out. He said the Foskett presentation was only the beginning of a study that needs to be done.
- Mr. Belskis, noting he lives in an area which would be affected by the closing, said that municipalities close to our population density use three or four stations and that population density increase the risk of loss. He urged that the rebuild be supported.
- Mr. Abbott said he was surprised by the lack of any contingency fund for a project being built on a certified hazmat site and that it will be very likely we will be asked to bond more money in the future because of this. He said the Winchester station just over the line could be a first responder to Morningside and that since the Highland station is almost as bad as the Park Circle station, it should be renovated first and therefore he supported the Loreti amendment.
- Mr. Burke said that the Park Circle station was necessary, but that it (and the others) should be repaired instead of rebuilt. He strongly criticized override supporters and the Town's tendency to shirk proper maintenance, allowing buildings to fall into disrepair. He said a study on rebuild vs. replace is needed.
- Mr. Kazarian said it was a tough decision but that ultimately it would not be a "big deal" for taxpayers to spend an extra $20/yr to keep the station open and that he would vote to keep it open.
- Mr. Bernardin asked if Park Circle has any effect on ambulance reponse times. Mr. Sullivan said it had no direct effect, but closing it would affect response times of EMTs, since the engines beat the ambulances. Mr. Bernardin said it was a very tough decision, but also said he believed that if there was not already a station there, people would be against putting one there if it were proposed to put one there.
- Mr. O'Neill said that he appreciated the response data and that it validated his belief that the Park Circle station is not strategically located and that he did not believe a station would go there if all three stations were being built from scratch. He said the NFPA 1710 standard is coming and that it will be a requirement to get DHS money. He said Park Circle should not be kept just because it is already there and that the reasons the Park Circle station was built no longer exist. He urged a review of the strategic locations of all stations and support for the FinComm motion.
- Mr. Rosselli said a more realistic reponse time goal is three minutes since the fumes from burning modern materials can kill in that time. He said five minutes goes by very fast and that a station is needed in the Park Circle area. He said that Arlmont would be in "dire need" if crews had to go all the way out there from Highland and pointed out that mutual aid is becoming more difficult as all municipalities cut back. He noted some difficulties that had arisen over the years when an engine has been out of service and said that hometown firefighters would fight a fire in their town harder than out-of-towners. He urged support for the rebuild.
- Mr. Jones said it was hard to argue against all the people in favor of the rebuild but that he did not feel the data justified the rebuild. He said the money should be spent on improving fire services and that he was against any staffing cuts. Mr. Jones also said there would be "no way" the rebuild cost would only be $2,300,000. He said he believed two stations were sufficient and that he supported the Loreti amendment. He said the statistics are skewed the because the dataset of time-critical fire runs is very small and that in the vast majority of the Town responses would be four to five minutes with or without Park Circle.
- Mr. Jamieson and Mr. Lewiton received five additional minutes on a 115-21 vote. Mr. Lewiton said he had been against the rebuild until last week and now believes a station should be up there, though he believes a single-bay station would be fine. He noted that NFPA 1710 is a voluntary standard and that it is AFD practice to send a 2-person rescue along with the engine so that in fact the 2-in/2-out rule is quickly met. Mr. Jamieson went through their slide presentation. He said he supported the Park Circle rebuild but that if it did not get rebuilt, he recommended that Highland not be rebuilt where it is, but rather somewhere on Summer Street and therefore if Park Circle was not rebuilt, the HQ should be rebuilt first.
- Mr. Carreiro moved the previous question on the Park Circle station discussion. Debate terminated.
- The Moderator explained the order in which he would be taking the votes.
- Loreti amendment defeated.
- CapPlanComm substitute motion approved 106-53.
- FinComm recommendation as substituted approved.
- There were no questions on the rest of the capital budget, so the Moderator called for the rest of the votes.
- Section 1 approved.
- Section 2 approved unanimously.
- Section 3 approved 127-30.
- Section 4 approved unanimously.
- Section 5 approved.
Motion to adjourn approved.
Adjourned to 20 June at 20:00.

2005-06-14T23:45:00.000-04:00

How hot was it?

It was so hot that for the first time I can remember since being a TMM, the Moderator did not wear his usual dark three-piece suit but instead wore a beige two-piece summer suit.

This session also had perhaps the line of this year's meeting. While answering one of Mr. Tully's questions, Mr. Maher said something like "You're a lawyer too, Joe, so you know how this goes." Mr. Tully replied, "You weren't supposed to give away my secret. My mother thinks I play piano in a brothel."

2005-06-14T23:43:00.000-04:00

Session 10 Notes - it's getting hot in here

Just before the session started, I received a phone call and had to leave to handle a minor family emergency. I was finally able to get back to the meeting at 22:00.
Upon returning, I was told that all the budgets had been passed and that Mr. Foskett was just finishing up the initial Capital Planning Committee report presentation. I talked to some people after the session and was told that the FinComm budget recommendations had been passed as printed with the exception of a $13,000 increase in the Police budget for an additional part-time parking enforcement officer whose cost will be offset by the additional parking ticket revenues resulting from the extra work.
Article 47 - Capital Budgets
- Mr. Foskett was wrapping up his initial presentation on the CapPlanComm report as I arrived.
- Mr. Foskett said Mr. Maher and Ms. Donovan would discuss the Pierce Field items in Section 3 of the recommended vote.
- Mr. Maher said that the actual bids on the athletic improvements (as opposed to the remedy work) came out about $492,000 over what the Industrial Parties (IPs) had agreed to pay, resulting in the appropriation request.
- Ms. Donovan recapped the site's history. She said all environmental aspects had been completed by December 2004 and that the little remaining work at the DPW yard would be finished by September 2005. She said there was 24-hour real-time air quality monitoring and that unsafe levels were never observed on or near the site, that exposure to contamination is now eliminated, and that the remedy was minimally disruptive to education.
- Mr. Maher recapped the 2001 agreement with the IPs and said it was the Town's position that the IPs are responsible for all remedy expenses in excess of the $7,200,000 agreed upon. He also noted that nothing he or Ms. Donovan said before us could be used against the Town, persuant to a written agreement with the IPs. He said that in 2004 the parties agreed to defer any dispute resolution and that the IPs agreed to pay $1,750,000 of the $2,000,000 cost of replacing the Mill Brook culvert under the field and also agreed to front some athletic improvement money in lieu of post-construction partial reimbursement of a field house. Mr. Maher then listed the $6,000,000 in overruns, which are all subject to dispute resolution. He also noted it was decided to replace the Mill Brook culvert now rather than leaving it to collapse in the future, requiring a large expense of penetrating the engineered barrier.
- Mr. Tully asked of the Town could be liable for the entire $6,000,000. Mr. Maher said anything is possible but that it would be "very unlikely". Mr. Tully asked what the dispute process would be. Mr. Maher said first the Town and IPs would discuss the issues themselves, then if that failed, they would discuss the issues with a mediator, then if that failed they would go to either binding arbitration or litigation. Mr. Tully asked where the $6,000,000 would come from. Mr. Maher said the Town's exposure was minimal and that since the dispute resolution process would take two to three years, there would be time to plan.
- Mr. Deyst said he was shocked to find out that $6,000,000 of overruns due to "choices" had accumulated and asked how things got out of hand. Mr. Maher said he did not agree the overruns were due to choices and that the IPs and not the Town managed the project and that the Town has not yet paid anything, though the Town was in constant discussions with the IPs. Mr. Deyst said it looked like most of the overrun was due to choice items. Mr. Maher said one must distinguish between remedy work and choice work. He said the remedy work is what was $6,000,000 over and that the choice work was only over by the $492,000 being asked for in the vote. He said there were no choices about the remedy -- that the original remedy work agreed to was carried out, but came in $6,000,000 over budget.
- Mr. Dumyahn asked for the name of the company that did the air quality monitoring. Mr. Maher, going back to Mr. Deyst's question, said that the Town is contesting how the IPs ran the project and contends that the IPs did not run it well, contributing to the overrun. He also introduced Thor Helgasson, one of the consultants to the Town. Mr. Helgasson said the company is Air Logics LLC of Norwood, who did the monitoring and reported it to the IPs and that the monitoring records are publically available. Mr. Dumyahn asked if monitoring was done for hexavalent chromium and hydrocarbons. Mr. Helgasson said monitoring was done for hexavalent chromium, particulates, and BHA.
- Mr. Garballey asked how long the $6,000,000 was known about and wished he know about it when he was elected. Mr. Maher said it was known in late fall 2004 and January 2005.
- Mr. Leonard asked if there was a maintenance agreement on the work. Mr. Nangel, the Town's licensed professional for the work, said that the remedy improvements are covered by a thirty year performance warranty backed by monies set aside for the purpose, while non-remedy improvements were backed by manufacturers'/installers' warranties. Mr. Leonard asked if Town Meeting would be asked for more money to fix problems on the work. Mr. Nangel said it would not be for the remedy items due to the set aside funds and should not be for the non-remedy items because of their warranties.
- Mr. Holman asked when the Mill Brook culvert was put in. Mr. Nangle said original work happened in the 1920s and it was finished in the 1960s. Mr. Holman asked if various water authorities were responsible. Mr. Nangle said the culverting was an MWRA project and that the culvert replacement was a separately negotiated item outside of the remedy. Mr. Holman asked if the culvert work was part of the $6,000,000. Mr. Nangel said it was not.
- A man from Precinct 20 (I think either Mr. Nauman or Mr. Putnam) asked if there was a process for ensuring the quality of the work done. Mr. Helgasson said there was and that a third party has been doing various tests. The original questioner asked what the monitoring plan is and what happens if further hazards are identified. Mr. Nangel said there will be a long-term monitoring and maintenance program. He said that while the remedy cost went up the remedy did not change and that the negotiated remedy also includes fixing problems that arise as part of the remedy. He also said that if something new comes up, that is still part of the remedy.
- Mr. Abbott said the Board of Health should have received the air quality reports. Mr. Helgasson said the reports were submitted on a regular basis, were shared weekly with the Town, and that the BoH never asked for them.
- Mr. Lavalle asked who oversaw the work for the Town. Mr. Maher said that he, Ms. Donovan, Mr. Sanchez, outside counsel, and various consultants did. Mr. Lavalle asked where the Town would get $6,000,000 from. Mr. Maher said talking about $6,000,000 was "not realistic" and that even in the worst-case scenario, the Town's liability would be "far less" than $6,000,000.
- Mr. O'Riordan asked what the Town's reponsibilities were in the future. Mr. Nangle said part of the remedy is a document which spells out in great detail what the Town can and cannot do on the field, how to take care of it, and so on.
- Mr. Doherty asked how lights, bleachers, etc. would be put through the barrier. Mr. Nangle said all the necessary posts, slabs, foundations, etc. have already been constructed, so no barrier penetrations are needed to finish the work.
- Mr. Dumyahn asked if the DPW yard work was next. Mr. Nangel said it was. Mr. Dumyahn asked if the Town's liability would be greater for that phase. Mr. Nangel said the phase consists of digging up and hauling away for disposal some concrete boxes filled with dirt and that everything else is done. Mr. Dumyahn asked why the BoH did not request the reports. Mr. Maher said that there was nothing to report since there never were any adverse conditions.
- Mr. Carreiro moved the previous question on the Pierce discussion. Debate terminated.
Motion to adjourn approved.
Adjourned at 23:00 to 16 June at 20:00.

2005-05-25T15:07:00.000-04:00

What happens next?

So, we all get to exhale until 13 June. How things go from there will be...intriguing. If the override passes, I think things will be relatively smooth, with the big exception of the Park Avenue fire station rebuild.

However, if the override does not pass, I think it will be a very grinding final few sessions. I'd expect that there will be motions from the floor to try to help areas that various TMMs favor (my own plug -- keep the library certified!), in addition to intra-leadership squabbles (such as the difference between the Manager and FinComm re: the youth services budget).

2005-05-25T14:58:00.000-04:00

Correction to Session 8 notes - statue donor mistake

I misunderstood a speaker during Session 8. When that speaker referred to Mr. Barnaby, I thought the context was such that the referent was the Uncle Sam statue donor. The referent was actually the Uncle Sam Committee founder. The statue was actually donated by a Mr. Frederick Hauk of Cincinnati. Many thanks to the Moderator for catching the error and providing the true name.

2005-05-24T02:28:00.000-04:00

A reprieve!

I'd be lying if I didn't admit I'm thankful for the 3-week break in having to write these...

2005-05-24T02:26:00.000-04:00

Session 9 notes -- the ides of June?

Annual meeting called to order at 20:04.
The Moderator said that 86% (303 of 351) MA municipalities are towns (42 using representative town meeting, making cities the "aberration". He said around 1/3 of towns have less than 5,000 inhabitants, 1/3 have 5,000 to 12,500, and 1/3 have 12,500+.
Voted that when we adjourn, we adjourn to 25 May at 20:00.
Mr. Tosti moved to take Article 2 from the table. Approved.
Article 2 - Reports
- Mr. Shea gave the report of the AHRC. He said among other things it supported the Goodridge decision, has hosted some diversity activities, and investigated and resolved a complain by a disabled person against a restaurant. He said it is everyone's collective job to work for tolerance.
- Mr. Tosti moved to table. Approved.
Article 43 - Appropriation/Minuteman
- FinComm recommended an appropriation of $2,573,384 to cover the Town's Minuteman assessment.
- Ms. Morrissette, the new Arlington representative on the Minuteman SchoolComm said she has been impressed with Minuteman's programs and sensitivity to member towns. She said it has been trying to increase in-district enrollment and that Arlington is lucky to be able to send students to it.
- Mr. Callahan, the Minuteman Superintendant, said he had spent three years as the dean and then 25 years as the principal before becoming the superintendant. He said he appreciated Arlington's support and that Minuteman increases the overall value of Arlington's educational offerings. He said that 13 towns had approved the budget and hoped all 16 would. He noted that because Minuteman has many specialized equipment needs, is regional, and has no municipal support for things like snow plowing, the school has additional and higher expenses than regular schools do. He said the overall budget is up 2.3% and that state aid cuts have hurt. He introduced the assistant superintendant.
- Mr. Markham said that while the overall budget is up 2.3%, Arlington's assessment is up by 14.3%. He noted this is the first time in three years Minuteman has proposed a budget containing an overall spending increase. He said there have been cuts in Chapter 70 aid, cuts in state transportation reimbursement, and state-mandated increases in what local communities contribute.
- Mr. Carreiro asked if the FinComm recommendation represented an approval of the budget, if the computation used the state education formula method, and if Arlington was already bound to the assessement. Mr. DeCoursey answered affirmatively to all three questions.
- Mr. Leone moved the previous question. Debate terminated.
- FinComm recommendation approved
23 May Special Town Meeting called to order at 20:43.
Article 1 - Reports
- BoS report received.
- ARB report received.
- Mr. Tosti moved that the recommended votes in the reports be before the meeting without further motion. Approved
- Mr. Tosti moved to table. Tabled.
Article 2 - Zoning/Menotomy Manor
- ARB recommended the "wood-side" portion of Menotomy Manor be rezoned from R2 to R5.
- Mr. Tsoi asked for and received a total of 15 minutes for the ARB/AHA presentation. He said we should support this because it would allow $7,000,000 of state money to be used to renovate MM, make some accessible units, and create three new units.
- Mr. Mitropoulos thanked the ARB for its support and introduced the architectural consultant, Mr. Pollack.
- Mr. Pollack said the plan was to change three of 25 houses from two-family to three-family as part of an overall renovation of MM where all houses would get new kitchens, bathrooms, and wiring. He said DHCD was paying for it and had approved the plans but that 5% of the units in the development must be accessible for the Town to get the money. He said the plan was to make four of the "brick-side" units accessible and to make six of the "wood-side" units accessible. The latter would be done by converting three two-story, two-family townhouses into three structures with two first-floor accessible units and one second floor unit. But without the zoning change, the three second-floor units would have to be left empty. He said state law prevents the AHA from doing any further redevelopment even given a R5 zoning.
- Mr. Bernardin asked why not R3. The Moderator said that would be a spot zone. Mr. Bernardin asked why not go for a variance. The Moderator said use variances are not allowed.
- Mr. Cleinman, noting he was an abutter, said it was a wonderful idea. He asked if failing to approve this would jeopardize getting federal funds. No one had an answer for while, but eventually Mr. Maher said it would not have an effect.
- Ms. King said she lived in MM and that the tenants are thrilled to be upgraded. She said if upgrades are not done, the buildings would eventually become unlivable. She said that MM is a veterans' preference development and that more accessible units may help server war returnee needs.
- Mr. Daly moved the previous question. Debate terminated.
- ARB recommendation approved unanimously.
Article 3 - Home Rule Legislation
- BoS recommended a vote to send in a home rule petition requesting an Other Post-Retirement Benefits Trust Fund (OPEB).
- Mr. Bilafer said that in FY08 the GASB requires putting unfunded retiree pension and medical benefits on the books as a liability, which for Arlington would be $70,000,000 to $80,000,000. The petition would create a separate fund into which monies could be appropriate to fund that liability.
- Mr. Tosti said FinComm unanimously supported the recommendation as it formalizes and makes available better investment choices to a process that is already being done.
- Mr. Abbott moved that the actuary's report be sent to Town Meeting and asked why it would not start in FY07 instead of FY08. Mr. Bilafer said the actuary indicated that was unwise.
- Mr. Roselli said he supported the recommendation and said that previous, similar action by Mr. Bilfer had helped save retirement benefits for many.
- Mr. Deyst moved the previous question. Debate terminated.
- Abbott amendment approved unanimously.
- BoS recommendation as amended approved unanimously, but a standing vote of 180-0 was taken as the Legislature wants to see numbers.
Mr. Tosti moved to take Article 1 from the table. Approved.
Mr. Tosti moved to dissolve the STM. Approved unanimously.
Back in the Annual Town Meeting.
Article 55 - Appropriation/TAC: FinComm recommendation of a $17,000 appropriation approved unanimously.
Article 56 - Appropriation/Technical Assessment/Treasurer's Systems: FinComm recommendation of no action approved unanimously.
Article 57 - Appropriation/Spy Pond Weeds
- FinComm changed its recommendation to no action.
- Mr. Tosti said that due to weather and other factors, the treatment needed to be done now, so it has been paid for in the current FY via a $20,000 reserve transfer, thereby making moot next year's appropriation. He said the $20,000 would be kept within the DPW budget.
- FinComm recommendation of no action approved unanimously.
Article 58 - Appropriation/ZBRC
- FinComm recommended a vote of no action.
- Mr. Loreti, ZBRC chair, presented a substitute motion to appropriate $16,000 for the ZBRC to carry out a study with the help of an outside consultant. He said residents are concerned with developments, that Town Meeting action happens too late, and that the ZBRC could help by providing a report that could best be provided by an outside consultant. He said the scope of the study would be determined by a public process. He said the ARB was receptive to such a study, though it would like it more focused on what state law does not allow in zoning. He recounted how an ARB member incorrectly said that floor-area plan ratio limits could not be imposed in R1 and R2 districts and discussed how a study on the effects of regulating them could be something the ZBRC could do.
- Mr. Abbott said he had been on the ZBRC for a number of years and that the chance of achieving consensus on density between all interested parties in Town was essentially zero. He said that if $20,000 can be spent on weed remediation, $16,000 could be spent on studying density and that such a study is not within the expertise of any group in Town.
- Mr. Dunn said he voted against the motion in FinComm and would do so again at Town Meeting. He said he did not believe the motion was ready because he was not convinced it could not be done by the planning department and because the scope of the study was not specific enough.
- Mr. Holman said he supported the substitute motion and said that while he believed the ARB and Planning Department were capable of doing the work, he was unsure if they were willing or able to do it. He asked why they should be moved beyond. Mr. Loreti said he was sure they could do it but felt they did not have enough resources. Mr. Tsoi said it was a good idea but was wrong to have a special committee do it as it is a Planning Department function and that the assistant director of planning should be filled.
- Ms. Fiore said she supported the substitute motion as she believed the ZBRC has been "stymied" whenever it has a good idea. She said it was "a dream" that an assistant director would be hired and that $16,000 for a study would be good value.
- Mr. Tosti said FinComm voted no action after much discussion, feeling the money would be better spent by putting it toward funding the assistant director's position. He said FinComm thought the study was a good idea but should be done by the Planning Department supervised by the ARB. He said if the override passed the assistant director position would be filled and if it did not pass, it would be filled part-time but supplemented to full-time with CDBG funds. He urged a no-action vote, saying he expense was a "luxury".
- Mr. Burke said much of what the article mentions should have been done, but by Town boards and not by hiring more outside consultants, especially since he believed the Town is top-heavy and has received "nothing" from past consultants we have hired. He said he would oppose the substitute motion.
- Mr. Jones said he agreed with some of the previous speakers' points and asked if the ZBRC had looked into recruiting local, qualified volunteers. Mr. Loreti said the ZBRC had not looked into volunteers and noted that TAC had received $17,000 for outside help. Mr. Jones questioned that $16,000 would actually provide anything of value and asked if other towns has spent around that amount. Mr. Loreti said they had and have apparently been satisfied with the results. He said the $16,000 was four weeks at $100/hour.
- Mr. Bernardin, a ZBRC member, said it was not a frivolous expense and that he has talked to many concerned residents. He said the ZBRC wants to get the town ahead of the curve and does not want more delays in doing a study.
- Mr. McGann, another ZBRC member, said what mattered is who would do the study and noticed that neither the ARB nor Planning Department had volunteered. He said that if the ZBRC does not do the study, Town Meeting needs to make sure that someone does.
- Mr. Deyst said letters every week in the Advocate urge us to spend money responsibly and that the real need is to staff up the Planning Department so it can continue its excellent work. He asked what the plan was for the assistant director's position. Mr. Sullivan replied that he had held off filling the position until he saw how the budget was going but now intended to fill the position regardless over the override outcome, as Mr. Tosti had previously explained.
- Mr. Rehrig said he supported the substitute motion as the Planning Department was stretched so thin. He said that even with the assistant director slot being filled, the department would still only have 2/3rds the staff it should. He said the ZBRC had made a strong argument to be empowered to do the study.
- Ms. Mann, as a TMM, said that equally-valid needs must be weighed. She said the $16,000 could pay for a part-time youth social worker, more textbooks for the schools, increased library hours, a parking officer who would bring in more revenue than he would cost, and so forth. She said defining "what we want" is very difficult and commended the ZRBC for being willing to try. But she said it was the wrong time, context, and amount of money and urged a no action vote.
- Ms. Harrington said she supported the substitute motion, pointing out how the ZBRC had found flaws in the zoning bylaw in the past.
- Mr. Carreiro moved the previous question. Debate terminated.
- Loreti motion defeated 46-93.
- FinComm recommendation of no action approved.
Article 59 - Permissive Legislation: BoS recommended a vote of no action which was approved unanimously.
Article 60 - Local Option Taxes: BoS recommended a vote of no action which was approved unanimously.
Article 61 - Appropriation/Retiree Trust Fund
- FinComm recommended appropriating $211,572 into the fund.
- Ms. Fiore said she wanted "to hear something about it."
- Mr. Tosti referred to the comments in the FinComm report and pointed out we have been doing this for years. He said the appropriations come from decreases in the non-contributory retirement pensions as the recipients die off and that it must be funded whether or not the override passes.
- Mr. Abbott asked why both this and the OPEB are needed. Mr. Tosti said various changes have left the existing fund inadequate, especially around investment options. He said that in FY08 the existing fund would be closed into OPEB.
- Mr. Leone asked what the current balance was and where it could be found. Mr. Tosti said it was around $800,000 and was in the Town's Annual Report.
- FinComm recommendation approved.
Article 62 - Appropriation/Tip Fee Fund
- Mr. Abbott corrected a typo in the vote.
- Ms. Harrington said she wanted this considered after the override for the sake of flexibility and moved to postpone to 13 June.
- Mr. Tosti said he had no objections.
- Motion to postpone approved.
Article 63 - Transfer/Cemetery: FinComm recommendation of a $181,000 transfer to the cemeteries approved unanimously.
Article 64 - Appropriation/Overlay Reserve: FinComm recommendation of a $400,000 transfer approved unanimously.
Article 65 - Appropriation/Stabilization Fund: Unanimously postponed to 13 June.
Article 66 - Free Cash: Unanimously postponed to 13 June.
Article 67 - Health Information Resolution
- BoS recommended a vote as set forth in its report.
- Mr. Fischer presented a substitute motion that differed in some minor ways from the BoS resolution. He said he wants to encourage the spread of Arlington-specific information to help promote wellness initiatives. He noted that medical costs are a "budget-buster" in all levels of government and for private industry. He said studies show 50% of medical costs are due to "lifestyle diseases" and that wellness programs return $3 for every $1 spent on them. He said he hoped passage of the resolution would send a message that the public wants more Arlington-specific information to help decide what to do in the Town. He read through his resolution and asked it be supported.
- Mr. Berkowitz hoped the substitute motion would be passed and discussed how there are other kinds of "health", such as how people with strong support networks have fewer colds and live longer. He said we should work to increase social connectivity in Town.
- Mr. Jamieson moved the previous question. Debate terminated.
- Fischer substitute motion approved.
- BoS motion as substituted approved.
Article 68 - Stablization Fund Transfer: FinComm recommendation of a $1,500,000 transfer approved.
Article 69 - Override Resolution
- BoS recommended no action.
- Mr. Loreti moved to table.
- Loreti motion to table defeated.
- BoS recommendation of no action approved.
Article 70 - Iraq Resolution: Mr. Hurd moved to postpone to 13 June which was approved.
Mr. Hurd moved to reconsider the motion on when to adjourn to. Approved.
Mr. Hurd moved that when we adjourn, we adjourn to 13 June at 20:00. Approved.
Motion to adjourn approved.
Adjourned at 23:04 to 13 June at 20:00.

2005-05-19T09:33:00.000-04:00

Notes completed

The balance of the Session 8 notes are done and have been added to the Session 8 entry.

2005-05-19T09:31:00.000-04:00

Session 8 - the train kept a-rollin' all night long...well, for part of the night, anyways.

Called to order at 20:06.
The Moderator noted that at the current 4.33 articles per session we would be in session through the end of June and attempted to discourage motions to postpone and table.
Voted that when we adjourn we adjourn to 23 May at 20:00.
Mr. Foskett moved to take Article 2 from the table. Approved.
Article 2 - Reports
- Permanent Town Building Committee report received.
- Mr. Cole recapped the PTBC report. Of note is that the Brackett is now finally done and the Town will be getting paid back $70,000 spent on noise abatement. The Hardy noise abatement work is also done and the Town is in litigation to get money back. He said the state will approve the Ottoson costs and that the Town should be getting the first reimbursement check in a few months.
- Information Technology Advisory Committee report received.
- Ms. Galkowski recapped the ITAC report.
- Mr. Foskett moved to table. Tabled.
Article 29 - Home Rule Petition/Civil Service [cont'd]
- Mr. Dunn supported the BoS recommendation. He said that even the state Civil Service chair says the system is broken and there there are many positions where it is not economically worth giving exams.
- Ms. Phelps urged a vote for the BoS recommendation. She said the clerical personnel know what they are doing and that Town Meeting needs to stay out of union negotiations.
- Mr. Thrope (as a SchoolComm member) said the union asked for the positions to be removed and that the contract includes protections the personnel felt more advantageous than Civil Service protections.
- Mr. Carreiro moved the previous question. Debate terminated.
- BoS recommendation approved by voice vote, then approved 142-13 because the Legislature likes a count on HR petitions.
- In a (by his own admission) rare move, the Moderator allowed Mr. Rosselli to offer an amendment on what we had just approved.
- Mr. Roselli offered an amendment saying the BoS could not send in the HR petition until a "neutral" had been appointed to give an opinion on the negotiated contract. He said there are problems with non-CS being hired for CS positions should they be laid off by the Town. He said a CS exam could be called in Arlington.
- Ms. LaCourt (as TMM) was against the amendment saying that the clerical staff are adults, can understand the consequences of their actions, and would be insulted by it.
- Mr. Lavalle said it is not an insult, arguing the staff did not have the information to evaluate the consequences rather than being unable to understand them. He asked if Ms. Donovan had ever called for exams. She replied she had done so many times and that the staff had ever paid for an exam but had never received anything but postponement notices. Mr. Lavalle said he disputed that answer and that an exam could be called. He supported the amendment.
- Mr. Carreiro moved the previous question. Debate terminated.
- Roselli motion defeated.
- Mr. Roselli gave notice of reconsideration.
- Mr. Deyst (angrily) moved for reconsideration.
- The Moderator explained that if reconsideration were defeated, the article would be permanently closed.
- Motion to reconsider defeated.
Article 30 - Revolving Funds
- A revolving fund is a way of sequestering income from the operating budgets. The designated income stream goes into the revolving fund instead of into the general fund and then certain expenses are paid out of them instead of being paid from the operating budgets. I believe state law requires them to be re-authorized every year. The numbers in the BoS report were a 31 December 2004 snapshot, though the report omitted that fact.
- BoS recommended a vote to re-authorize the various revolving funds and to create a new revolving fund for Board of Health fees.
- Mr. Hallee asked if creating a new fund was within the scope of the article (the Moderator said it was). He asked where the money is going now. Mr. Sullivan said that in the wake of the hepatitis scare the BoH wants to do additional inspections when it feels they are needed and to charge additional fees for that and use those to hire contractors to perform those additional inspections.
- Mr. McKinney suggested the Uncle Sam fund be dissolved since it has had no activity for at least two years. Mr. Sullivan said the statue needs to be cleaned every three years and money would come from that. The Moderator asked if any Uncle Sam Committee members were in the hall and upon finding Ms. Weaver asked if she knew why there had been no activity. She said she did not know. Mr. McKinney said that if the fund had no reason to exist it should be eliminated and moved to amend the BoS recommendation to delete the re-authorization of the Uncle Sam fund.
- Mr. Bayer asked why the Tuition Payment and All-Day Kindergarten fund balances were so high given how small the expenses were. Ms. Donovan said the funds would be zeroed by the end of the fiscal year. Mr. Bayer asked the same of the Building User Fees fund. Ms. Donovan said the fund was used to cover extra expenses such as a leaky oil tank.
- Mr. Chaput said the US Fund should remain since the statute must be cleaned every three years.
- Mr. Loreti asked why some of the ending balances were growing so much, such as the All-Day Kindergarten fund. Ms. Donovan said the Town was originally charging $500 and is now charging $1,500 and that while grants have been used as much as possible, the fund will be zeroed by the end of the fiscal year. Mr. Loreti asked why that matters since the fund would have similar receipts this year. Ms. Donovan said that salaries go up and that at the end of the fiscal year the fund would be zeroed.
- Ms. Fiore said she supported leaving the US fund in and that Arlington has lost too much of its history. She said Town Meeting had refused to purchase the statue and that it was bought by a private citizen (who the Moderator told me later was a Mr. Frederick Hauk of Cincinnati).
- Mr. Daly was opposed to the amendment and discussed why US is good for Arlington and why it would be wrong to abolish the Uncle Sam Committee (no typo).
- Mr. McElhoe asked why funds that came in from after-school Building Use were used to fix a leaky oil take. Ms. Donovan said that the Hardy after-school program is privately run and the fees the Town charges the private group go into the fund and are used to help with school needs.
- Ms. Harrington, noting that Ms. Donovan said the Tuition Payment and All-Day Kindergarten funds would be zeroed, asked how that was possible since their annual expense limits were set well below their current balances. She also asked why parents who pay the $1,500 do not get refunds when the schools get all-day kindergarten grants. Ms. Donovan said the schools are required to charge foreign students tuition and the costs of their education is paid through the fund and that the $20,000 cap is really $20,000 per student. As for All-Day Kindergarten, she said the fees and grants just cover the costs and that there are no refunds because the grants are anticipated in the budget and are not windfalls that could be returned to parents. Ms. Harrington asked why the Fox balance was negative. Mr. Hurd said the numbers are a 31 December snapshot and that the fund would be up to zero by the end of the fiscal year.
- Mr. Sharpe asked how the Building Use fund could be zeroed this year given its $80,000 annual expense limit.
- Mr. McKinney said he tried to join the US Committee as he wants to promote US but could find no one. He pointed out his amendment would only remove the revolving fund, not the committee and said that cleaning the statue is a DPW function, not a promotional one.
- Mr. Jones asked that next year's report clearly date the balances.
- Mr. Maher and Ms. Donovan corrected spending caps to $100,000 on the Tuition Payments fund, $550,000 on the All-Day Kindergarten fund, and $120,000 on the Building User Fees fund.
- Mr. Hurd said the BoS wanted to keep the US fund.
- Mr. Nauman moved the previous question on all matters under the article. Debate terminated.
- McKinney amendment defeated.
- BoS recommendation approved.
- The amount of time we spent on the US fund thing was very frustrating. As was the number of people who (intentionally or not) conflated the US Fund with the US Committee (the latter, I note, echoes the former in not having much activity reported to Town Meeting). And for how many years have we had the bad cap numbers in the re-authorization vote?
Article 31 - Revolving Fund/Parking: BoS recommended a vote of no action that was approved unanimously.
Article 32 - Revolving Fund/ConComm: BoS recommended a vote of no action that was approved.
Article 33 - CDBG EndorsementRevolving Fund/Parking: BoS recommended Town Meeting endorse its allocations. Approved unanimously.
Article 34 - Grant Writing Authority: BoS recommended a vote to give the appropriate people/bodies the authority to apply for grants. Approved unanimously.
Article 35 - Private Ways
- BoS recommended a vote as set forth in its supplemental report to change the by-law by reducing the down payment by abutters to 1/3 of the cost but reducing the payback period from 20 to five years as well as tightening collection enforcement and charging interest on the unpaid amounts as well as to establish a committee to study the procedures and make recommendations.
- FinComm recommended a vote to authorize up to $300,000 in bonding for the program.
- Mr. Hurd said this would make it easier for private way abutters to take advantage of the by-law's provisions to have the Town involved in private way repair. He said the the current collection mechanism is essentially the honor system.
- Mr. Burke told on how his street three abutters did not want to repair the street and so it ended with one half of the street fixed and one-half not fixed. He asked if this vote would affect that. Mr. Hurd said if 2/3rds of abutters wanted the repairs, the holdouts would be forced to go along (and be billed). He said the vote is by owners.
- Ms. Chaput asked if the new committee would administer the program. Mr. Hurd said the BoS would do that. Mr. Chaput asked who set construction specifications. Mr. Sanchez said the law requires 12" of gravel and 5" of bitumen tar and that thanks to a vote last year, some drainage work can be done where needed.
- Mr. Jamieson wanted to clarify that the 20-year repayment period was being reduced to five and urged the new committee to look into the safety of the more deteriorated private roads.
- Mr. McElhoe asked what construction costs are as he is concerned with the repayment period reduction. Mr. Sanchez said it could be from $50 to $150 per foot depending on how the work ranged from repair to rebuild. Mr. McElhoe, who lives on a private way, said that would be too much to repay in five years and was against the motion.
- Mr. Abbott asked if abutters can be force to fix a private way that is so bad that one cannot drive on it. The Moderator said they could not be.
- Mr. Ruderman asked if the proposal would change the principle that abutters repay in full with no subsidies. Mr. Hurd said it would not.
- Mr. McHugh asked why the proposal charged interest over and above the Town's project costs. Mr. Foskett said it was to cover bond issuance costs. Mr. Hurd said it helped cover administratrive costs.
- Mr. Ledwig asked how costs would be allocated among abutters. Mr. Maher said it would be per owner and that nothing in the recommended vote would change how petitions are currently counted or costs are currently allocated.
- Mr. Ellis was bothered by the administration fees and said residents were already paying taxes. He asked if unwilling abutters could be forced to go along to which the Moderator answered yes.
- Mr. Bernardin moved the previous question. Debate terminated.
- BoS recommendation approved.
- FinComm recommendation approved unanimously.
Article 36 - Committee/Town's Fiscal Organization
- BoS recommended no action but commented they would like to see a similar committee be formed under the auspices of the Budget and Revenue Task Force.
- Mr. Howard asked what the size of the committee would be, what its charge would be, and when it would be appointed. Mr. Greeley said it would be 15, charged with investigating the Town's fiscal organization and would be appointed sometime after Town Meeting finished.
- Mr. Abbott moved to postpone to 23 May.
- Mr. Daly said we should go ahead and vote.
- Mr. Greeley said the BoS felt there was no point in postponing the article since the BRTF would not be meeting until after Town Meeting anyway.
- Motion to postpone defeated.
- BoS recommendation of no action approved.
Article 37 - Committee/SPPDIC
- BoS recommended a vote as set forth in its report to create a Symmes Project Post Development Committee.
- Mr. O'Riordan moved an amendment to sunset the committee five years after the final occupancy permit is issued.
- Mr. Hurd said the BoS supported the amendment.
- Ms. Fiore rhetorically asked why the issues the committee is charged with examining were not examined long ago.
- O'Riordan amendment approved.
- BoS recommendation as amended approved.
Article 38 - Fire Station Renovation Postponement
- Mr. Lewiton moved to table saying the proponents were waiting for the Town to supply information they were planning to present.
- Mr. Foskett said he saw no reason to debate under this article as there would be plenty of fire station debate under the capital budget.
- Motion to table defeated.
- BoS recommendation of no action approved.
Article 39 - Fire Station Renovation Capital Plan: FinComm recommended a vote of no action that was approved.
Article 40 - Trash Fee
- BoS, FinComm recommended a vote of no action.
- Mr. Jamieson moved to postpone to 13 June to preserve the option in case the override fails.
- Mr. Foskett said the override will determine if people want their taxes raised and that this would confuse the issue.
- Mr. Jamieson said he agreed, but wanted to keep the option available.
- Mr. Abbott said it was "dumb" to act on this article without knowing the result of the override and supported postponement.
- Ms. Wylie supported postponement.
- Mr. Foskett, noting he was co-chair of the Yes campaign, said a trash fee is effectively a tax so that if the override fails, Town Meeting should also vote against any trash fee.
- Jamieson motion to postpone defeated.
- BoS recommendation of no action approved.
Article 41 - Trash Collection Plan
- BoS recommended a vote of no action.
- Mr. Jamieson said he would like to offer a post-override vote substitute motion to authorize developing a plan and moved to postpone to 13 June.
- Mr. Lavalle said it was an attempt to hold the threat of tax fee over voters and that he would vote against the override just for that.
- Ms. LaCourt said the BoS is committed to five years without an override and so is morally committed to no backdoor tax increases. She said the override was the overriding concern.
- Jamieson motion to postpone defeated.
- BoS recommendation of no action approved.
Article 43 - Minuteman Appropriation
- FinComm recommended an appropriation as set forth in its report.
- Mr. Foskett moved to postpone to 23 May so the Minuteman superintendant could be present.
- Mr. Jamieson asked if there was any point to waiting as our vote would likely make no difference.
- Mr. DeCoursey said 11 of the 16 member towns had approved the budget making it essentially approved, but that the superintendant is new and would like the chance to talk to Town Meeting.
- Foskett motion to postpone approved.
Article 44 - Appropriation/Town Celebrations: FinComm recommended a vote as set forth in its report which was approved unanimously.
Article 45 - Appropriation/Committees and Commissions: FinComm recommended a vote as set forth in its report which was approved.
Article 46 - Appropriation/Misc: FinComm recommended a vote as set forth in its report which was approved unanimously.
Article 47 - Appropriation/Misc: FinComm recommended a vote as set forth in its report which was approved unanimously.
Article 48 - Rescind Borrowing Authority: FinComm recommended a vote of no action which was approved unanimously.
Article 49 - Appropriation/Sewer Financing
- FinComm recommended a vote as set forth in its report.
- Mr. Foskett said this was to allow the Town to get an interest-free loan from the MWRA.
- FinComm recommendation approved unanimously.
Article 50 - Appropriation/Water Mains
- FinComm recommended a vote as set forth in its report.
- Mr. Foskett said this was to allow the Town to get an interest-free loan from the MWRA.
- Ms. Fiore asked if developers have to pay a share of water main re-construction. Mr. Sanchez said the article was about existing lines and that developers pay if their development would have a detrimental effect.
- FinComm recommendation approved unanimously.
Ms. Fiore moved reconsideration of article 49 because she said the Moderator did not acknowledge her.
Ms. Fiore asked the same question about article 49. Mr. Sanchez said that if a new development would have a detrimental effect, developers would have to pay for sewerage improvements. He said they have to improve flow by three times the amount of flow they expect to add.
Fiore motion to reconsider defeated.
Article 51 - Appropriation/Pension Adjustments: FinComm recommended a vote as set forth in its report which was approved unanimously.
Article 52 - Position Reclassification
- FinComm recommended a vote as set forth in its report.
- Mr. Foskett corrected the report by deleting section A(3) of the recommended vote (eliminating reclassifying the superintendant of highway and sewer to assistant DPW director).
- Mr. Abbott asked if the changes were in the budget and if making these changes obliged us to fund them.
- Ms. Malloy said that additions were only changes to the plan and did not make salary changes to existing positions but that reclassifications would and that was why the article also called for a $5,764 appropriation.
- FinComm recommendation approved unanimously.
Article 53 - Establish 200th Anniversary Commmittee: FinComm recommended a vote as set forth in its report which was approved unanimously.
Article 54 - Appropriation/Peirce School
- FinComm recommended a vote as set forth in its report.
- Mr. Foskett corrected the vote to be a total of $70,000 and to take $46,000 from the Elementary School Interest account instead of $43,000 from the Dallin account.
- Mr. Chaput asked if some of the money was coming from the Brackett account. The Moderator said it would. Mr. Chaput said some landscaping work in the corner of the playground area is not done and asked if this meant it would never be done. Mr. Shea said that all Brackett work is done. Mr. Chaput asked when the landscaping would be done. Mr. Shea said it was never part of the project. Mr. Chaput asked if the account would be zeroed. Mr. Shea said it would be. Mr. Chaput said he was not happy.
- Mr. Trembly asked what the $70,000 was for. Mr. Shea said it was for soils testing at the beginning of the project as the Town had mislaid the invoice and only just found it and for architectural services related to HVAC and accessibility issues.
- Ms. Harrington suggested taking the entire $70,000 from the Elementary School Interest account and leaving the Brackett account alone. Mr. Shea said the PTBC felt the Brackett project was over and it was time for the BoS to make decisions on what would should be done there.
- FinComm recommendation approved.
Motion to adjourn approved.
Adjourned at 23:04 until 23 May at 20:00.

2005-05-17T21:39:00.000-04:00

Some SchoolComm details

The actual School Department budget report that was handed out at TM last night does not seem to be anywhere online yet. So for the time being, you'll have to be satisfied with this possibly preliminary information.

2005-05-17T21:25:00.000-04:00

Vision 2020 report available

And here is the Vision 2020 report, which I believe is the most useful V2020 report I've seen since I've been in TM, mainly on the strength of the spending retrospective study.

2005-05-17T21:05:00.000-04:00

Town Manager's budget reduction presentation now available

Here is the report, which is a 77KB PDF. I've added a link to it in last night's notes, too.

2005-05-17T01:31:00.000-04:00

Session 7 -- and you thought TM was boring!

Annual meeting called to order at 20:06.
Arlington Madrigal Singers performed the National Anthem plus a four-song mini-concert.
Voted that when the ATM adjourn, it adjourn to 17 May at 20:00.
Mr. Hurd announced the World Series trophy will be on display at the Veterans' Memorial Rink from 14:00-16:00 on 18 May.
Mr. Tosti moved to table articles 17, 29-41. Tabled.
Article 42 - Budgets
- The Moderator declared the meeting in recess so that no presenter or questioner would be counted as having spoken under the article.
- The vast majority of the presentation was paraphrasing or directly reading a report the Town Manager's office had created and put in our seats and pages II-3 and II-4 of the School Department budget. Noting what presenters said would essentially be reproducing those reports. So for the presentations I only noted who spoke (and for what) and jotted down something here or there that was not in the reports and caught me interest.
- Mr. Sullivan presented the opening of his report, the main point of which is that there is a $2,000,000 structural deficit. He feels that is caused by a revenue problem and not an expenditures problem.
- Ms. Loud presented the libraries slide. She also noted that being decertified could cost the libraries an additional $31,000 in lost grants and $52,000 in lost state funds.
- Ms. Kraemer presented the Department of Human Services slides.
- Mr. Sanchez presented the DPW slides.
- Chief McEwen presented the AFD slides. He noted that if the override did not pass, an engine company would periodically have to to be shut down.
- Chief Ryan presented the APD slides. He noted there are only 5 patrol officers on duty at one time on average.
- Mr. Sullivan presented the slides for general administration.
- Ms. Donovan went over pages II-3 and II-4 of the School Committee budget report, which listed what would be cut if the override did not pass.
- Mr. Roselli said the Town should get rid of staff cars and asked if car expenses had been looked at. Mr. Sullivan said it has been examined at that steps have been taken to reduce it. He said the cost of employees driving their cars home is minimal compared to on-the-job use. Mr. Roselli attempted to continue, but the Moderator shut him down to give other questioners a chance.
- Mr. Abbott said he thought the Town was responsible for school building maintenance and asked what the delination was. Ms. Donovan said all the custodians are in the School Department budget, but that when they work on a Town-side building, the School Department bills the Town so each side pays its fair share.
- Mr. Dunn noted that 57% of the dollar amount of the budget is for teacher pay but that 74% of the headcount reduction falls on teachers. Ms. Donovan replied that seniority requires the newest (and thus cheapest) teachers to be laid off first, so a given dollar cut in teacher pay will result in a higher number of teachers positions being cut than a given dollar cut in administrator pay would result in administrative position cuts. She also said the last round of cuts fell heavily on the administrative side.
- Ms. Weaver asked how the assistant DPW director position and its SUV could be justified. Mr. Sullivan said that the DPW director is planning to move his office to the DPW yard which would eliminate the need for the position and that the recommendation is that the position would be eliminated. He said the SUV is necessary for the DPW director's job. Ms. Weaver asked about the position upgrade in the Recreation Department. Mr. Sullivan said the rec enterprise fund is self-supporting and that the upgrade does not affect operating budgets. He said the upgrade was, among other things, to do more grant-writing and that it had worked out well.
- Mr. Berkowitz, saying that people in favor of the override were "preaching to the choir" at TM and asked TMMs to push the override. He said he worried override proponents were not doing a good enough job of making their case and asked how TMMs could better make a pro-override case. Mr. Sullivan said that as a Town employee he cannot promote an override but said he could make people and material available to state the facts. Ms. LaCourt agreed that it was not proper for Town employees to promote an override and told override supporters to talk to members of the pro-override campaign.
- Ms. Friedman asked about a cut of a HS academic position and its relation to a cut of five secondary teaching positions. Ms. Donovan said the former was targeted in relation to student interests but that the latter could end up falling anywhere.
- Mr. Smith asked how the comparable communities shown in the tables in the Town Manager's reports were chosen. Mr. Sullivan said he picked the 20 municipalities in eastern MA he felt were most similar by a number of demographics.
- Ms. Stetson asked what elementary school "basic library services" were and how they would be offered with no school librarians. Ms. Donovan said if the override failed the professional librarians would be cut and volunteers and teachers' assistants would be used to man the elementary school libraries. Ms. Stetson asked how the Town library could pick up the slack. Ms. Loud said it could not and that even now co-ordination between Town and school libraries has suffered.
- Ms. Carlyle noted a line on page II-3 of the School Department report that said there was "no current interest" in the business program at the high school and asked if that program would be eliminated even if the override passed. Ms. Donovan said it would.
- Mr. Curro asked why the list of comparable municipalities in the APD slides were so different than those in all the other slides. Chief Ryan said they were drawn from a urban/suburban/rural mix that mirrors comparables used in collective bargaining.
- Mr. Jamieson said the reason SPED expenditures are left untouched while in-district expenditures are cut is due to state law. He also asked if the library system would fail all three certification criteria if the override failed. Ms. Loud said that it would and that a spending cut would be looked at disfavorably by the waiver-granting authority.
- Ms. Crowley asked if the cuts would accelerate redistricing and if redistricting would help class size. Ms. Donovan said it could help in a few instances.
- Mr. Spangler asked if it would still be necessary to raise senior tax exemptions if the override failed. Mr. Tosti said the BoS recommended the change both to cushion the blow of an override but also because of taxes in general.
- Ms. Kirby asked if there is a longer-term analysis of a failed override. Mr. Tosti said there was one in the back of the FinComm report. Ms. Kirby asked if it was at the budget level. Mr. Tosti said it was not. Mr. Sullivan said that even though the deficit is $4,000,000 this year, a $6,000,000 override was asked for to help build some cushion for following years.
- The Moderator declared the ATM back in session.
Mr. Tosti moved to postpone articles 42 and 47 to 13 June. Approved.
Mr. Tosti moved to take articles 17, 29-41 from the table. Approved.
The Moderator declared the ATM in recess.
STM called to order.
Voted that when STM is adjourned, it adjourn to 18 May at 20:00.
Article 6 - Resolution/Naming
- BoS recommended a vote of no action.
- Mr. Carreiro offered a resolution requesting Town boards, committees, and employees to follow the Public Memorials Commission by-law.
- Ms. Lovelace said SchoolComm had "permanently" changed its policy to refer namings to the PMC.
- Mr. Jamieson moved the previous question, which passed unanimously. Debate terminated.
- Carreiro resolution approved unanimously.
Mr. Tosti moved Article 1 be removed from the table. Approved.
Mr. Tosti moved the STM be dissolved. Approved unanimously.
Back into the Annual Town Meeting.
Article 17 - Bylaw/Lighting
- BoS had recommended a vote of no action.
- Mr. Gilligan replaced his previous substitute motion with a newer one that no longer banned specific lighting uses and that placed enforcement on the Building Inspector. He introduced Cindy Tollman, the main proponent.
- Ms. Tollman said the motion had been revised with input from many people and thanked Mr. Maher for his drafting help.
- Mr. Berkowitz said it was a reasonable balance between public welfare and individual rights and that he supported it.
- Mr. Fitzmaurice said he sympathized with the proponent but would not vote for it because it appeared to outlaw porch lights.
- Ms. Kirby said she was in support of it, because among other things it would protect the value of an astronomer friend's investment in his home.
- Mr. Burke said he thought it was ridiculous and that one should just pull down the shade if light is in one's window. He said not many stars can be seen in Arlington and that all outdoor lights in town would be affected due to high housing density. He said the motion had no merit and Town Meeting had more important things to discuss.
- Mr. Daly said he was concerned and worried about safety. He also said it infringed on individual rights and would ruin the value of lighting systems people have placed on their property. He said it would add workload to the Building Inspector. He said the intentions were good but that he opposed it.
- Mr. Trembly asked if there was a specific problem. Ms. Tollman said she has had problems with neighbors deliberately shining lights at her and has heard of similar problems from other people. She said similar lighting restrictions were already in place on commercial properties. Mr. Trembly said it was not appropriate to regulate 45,000 people because of problems faced by a view and urged a vote against the motion.
- Mr. Dunn asked why light shining on streets should be banned. Ms. Tollman said some lights are too bright and are a public safety issue. Mr. Dunn said specific, problematic lights should be dealt with instead of banning lights shining on streets everywhere and said he opposed the motion.
- Mr. Foskett said that light is important for personal safety (such as climbing stairs) and in his view the motion would ban all useful-to-personal-safety lights.
- Mr. Gilligan said the proposal would only swing into action if someone complained and that no reasonable Building Inspector would issue a citation over a porch light. He said this provides equity and a means of recourse and that it is not about "the light police".
- Mr. Hayward worried that it could affect the Town's ability to light playing fields at night and was opposed to it.
- Mr. Abbott said recourse is needed and that it is silly to have something covering commercial properties but not residential. He said the Building Inspector would ignore something like a porch light and urged support.
- Mr. Bernardin moved the previous question. Debate terminated.
- Gilligan motion to substitute approved 80-74.
- BoS recommendation as substituted approved 80-73.
Article 29 - Home Rule Petition/Civil Service
- BoS recommended a vote to send in a home rule petition to remove School Department clerical workers from civil service, per the workers' request.
- Mr. Roselli moved to adjourn. Defeated.
- Mr. Roselli said he had more information coming and moved to postpone to 25 May.
- Ms. Donovan said the clerical workers asked for this.
- Mr. Daly said there were merits to both sides and that debate should be postponed until the information came.
- Mr. Bernardin moved the previous question on the motion to postpone. Debate terminated on the motion to postpone.
- Roselli motion to postpone defeated 65-68.
- The Moderator asked if there were any substitute motions. Mr. Roselli said he had had one but the Moderator had ruled it outside the scope of the article. The Moderator asked if Mr. Roselli had another motion, which he did not.
- Ms. Donovan said all the members of the bargaining unit (except for three who were absent) had signed a letter saying they wanted to be dropped from civil service and that Mr. Roselli was mistaken when he said they did not know what they were doing. Ms. Donovan read the letter.
- Mr. Jamieson moved the previous question on all matters under the article. Defeated 84-56 (requires 2/3rds) and debate not terminated.
Motion to adjourn approved.
Adjourned at 23:07 to 18 May at 20:00.

2005-05-12T03:06:00.000-04:00

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.

2005-05-10T01:57:00.000-04:00

Session 5 -- by a hair's breadth

Annual Town Meeting called to order at 20:04.
Voted that when we adjourn we adjourn to 11 May at 20:00.
Annual Town Meeting declared in recess by the Moderator.
27 April Special Town Meeting called to order.
Voted that when we adjourn we adjourn to 11 May at 20:00.
Article 1 - Reports
- Report of ARB to STM received.
- Article 1 tabled.
Article 2 - Zoning Bylaw/Symmes
- ARB recommended a vote to remove ", and must include a significant medical use" from the MU district description.
- Mr. Tsoi asked for a 50 minute extension for a total of one hour. Objections were received, so a vote was taken. Extension of time approved. Mr. Tsoi said the site was originally zoned H, but since all the proposals received had a mix of uses, the change to the new MU district was needed. He said that since the the BoS, ARB, SAC, etc. all wanted to see a medical use, mandating that in the bylaw seemed the right thing to do. He said that at last September's STM the ARB was only given an hour to consider the Worden amendment (adding the medical use mandate) but that it appeared to capture the agreement between all the boards and so the ARB endorsed it. Despite that, he said it now had to be taken out because it leaves open the possibility the entire site could become non-conforming and that possibility has caused lenders to refuse to finance the project and would even cause them to refuse to give financing to individual condo owners. Mr. Tsoi next asked Mr. Maher to speak.
- Mr. Maher said "I blew it". He said he should have realized the ramifications of the Worden amendment, that though he did not get it until 16:00 on the day of the vote, he should have realized the problem and admitted he failed to give the Town good advice. He said he was the one who convinced Town officials to endorse the amendment. He said that the consensus of attorneys he has spoken to is that MGL 40A in fact prohibits what the Worden amendment does, but that some other attorneys he respects have different opinions. He said that "to a man" every attorney he has talked to says no lender would agree to financing with the current zoning language in place because of the possibility that the entire site could become non-conforming.
- Mr. O'Brien said back in October the CEO of Mount Auburn said she was very concerned with the zoning language and felt it would cause financing problems. He said the Town developed a legal opinion to try to convince lenders but they would not accept. He said a lawyer the Town and developer hired (as part of trying to sell the legal opinion to financers) also agreed lenders would refuse to lend. Mr. O'Brien pointed out the copies of recent letters from Mount Auburn and the law firm stating this problem. He said after that October meeting there was much discussion on how to get financing but that the parties were forced to the conclude it could not be done.
- Mr. Tsoi said that if the language were removed there would still be protections. He said the LDA had just been renegotiated to remove the ability of the developer to buy out of the MOB and replace it with residential units. He said the ARB is committed to getting a medical use and that the ARB must come back to Town Meeting for approval of any non-medical use at the MOB site. He said that if the repeal of the Worden amendment failed, the project could not proceed and the Town would have to sit on the land. He said that even if a developer could be found who did not require financing to build the project, that developer would not proceed because it would never be able to sell the condos because lenders would refuse to give financing to prospective condo buyers for the same reason they would refuse to give financing to the developer. Mr. Tsoi said when the problem was discovered the developer could have stopped all work but instead has moved ahead on the MOB and that the public hearings are almost complete on the special permit for the MOB. He said that for each year the project remains stalled, the cost to the town in interest and foregone tax revenue would be $1,500,000 to $2,000,000.
- Mr. Bilafer pointed out that a representation of medical use was not the only representation made to the voters. He said a representation of revenue neutrality was also made and he considered that equal to the medical use representation. He said a no action vote would stall the project completely and would delay it at least a year. He said the delay would put $200,000 of debt service into the FY06 budget and $600,000 into the FY07 budget which would be paid for by a tax increase. He said he is firmly convinced Town officials are committed to having a medical use and that the ARB motion should be supported.
- Mr. Hurd said the BoS has not wavered in its commitment to get a medical use on the site and that the ARB motion should be supported.
- Mr. Tsoi said this was probably the most important vote the ARB has put before Town Meeting in his ARB term and that the ARB was asking for the tools it needed to implement the project. He urged a vote in favor of the ARB recommendation.
- Mr. Fischer asked for and received an extra five minutes. He said there is much evidence that the existing building is worth $12,000,000 and therefore should not be sold for $8,100,000, that he did not want to vote on this tonight and that he did not want the existing building demolished, as hospitals are commanding high prices. He said there is a shortage of beds and mentioned Winchester Hospital's acquisition of new land to offload outpatient services and MGH using operating rooms at Waltham Hospital. He said we should just sell the building, as medical office use is of little value and that more hospital beds are needed. He introduced Ms. Kolague(sp?), a resident of the Town.
- Ms. Kolague said she is a Symmes abutter and would love to see additional medical uses. She said the Town needs to look at using the building as a hospital and asked what terms have been offered to medical providers and whether a real medical use broker had been used for marketing. She said the zoning change should be delayed until use of the existing building was further investigated.
- Mr. Fischer moved to recess the STM until 13 June to give more time to look at selling/using the existing hospital building.
- Ms. Harrington urged a no vote or at least a vote for recessing. She said the ARB mislead Town Meeting in September by not informing the meeting that it knew there were problems with the amendment because it wanted favorable action on changing the site from H to MU. She said the ARB should consider why people distrust it. She asked how we could believe that the ARB would not change the LDA to be more favorable to the developer. She said that anyone who would have voted against the rezone last September if the Worden amendment was not in place should vote against removing it here.
- Mr. Tsoi rose to a point of personal privilege and said the ARB did not hide anything. He said the developer was cautious about the amendment but the ARB felt it would be in the best interest of the Town and endorsed it.
- Mr. Lavalle said that voting to repeal the Worden amendment would betray promises made about having a medical facility but that voting no action would be bad as well. He said he did not like being backed into a corner and would vote no.
- Mr. Judd said that Mr. Fischer's motion was the wisest course of action and that taking a vote tonight would be hasty. He said he was frustrated with the course of events and would not mind Lahey leaving town and never coming back because he believes Lahey did not care about the best interests of the Town. He said that if voters knew what they know now, they may well not have approved the purchase. He said that we were being asked to take things on faith and so asked what other things like NESWC, Minuteman, snow removal, and pothole repair that we have been asked to take on faith. He said he would abstain "in disgust" on a vote on the ARB motion and said he supported the motion to recess.
- Mr. Kazarian said he would vote in favor of the ARB motion and noted that since we had already agreed to the sell the land, all that is before the meeting is a simple zoning change. He said that even though the zoning mandate of a medical use would be gone, the LDA still has protections. He pointed that another reason he was voting yes was that if the Town took the land back via the LDA, even the Town would be unable to develop anything without the zoning change because lenders would refuse financing to the Town for the same reason they would refuse it to the developer. Mr. Kazarian asked if the developer could interfere with Town use of land reverted back to the Town. Mr. Tsoi said the developer had some rights to challenge Town use if it materially damaged the value of the rest of the site or competed with what the developer was building and that he could not imagine the Town proposing a use that would compete with the developer's plans for the rest of the site as such a use would be residential.
- Mr. Rehrig said that SAC had endorsed the Worden amendment, seeing it as a way to reinforce use intentions. Despite that, he said it needed to be repealed as had been previously explained. He said we have gone through an exhaustive four-year public process of balancing desires and fears about the site and that people would have to accept that no proposal would satisfy everyone. He noted the current proposal meets the SAC goals that Town Meeting had twice endorsed and that in 2002, 2003, and 2004 Town Meeting had voted to approve the nature and scope of of the development proposal. Mr. Rehrig said that while a medical use cannot be guaranteed unless the Town goes into the healthcare business, there is a concerted effort to get that use as the LDA is geared toward making the medical use happen and that if the developer refuses to attempt the use, the Town gets the MOB site back plus a penalty fee. He urged support of the ARB recommendation.
- Mr. Bernardin said he felt like the frog in the heat-it-slowly situation. He asked why the Town bothered to buy the property if there were going to be 250 residential units there and said we would only be asked to give up more.
- Mr. Doherty asked how much of the $14,000,000 is left. Mr. O'Brien said the Town borrowed $11,500,000 and hs spent $11,000,000. Mr. Doherty said the Town's effort has been well-intentioned but misguided and that a lot has changed since the vote. While he said he believed the Fish proposal was the best and the ARB made the correct decision, he endorsed stepping back and exploring further options, such as spending $2,000,000 to buy down the density. He urged a vote to recess or for no action.
- Ms. Lowenstein said she had been asked about the fact that the ARB is not legally obliged to come back to Town Meeting to get approval for a non-medical use. She detailed how all the ARB members are long time residents with a lot invested in the town and could not imagine the ARB breaking its promise to return to Town Meeting for such a vote.
- Mr. Abbott said he opposed the ARB motion as he only voted for the rezone last year because of the Worden amendment. He said a no vote is necessary to uphold the credibility of the Town and Town Meeting. He noted the LDA terms are controlled by the ARB and said he did not like how the medical marketing has been done. He urged a vote to recess.
- Mr. Ruderman moved the previous question. Debate terminated, doubted, debate terminated 116-49.
- Fischer motion to recess defeated, doubted, defeated 58-110.
- ARB recommendation approved 115-57 (a one-vote margin since 2/3 needed).
Article 3 - Abandon ROW
- BoS recommended a vote to release a right-of-way on the Symmes site.
- Mr. Maher said this was a matter of cleaning up the title and was missed when Town Meeting released other items last year. He said the ROW was no longer used. The Moderator said a 2/3 vote was required.
- BoS recommendation approved 138-7.
Article 4 - Home Rule Petition/Symmes
- BoS recommended a vote as set forth in its report to petition for home rule legislation allowing revenues from the Symmes site to be partially sequestered.
- Mr. Maher said Town Meeting overwhelmingly approved this at the September STM but for some reason the Legislature did not like that and required a re-vote. He said the idea is to keep the project off the tax rate by keeping sales proceeds, fees, and tax revenues in the project instead of letting them flow to the general fund. He said the Treasurer and BoS would have discretion on when to transfer monies from the special fund to the general fund.
- Mr. Fischer asked what is magical about the legislation that would keep it off the tax rate and asked why this was not done with Gibbs and other properties. Mr. Maher said no representations were made about Gibbs and that without this special legislation state law would require the assessors to put the debt service on the tax rate. Mr. Tosti said that there are two money streams -- debt service going out and tax revenues coming in and that this legislation would keep the two connected. Mr. Fischer said the proposal was too complicated and unnecessary and urged a no vote.
- Mr. Sullivan said that when money from the project comes in it would normally be available for Town Meeting to spend on anything and that the legislation would force it to be spent on debt service.
- Mr. Ford asked what happens when the debt is paid off. Mr. Maher said that when the State declares the debt is paid off, the fund will terminate and any remaining monies will go into the general fund. Mr. Ford said he felt Town Meeting should have the say on what to do with any yearly surpluses. Mr. Maher said that since state law reserves it to the Treasurer and BoS to set debt repayment schedules, they should have the discretion to decide how much money is kept in the fund to pay the debt and how much can roll into the general fund.
Motion to adjourn STM approved.
Motion to adjourn ATM approved.

2005-05-05T01:08:00.000-04:00

Session 4 notes -- enlightenment?

Meeting called to order at 20:04.
Ottoson Select Chorus sang the National Anthem and did a 3-song mini-concert.
The Moderator commented about how some other towns actually have precinct activity and that Arlington used to.
Voted that when we adjourn, we adjourn to 20:00 on 9 May.
Ms. Lowenstein asked everyone to pray for Ms. Krepelka (BoS executive secretary and a TMM) as she recovers from breast cancer surgery.
Mr. Judd announced that the Hurd 5K Walk for the benefit of the Arlington Association for Retarded Citizens will be on 15 May. He also moved a resolution that the Town wish Ms. Krepelka all the best on her recovery, which was adopted by unanimous consent.
Article 2 removed from table.
Article 2 - Committee Reports
- 2004 Annual Town Report was received.
- Ms. Rowe, introduced Ms. Thomas, who will be leaving to take the Knight chair for medical journalism at the University of Georgia, to give the tree committee report.
- Ms. Thomas said the committee quickly realized there was no political will to pass a tree-protection bylaw and so re-focussed on education. She noted the committee now has a website at http://www.arlingtontrees.org. She said the Town has also started a pilot program using Reservoir Dam remediation funds where by residents can put up half the cost of a street tree and the Town puts in the other half via those funds and that as a result the Town has actually planted more trees last year than were removed.
- Article 2 tabled.
Article 11 - Zoning Bylaw/Affordable Housing
- Mr. Judd said he was puzzled at the ARB's objections and said this would only give some flexibility. He wondered why changing the MU zoning is fine for the ARB article in the STM but not here. He moved an amendment to the substitute motion written by Mr. Fischer which would further restrict waivers to only MU districts.
- Mr. Jones moved the previous question. Failed.
- Mr. Deyst said that rules changing in mid-stream can cause difficulties. He said changing the rules could result in a series of lawsuits and delays which would put the Town's $13 million investment at higher risk.
- Mr. Loreti asked if the substitute motion would require the ARB to grant a clustering waiver. Ms. Mann said "no". Mr. Loreti asked if it requires the ARB to make two findings. Ms. Mann said "yes". Mr. Loreti asked if the substitute motion would change the requirements for uniformity of appearance and quality. Ms. Mann said it would because the nature of clustering changes the units' appearance and that Fish's proposal would have the clustered units looking quite different. Mr. Loreti said the bylaw already has exceptions and that the developer can even buy his way out of the requirements. He wondered if negotiations would really have to start over and asked about legalities. Mr. Maher said that if this change had happened between the RFP and designating a developer there would have been lawsuit issues but forsees none arising out of this. Mr. Loreti asked how the substitute motion could undo SAC's work. Mr. Tsoi disagreed with Mr. Maher's assessment of lawsuit possibilities. Mr. Loreti asked if any losing party has talked about suing. Mr. Tsoi says none have but that nothing has been passed yet. Mr. Loreti said he supported the substitute motion.
- Ms. Leiberson said we have no affordable assisted living even though it had once been discussed as a priority. She said the meeting is very divided about the need for it and therefore should vote for the substitute motion to preserve flexibility.
- Mr. O'Conor said he has two austistic sisters who have had problems living in non-clustered environments but nevertheless was against the substitute motion. He said he does not want to weaken the bylaw and force the ARB into more appeals. He was also worried about this setting a precedent of "quarantining" people with similar disabilities.
- Ms. Harrington said that suggestions Mr. Ellis and his neighbors want to harm the bylaw are ludicrous. She said the substitute motion would in fact allow Fish to build a proposal that was lauded when it first came out. She said she did not understand the vehemence of opposition. She said she was unsure of how she would vote.
- Mr. Lavalle said he was unsure how to vote. He received clarification that what we were voting on read "may remain", not "could remain". He asked if the developer was in favor of the substitute motion. Mr. O'Brien said he had received a draft letter from Fish saying they would like to build the clustered units if the substitute motion passed.
- Ms. Fiore said we were arguing over something that might happen and that we change bylaws all the time. She said a provision should be made for clustering.
- Mr. Carreiro moved the previous question on all matters. Debate terminated.
- Judd amendment defeated.
- Ellis substitute motion defeated on voice vote.
- Ellis substitute motion defeated 69-110 on voice vote.
Article 17 - Bylaw/Lighting
- BoS recommended no action.
- Mr. Hurd said the primary reason for no action was concern that it was an improper use of enforcement resources.
- Mr. Gilligan made a substitute motion which read:
  In all residential neighborhoods no outdoor floodlighting or decorative lighting, except lighting primarily designed to illuminate walks, driveways, outdoor living areas, or outdoor recreational facilities, and except temporary holiday lighting in use for not longer than a four-week period in a calendar year, shall be permitted. Any permanent lighting permitted by the preceding sentence shall be continuous, indirect, and installed in a manner that will prevent direct light from shining on to any street or adjacent property.
  Mr. Gilligan than introduced Ms. Tolman, a resident of the Town, to speak to the substitute motion.
- Ms. Tolman thanked the Town for obeying disabled-access rules. She said the intent of the motion is to reduce light trespass, pollution, and glare, to conserve energy and make the Town more attractive. She said the motion is mostly borrowed from Cambridge and many other municipalities have much more specific bylaws and none have had problems. She said a "reasonable person" standard could be used when deciding what violations to go after and that Cambridge says enforcement takes few resources.
- Ms. Fiore said she supported the substitute motion. She said believed there were some incidents of harrassment by light which were involved.
- Mr. Hayner asked who picks which four weeks of the year holiday lighting can be put up. The Moderator said a resident would pick his own four weeks. Mr. Hayner said the concept is excellent but worries about the wording.
- Mr. Carreiro, saying he had received a question about it, asked if the proposal would prevent illumination of US flags. Mr. Maher said it would. Mr. Carreiro said that while he thought the final sentence of the substitute motion was a good idea, he would like to see everything before that stricken. He said he did not want to amend from the floor but suggested that perhaps a future speaker could offer an amendment but that for now he would vote against the substitute motion.
- Mr. Coletta asked if the enforcement issues was that too much of a burden would be placed on resources, or if so little enforcement was needed that it would not matter. Chief Ryan said given how stretched the police department was, enforcement would be very unlikely.
- Mr. Streitfeld said he liked the intent but had problems with the wording. He moved to postpone to 11 May.
- Postponement failed, vote doubted.
- Postponed, 104-33.
Article 25 - Home Rule Petition/Pacheco
- BoS recommended no action as the Legislature's action made this moot.
- No action approved.
Article 26 - Home Rule Petition/Board of Survey
- BoS recommended a vote of no action.
- Mr. Maher said the proponents have the right idea but are going about it wrong and that it would be better to adopt the state's subdivision control law, which 351 municipalities have. He said despite the proponents' assertions it is about land control since one cannot build unless there is frontage and on big enough lots, new roads are needed to provide that frontage. He said the BoS can only consider width, grade, and direction and that the current MGL on Boards of Survey has exactly the same restrictions on discretion as the Town's 19th-century Special Law. Mr. Maher said the substitute motion would require the BoS to find a road a necessity in order to approve it. He said that the subcontrol law would put the decisions in the hands of the ARB, who are more well-versed on land use and planning than the BoS. He also said the subdivision control law has well-developed caselaw around it while leaving the BoS to interpret a high standard would likely prompt lawsuits. He said the things the proponents want the BoS to consider are what the ARB would have to consider if the Town accepted the subdivision control law. He said that developments can get very emotional and so it would be better to have the decisions made by an appointed, expert body than an elected one.
- Ms. Worden said the standard is "reasonable necessity", not "necessity". She said the Town deserves the protections 347 other Towns have and that rather than wait for the subdivision control law to be reformed, the Town should protect itself now. She said the chance of suit must be balanced against the public benefit and that the chance of suit was low. Ms. Worden said the Town has too many streets and the BoS must be given the ability to reject them.
- Mr. Abbott asked if the BoS really has such little authority. Mr. Maher said that if the proposed street meets Town standards on grade, width, and direction, the BoS is required to approve it.
- Mr. Loreti asked if the Planning Board has any current authority. Mr. Maher said only for uses that would not be by right. Mr. Loreti asked if the subdivision control law could be adopted piecemeal. Mr. Maher said it was all or none. Mr. Loreti asked if the BoS could give a report in six months on the feasibility of adopting the subdivision control law. The Moderator said the BoS would do that.
- Mr. Jamieson moved the previous question. Debate terminated.
- Worden substitute motion defeated.
- No action approved.
Article 27 - Acceptance of Legislation/Tax Exemptions
- BoS recommended accepting legislation to ease eligibility rules for senior tax exemptions and to double the exemptions from $500 to $1000 as set forth in its report.
- Mr. Maher explained the changes and said it is not known how many additional people will apply.
- Mr. Jamieson said this is part of the five-year fiscal plan and pointed out the BoS report said this is to encourage people to vote for the override.
- Mr. Judd said it is worthy but will not change minds on the override.
- Ms. Dunn asked when limits were last changed. Mr. Doherty said that exemption amounts were increased last year and two years ago. Ms. Dunn asked when asset and income limitations were increased. Mr. Doherty said they had not been, aside from increases in the income limits caused by indexation to social security benefits.
- Motion made on the previous question. Debate terminated.
- BoS recommendation approved.
Article 28 - Home Rule Petition/Symmes
- BoS recommended no action as this article will be covered in the 27 April STM.
- No action approved.
Article 29 - Home Rule Petition/Civil Service
- BoS recommended a vote as set forth in its report to seek legislation removing school-side secretarial staff from civil service.
- Ms. Donovan said the secretarial union asked for this in contract negotiations as there has not been an exam in seven years and no list exists. She said the union preferred contract-based protections and its own seniority list.
- Mr. Roselli asked for a total of 20 minutes and received it. He said the voters approved civil service in 1934 and that the secretaries do not know what they are doing. He discussed the procedures and duties around provisional appointments. He asked why we are being asked to take these people out of civil service when we recently put the police and fire chiefs back in. He said he opposed the BoS recommendation.
- Mr. Lavalle moved to postpone to 11 May.
- Postponed.
Motion to adjourn approved.
Adjourned at 23:10 to 9 May at 20:00.

2005-05-03T01:14:00.000-04:00

Session 3 notes

Called to order at 20:03.
Voted that when we adjourn we adjourn to 4 May at 20:00.
Article 22 - Bylaw Amendment/Newsracks
- Mr. Maher corrected where in the existing by-law the new wording would go and recapped his description from last time.
- Mr. Dunn asked if anyone would be refused from putting up newsracks. Mr. Maher said no.
- Mr. Burke asked where the $15,000 figure came from, saying it was nonsense. Mr. Maher said that is what the manufacturers charge but that the newspapers vendors would pay off the Town's cost over five years. Mr. Burke said it could be done more cheaply.
- Ms. Carlisle asked if the cost was $75,000 and if there is any indication it would be attractive to vendors. Mr. Maher replied finding that out is the point of the proposed pilot program.
- Mr. Abbott asked if the plan was legally-blessed. Mr. Maher did not know of any municipalities in Massachusetts doing this but that it has been done elsewhere and that if the vendors indicated that would challenge in court, he would not recommend going forward any further.
- Mr. Jamieson moved the previous question. Debate terminated.
- BoS recommendation defeated on a voice vote and doubted.
- BoS recommendation defeated 84-89.
Article 19 - Bylaw Amendment/Noise
- Mr. Fitzmaurice said the current bylaw restricts hours, not noise level and that 85dB was a good goal. He said the ARB and BoS have expressed concerns in the alst day and moved to table.
- Tabled.
- Mr. Spangler gave a demonstration of an 85dB rock crusher.
Article 23 - Pleasant Street District
- Arlington Historical Commission recommended a vote to enlarge the Pleasant Street Historic District by adding various properties on Academy, Ravine, etc.
- The AHC Chair said the expansion would fill the gap between the Pleasant Street and Jason/Grey districts, that the process was driven by the residents, and that in both formal and informal hearings, no opposition or negative feedback was presented.
- Mr. Rehrig thanked the AHC for guiding the neighborhood through the process.
- Mr. Judd asked if the Pleasant and Jason/Grey districts would remain distinct, if any negative feedback was heard, and if any legal problems were forseen with the expansion. The AHC chair replied "yes" and "no" to the first two and Mr. Maher replied "no" to the last.
- Mr. Cleinman moved the previous question. Debate terminated.
- AHC recommendation approved unanimously.
Article 12 - Zoning Bylaw/Affordable Housing
- Ms. Worden introduced Mr. Griffin, an AHA director.
- Mr. Griffin said that nothing Town Meeting could discuss would do anything about 264 Massachusetts Avenue.
- Mr. Dunn reiterated his online comments and urged a vote against Mr. Abbott's substitute motion.
- Mr. Foskett said substitution motion would have a substitutive effect and not an additive one on the number of affordable units and urged it be voted down.
- Mr. Abbott said there is currently nothing that requires approval of the marketing plan or a local preference and that his motion is not purely substitutive.
- Ms. LaCourt (as a TMM) asked if there was any reason aside from cost why the AHA could not buy a market-rate unit and rent it out. Mr. Griffin said DHCD would not allow it. Mr. O'Brien said DHCD is not intrinsically opposed but is concerned about cost. Ms. LaCourt said she was against the substitute motion since the purpose of the existing zoning by-law is to increase the number of affordable units available for purchase.
- Mr. Judd, noting he is an AHA tenant, said the substitute motion was straightforward, the AHA has had excellent performance, that he trusts the AHA more than the ARB, and urged support for the substitute motion.
- Mr. Holman asked if this was an attempt to make units affordable in perpetuity. Mr. Griffin said it was, but noted that the inclusionary bylaw units are as well. Mr. Holman asked if this was an attempt to extend the units down to renters. Mr. Griffin said it was. Mr. Holman asked what the rationale was for a preference for Town employees. Mr. Griffin talked about preference procedure. Mr. Holman noted that since Arlington has no residency requirement for Town employees, he would like to know the rationale. He asked if it would substitute rentals for purchases. Mr. Griffen said it would.
- The Moderator noted that the Rule Against Perpetuities would stop the inclusionary bylaw units from being affordable forever, whilst the AHA would keep its units affordable forever becuase its charter is to rent at affordable rates.
- Mr. Leone said he was opposed to the substitute motion and to taking a unit designated as being for a homeowner and making it a rental forever. He mentioned he had a client who just won a spot in the Park Avenue Extension development and was so happy to have a chance to own. He said we cannot take that away from people.
- Mr. Carreiro moved the previous question. Debate terminated.
- Abbott substitute motion defeated.
- ARB recommendation of no action approved.
Article 11 - Zoning Bylaw/Affordable Housing
- Mr. Ellis said his substitute motion would essentially only effect the Symmes property. He said the current bylaw killed Fish's original proposal by eliminating the $2 million subsidy the clustered special needs units would bring. He said getting that back would reduce the development from around 275 units to around 240 units and that even the developer says the development is too big. He said it merely adds flexibility and the ARB can choose not to waive clustering on any project and that lowering the density is very important to the neighborhood.
- Ms. Mann said she was against the substitute motion because there is a much higher relative need for affordable family housing than elderly housing, because the change will have problems being upheld at Symmes because all the bidding by all bidders was with clustering prohibited, and that bad facts make bad law, as trying to do everything with the inclusionary zoning will make it ineffective. She also said there is no demonstrated need for these kinds of units and it can be accomodated in other ways.
- Mr. Curro supported the substitute motion. He said the special needs units would help attract and keep medical uses, increase the number of affordable units, lower density, and guarantee that the nurses' building would be renovated.
- Ms. Friedman asked what the HCA director felt. Ms. Wiener said the relative need is for family housing and that the proposal would eliminate 40 units of that.
- Mr. Spangler introduced Ms. Dash of SNAC.
- Ms. Dash said the inclusionary bylaw increased density by 10%, an unintended consequence. She said the law needs to be reconsidered and not to lose neighborhood concerns in discussions of "the common good".
- Mr. Abbott said this would merely give the ARB the authority to waive the anti-clustering provisions and that he found it hard to believe the ARB would not want the authority to do something. He said the substitute motion was reasonable and supported it.
- Mr. Jamieson asked what "special needs" meant. Mr. Ellis said it could mean someone who would need a specialization to their unit. Mr. Jamieson asked about "best interests of the Town". Mr. Ellis said various boards have that as a decision criterion and it means what it says. Mr. Jamieson asked if this was a spot zone, to which Mr. Maher replied negatively. Mr. Jamieson asked about waiting lists. Ms. Wiener said "special needs" is affordable housing with a services component and that the ARB had 85 people applying for four units. The HCA executive director said they had a 50 person waiting list and Ms. Worden said the AHA had a waiting list of around 50 for elderly units and 30 for 2BR units, with a wait time of over five years. Mr. Jamieson asked if any other subsidies were available. Ms. Wiener said subsidies of $0.5 to $1 million were available. Mr. Jamieson said he was against the substitute motion.
- Mr. Dohan introduced the executive director of the HCA.
- The executive director urged a no action vote, saying the substitute motion could cause discrimination. He also said 75% of the affordable housing in the Town is for elderly and that future affordable units need to be more diverse.
- Mr. Foskett said the inclusionary bylaw has been effective for many years and that its consequences were known to Fish, the other bidders, Town Meeting, and all those engaged in negotiation. He said the substitute motion would be "spot unzoning" and would undo years of work and negotiations.
- Mr. Fischer asked what the inclusionary zoning income limits were. Ms. Worden said 80% of median income and said median income was around $49K. Mr. O'Brien said 15% at 80% of median income and 5% at 120% of median income and that median income was actually around $54K. Mr. Fischer asked why the ARB did not want the waiver authority. Mr. Faulkner said it would send the wrong message about what the Town wants and that while the ARB could turn down clustered developments one at a time, it would prefer better proposals in the first place. Mr. Fischer said he did not buy that and that if he knew the inclusionary bylaw would prohibit building low-income Alzheimer's units, he would have voted against it.
- Ms. Worden said the substitute motion was marvelous and should have been brought by the ARB. She said there are 420 Section 8 units in addition to the 200 family units and said that up to 140 elderly units could be lost to expiring use provisions. She said handicapped units can need special doors and so forth and that clustering them allows care providers to work much more efficiently. She accused the ARB of violating the bylaw.
- Mr. Rehrig said that something being subsidized does not mean it is good and that if subsidies are available for special needs units, then those units are least in need of our legislative assistance to be built. He urged the substitute motion be rejected and asked for the ARB's reaction to being accused of violating the bylaw. Mr. Tsoi said the ARB did not violate the bylaw.
- Mr. Judd moved to adjourn.
- Meeting adjourned at 23:00 to 4 May at 20:00

2005-04-28T01:21:00.000-04:00

Thanks for your (insufficient :-) support!

I'd like to thank the 61 people who weren't me who voted for me. I appreciate your support! Maybe in another couple of years.

2005-04-28T01:20:00.000-04:00

Session 2 notes.

Called to order at 20:00.
Mr. Hurd plugged the Fox Library fundraiser on 5 May from 18:30 to 20:30.
Mr. Coletta announced his Town Meeting e-mail list.
Mr. Judd plugged the Arlington Lions Eyemobile which will be in front of Town Hall on 29 April from 08:00 to 14:00.
Voted that when we adjourn we adjourn to Monday, 2 May, at 20:00.
Moderator declared the ATM in recess and opened the 27 April STM.
STM - Article 1: Reports
- BoS report to STM received.
- Article tabled.
STM - Article 2: Zoning Bylaw Amendment/MU
- Mr. Tsoi moved to recess STM to 9 May, as ARB only had the hearing yesterday. Moderator asked why not deal with Articles 3-6? Mr. Tsoi said the Planning Department had been telling proponents of other articles that the STM would be recessed until then.
- Mr. Fischer asked if it should be 9 May or 11 May. Mr. Tsoi while 11 May was originally considered, 9 May was chosen.
- Mr. Abbott asked if the BoS would be changing its vote. Mr. Hurd said it would not but felt it was better to handle everthing at once.
- Ms. Harrington said she and others were lead to believe the STM would be recessed to 9 May.
- Mr. Quinn moved the previous question. Debate terminated.
- Motion to recess STM to 9 May approved.
Back to Annual Meeting.
Article 2 removed from table.
Article 2 - Reports
- Received FinComm, BoS Supplemental, and Noise Abatement Study Committee (NASC) reports.
- Mr. Ciano said NASC has been using its noise meter on Grey Street and Article 19 grew out of that. He said Mr. Fitzmaurice should be thanked for getting Article 19 together and that NASC will be giving a sound level demonstration to Town Meeting.
- Mr. Tosti corrected a bunch of typos in the FinComm report. He said FinComm began work in October, that the Town is under high financial stress, and that the MMA is lobbying for more local aid. He reviewed the "5-year plan" noting that the BoS, FinComm, and SchoolComm all approved it. Mr. Tosti pointed out the "with override" and "without override" numbers are physically next to each other in the report for easy comparison and that while it will be very tough if the override does not pass, it will still be tough even if it does. He noted that bond rating agencies have noticed our use of reserves. He closed by introducing the FinComm members and noting vacancies for precincts 17 and 20.
- Article tabled.
Article 12 - Zoning Bylaw Amendment/Affordable Housing
- ARB recommended a vote of no action.
- Mr. Faulkner said the ARB already gives the maximum preferences allowed by state law and that what the proponents want will end up combining subsidies and not producing as many affordable units.
- Mr. Abbott proposed a substitute motion mostly identical with the wording of the wattant article. He said he did not understand why the ARB was against exchanging a 1BR unit for a 2BR unit and that the AHA should not have been forced to use eminent domain to take the unit from the ARB. He believes there should be an official policy and application document explaining how affordable units under the ARB's control are distributed.
- Ms. Worden said the Affordable Housing Task Force wants the ARB to make units available for purchase to non-profits to rent out.
- Mr. Faulkner said 15% of the units in new developments are set aside for people making up to 80% of median income and that the by-law was not intended to solve all problems. He feels that when the AHA pulls a unit out of the affordable units the ARB controls it reduces the effectiveness of the by-law.
- Mr. Reedy asked if the substitute motion was in order. Moderator said it was.
- Ms. Harrington asked it to be re-read. Moderator did so.
- Ms. LaCourt speaking as a TMM asked how a choice of preferences between local employees and government agencies would be made. Mr. Abbott replied that it is a hard decision but the current by-law does not allow agencies to even be considered. He said the ARB should decide how to make the choice and put it in its plan.
- Mr. Fischer asked if the preference was legal. Mr. Maher said that while he originally had concerns, he now believes it is legal. Mr. Fischer asked what the substitute motion did. Mr. Abbott said it would require the process to be more visible, provide preferences for town employees and allow government agencies to purchase units. Mr. Fischer asked if the developer owns the units. Mr. Abbott said the developer almost always is not the ultimate owner and that it was not true that government agency purchases lower the number of available units.
- Mr. Jamieson asked if the agencies' purchase price would be the same as eligible individuals and asked if agency purchase would extend affordability restrictions. Mr. Abbott replied "yes" to both.
- Mr. Lavalle complained that the substitute was not handed out and moved to postpone to 2 May.
- Motion to postpone approved on voice vote but doubted.
- Motion to postpone approved 127-50.
Article 4 - Election of Asst Moderator: Leone wins, 121-62.
Article 13 - Zoning Bylaw Amendment/New Zoning Districts - REL
- ARB recommended a vote of no action.
- Mr. Faulkner said the proponenents idea was to reduce the amount of developable land to make it easier to reach a 40B target. He said taking out those few acres of land will not accomplish much and that the proposed language is constitutionally flawed.
- Mr. Abbott attempted to offer a substitute motion mostly following the words of the article. Moderator shot Mr. Abbott down saying that in his view it was not proper for a zoning article. Mr. Abbott changed it to a resolution that the ARB propose a REL district next year.
- Mr. Bernardin asked what other municipalities have done. Mr. O'Brien said he did not know since single-use zones are illegal. Mr. Abbott said he knew of no judicial or legislative cite to that effect.
- Mr. Faulkner said the SJC has held that at least one use must be offered by right in every zoning district, that at least one economically viable use must be allowed, and that a REL district would be an unconstitutional promotion of religion and that such a district would fail all three test.
- Mr. Ruderman moved the previous question. Debate terminated.
- Abbott resolution defeated.
- No action approved.
Article 14 - Zoning Bylaw Amendment/New Zoning Districts - MUN
- ARB recommended no action.
- Mr. Faulkner said the proposal had the same flaws as the previous once, except for the religion aspect.
- No action approved.
Article 15 - Zoning Bylaw Amendment/New Zoning Districts - CEM
- ARB recommended no action.
- Mr. Faulkner said the proposal had the same flaws as the previous once, except for the religion aspect.
- Mr. Belskis and the Moderator had a confusing back-and-forth about making a motion or not making a motion or making a resolution or not making a resolution that ended up with nothing happening.
- No action approved.
Article 16 - Zoning Bylaw Amendment/Zoning Districts - Reversion
- ARB recommended no action.
- Mr. Faulkner said it was related to articles 13-15 and that the proponents wanted a REL/MUN/CEM property to revert to its prior zoning if the REL/MUN/CEM use ceased. He said this conflicts with state law saying only Town Meeting can change zoning district boundaries.
- No action approved.
Article 17 - Bylaw Amendment/Outdoor Lighting
- BoS recommended no action.
- Mr. Gilligan moved to postpone to 4 May as the proponent was not present.
- Postponed.
Article 18 - Bylaw Amendment/Noise Abatement: BoS recommended no action, which was approved because this was a duplicate of Article 19.
Article 19 - Bylaw Amendment/Noise Abagtement
- BoS recommended a vote as set forth in its report.
- Mr. Fitzmaurice said the current by-law only deals with hours, not sound levels. He said that since it hard to understand what a given sound level is, the NASC will provide a demonstration for Town Meeting and then moved to postpone the article to 2 May to allow for that demonstration.
- Postponed.
Article 20 - Bylaw Amendment/Demolition Notification
- BoS recommended a vote as set forth in its report.
- Mr. Hurd said BoS agrees with the requirement abutters be notified of demolitions.
- Mr. Abbott asked why the fine is only $200 instead of being linked to added value. Mr. Hurd said that is a typical fine and the Moderator said $200 is the maximum fine the Town can impose, plus when getting the permit one has to affirm under threat of perjury that notification was made.
- Ms. Meyer asked if this applied to demolition of Town-owned structures. Moderator said yes.
- Mr. Judd asked what a building is. Mr. Maher said the Building Inspector had discretion in that area and that it is not feasible for legislation to specify every possibility. Mr. Judd asked if an above-ground pool was a building. Mr. Maher said he did not think that was a building.
- BoS recommendation approved.
Article 21 - Bylaw Amendment/Handicapped Parking
- BoS recommended a vote as set forth in its report.
- Mr. Jamieson noting the proposed fine is $25 asked what the equivalent fine on a public way was. Chief Ryan said $200. Mr. Jamieson asked why only $25 for this. Mr. Maher said state law allows a $200 fine on public ways but the lesser fine on private land.
- Mr. Burke asked why this is bring brought up when the Town does not enforce existing rules.
- Mr. Logan asked who does the towing. Chief Ryan said it is done with the permission of the property owner.
- Mr. Ruderman questioned whether this was the best use of scarce Town resources and said he opposed the motion.
- Mr. Hurd said the BoS believed this was a proper use of Town resources.
- Mr. Chaput asked if officers would be asked to patrol lots. Chief Ryan said it would empower the police to act if someone called them.
- Mr. Gilligan moved the previous question. Debate terminated.
- BoS recommended approved unanimously.
Article 22 - Bylaw Amendment/Newsracks
- BoS recommended a vote as set forth in its report.
- Mr. Hurd said Mr. Maher was prepared to speak but that a postponement would be OK.
- Mr. Maher said this would set up a pilot program and allow the Newsrack Study Committee to have some credibility when trying to get newpapers to participate. Based on the pilot, a more permanent by-law and an appropriation would be proposed next year.
- The Moderator said he had some problems with where in the by-laws the change should actually go.
- Ms. Worden moved to postpone the article to 2 May.
- Postponed.
Article 23 - Expansion of Pleasant Street Historic District
- BoS recommended a vote as set forth in its report.
- Mr. Gilligan moved to postpone the article to 2 May because the HistComm chair was absent.
- Postponed.
Article 24 - Home Rule Petition/FinComm Membership
- BoS recommended a vote as set forth in its report.
- Mr. Tosti said he would like to have FinComm at full strength and this would accomplish that by giving the appointing authority some flexibility. He also said he supported the Carreiro amendment.
- Mr. Carreiro proposed an amendment to require that substitute and at-large members' terms expire every 31 October and that the appointing authority would have to wait until 15 December to appoint a substitute or at-large member. He said this would codify what the appointing authority plans to do.
- Mr. Foskett said he was against the original motion and the amendment as they would reduce the pressure and incentive for FinComm to fill vacancies with actual precinct residents. He said precint representation was important and that FinComm was big enough that a few vacancies would not hurt it.
- Mr. Loreti asked about the interpretation of "three at-large members" and asked if there have ever been three vacancies. Mr. Tosti said there had not been in his memory. Mr. Loreti asked what the longest time a seat has been vacant. Mr. Tosti said four or five years. Mr. Loreti said he was against the amendment and for the original motion.
- Mr. Berkowitz said it was sad things have come to this and that regardless of what passes or does not pass, Town Meeting Members should actively solicit FinComm applicants from vacant precints.
- Ms. Harrington asked what FinComm qualifications are. Mr. Tosti said it is basically being a citizen and a resident of the precinct, and also that the person want to participate and not have an agenda. Ms. Harrington asked if anyone has ever been rejected. Mr. Tosti said that has not happened in at least 15 years. Ms. Harrington said she was inclined to leave things alone.
- Mr. Chaput said he was worried about timing. Mr. Tosti said he does not aggressively begin searching until Labor Day and that he does not appoint people after December.
- Mr. Judd moved to adjourn. Defeated. He said it would be good to have a full FinComm and this was worth a try.
- Mr. Gilligan moved the previous question. Debate terminated.
- Carreiro amendment approved.
- BoS recommended vote as amended approved.
- But since Legislature likes to see actual a numbers, a counted vote was done and again approved 96-31.
Motion to adjourn made and approved at 23:05.
Meeting adjourned to 2 May at 20:00.

2005-04-26T01:28:00.000-04:00

That was one hell of a typo!

Am I the only person who feels the ARB was playing a bit dirty when they waited until Article 11 came up to inform us that despite what was in the report we all received that the ARB was actually recommmending no action on Article 11? Especially since the "Corrected Version" was posted (with no obvious notice) to Town website no later than sometime this morning. There's no reason they couldn't have said that during the announcements portion of the meeting or when Tsoi presented the ARB report. Instead, he talked about the report having "typos" which would be corrected when we got to appropriate articles. Mistakenly saying you voted for something when you didn't is not a "typo". And then springing it on people like that. Boooooo!

2005-04-26T01:24:00.000-04:00

Session 1 notes

Moderator called the meeting to order at 20:00.
Menotomy Minute Men presented colors and played the National Anthem.
Invocation from the pastor of Saint Camillus.
Voted that when we adjourn we adjourn to Wednesday, 27 April, at 20:00.
Article 2 - Reports: We received many, many, many reports.
Article 3 - Measurer of Wood and Bark: BoS recommended John Fitzmaurice be appointed. Approved on a unanimous voice vote.
Article 4 - Election of Assistant Moderator: Mr. Leone and Mr. Carreiro were nominated. Election will be by secret ballot on 27 April.
Article 5 - Zoning Bylaw/Affordable Housing
- ARB recommended a vote to look at contiguous lots developed within two years when applying the afforable housing by-law, and to have six or more single and two-family homes on contiguous lots require a special permit in order to prevent developers from escaping the by-law by subdividing lots.
- Mr. Tsoi said that the hearing on the April 27 STM articles is at the Senior Center on 26 April at 20:00 and not at Town Hall as the Advocate said. He presented the ARB position and pointed out it would prevent something like the corner of Mill Street and Massachusetts Avenue from being built without any affordable units.
- Ms. Worden introduced Mr. Mongold, a resident of the Town.
- Mr. Mongold said the by-law has created 10 affordable units since being enacted. He asked Town Meeting approve the recommendation so the by-law cannot be avoided through subdivision.
- Mr. Dohan, a member of the HCA board, said that he personally and the HCA supported the recommendation.
- Mr. Ruderman said he was in favor and asked what is the manner of fixing the construction date. Mr. Tsoi said the clock would start from the granting of the special permit.
- Ms. Harrington asked if Mill/Mass could have happened if the land was in common ownership. Mr. O'Brien said no, because there is a difference between a condo and a two-family and that the by-law does not apply to things that can be built by right. Ms. Harrington asked if the by-law would apply if an owner subdivided his land and sold it to separate people who used separate builders. Mr. O'Brien said yes but that it is hard to write language to cover all possible outcomes. He said that the buyer of the last lot would be forced to build affordable housing and that only someone meeting the affordable housing criteria could live there. Ms. Harrington said she would probably support it.
- Mr. Bernardin moved the previous question, which failed.
- Mr. Burke said he was in favor but that as the town has few large open lots, he saw a bigger threat from buying a bunch of houses, tearing them down, and then rebuilding. He said there should be a minimum area to subdivide and that we do not want to look like Chelsea. Mr. O'Brien pointed out that what is under discussion is only about what the afforable housing by-law would apply to and that last year Town Meeting fixed the loophole that allowed Mill/Mass to be built at all. The Moderator pointed out the Town does have a minimum lot size and setbacks in every zone.
- Ms. Fiore asked if there are any small buildable lots. Mr. O'Brien said state law grandfathers certain lots with 50ft of frontage and 5,000ft², but that otherwise the minimum is 60ft and 6,000ft²
- Mr. Judd asked if assessments increase when a lot is subdivided and if affordable units are assessed lower than market rate. Mr. Greeley (the assessor) said yes to both.
- Mr. Carreiro moved the previous question, which was approved unanimously (!)
- ARB recommendation was approved unanimously.
- Ms. Harrington gave notice of reconsideration.
Article 6 - Zoning Bylaw/Parking - Single Room Occupancy
- ARB recommended a vote to allow the ARM to reduce the parking spaces per dwelling unit ratio up to 50% for single room occupancy (SRO) developments.
- Mr. Tsoi said that current SROs (Caritas and the Salvation Army ones) report only 25-50% of their residents have cars and that reducing the ratio would make SROs easier to develop. He said the ARB believes the overnight parking ban would discourage SRO residents from buying cars they would be unable to park. He disclosed that he has an association with the Salvation Army and was involved in the Salvation Army SRO development.
- Mr. Fischer asked why the ARB was dealing with this now. Mr. O'Brien said that Mr. Abbott brought it up last year but that the specifics of that proposal were unacceptable; but a better proposal was brought up this year. Mr. Abbott said he had no particular project in mind but did not want to see SROs precluded which the current parking rules in effect do. Mr. Fischer said he was probably in favor but wanted to know the current parking state at the Salvation Army SRO. Mr. Tsoi said it has never had more people with cars than there are spaces.
- Mr. Belskis said he was worried that this would result in not enough spaces for facility employees to park in, noting parking problems with Germaine Lawrence employees. Mr. Tsoi said SRO development would involve a special permit and the ARB would take employee count into consideration.
- Mr. Bayer asked if the ARB could reduce the ratio by 50% or not at all. Mr. Tsoi said that "as much as 50%" meant the ARB could reduce the ratio by less than 50%. Mr. Bayer noted the Zoning Bylaw Review Committee was against the recommendation and asked why. Mr. Loreti said the ZBRC was divided but came out against it because the ZBRC was worried the language would allow a SRO development that was barely over one-half affordable units would end up not having any required parking spaces for the affordable units and was also worried about enforceability.
- Mr. Abbott said the ZBRC did not understand the reality of SROs and that virtually everyone in an SRO needs affordable housing. He felt the ARB's recommendation was a reasonable compromise.
- The ARB recommendation was approved 135-21.
Article 7 - Zoning Bylaw/Hospital Zone: The ARB recommended a vote to delete a few missed references to the now non-existent H zone, which was approved 148-4.
Article 8 - Zoning Bylaw/Stormwater Management
- ARB recommended a vote to adopt federal and state Best Management Practices for dealing with surface water drainage.
- Mr. Tsoi presented the ARB's recommendation.
- Mr. Belskis moved to amend the ARB recommendation to require that if a stormwater management system is required to reduce flooding, that the developer post a bond for perpetual care of the system in order to prevent the town from having to pay for maintenance.
- Ms. Fiore said that Arlington has separated sewer and storm drain systems and that if one dumps something in the storm drains it could end up in Mill Brook or Spy Pond. She said she was in favor of the original vote, the amendment, and tabling discussion.
- Mr. Maher said he gets agitated when people do not take advantage of his help and that while he understood what Mr. Belskis was trying to do, Mr. Belskis's language would not accomplish that.
- Ms. Harrington moved to table the article.
- Motion to table approved unanimously.
Article 9 - Zoning Bylaw/71 Summer: The ARB recommended a vote of no action as the article was made moot by a ZBA decision in the proponent's favor. No action approved.
Article 10 - Zoning Bylaw/53 Broadway
- ARB recommended a vote of no action.
- Mr. Faulkner said the parcel is currently zoned R1 but the owner wants to build a 3-family house. He said Gardner Street is R1 but Broadway allows three-deckers. He said at the ARB hearing people were concerned about increasing density. He pointed out there is no legal problem with the rezone requested by the owner and that the ARB recommended no action for policy reasons.
- Mr. Ellis moved a substitute motion, containing the text of the article, for the owner. Mr. Ellis introduced the owner -- Alfonso Sira, a resident of the Town.
- Mr. Sira said he believed the zoning change would benefit the neighborhood and that the current house is out-of-place between the denser zones surrounding it.
- Mr. McGaffigan made a motion to table which failed.
- Mr. Caccavaro said the people who signed the warrant article petition were "dumb" and that this is about money and should be voted down.
- Mr. Robillard said that everything in Gardner is 1-family and that the multi-family houses the owner cited are across the street.
- Mr. McGaffigan said the neighbors are concerned because the parcel has been zoned R1 for 50 years and that the property's driveway will be so close to the intersection with Broadway that it will be a safety problem.
- Mr. Loreti said that while Mr. Sira's handout properly noted uses, it did not note that many of the houses in the 3-family zones were only 2-family houses. He said the proposed house would not fit in and was far bigger than the surrounding houses.
- Ms. Harrington asked if the rezone would affect more than the one lot. Mr. Faulkner said it was just an extension of R3 across Gardner and would only affect that one lot. Ms. Harrington moved to postpone the article until 27 April.
- Mr. Berkowitz moved the previous question on all matters under the article.
- Motion on the previous question approved.
- Motion to postpone failed.
- Motion to substitute failed.
- Recommendation of no action approved.
Article 11 - Zoning Bylaw/Inclusionary Zoning
- ARB recommended a vote of no action.
- Mr. Faulkner said the ARB had voted for no action, but goofed printing its report and mistakenly said it had voted in favor of what the proponents wanted. He said it would violate the intent to have afforable units incorporated into developments and that clustered proposals would be all the ARB would see.
- Mr. Abbott said the article gave the ARB the authority to allow clustering in certain cases, not mandating it in those cases.
- Mr. Ellis, complaining of finding out about this flip-flop at the 11^th hour, asked to postpone the article to 2 May.
- The Moderator suggested that given the ARB's gaffe, a postponement would be appropriate.
- Motion to postpone approved.
Motion to adjourn made and approved at 22:55.
Meeting adjourned to 27 April at 20:00.

2005-04-25T16:30:00.000-04:00

Documents galore!

BoS report to the Annual Town Meeting
BoS report to the 27 April Special Town Meeting
ARB report to the Annual Town Meeting
Warrant for the 23 May Special Town Meeting

2005-04-14T12:30:00.000-04:00

Special Town Meeting Warrant Available

The Warrant for the 27 April Special Town Meeting is available here.

2005-04-08T20:52:00.000-04:00

Town Meeting Primer

Here (PDF, 135KB) is the Town Meeting primer that David Coletta put together from suggestions of mine and others.

2005-04-05T11:48:00.000-04:00

Everett is one of a kind...

According to the Massachusetts Moderators' Association Everett is the only city in the United States with a bicameral legislative body.

2005-04-05T11:22:00.000-04:00

Want to buy Town Meeting Time?

The contact info is:

To order a copy, send a check for $25 (including postage), payable to the Massachusetts Moderators Association, to Stow Town Moderator Edward Newman, 27 Whitney Road, Stow, MA 01775. The book can also be found in many public libraries. For more information, call Newman at (978) 897-7076.

(from the MMA website)

2005-04-04T15:56:00.000-04:00

Taking advantage of voting technology

I think the Accuvote optical scan system that Arlington uses is an excellent compromise between speed of counting, ease of voting, and audit trail. I believe the ballots are easy to fill in and easy for the voter to double-check before handing it in. Since physical ballots are used, recounts are meaningful. And since a computer scans the stuff in, the results for a precinct are known as soon as the polls close.

Another advantage of these machines are that they can be told to reject any ballot that has an overvote anywhere on it. This feature was finally activated in this town election. Here's hoping they keep the feature turned on.

2005-04-04T14:44:00.000-04:00

Wish they'd also release these in Excel

Here's a 300K PDF of the official unofficial results. The various write-in winners in the TMM races haven't been released yet, though.

2005-04-03T01:19:00.000-05:00

Town Election Results - Contested TMM Races

Sorry. No spreadsheet for these.

PRECINCT 1 - 4 for 3 years (171 ballots cast)
Kneeland(*)      113    24.94%
E McGaffigan(*)   91    20.09
P McGaffigan(*)   88    19.43
Mills(*)          88    19.43
Barry-Smith       69    15.23
Write-ins          4     0.88

PRECINCT 4 - 4 for 3 years (199 ballots cast)
Costa(*)        118     24.48%
Laite(*)        113     23.44
Piandes(*)       91     18.88
Ferrara(*)       90     18.67
Marshall         70     14.52

PRECINCT 8 - 4 for 3 years (501 ballots cast)
Rowe(*)         356     25.57%
Berkowitz(*)    331     23.78
Leone(*)        305     21.91
Band(*)         277     19.90
Pearson         120      8.62
Write-ins         3      0.22

PRECINCT 10 - 1 for 2 years (486 ballots cast)
McHugh(*)       198     54.25%
Ledwig          164     44.93
Write-ins         3      0.82

PRECINCT 11 - 4 for 3 years (457 ballots cast)
Rodochia(*)     266     22.45%
Caccavaro(*)    255     21.52
K Greeley(*)    251     21.18
R Greeley(*)    212     17.89
Crowley         201     16.96

PRECINCT 14 - 4 for 3 years (308 ballots cast)
Mahon(*)        224     28.28%
Hooper(*)       150     18.94
Hillis(*)       147     18.56
DeMille(*)      144     18.18
Coletta         125     15.78
Write-ins         2      0.25

PRECINCT 15 - 1 for 1 year (432 ballots cast)
Mahoney(*)      196     61.44%
Lavalle         120     37.62
Write-ins         3      0.94

PRECINCT 16 - 4 for 3 years (441 ballots cast)
Oringer(*)      258     22.53%
Thornton(*)     251     21.92
Garrity(*)      232     20.26
Kenney(*)       208     18.17
Czapski         190     16.59
Write-ins         6      0.52

2005-04-03T01:11:00.000-05:00

Town Election Results - Contested Town-Wide Races

Here are the results for the contested town-wide races. I also have an Excel spreadsheet with the precinct-by-precinct numbers for those races.

    SELECTMEN, vote for two (7250 ballots cast)
 --------------------------------
Mahon(*)        4590    37.53%
LaCourt(*)      3109    25.42
Lyons           3079    25.17
Barrett          751     6.14
Tarkington       679     5.55
Write-ins         23     0.19

    SCHOOL COMMITTEE, vote for three (7250 ballots cast)
 ----------------------------------------
Lovelace(*)     3835    24.60%
Garballey(*)    3800    24.37
Thrope(*)       3411    21.88
Lobel           3314    21.26
Stetson         1198     7.68
Write-ins         33     0.21

    ARLINGTON HOUSING AUTHORITY, vote for one (7250 ballots cast)
 ---------------------------------------------------
Walsh           3926    63.89%
Abbott          2195    35.72%
Write-ins         24     0.39%

2005-03-22T11:50:00.000-05:00

The warrant for the 2005 Annual Town Meeting is now available here (98k PDF).

2004-09-27T17:08:00.000-04:00

Sorry for not doing posts on the debate. I was planning to, but the long speeches that many people have given are tough with my style and it doesn't seem fair to try to boil people down to a sentence or two. And then there are the spreadsheets, multi-page documents, etc. I still plan to do the usual reports at the 2005 Annual Meeting.

2004-09-27T17:00:00.000-04:00

I'm hoping tonight will finally be decision time on Symmes. I doubt there will be much new said before the vote is ultimately taken. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I expect a roll-call vote will be forced (not necessarily a bad thing -- this is a very important vote and having people go on the record is more than reasonable). If it passes, I wouldn't be surprised if there was an attempt to overturn the vote via referendum, but I think such an attempt would fail. In the unlikely chance that anyone reads this before the vote, e-mail me and tell me where you think the vote will be on a fails, fails-squeaker, passes-squeaker, passes-comfortably, passes-blowout scale.

2004-06-11T23:36:00.000-04:00

Damn, he came back...

My apologies for missing the final three TM sessions. We were out of town for 2+ weeks for our 10^th anniversary. Sorry to just fall off the net, but we didn't think it was prudent to announce on a public website that we were going to be away.

2004-05-25T02:13:00.000-04:00

Avast! The decks have been cleared for the budget clash.

Called to order at 20:02.
Ms. Mahon said there would be a discussion about increasing state aid to the schools on 1 June at 19:30 in the BoS hearing room on the 2^nd floor of Town Hall. She also read a BoS resolution honoring Minuteman Superintendant Fitzgerald on his impending retirement.
Dr. Fitzgerald thanked the BoS and Town Meeting and said Arlington is the most important Town in Minuteman and that Arlington families make good use of the school. He thanked Town Meeting for what it has done for the school over the years despite the clashes in the 1990s.
Article 93 - Resolution on Education:
- BoS recommended a vote as set forth in its report.
- Ms. Mahon said the resolution would send a strong message to our state and federal legislators and that the BoS endorsed the resolution.
- Mr. Schlichtman thanked SPOT for getting the article inserted. He pointed out the Town is subject to a host of mandates but it not given the resources to meet them. He said that with some of the put-backs the schools will be better next year but still fall below minimum standards. He applauded the Town's representatives for supporting the moratorium on charter schools.
- State Senator Havern said the Hancock decision will cost the state $1.7bil and that if revenues are not expanded or the distribution formula changed, the Town will be hurt badly. He said he would vote for a tax increase to go towards education. He urged passage of the resolution and said education is a fundamental government expenditure.
- Mr. Quinn moved the previous question - debate terminated.
- BoS recommendation approved.
Article 53 - Appropriation/Minuteman:
- FinComm recommendated an appropriation as set forth in its report.
- Mr. Tosti thanked Dr. Fitzgerald for his work. He said his own son attends Minuteman.
- Mr. DeCoursey said the FinComm recommendation was again based on the education reform calculation this year. He said Arlington sent an additional 23 FTE students to Minuteman this year.
- Ms. E. Phelps said this was Dr. Fitzgerald's last town meeting ever, as the other 15 Minuteman towns had already handled their Minuteman assessments. She said he is leaving the school in great shape and has managed the transition from a traditional vo-tech school to one necessarily more focussed on high-tech. She said over 50% of Minuteman students are SPED and that the school has programs to help SPED students to succeed in ways regular high schools cannot. She named Kelly Meister and John Sullivan as Arlington students at the school who have won state and national awards in vo-tech competitions. She said Dr. Fitzgerald and Minuteman have responded to member towns' budgetary concerns and that in-district enrollment has actually increased. She thanked Dr. Fitzgerald for his work.
- Mr. Carreiro asked if the FinComm recommendation represented an acceptance of the Minuteman budget. Mr. DeCoursey said it did.
- Ms. LaCourt noted that Minuteman spends about $15,000 per pupil and asked what AHS spent. Mr. Schlichtman said $7,800. Mr. LaCourt said AHS spent $10,000 on science equipment and asked what Minuteman spends. Dr. Fitzgerald says a significant amount of the $15,000 is transportation costs. He said science equipment costs are zero as they are entirely covered by donations and grants. Ms. LaCourt asked how much is spent per class on science supplies. Dr. Fitzgerald said their is no set number as it is determined class by class. Ms. LaCourt said she wanted to compare AHS science spending with Minuteman spending.
- Ms. J. Phelps asked what the arrows mean in Chart 5 of the Minuteman handout. Dr. Fitzgerald said it was a cue to remind him and other Minuteman officials that there are other factors besides raw enrollments affecting a town's assessment. Ms. Phelps asked if SPED and regular students were always assessed differently. Dr. Fitzgerald said that when Minuteman started SPED costs were averaged in, but that 15-20 years ago when SPED students topped 30%, the school realized that was not fair across towns and began to surcharge a town for its SPED students (currently $4,250/student). In addition, when a student causes the school to incur extraordinary costs, those costs are billed directly to that town. Ms. Phelps asked what some small type on Chart 5 said. Dr. Fitzgerald read it. Ms. Phelps asked why some towns' assessments are decreasing. Dr. Fitzgerald said it was a function of the state education reform formula.
- Mr. Kazarian asked if Minuteman could sue the state for not funding 100% of transportation costs as the law requires. Dr. Fitzgerald pointed out the law says the funding is subject to appropriation, so there is nothing to sue over. He said the state Board of Education recommended the transportation funding cut and that Rep. Marzilli and Sen. Havern are trying to reverse some of it.
- Mr. Bernardin moved the previous question - debate terminated.
- FinComm recommendation approved.
Article 61 - Alternatives Regarding School Rebuilds:
- BoS recommended a vote of no action as set forth in its report.
- Ms. Mahon moved to postpone to 26 May.
- Motion to postpone approved.
Article 50 - Committee/Reserve Fund/Spending Policies
- BoS recommended a vote to create the committee as set forth in its report.
- Mr. Bilafer said that Town spending tends to follow the economic health of the Commonwealth. He said the current downturn has hurt the schools, people with no children in the schools, and town employees. He said he would like to see reserves managed so that cycles could be moderated. He said he believes such a committee's analysis would helpp FinComm and that now would be a good time to commence such an analysis.
- Mr. Tosti said FinComm has done a good job of building up reserves in the past and budgets conservatively. He said it is not that other communities have done better dealing with the downturn but that they intrinsically had more resources. He said that the underlying problem is the Town's problems are causes by losses on continuing revenues while reserve funds can only make up for those losses for a small number of years. He said that FinComm has done a good job and does not need the help of the committee, but if it is established that FinComm would work with it.
- Mr. Jamieson asked if the committee would address reserve policy, spending or both and if it would set up spending priorities. Mr. Bilafer said it would address both reserve policy and spending patterns but would not set priorities. Mr. Jamieson said he did not like management by formula. Mr. Bilafer said the committee would not be about that but could help monitor patterns of expenditures. He gave an example of how after an early retirement program staff levels were supposed to be held down for 10 years to amortize the buyout costs, but after merely four years staffing was back to its pre-buyout level.
- Mr. Bernardin asked why the BoS was against forming a committee under Article 48 but for the committee proposed here. Ms. Mahon, reminding the meeting that she voted for the Article 48 committee, said the BoS believes the situations are different. She said the BoS believes the Budget Review Task Force does the things the Article 48 committee would have done but that no one does what this proposed committee would do.
- Mr. Canaday asked who FinComm would work with on this issue of the committee was not created. Mr. Tosti said FinComm would work with the Arlington Coalition, sub-committees of the BoS, and others. He said as long as the proposed work could be scheduled between July and December FinComm could do it.
- Mr. Deyst, also a FinComm member, said he believes FinComm would suffer if it had to work with another committee.
- Mr. McCabe asked if the committee would consider reserve funds in general or the Reserve Fund (which is a fund which puts some slack in the budgets -- departments can come to FinComm during the year and ask for extra cash which FinComm can appropriate out of the Reserve Fund without having to come back to Town Meeting. At the end of the year any unspent monies roll into the general fund). Mr. Bilafer it was reserve funds in general. Mr. McCabe said he did not like the Reserve Fund being mentioned and asked if the committee would try to change how the Reserve Fund is handled. Mr. Bilafer said the committee would try to moderate cycles and that it would not try to change Reserve Fund operations. Mr. McCabe asked for the Reserve Fund balance. Mr. Tosti said it was about $326,000 but would be under $100,00 by the end of the current fiscal year.
- Mr. Gilligan moved the previous question - debate terminated.
- BoS recommendation defeated, challenged, and defeated 67-95.
Article 40 - Endorsement of CDBG Allocations:
- BoS recommended a vote as set forth in their CDBG memo.
- Mr. O'Brien said the BoS had to allocate $1,558,000 of funds across $2,370,000 of requests. He said some highlights were the committment to affordable housing, funding athletic scholarships and performing arts scholarships, finishing the Crosby tennis courts and soft-topping the Thompson playground, and funding a Mass Ave Corridor Study which would propose a comprehensive solution to Mass Ave issues from Mill Street to the Cambridge line.
- Ms. LaCourt asked if the BoS considers if partially funding a program might leave it ineffective. Mr. O'Brien says it does. He also noted that especially with capital projects a underfund in one year will be made up the following year. Ms. LaCourt asked why only hockey players were getting a set of scholarships. Mr. O'Brien said no other requests were made.
- Mr. Berkowitz said the reflecting pond works irregularly and asked if it could be fixed with CDBG funds. Mr. O'Brien said it was repaired and restored with CDBG funds but is now a regular operating budget issue.
- Mr. Streitfeld asked if the study would be recommending that Mass Ave be made one lane each way. Mr. O'Brien said no such conclusion has been made but the study would consider that option.
- Mr. Cleinman asked if the $1,588,000 the Town received was what the Town applied for. Mr. O'Brien said there is no application -- the Town is told what it will be receiving. Mr. Cleinman expressed concern that the funding period bridges the federal fiscal year-end. Mr. O'Brien said the CDBG law allows that to happen and it is not a problem.
- Ms. Harrington asked how much CDBG funds go to the Director of Planning's (i.e. Mr. O'Brien's) salary. Mr. O'Brien said about $5,000. Ms. Harrington asked what the bolded lines on the report were. Mr. O'Brien said they represented new requests.
- Mr. Gilligan moved the previous question - debate terminated.
- BoS recommendation approved unanimously.
Article 13 - Zoning Bylaw/Field Signs:
- ARB recommended a vote of no action as set forth in its report.
- Ms. Mayer withdrew her original substitute motion and presented a new one which would only allow APS teams to put up sponsored signs and would only allow them to be up for the duration of a game at a time. She said the original substitute motion was flawed and that this was closer to the original intent. She said the experiment would be useful and it would help offset the cost of APS atheletic programs.
- Mr. Chaput said the ARB was against the original substitute motion but did not have significant problems with the new one and that it would be OK to approve it.
- Mr. Caccavaro said he had problems with the motion -- that it was never put before the Parks and Recreation Commission and that it would hurt existing fundraisers. He said he was against it.
- Mr. Pachter said he was strongly against the original substitute motion and was weekly against this one. He said it needed to have standards about sign size. He urged a no action vote and suggested the proponents try against next year with a more concrete proposal.
- Mr. Carreiro asked if the issues about incorporating regulations by reference were resolved. Mr. Moderator said they were. Mr. Carreiro asked if each use of a sign had to be permitted or would one permit cover the whole season. Ms. Mayer said the latter. Mr. Carreiro said the he was in favor of the original substitute motion (with a put-up-take-down change) and was in favor of the new one.
- Mr. Bernardin moved the previous question - debate terminated.
- Motion to substitute defeated, challenged, approved 89-79.
- ARB recommendation as substituted defeated.
Article 15 - Bylaw Amendment/Field Signs
- BoS originally recommended a vote as set forth in its report.
- Ms. Mahon said that given the Article 13 vote, the BoS had changed its recommendation to no action.
- BoS recommendation of no action approved.
Article 77 - Appropriation/Library Way:
- FinComm recommended a vote of no action as set forth in its report.
- Mr. Judd offered a resolution that Town Meeting would urge the BoS to do all things necessary to put a light in at the Library Way intersection and synchronize all the Arlington Center traffic lights.
- Mr. Kohl said he was against the resolution as it presupposes a light should go there. He said no specific course of action should be pushed until the relevant committees study the situation.
- Mr. Taber moved the previous question - debate terminated.
- Judd resolution defeated.
- FinComm recommendation approved.
Article 79 - Appropriation/Park Ave Bridge:
- FinComm recommended a vote of no action as set forth in its report.
- Mr. Judd offered a resolution that Town Meeting would urge the BoS to do all things necessary to put a pedestrial walkway on the bridge and signalize Downing Square.
- Mr. Tosti said a light would not be expensive but that adding a walkway would be tremendously expensive. He said the real problem is the intersection and that is something the BoS can handle.
- Mr. Chaput said he opposed the resolution. He said the traffic committee should deal with it and that pressure for a particular solution should not be applied until the committee had a chance to deliberate on it.
- Mr. Abbott said the battle was lost when Mass Highway got the bridge built before people realized the problem with the design. He said that it would be very expensive to add the walkway and that the walkway issue is nothing compared with Downing Square. He opposed the resolution.
- Mr. McCabe asked if the Town could get money from the county since Park Avenue is a county road. Mr. Moderator pointed out that Middlesex County no longer exists. DPW Director Sanchez said that for many years county roads have been the responsibility of cities and towns. Mr. McCabe asked if Mr. Sanchez would try to look into funds for the work. Mr. Sanchez said he would.
- Mr. Carreiro moved the previous question - debate terminated.
- Judd resolution defeated.
- FinComm recommendation approved.
Article 80 - Trash Collection:
- BoS recommended a vote of no action as set forth in its report.
- Ms. Mahon said a committee is currently studing the PAYT issue and will have a report in the fall. She said the BoS wants to defer any action until after that report.
- Mr. Tosti said FinComm also recommends no action as it is not the right time for PAYT. He thanked the proponents of the article for excellent presentations and said that it needs to continue to be studied.
- BoS recommendation approved.
Article 81 - Trash Collection Fee:
- BoS recommended a vote of no action as set forth in its report.
- BoS recommendation approved unanimously.
Article 82 - Trash Collection Plan:
- BoS recommended a vote of no action as set forth in its report.
- BoS recommendation approved.
Article 88 - Transfer of Funds/Cemetery:
- FinComm originally recommended a vote of no action but changed that to recommending a $70,000 transfer from "Lots and Graves" to the capital budget.
- Ms. Fiore asked if the money would be used to push the cemetery further into Meadowbrook park. Deputy Town Manager Galkowski said it was to fund the capital budget item of two pickup trucks.
- FinComm recommendation approved unanimously.
Motion to adjourn - approved.
Adjourned at 22:56 to 20:00 on 26 May.

2004-05-25T02:12:00.000-04:00

Mr. Dunn's notes are up.

2004-05-20T09:17:00.001-04:00

The Horizon is Now in Sight

Called to order at 20:02.
Mini-concert from Ottoson Select Chorus.
Ms. Mahon read the BoS's seatbelt week resolution and reminded everyone that DPW Day is this Sunday.
Article 2 removed from the table.
Article 2 - Reports of Committees:
- Mr. Cole, chair of the Permanent Town Building Committee (PTBC), presented the PTBC's report. The key points were that the Brackett noise work will be done with $35,000 to spare, that the Hardy noise work will cost $207,558, and that the Dallin rebuild will be $11,975,865. With respect to the Dallin, the state will not base reimbursements on more than $11,096,580. Also, since the existing appropriation is $9,200,000, an additional $2,775,865 is needed. He also mentioned a number of "green" features in the Dallin design, such as automatic faucets and flushers, occupant sensors for light and ventilation, and an energy-efficient roof and HVAC system. He said the Thompson and Stratton submittals are complete and will be submitted once the Commonwealth removes the submission moratorium,
- Article 2 tabled.
Mr. Moderator declared Annual Town Meeting in recess.
19 May Special Town Meeting opened and called to order.
STM Article 1 - Reports of Committees:
- BoS report received.
- FinComm report received.
- Article 1 tabled.
STM Article 2 - Dallin Appropriation:
- FinComm recommended an additional appropriation of (and to issue bonds for) $2,775,865 to fund the Dallin rebuild.
- Mr. Cole again noted that the state will not reimburse our costs in excess of $11,096,580 which has the effect of reducing the remaining capacity under the debt exclusion to fund Thompson and Stratton rebuilds.
- Mr. Tosti explained level vs. declining principal debt service options and explained the how the Town's share of the cost is calculated (see pp. D1 and D2 in FinComm report). He said the Town will eventually have to decide whether to try to do Thompson and Stratton within the normal budgets or ask for another debt exclusion. He said FinComm recommendation was unanimous.
- Town Treasurer Bilafer said last year he was too worried about the state of the SBA program to be willing to support the Dallin work, but that since the governor and legislature both have plans to clear the backlog, he is much more confident that timelines will work out and now supports the rebuild. He said he wants the Town to honor the 37% promise and that he might convert the BANs to bonds before state reimbursement starts if interest rates move adversely.
- Mr. Lyons congratulated people for the effort they put in to making this happen. He said the governor's and legislature's plans impose a three year moratorium on new submissions, which is being fought by the Massachusetts Municipal Association. He said a similar level of effort is needed on behalf of Thompson and Stratton and praised Superintendant Donovan for her work on Dallin.
- Ms. Gormley, a Dallin parent, said she was happy this was happening and asked SchoolComm why it voted for the work this year. Mr. Schlichtman said the situation was too uncertain last year, but has become much more positive, allowing SchoolComm to feel comfortable with moving ahead this year.
- Mr. Chaput noted the "green" elements in the design and said the PTBC went beyond what the Redevelopment Board asked of it.
- Mr. Kohl moved the previous question - debate terminated.
- FinComm recommendation approved unanimously.
STM Article 3 - Hardy Appropriation:
- FinComm recommended an appropriation of $207,558 for the Hardy noise work.
- Mr. Cole said a substantial portion of this should be repaid to us by the architect and builder, though the exact amount is subject to mediation. He said the Town will pay $50,000 which is the cost of equipment that should have been installed in the first place, but that the Town will not pay the costs of said equipment being installed out of sequence.
- Mr. Tosti said the FinComm recommendation was unanimous and that $120,300 is being borrowed, $35,000 will come from unspent Brackett funds, and $52,258 will come from the Elementary School Interest Account (an account funded by the interest on school project bond proceeds that had not yet been spent).
- (???????) asked why the Town is paying for work it should not be paying for. Mr. Tosti said that the Town could not wait to settle. He said the work had to be done now and the Town will seek reimbursement for it.
- Mr. Dumyahn said this was the second school with noise problems and asked why the PTBC let it happen. Mr. Cole said the PTBC was well aware of the Brackett problems and told the architect of its concerns and received assurances from the architect and builder than there would be no problems. He said that the PTBC believes the architect and builder made errors of omission but could not elaborate as this may become a subject of litigation. Mr. Dumyahn asked if the Town was paying for the noise equipment twice. Mr. Cole and Mr. Maher again explained that the equipment was omitted, that the Town did not pay for it then, but that the Town will pay what it would have cost if the equipment had been installed when it should have been.
- Mr. Loreti said the Town should specify decibel standards and not equipment. Mr. Cole said that is what the PTBC does. Mr. Loreti asked if the Hardy afterschool revolving fund could be tapped. Mr. Maher said it could not. Mr. Cole said the PTBC has developed a detailed anti-noise specification which was included in the Dallin bid papers.
- Mr. Hurd asked if there were plans to resolve the Hardy trim issue. Mr. Cole said no one had asked the PTBC about it.
- Mr. Rosselli moved the previous question - debate terminated.
- FinComm recommendation approved, but since it was not unanimous and needed a 2/3rds vote due to the bonding provisions, a standing vote was called and the recommendation was approved 176-3.
STM Article 4 - Additional Appropriation for FY04 School Budget:
- Mr. Tosti said FinComm was still crunching numbers and did not have a recommendation ready. He moved to table.
- Tabled.
STM Article 5 - Exception to Title VI, Article 6 of the By-laws:
- BoS recommended a vote of no action.
- Ms. Mahon said the BoS report did not go into much detail because the proponents represented they would not make a substitute motion. She said they went back on their representation and that she would explain further during debate.
- Mr. McCabe presented a substitute motion to create a general appeals procedure (with the ZBA as the appellate board) from the provisions of the Historically and Architecturally Significant Buildings by-law.
- Rising to a point of order, Mr. O'Conor asked if the substitute motion was in the scope of the article. Mr. Moderator, after first complaining about the motion not being available 24 hours in advance so that these sorts of issues could be worked out, ruled the motion out-of-scope on the grounds that the article mentioned an exemption for a specific property while the substitute motion sought to create an appeals process and to make it generally available. Mr. Maher conceded that the Moderator has the final decision but said it was his opinion that the article was within the scope because it creates a legal method by which the 193-195 Forest Street owners could get an exception. He said the courts are only strict on zoning articles and that the outside-the-scope rationale is weak in the case of representative town meetings.
- Rising to a point of order, Mr. Rosselli asked the Moderator to put his ruling to the floor for its decision. Mr. Moderator refused, noting that state law says the decision is his alone.
- Mr. McCabe moved to table. Motion was defeated.
- Mr. Judd moved to postpone to 26 May. Motion was defeated.
- BoS recommendation of no action approved.
- Mr. Abbott moved for reconsideration and asked that the motion be voted down in order to make final the vote of no action.
- Mr. McCabe tried to make a substitute motion but Mr. Moderator rule him out of order because while the underlying merits can be debated during a motion to reconsider, a substitute motion under the article can only be made once reconsideration is approved.
- Mr. Gilligan moved the previous question - debate terminated.
- Abbott motion to reconsider defeated.
STM Article 6 - FY04 Revision to Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund:
- Mr. Tosti said FinComm recommended a vote of no action. He thanked Mr. Jamieson and Ms. Dunn for pointing out that the indirect charges being billed to the fund have not gone up even though health and pension costs have skyrocketed. He said a $250,000 change will be made in the FY05 main budgets which will cover FY04 as well and therefore that no action was needed here.
- FinComm recommendation approved.
Special Town Meeting adjourned to 26 May, 2004.
Annual Town Meeting recalled from recess.
Article 74 - Position Reclassification:
- FinComm recommended a vote as set forth in its report.
- FinComm recommendation approved unanimously.
Article 75 - Transfer of Appropriations/Parking:
- FinComm recommended a vote of no action as set forth in its report.
- FinComm recommendation approved unanimously.
Article 76 - Transfer of Appropriations/Weed Treatment:
- FinComm recommended a vote of no action as set forth in its report.
- FinComm recommendation approved unanimously.
Article 77 - Appropriation/Library Way:
- FinComm recommended a vote of no action as set forth in its report.
- Mr. Judd moved to postpone to 24 May.
- Motion to postpone approved.
Article 78 - Field User Fees:
- Mr. Tosti said FinComm did not have a full recommendation yet, but that its recommendation would include not charging childrens' groups, probably charging adult groups, and setting up a task force to more fully examine the numbers. He moved to table.
- Motion to table approved.
Article 79 - Appropriation/Park Ave Bridge:
- FinComm recommended a vote of no action as set forth in its report.
- Mr. Judd moved to postpone to 24 May.
- Motion to postpone approved.
Mr. Jamieson moved to table Articles 80-82.
Motion to table approved.
Article 83 - Permissive Legislation:
- BoS recommended a vote of no action as set forth in its report.
- BoS recommendation approved unanimously.
Article 84 - Local Option Taxes:
- BoS recommended a vote of no action as set forth in its report.
- BoS recommendation approved unanimously.
Article 85 - Create Webmaster Position:
- BoS recommended a vote of no action as set forth in its report.
- Ms. Mahon said this was one of the things the ITAC would look into.
- BoS recommendation approved unanimously.
Article 86 - Appropriation/Retiree Healthcare Trust Fund:
- FinComm recommended a vote as set forth in its report.
- FinComm recommendation approved unanimously.
Article 87 - Appropriation/Tip Fee Stabilization Fund:
- FinComm recommended a vote as set forth in its report.
- Mr. Judd asked if the appropriation has been going up or down and if there was a trendline. Mr. Tosti said the goal is to have the fund zeroed out when the NESWC contract expires.
- Ms. Harrington asked the Town Manager if he would assure the Town that there would be enough money left in the fund to pay any last NESWC obligations. Town Manager Sullivan said there would be.
- FinComm recommendation approved unanimously.
Article 88 - Transfer of Funds/Cemetery:
- FinComm recommended a vote of no action as set forth in its report.
- Mr. Tosti said that after the report went to print it turned out that a transfer might be necessary and so moved to table.
- Motion to table approved.
Article 89 - Appropriation/Overlay Reserve:
- FinComm recommended a vote as set forth in its report.
- FinComm recommendation approved unanimously.
Article 90 - Appropriation/Stabilization Fund:
- FinComm recommended a vote of no action as set forth in its report.
- Mr. Abbott asked if it would be better to appropriate $0 instead of no action if a change turns out to be needed. Mr. Tosti said that if there was money left over in the budget to go back into the stabilization fund he would pull a Roger Barnaby and buy ice cream for all. He said he would move reconsideration if there was any money left over that could go into the fund.
- Ms. Harrington said the insurance trust fund had $400,000 less than we thought and asked if that was a problem. Mr. Tosti said the Town could always appropriate back into that fund some of the money transferred out of it and into the stabilization fund.
- Mr. McCabe asked what the stabilization fund balance would be after this year's action. Mr. Tosti said it would be around $700,000. Mr. McCabe asked if that included the $1,500,000 transfer. Mr. Tosti said it did not and including that would put the fund at around $2,200,000 after this year's actions.
- FinComm recommendation approved unanimously.
Article 91 - Use of Free Cash:
- Mr. Tosti moved to table since the exact motion here would depend on the budget outcome.
- Motion to table approved.
Article 92 - Resolution/Affordable Housing:
- BoS recommended a vote as set forth in its report.
- Mr. Lyons said the resolution asks for a number of changes to MGL Chapter 40B. He said many of the requested changes are in various amendments and that the Senate is considering several innovative incentive programs. He said the resolution is consistent with the goals of the BoS and the MMA to improve 40B.
- Mr. Belskis, chair of the Coalition to Reform 40B, said that the resolution is to encourage reform. He said Arlington's "inclusionary zoning" by-law is a model to other towns but much be vulnerable to constitutional challenge. He said that afforability restrictions currently time out and should be made perpetual. He said that Arlington is safe from 40B developments because 1.5% of the Town's land area is covered with affordable housing.
- Mr. Dunn said he agreed with sending a message on 40B's problems but that he disagreed with the one-size-fits-all approach the resolution calls for.
- Mr. Kohl asked how the Time Olds site development got out of the Town's "inclusionary zoning" rules. Mr. Lyons said that the resolution would not change the Town's rules but merely sends a message to the legislature. He said he believes the Town's rules would stand up in court.
- Ms. Weaver asked what clause (c) in the final paragraph of the resolution means. Mr. Belskis said it is moot as the legislature is no longer planning to change the "Consistent With Local Needs" part of the law. He said that sections lists the criteria by which a town can be exempt from a 40B development.
- Mr. Judd agreed with Mr. Dunn that one-size-fits-all is bad.
- Mr. O'Riordan moved the previous question - debate terminated.
- BoS recommendation approved.
Article 93 - Resolution/Public School Education Principles:
- Ms. Mayer moved to table as the proponents were not present.
- Motion to table defeated.
Motion to adjourn approved.
Mr. Moderator warned that he plans to call up all the tables articles at the next session, so all proponents should be ready to present.
Adjourned at 22:57 to 24 May at 20:00.

2004-05-20T09:17:00.000-04:00

Mr. Dunn's notes are available.

2004-05-18T02:01:00.000-04:00

Thoughts and Comments

Mr. Lyons should hope that his opponent(s) in next Spring's election don't pull a hatchet job on him like the one he pulled on the Article 48 proponents. Disgraceful.
Speaking of being out-of-line, the Moderator did not do his office proud by from the chair calling Nora Mann's substitute motion a motion to "investigate" FinComm. That was unfair and uncalled for.
I was in favor (but lukewarmly) of Ms. Mann's substitute motion under Article 48. I wasn't sure about the "how Town Meeting...determines revenue" part of it, but I was absolutely in favor of the "how Town Meeting votes the budgets" part of it. While I commiserate with the Moderator's need to hold back chaos while the budgets are under discussion, our current procedures rob us of necessary flexibility in financing and in debate. I would like to see all the sub-budgets up for debate and possible amendment simultaneously. To keep some order, I'd recommend that discussion proceed first on sub-budget 1, then sub-budget 2 and so on, but that while sub-budget 2 was under debate it would be in order to make a single amendment that would transfer $X from sub-budget 2 to sub-budgets 1 and 12 and that it would be in order to debate the effects of that amendent on sub-budgets on all three affected sub-budgets. With an approach like this the necessary flexibility would be there, but some necessary focus and order would be imposed. Should anyone like the idea, make an appropriate motion right at the beginning when Article 52 comes up. Probably doomed, though.
Perhaps FinComm and CapComm could keep track of the questions (photocopiers, anyone?) they get asked year after year that receive the same answer year after year, and put in a little FAQ at the beginning of their reports.
Wow! Mr. Moderator really put the pedal down in the final fifteen minutes :-)

2004-05-18T01:59:00.000-04:00

Mr. Dunn's notes are now available.

2004-05-18T01:57:00.000-04:00

Session 7 Notes

Called to order at 20:02.
Mr. Moderator explained in advance the procedure for an STM -- the ATM is opened, then recessed, then the STM is opened, then adjourned if not finished, and then the ATM is adjourned. He asked someone to remind him to adjourn the ATM should he forget.
Mr. Tosti said the FinComm report to the STM would be available later tonight (turned out to be distributed during the recess).
Ms. Mahon noted that the BoS report on its CDBG decisions were available and would be taken up on Wednesday if time allowed.
Article 47 - Establish ITAC:
- Mr. Berkowitz moved to amend the BoS recommendation to insert a new role for the committee, that being to support initiatives and activities to increase communication between governmental entities, between the government and residents, and between residents. He said it was consistent with the spirit of the article and that the ITAC should do more than advise the Town Manager. He said that research shows "connected" people tend to develop stronger bonds and to band together to solve their own problems which is both intrinsically good and could save the Town money.
- Ms. Mahon said the BoS was highly supportive of the amendment.
- Mr. Loreti said he supported the intent but said there should be people on ITAC with no technology expertise and asked how such people would be represented. Ms. Mahon said that the final decision on membership rests with the BoS and that people should show up at hearings and give input.
- Ms. Harrington asked if the ex officio members would have a vote. Mr. Moderator said they would. Ms. Harrington asked, given that, why citizen members were not simply added to the DPAB. Ms. LaCourt said the DPAB's mission, set by by-law, was outdated and also that the proponents wanted to only have one committee so that members would not have yet another round of meetings to attend. Ms. Harrington asked what a "regular" member was. Ms. LaCourt and Mr. Maher said it was just a way to distinguish between citizen and ex officio members. Ms. Harrington why citizen members could not be Town employees and if that was a punitive measure. Mr. Maher said the reason was that the ITAC was already loaded up with Town employees and that the provision was to broaden input, not punish anyone.
- Ms. LaCourt said the recommended vote was written in conjunction with the DPAB and was based on similar by-laws in other towns. She said the intent of the proponents was to have the citizen members essentially be consultants and so a high level of expertise was desired. She said the ITAC would be soliticing plenty of citizen input.
- Motion on the previous question - debate terminated.
- Berkowitz amendment approved unanimously.
- BoS recommendation as amended approved unanimously.
Article 25 - Bylaw Amendment/DPAB
- BoS recommended a vote to repeal the DPAB by-law, as set forth in the BoS report.
- Ms. Mahon said that with ITAC created the BoS recommendation should be approved.
- BoS recommendation approved unanimously.
Mr. Foskett moved to table Articles 48-56. Approved.
Article 57 - Capital Budget:
- FinComm recommended a vote as set forth in its report (identical to the recommendation in the CapComm's report).
- Mr. Foskett introduced the members of CapComm. He recapped a number of charts and figures in the CapComm report and pointed out that for the past 18 years FinComm and CapComm have agreed to spend 5% of revenues on the capital budget. He said that while this year will be under that (4.43%), some future years will be over, so that the in total upcoming five year bloc will be at the 5% mark.
- APS CFO Addelson said that last year CapComm felt it was too risky to put the Dallin on the capital plan but that due to competing similar plans from the Legislature and the Governor to clear the SBAP waiting list, CapComm has changed its mind and put Dallin on the plan this year. He said CapComm felt reimbursements for Pierce and Dallin would now begin no later than FY07 and that BANs could be used to bridge until then.
- CapComm Member Fitzmaurice said another item on the capital plan is to upgrade the Town's 911 response center by installing a new antenna at Symmes to eliminate communications dead zones and installing a new console in the dispatch center.
- Mr. Vitters said the plans for the Spy Pond shoreline work are done and are being reviewed by ConComm. He said they will fix stormwater and shoreline erosion, replace some trees and remove some invasive species, replace furniture, and improve emergency vehicle access. He said that being mindful of the Town's fiscal straits, the overall budget has been reduced from $1,400,000 to $900,000 and this year's request from $500,000 to $400,000. He said it is important to get all the funding in place and do the project in one phase.
- Ms. Mayer said the Vision 2020 Reservoir Committee was formed to deal with the whole dam issue and that an independent consultant concurred with the Commonwealth that work had to be done. She said the capital plan funds placing I-beams into the dam, allowing the dam to be strengthened while minimizing tree loss. She said the Reservoir Committee endorsed the plan.
- Mr. Moderator asked if the "keep any excess funds within the article" provision would be honored by the Comptroller. Mr. Foskett said as far as he knew, the Comproller always had. Mr. Moderator said last year the Comptroller took funds out of an article to pay some bills sent to the Town by the Commonwealth. Comptroller Lewis said that when an article segregates funds for a specific purpose, the money stays in the article, but for certain types of recurring expenditures state law requires excess money to go into the general fund.
- Mr. Kohl (referring to item (3)(25)) asked why natural gas was chosen for the new Town Hall boiler given how expensive gas is. DPW Director Sanchez said that the move to gas is to avoid any problems with leakage as the Town has had many such problems and also that a gas system is easier to maintain and is more efficient, resulting in a better cost/benefits outcome.
- Mr. Chaput asked why the "other" funding (see Figure 1 in the CapComm report) was so high in 2004. Mr. Foskett said it was because of the money paid to the Town via the Pierce Field agreement approved at the February STM. Mr. Chaput asked why there was no future projected uses of the antenna fund. Mr. Foskett said that because monies from that fund are restricted to being used on parks and fields, it was too hard to forecast when antenna fund monies could be slotted into the plan. Mr. Chaput asked why many similar purchases were in separate line items instead of being combined and bid in one shot. Mr. Foskett said the money to purchase them was coming from different places and so they had to be in different line items in different sub-votes, but that how they appeared in the vote did not mean the Town could not put a single large order out to bid. Mr. Chaput asked where the backup emergency reponse center was. Fire Chief Maimone said it was in the basement of the Park Circle station. Mr. Chaput asked if any toilet facilities were planned for Spy Pond. Mr. Foskett said there was not.
- Mr. Ruderman asked why $130,000 was being spent on photcopiers. Mr. Foskett said the Town has many buildings, spread out over Town and that centralizing photocopiers would cost more in lost productivity than would be saved in direct costs. He said the photocopiers are typically on three to five year leases.
- Ms. Scott asked if the bulletproof vests could be purchased with Homeland Security funds. Police Chief Ryan said that there is a first-come, first-served reimbursement-basis Department of Justice program. He said the Town seeks reimbursements for jackets purchased in excess of five. Ms. Scott asked if the 911 improvements involved personnel increases. Chief Ryan said that would not be in a capital budget. Ms. Scott asked which schools are getting gym re-marking, roof repairs, and pavement resurfacing. Superintendant Donovan said SchoolComm tries to do a certain amount of roof and pavement work at each school and that gym re-marking is done on a rotating basis with Brackett and the High School up this year. Ms. Scott asked about the small van, the 77-person bus, and the Thompson and Stratton improvements. Superintendant Donovan said the existing small van used to take small teams to practices and away games is old and needs to be replaced. She said the bus would be a new bus and that the school improvements are needed to keep those schools in good enough repair until they can be rebuilt.
- Mr. Jamieson asked why the stabilization funds and the antenna fund were being used in the capital plan. Mr. Foskett said it was a logical place to put it, since a capital plan has a lot of one-time expenditures, but ultimately it did not make any real difference whether the stabilization funds were used in the capital budget or the operating budget. Mr. Jamieson asked about the Ottoson adjustment in some charts and tables. Mr. Foskett said that was because in an accounting and planning sense 37% of the reimbursement should go into the capital budget but the monies are actually paid into the general fund. Mr. Jamieson pointed out that the first year's debt service of a given project is generally lower than the ultimate annual debt service on the project and specifically noted that if all three fire stations are redone it would result in roughly an additional $1,000,000 of debt service for 20 years. Mr. Foskett said that was why CapComm does five-year plans and that the numbers in Exhibit V feed back into Table 3.
- Ms. Fiore asked if the Reservoir work was on the dam or the swimming berm or both. Mr. Foskett said it was only on the dam. Ms. Fiore said that there used to be a public path around Spy Pond that was improperly encroached on by property owners. Mr. Moderator said that was folklore. Ms. Fiore asked what the Spy Pond work covers. Mr. Foskett said it was the shoreline from the apartments to the Boys' & Girls' Club.
- Mr. Leone said he was upset about the photocopiers and asked what the payments were for. Mr. Foskett said they were the annual lease payments. Mr. Leone asked if the Town could buy the copiers instead. Mr. Foskett said CapComm has looked into it and that leasing is cheaper. Mr. Leone asked what happened to the Locke Playground money. Mr. Foskett said it was reserved and is invested. Mr. Leone asked if the water and sewer rehabilitation would ever finish. Mr. Foskett said probably not for 20 to 30 more years. Mr. Leone said he hoped the vehicle being purchased for the inspectors would be fuel efficient. Mr. Sanchez said it would be but that he could not say what brand it would be.
- Ms. Weaver said that just changing the boiler from oil to gas would not increase efficiency if the overall system was inefficient and pointed out that natural gas prices are very high. Mr. Sanchez said that only the boiler is being replaced and that the replacement is not about savings, but about getting an old boiler replaced. Ms. Weaver claimed that in her experience owning a photocopier outright is cheaper than leasing.
- Mr. Trembly asked how many pick-ups the Town owned. Mr. Sanchez said around 12. Mr. Trembly asked what snow plow was being replaced. Mr. Sanchez said a 1979 model was being replaced but that he could not say what the replacement brand would be as that it determined by bidding.
- Mr. Leonard asked why a pickup being purchased by SchoolComm was $5,000 less than a pickup being purchased by DPW. Mr. Sanchez said that one would have to ask what equipment SchoolComm wants on their truck, but that for the truck DPW wants, $35,000 is what it would cost. Mr. Leonard asked what "cost of financing" is. Mr. Foskett said it was the bond underwriters' fees. Mr. Leonard asked why it started in 2002. Mr. Foskett said it used to be there all the time, but for a stretch in the late 1990s and into this decade, competition pushed brokers to eat the fees but that starting in 2001 they stopped doing so.
- Mr. Abbott moved the previous question - debate terminated.
- Mr. Moderator decided to take four separate votes.
- FinComm recommendation on sub-vote (1) approved unanimously.
- FinComm recommendation on sub-vote (2) approved unanimously.
- FinComm recommendation on sub-vote (3) approved unanimously.
- FinComm recommendation on sub-votes (4) and (5) approved unanimously.
Mr. Foskett moved to take Articles 48-56 from the table. Approved
Article 48 - Committee/Town Budgets:
- BoS recommended a vote of no action as set forth in its report.
- Ms. Mahon said the BoS vote for no action was 3-1 with her in the negative and Mr. Greeley absent.
- Ms. Mann moved to substitute a vote to create a committee to study how Town Meeting votes the budgets and establishes revenue, with one member to be picked by the BoS, one by SchoolComm, one by FinComm, the Town Manager or his designee, and one by the Moderator, with applicants' municipal finance and business or management experience to be considered by the appointing authorities. Ms. Mann said that the current boards and committees make great efforts but should be able to harness residents' expertise. She said she wanted to see budgets come before the meeting in a way that is open to in-depth discussion and to put a Town Meeting policy stamp on the approved budgets. She said the way Town Meeting currently votes the budgets prevents money from being moved between sub-budgets and that TMMs should have more say in the process.
- Mr. Ford moved to amend the substitute motion to also have the committee study how FinComm presents the budgets.
- Mr. Carreiro said he had originally planned to ask about the committee make-up as the subtitute motion left on people's seats did not specify that. He said that while he was keeping an open mind until he could hear opponents, he was in favor of the substitute motion.
- Ms. Fiore said she opposed the substitute motion and that it would just create more meetings for people to attend. She said it would weaken Town Meeting and FinComm and was undemocratic because of the expertise requirement.
- Mr. Fischer said he agreed with Ms. Fiore and asked if the Arlington Coalition had found any great waste. He said he wished more people would take advantage of the Vision 2020 committees and that no matter how much people discussed process, it would not make any more money appear.
- Mr. Rosselli said he was opposed to the substitute motion. He tried to discuss the Arlington Coalition handout but Mr. Moderator shot him down.
- Mr. Lyons said the committee "transects" the democratic process and that a "supercommittee" was not needed.
- Ms. LaCourt said Mr. Lyons mischaracterized the committee. She said its goal is to study how the budget is presented to Town Meeting, not to "get in the face" of FinComm.
- Mr. Kohl moved the previous question. Approved, challenged, approved 113-39 - debate terminated.
- Ford amendment defeated.
- Mann substitute motion defeated.
- BoS recommendation of no action approved.
Article 49 - Committee/Retiree Medical Benefits Committee:
- BoS recommended a vote as set forth in its report.
- Town Treasurer Bilafer said accounting standards will soon require the Town to put its retiree medical benefits liability (between $70,000,000 and $220,000,000) on the balance sheet, which could jeopardize the Town's credit rating. He said he wanted this committee to investigate how best to comply with the regulation and safeguard the Town's rating.
- Mr. Tosti said rating agencies are looking at these liabilities more and more and that FinComm supported the BoS recommendation.
- Mr. Judd asked if all communities would not be in the same boat. Mr. Bilafer said they would, but that communities with high credit ratings have more to lose. Mr. Judd said he was against reducing retirees' benefits. Mr. Bilafer said that if the problem is not addressed, that may well happen someday.
- Mr. Rosselli moved the previous question - debate terminated.
- BoS recommendation approved unanimously.
Article 50 - Committee/Reserve Fund Policies:
- BoS recommended a vote as set forth in its report.
- Mr. Bilafer moved to table since he did not want a detailed explanation to be followed with an immediate adjournment.
- Motion to table approved.
Article 51 - Committee/Trust Fund Policies:
- BoS recommended a vote as set forth in its report.
- Mr. Bilafer said he received many calls asking about the potential use of trust funds. He said that many are restricted in many ways and that there is no Town policy on how to use them. He said the committee would recommend some uniform approach that various funds' trustees could consider adopting.
- Mr. Jamieson said he was in favor of the recommended vote and suggested that the trust fund balances be printed in the Annual Report as other towns do.
- Mr. Rosselli moved the previous question - debate terminated.
- BoS recommendation approved unanimously.
Article 52 - Appropriation/Town Budgets:
- Mr. Tosti moved to table, saying that FinComm was still trying to close a $1.2mil gap.
- Motion to table approved.
Article 53 - Appropriation/Minuteman:
- Mr. Tosti moved to postpone to 24 May so the Minuteman superintendant could attend.
- Motion to postpone approved.
Article 54 - Appropriation/Town Celebrations:
- FinComm recommended a vote as set forth in its report.
- FinComm recommendation approved unanimously.
Article 55 - Appropriation/Committees and Commissions:
- FinComm recommended a vote as set forth in its report.
- FinComm recommendation approved unanimously.
Article 56 - Appropriation/Misc:
- FinComm recommended a vote as set forth in its report.
- FinComm recommendation approved unanimously.
Article 58 - Rescind Authorization to Borrow:
- FinComm recommended a vote of no action as set forth in its report.
- FinComm recommendation approved unanimously.
Article 59 - Appropriation/Hardy School:
- FinComm changed its recommendation to no action, as the Special Town Meeting will address the issue.
- FinComm recommendation approved unanimously.
Article 60 - Appropriation/Dallin School:
- FinComm recommended a vote of no action as set forth in its report.
- FinComm recommendation approved unanimously.
Article 61 - Rebuild Program Alternatived:
- FinComm recommended a vote of no action as set forth in its report.
- Mr. Bilafer said he agreed with no action, but wished to have the Meeting consider a resolution saying that the Town still intends to rebuild Stratton and Thompson, and moved to postpone to 24 May.
- Motion to postpone approved.
Article 62 - Appropriation/Water and Sewer:
- FinComm recommended a vote as set forth in its report.
- FinComm recommendation approved unanimously.
Article 63 - Appropriation/Water and Sewer:
- FinComm recommended a vote as set forth in its report.
- Mr. Streitfeld asked if the $700,000 being appropriated under this vote comes from the water and sewer debt service moved onto the property tax. Mr. Tosti said it did.
- Mr. Abbott asked if there was a double appropriation between this vote and item (2)(8) of the capital budget vote. Mr. Foskett said it was not an additional $700,000 and was to put into the relevant enterprise fund the money being spent under item (2)(8) of the capital budget.
- FinComm recommendation approved unanimously.
Article 64 - Appropriation/Pension Adjustment:
- FinComm recommended a vote as set forth in its report.
- FinComm recommendation approved unanimously.
Article 65 - Collective Bargaining/Local 680:
- Mr. Tosti said he hears there has been "movement" in negotiations and moved to table Articles 65-73.
- Motion to table approved.
Mr. Judd announced the Scoppettuolo 5K fundraiser on Sunday.
Motion to adjourn approved.
Adjourned at 22:57 to 19 May at 20:00.

2004-05-13T02:23:00.000-04:00

A Wet Arlington?

Note from me -- when Town Meeting approves a home rule petition, the Moderator always asks for a counted vote no matter how overwhelming the approval, as the Legislature likes to see the actual margin of support in the record.
Called to order at 20:04.
Article 2 taken from the table.
Article 2 - Reports of Committees:
- Ms. Howard presented the Vision 2020 report which will shortly be avilable at the V2020 website.
- Article 2 tabled.
Ms. Mahon moved to table Articles 37-93, approved.
Article 94 - Home Rule Petition/Package Stores:
- BoS recommended a vote as set forth in its report to authorize the BoS to file a home rule petition to put on the 2005 town election ballot the question of whether to authorize up to three licenses for sale of alcohol for off-premises consumption.
- Ms. Mahon said the petition would give the voters a choice between all-alcohol stores and beer and wine stores, and that the BoS plans to have a wide-ranging process with plenty of discussion leading up to the 2005 vote, and wants any such stores to be tasteful. One hope is that it will help foot traffic in the business districts. She said there will be strict rules and regulations.
- Mr. Fiore said that people have already decided they do not want these stores. He said that if the people are giving the chance to vote, he is worried that a telemarketing campaign will sway the vote. He said he is also worried about store interests putting pressure on the BoS and urged the meeting to vote no.
- Mr. Jamieson asked how much revenue would be generated. Mr. Hurd said $2,000 per license. Mr. Jamieson asked if the vote would allow wine tastings, as the requested language would only authorize off-premises consumption. Mr. Maher said it would not. Mr. Jamieson asked about the Winchester process. Town Manager Sullivan said Winchester filed a home-rule petition to increase the number of stores and that there were extensive discussions about criteria, such as the type of store, parking issues, and neighborhood issues. He said there were strict guidelines. Mr. Jamieson asked if the questions to be put on the ballot could be amended. Mr. Maher said they could not, but the BoS as a licensing board has flexibility to set conditions.
- Mr. Ruderman asked if proposed guidelines would be in place before the 2005 vote. Mr. Maher said they would be. Mr. Ruderman said he would prefer to have some idea of them now. He wondered how a "nice" store could be defined and doubted a beer and wine only store was feasible. He said he would vote no since there were no guidelines to examine.
- Mr. Cacavarro wondered why such stores are needed since there are so many in neighboring municipalities. He said the proposal does not makes sense and should be voted down.
- Mr. Abbott said there is plenty of beer and wine around -- one need only stop by typical teen hangouts. He asked why the BoS cannot put the question on the ballot itself. Mr. Maher said the BoS can only put non-binding public opinion questions on the ballot. Anything else requires state authorization. Mr. Abbott questioned whether the increased convenience would be worth it.
- Mr. McKinney said in a previous job he worked on producing drug abuse literature and that drinking is simply recreational drug use. He said he was against the proposal and that if it did go forward, the Town should only allow Town-run stores.
- Mr. Dunn asked when the last time a store proposal was on the ballot. Mr. Maher said it has never happened. Mr. Dunn said many objections by others were red herrings and that the people of the Town should get to decide.
- Ms. LaCourt asked if any law enforcement personnel could speak to the topic. There were none, as Chief Ryan was home sick. She said there was no reason to believe in-town stores would increase underage drinking, and as she would like to support local businesses, she was in favor of the proposal.
- Mr. Fischer said he was opposed and that the Town has more important things to do. He asked if stores would be open on Sunday and if they could be prevented from selling nips. Mr. Maher said probably and no.
- Mr. O'Riordan asked what the inspectional requirements would be and which Town bodies would be involved. Ms. Mahon said the APD, the Board of Health, the state ABCC, and the BoS would all be involved.
- Mr. Bernardin moved the previous question, approved, challenged, approved 120-47 - debate terminated.
- BoS recommendation defeated on a voice vote, challenged, approved 109-63 on a counted vote.
Ms. Mahon moved to remove Articles 37-93 from the table, approved.
Article 37 - Home Rule Petition/Package Stores:
- BoS recommended no action as set forth in its report.
- Ms. Mahon said the Article 94 vote made this moot.
- BoS recommendation approved.
Article 38 - Home Rule Petition/All-Alcohol Licenses:
- BoS recommended a vote as set forth in its report to authorize the BoS to file a home rule petition to put on the 2005 town election ballot the question of whether to authorize an additional five all-alcohol licenses for on-premises consumption.
- Ms. Mahon said that five licenses are authorized and four of them are out (N.B. flora's, Shanghai Village, NYAJ's, and Jimmy's). She said the BoS would like more flexibility and so would like to see the allowable licenses doubled. She said that would not mean all ten would be given out.
- Mr. Judd said there does not seem to be many DUI or drunken persons reports in the blotter, and those that do appear tend to be from out of town. He said that due both to laws and to liability risks, the rules are strict and that so far the Town has regulated the restaurant licenses well. He said he favors the recommendation and noted that adults should be left to make their own choices to drink or not. He said that he himself was an alcoholic, though has not had a drink since 1985, and that people can get over it. He said lack of local availability obviously is not stopping underage people from obtaining alcohol and that the question should be left to the voters.
- Mr. Greeley asked for support of the proposal and said the voters should have the chance to decide. He said no one is currently interested in any extra licenses.
- Ms. Mann said the long-term competitiveness of the town must be considered and that banning alcohol will not stop underage drinking. She said she supported the proposal, since it would provide various boards with more options for town planning.
- Mr. Ruderman asked how many restaurants currently meet the license criteria. Mr. Greeley said only the four that currently have licenses.
- Mr. Ford said he was in favor of this proposal though not the store proposal. He said he was worried about the voters being confused with both proposals on the ballot.
- Mr. Cleinman asked if the 99-seat requirement would be retained and worried if it would be an impediment to new restaurants. Mr. Maher said the 99-seat rules was in the original vote to establish these licenses and so could not be changed. Mr. Cleinman said he was in favor of the proposal.
- Ms. Fiore said the Town first got liquor licenses in 1970 and that 34 years later the Town can barely use all five and that beer and wine licenses are everywhere, as only 19 seats are needed. She said she does not drink and always votes against liquor. She said liquor much more than drugs causes problems in town and that the proposal should be voted down.
- Mr. Abbott moved the previous question - debate terminated.
- BoS recommendation approved on a voice vote, approved 154-15 on a counted vote.
Article 39 - Revolving Funds:
- BoS recommended a vote as set forth in its report to reauthorize the revolving funds.
- Ms. Mahon made an amendment to change the upset balance in Section A from $50,000 to $200,000, to put in a $20,000 upset balance in Section G, to put in a $2,000 upset balance in Section H, and fix a typo ($526.15 should be $3526.15) in Section C.
- Mr. O'Conor moved to table the article due to issues with the Hardy School Program - defeated.
- Ms. Harrington asked about the $50,000 to $200,000 increase. Mr. Moderator said it was because of the "down payment" increase under Article 23. Mr. Maher said the number is an estimate as some limit must be specified, but slack is desirable. He pointed out that revolving funds do not affect the tax rate. Ms. Harrington asked if the number is a guess. Mr. Maher said it is an educated guess and the idea is to not be so low as to hamstring the fund.
- Mr. McKinney questioned whether the Uncle Sam Committee should continue to exist as it spends no money and has no meetings. Ms. Mahon said it participates in Town Day and in some events and helps raise the profile of the Town.
- Mr. Malone asked to postpone the article to 26 May due to discrepancies in the Hardy program.
- Mr. Foskett noted the vote is not an appropriation.
- Malone motion to postpone defeated.
- BoS motion as amended approved.
Article 40 - CDBG Endorsement: Ms. Mahon moved to table as the printed report is not yet ready, approved.
Article 41 - Home Rule Petition/Town Counsel Residency:
- BoS recommended a vote as set forth in its report to authorize the BoS to file a home-rule petition to eliminate the residency requirement for the job of Town Counsel.
- Ms. Mahon said Town Counsel is the only job remaining with a residency requirement and that the requirement should be eliminated. She said that in any case Mr. Maher has represented he will remain a resident.
- Mr. Judd said he would prefer to see these employees be required to be residents, that he was against removing the Town Manager residency requirement and that he was against this. He said he hoped the hiring authority would hire a resident.
- BoS recommendation approved on a voice vote, approved 100-20 on a counted vote.
Article 42 - Authority to File for Grants:
- BoS recommended a vote as set forth in its report to authorize certain persons to file for grants.
- Mr. Judd asked if the language would unnecessarily preclude others from seeking grants. Ms. Mahon said the vote is not legally required, but that grant givers like to see that authorization present. Mr. Judd asked about non-mentioned people. Mr. Maher said no one except those mentioned file for grants.
- Mr. Cleinman also said authorization statements were nice to have.
- BoS recommendation approved unanimously
Article 43 - On Street Parking:
- BoS recommended a vote of no action as set forth in its report.
- Ms. Mahon said that among other things, there are issues with small streets in east Arlington. She said the BoS does not believe allowing on-street parking will help the Town.
- Mr. Candelas presented a substitute motion to urge the BoS to allow weekday 07:00-19:00 parking with a sticker on all streets except Massachusetts Avenue. He introduced Mr. Rowe. Mr. Rowe thanked TM for letting him build on Water Street and said that businesses still need help. He said there is an unhealthy imbalance between employee and residential parking and that 455 jobs have been lost in three years due to employers leaving over parking issues. He said businesses are willing to pay more for stickers and that especially after taking away the 90 stickers Arlington Catholic students have, the 160 available stickers are far too few. He urged passage of the substitute motion.
- Mr. Smith asked if the BoS could do this without TM action. Mr. Maher said the vote would be advisory only. Mr. Smith said it was better to spend TM time and energy elsewhere.
- Mr. Bernardin asked what the final sentence of the motion meant. Mr. Hurd said it meant people with stickers could park in one spot beyond the usual time.
- Ms. Gormley said she was also an executive member of the Chamber of Commerce and that she was against the substitute because it does not do what the Chamber wants and because more thought is needed over exactly what to do.
- Mr. Ruderman urged rejection of the substitute, saying it would not create any more spaces and would tilt the parking balance too far in favor of employees.
- Ms. Munsey said she was opposed, as she knows too many people battling with being parked in, having to park too far away from their houses, and so forth. She said the impact of such a policy on residents must be considered.
- Ms. Mahon said 35-45 stickers for Water Street remain for all months except June-August, and over 100 remain for those months. She said the BoS is sensitive to business concerns but that it also wants to strike the proper balance. She said the TAC is considering the issue.
- Mr. Candelas said the surplus stickers at Water Street are meaningless because the lot is full of non-stickered cars who are never ticketed for violating the rules. He said employees are already all-day parking on the streets and the Town is getting nothing for it. He said the Town has talked and talked about the problem but has not done anything and that his motion would be a start.
- Mr. Gilligan moved the previous question - debate terminated.
- Candelas substitute motion defeated.
- BoS recommendation approved.
Article 44 - Home Rule Petition/Insurance Trust Fund:
- BoS recommended a vote to authorize the BoS to file home-rule legislation that would allow the Town to appropriate $1,500,000 from the insurance trust fund into the stabilization fund.
- Deputy Town Manager Galkowski recapped the BoS comment in its report and said an analysis showed that $800,000 remaining in the fund would last at least 10 years if we had a loss every year.
- Mr. Foskett said FinComm supported the BoS recommendation.
- Mr. Kohl asked if the $100,000 deductible was per year or per loss. Ms. Galkowski said it was per loss. Mr. Kohl asked when before the library appropriation was the fund last used. Ms. Galkowski said it had not been used in at least 18 years. Mr. Kohl said he supported the proposal.
- Mr. Fischer asked what the policy costs and what the policy limit is. Ms. Galkowski said it cost $40,000-$50,000 and the limit is the replacement cost of all Town-owned buildings. Mr. Fischer asked if the Town self-insures. Ms. Galskowski said the Town joined a self-insurance co-op and the "premium" is the Town's payment into the co-op. Mr. Fischer said he would like to see the money better leveraged and said he was against the proposal.
- Mr. Judd said the FinComm report showed $300,000 for indemnity insurance and $39,000 for liability. He asked if the Town should just grow the fund and self-insure. Mr. Foskett said the total value of Town assets was $54 million and that it is impossible to self-insure without a reserve. Mr. Judd asked if it were worth raising our deductible to lower premiums. Ms. Galkowski said she looked into it but the premium savings were negligible. She also said auto insurance was the bulk of the insurance costs in the budget items Mr. Judd cited.
- Mr. Dumyahn asked about the Dallin School damage and was told by Ms. Galkowski that no one made a request for reimbursement from the fund.
- Mr. Abbott said the Town should not be sitting on the funds, but asked why two sets of numbers were different in different reports. Mr. Foskett said one difference was because in one case monies ended up being appropriated in two calendar years, and in the other case because the BoS made a typo in its report (on the fund balance).
- Mr. Starr moved the previous question - debate terminated.
- BoS recommendation approved on voice vote, approved 124-2 on a counted vote.
Article 45 - Home Rule Petition/Insurance Trust Fund:
- BoS recommended a vote of no action as set forth in its report.
- BoS recommendation approved unanimously.
Article 46 - Establish Committee/Information Systems:
- BoS recommended a vote of no action as set forth in its report.
- BoS recommendation approved unanimously.
Article 47 - Establish Committee/Technical Advisory:
- BoS recommended a vote as set forth in its report to create such a committee.
- Mr. Moderator inserted a "to" at the beginning of Section 4(c) and changed the "The Board shall"s to "to" in Sections 4(d) and 4(e).
- Ms. Mahon recapped the BoS comment in its report and introduced Ms. LaCourt. Ms. LaCourt said it was clear to her that applying citizen knowledge to the Town's IT needs would increase productivity and financial efficiency. She said the whole website/webmaster thing further inspired her to get this committee going. She said there discussions with Mr. Hurd and Ms. Mahon as well as with the existing DPAB about the committee's role. She said all sides agreed the committee should in essence be the DPAB with additional citizen members. She said she and volunteers have had meetings with Town IT staff and have had a public hearing at which the language of the vote was worked out. She said she wanted a positive vote to get make the committee official.
- Move to adjourn.
Meeting adjourned at 23:02 to 20:00 on 12 May.

2004-05-13T02:22:00.000-04:00

See Mr. Dunn's comments here.

2004-05-11T02:21:00.000-04:00

Special Town Meeting Warrant Available

The Warrant for the 19 May 2004 Special Town Meeting is available here and is also in the resources section at the left margin.

2004-05-11T02:20:00.000-04:00

Mr. Dunn's notes are now available.

2004-05-11T02:11:00.000-04:00

Special Places Repealed, and More! (but not that much more)

Called to order at 20:02.
Anthem plus three songs performed by the AHS Madrigal Singers.
Mr. Moderator gave an explanation of tabling vs. postponing.
When the meeting is adjourned, it is adjourned 20:00 on 10 May.
Ms. Mahon read an anti-hate resolution passed by the BoS, said that school information was not intentionally omitted from the Annual Report (there were circumstances beyond SchoolComm's control), and that the week of the 17th is Public Works Week, culminated with Public Works Day on 22 May from 09:00 to 12:30 at the DPW yard on Grove St. She also reminded all TMMs to try to come to TM some way other than alone in one car at the 12 May session.
Mr. Tosti said the FinComm report to the Special TM will not be available until the night of the STM, as bids are only being opened this week and FinComm will not have the data finally in front of it until next Monday. He said the school articles in the STM will likely be tabled.
Ms. Howard said the Vision 2020 Spy Pond Committee will hear a presentation on the Belmont Uplands land swap proposal.
One may be interested to know that at this point, when we were starting business, it was 20:35.
Article 2 removed from the table.
Article 2 - Reports of Committees: Report of the
- Capital Planning Committee report was received.
- Article 2 tabled.
Article 33 - Bylaw Amendment/Special Places Repeal:
- Mr. Foskett asked what the possibility of litigation was and what likely outcome would be. Mr. Maher said that there was a good chance of litigation, but that the by-law has a severability clause and that he would not have allowed it to be voted on in that form if he did not think it was defensible. He said that when challenging a by-law, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Mr. Foskett, referring to Aristotle, said that the by-law was neither good law nor good order as it was too vague, too arbitrary, and is unlimited in scope. He said it was vague due to its subjectivity, especially given the circular definition of a special place and that there is nothing outside of the minds of a currently sitting set of AHC commissioners that defines what a special place is and therefore there is no standard that can be applied. Mr. Foskett said the by-law was arbitrary and could not be fairly applied and that it is limitless what a special place could be and that there are no limitations on how to apply by the by-law. He said that in his view use of the by-law would be a taking, since there is no warning and no way to warn of property owner of what might happen and that the by-law, unlike zoning, does not grandfather anything. Mr. Foskett said it was worse that spot zoning. He also pointed out that in Mr. Winkler's story about Mr. Smith and the Jason Russell house, Mr. Smith paid fair value for the land he restricted and did not just seize it.
- Ms. Olszewski said that she was one of the abutters affected under Article 32's Schwamb Mill proposed designation and that she was speaking for herself and other neighbors who want to see the by-law repealed. She said that the by-law required property owners to give up some rights and that some renovations are affected. She said that TM cannot just vote for something because it "agrees in theory", but must consider how the by-law actually affects people. She said the AHC can stop a permit if it "effects what makes a special place special." She wondered what criteria get used in that designation, what happens if a neighborhood already does not resemble a proposed special place, what happens if the AHC makeup changes, and whether or not an appeal to the BoS is limited to procedural issues or if the BoS can review de novo, as the by-law does not address this. She said there were no provisions for the BoS's hearing on a proposed designation to be after the AHC's hearings and that while notice is given, the notice does not do a very good job of telling abutters what the notice means. She concluded by saying that while trusting town boards and departments to use discretion and common sense may work for other things, by-laws which affect property cannot be left that vague.
- Mr. Abbott said he agreed with the BoS recommendations on Articles 32 and 33 and that the language of the by-law had been legally reviewed. Quoting Justice Potter Stewart, he said special places were like pornography in that "we know it when we see it." He criticized non-lawyers for having legal opinions of the by-law and said much of the by-law language was taken from MGL Chapter 43 and has been well-tested. He urged the substitute motion be voted down.
- Mr. Jamieson asked if Section 3(d) of the special places by-law applied to storm doors and any windows or just storm doors and storm windows. Mr. Maher said it was the latter.
- Ms. Meister said she opposed the substitute motion. She said the AHC already has jurisdiction over 1700 properties, many of which became subject to its jurisdiction after an owner bought it. She said the context of a special place matters. She said it is not unusual for a neighborhood to have no members on the AHC. She said an opt-out clause is not feasible since the people likely to use it would be the people contemplating something the AHC would like to stop. She said the 100' radius was needed so that the mere existence of streets would not prevent things from being protected and that many other boards and commissions use 100' as a cut-off. As for the by-law both given and denying the AHC the ability to regulate color, she said the AHC has the ability to regulate the color of permanent exterior finishes like brick or granite, but does not have the ability to regulate paint colors.
- Mr. Rosselli moved the previous question. Motion was approved on a voice vote, challenged, and approved 121-51, terminating debate.
- Kohl motion to substitute defeated on a voice vote, challenged, and approved 98-78.
- Mr. Moderator called for the vote on the motion as substituted but realized that people had become confused on what they were voting on and explained the procedure of voting to substitute and then voting on the motion as substituted and told people how to vote for the given outcome they desired.
- BoS recommendation as substituted in doubt on a voice vote, approved 110-72.
Article 34 - Home Rule Petition/Baby Safe Haven:
- BoS recommended a vote as set forth in its report to authorize the BoS to seek a home rule petition to enact "Baby Safe Haven" legislation for Arlington.
- Ms. Mahon said it was not about preventing adoption or abandoning child welfare programs but rather giving panicked teen mothers a way to safely abandon a child instead of leaving it to die. She asked one of the proponents to speak, but he could not be located.
- Ms. Costa said that at first glance these laws sound good, but that there is no evidence they work and that little research has been done into the causes of baby abandonment. She said that there are only 2-3 abandonments per year in a typical state and that we have learned it is crucial for a child to have birth information for later medical reasons. She said the people these laws are intended for will not seek out havens and will be further encouraged to carry and deliver their child in secret and away from the medical system, further endangering them and that such laws say that a lack of personal responsibility is acceptable.
- The proponent, a Mr. Morrissey, being located, was asked to speak. As he is a Lexington resident, he had to be permitted to speak. A number of people objected to his being allowed to speak, requiring a formal vote on the matter, with permission passing overwhelmingly on a voice vote.
- Mr. Morrissey said that 11 communities in MA had approved a similar home rule petition, Boston being the first. He said that we have learned a lot about "Baby Safe Haven" legislation and that the people who wrote the negative report about them never contacted a single state agency in a state with a BSH law and that the laws have saved 250 children. He said advocates have been trying to get a BSH law passed in MA for four years and in that time there have been 10 abandonments with 6 deaths.
- Ms. Mann asked the name of the organization Mr. Morrissey's wife belongs to. She answered it was Bonnie Babies, based out of Australia. Ms. Mann said she did not have a problem with the idea in the abstract but could only support it as part of a community-wide education and support program. She quoted a Planned Parenthood "Real Sex Ed Saves Lives" poster. She said in the face of federal opposition to funding sex-ed programs the community must rally. She said the law denies the reality of Arlington -- there is no hospital, how are the firefighters going to handle a middle-of-the-night drop-off, and a police station is not where a panicked mother would go, even with BSH laws. She said we have to take responsibility for life we bring into the world and is concerned about the speed with which these laws have passed. She urged a no vote on the motion.
- Mr. Lobel moved to table, so that someone associated with the anti-BSH report could have a chance to speak at a later date. Motion failed.
- Ms. Thomas said she read the anti-BSH report and said it appeared well-done, well-researched, and well-footnoted. She said there was 100 abandonments in four million live births last year and that there was no good evidence that BSH laws help or harm babies. She said it is better to encourage these mothers to seek medical attention and that it is wrong to encourage them to keep a pregnancy secret and abandon the child.
- Mr. Kazarian said the legislation should be called the "Dump Your Child Act", that it seems like a bill of goods, and that it does not address root causes. He said it would make unwanted pregnancies more likely by making it easier to avoid the consequences of one. He pointed out that one cannot assume that a baby left at a "safe haven" would have otherwise died.
- Ms. Lovelace said that in addition to being a TMM she is the executive director of the MA Alliance on Teen Pregnancy and was glad to hear people talking about a comprehensive approach to the problem. She said there is no information on the scope or nature of the problem and on the motivation for abandonments. She said there is no evidence that these laws work and that with recent large cuts to state teen pregnancy programs it would be unwise to spend limited funds on something as unproven as BSH laws.
- Mr. McCabe asked if anyone in the world could abandon a child in Arlington if this were approved. Mr. Maher said that was true. Mr. McCabe said it was unfair to dump this responsibility on the AFD and APD and wondered if police and fire personnel would have to have special training, where liability would lie if a child died after being dropped off, and who makes sure the mother is being taken care of. He said it was too risky to approve now and that much more information was needed.
- Mr. Carreiro moved the previous question - debate terminated.
- BoS recommendation defeated on a voice vote, challenged, and defeated 53-112.
Article 35 - Home Rule Petition/Pacheco:
- BoS recommended a vote to request a home rule petition as set forth in its report to allow Timothy Pacheco to be considered for a fire fighter's job despite being over age 32.
- Ms. Mahon introduced Mr. Pacheco who said he has been an Arlington resident for 36 years and currently is a facilities manager at Harvard and a part-time firefighter in Littleton. He said he is an EMT-B, has hazmat training, and is trained to an FF-1/FF-2 level He said he believed that at his age he could do the job and deserves to have the chance to apply.
- Mr. Rosselli said he supported the BoS vote and pointed out the proposed legislation would only allow Mr. Pacheco to compete and not allow him any preferences. Mr. Rosselli then read from a number of letters of recommendation on Mr. Pacheco's behalf.
- Mr. Dunn said he supported the motion and that the Town should hire on qualifications and not on age. He said approval of these exception requests should be made the rule and that Town Meeting should approve this one and all future ones.
- Ms. Mahon (as a TMM) said she is always against votes upholding age discrimination and to please vote in favor of the BoS recommendation. She noted that Ms. Dias voted against the BoS recommendation as she has done on all such home rule petitions.
- Mr. Carrigan asked Mr. Pacheco how many times he had taken the exam. Mr. Pacheco said he had taken in five times. Mr. Carrigan pointed out he could have taken it 17 times. Mr. Carrigan asked what other towns Mr. Pacheco had applied for. Mr. Pacheco said he applied in Chatham, Sandwich, and Littleton. Mr. Carrigan said he disagreed with these case-by-case votes and that the Town should stop making exceptions for people who know how to play the system.
- Mr. Kohl, while in support of the BoS recommendation, urged the BoS to figure out what specifically it does not like about the relevant MGL and to urge the legislature to fix the problem so the Town can accept it and stop asking for these exceptions.
- Mr. Abbott said it is ludicrous to keep discussing exceptions over and over. He said the Town should stick with its policy and keep a young force, urging people to vote against the BoS recommendation.
- Mr. Loreti said he was uncomfortable making personnel decisions in a political forum and asked how frequently these exception requests come up. Mr. Maher said that three of them have come up, but that this is the first firefighter one. Mr. Loreti asked if the Fire Chief was ok with the proposal. Chief Maimone said he was not against the motion but would like to see the Town make a final decision on accepting the relevant MGL or not. Mr. Loreti asked if the union had any problems with the recommendation. Mr. Maimone said it did not.
- Mr. Cleinman moved the previous question - debate terminated.
- BoS recommendation approved on a voice vote, challeneged, approved 110-50.
Article 36 - Home Rule Petition/Meeting Notices:
- BoS recommended a vote of no action as set forth in its report.
- Mr. Abbott made a subsitute motion of a resolution to urge the BoS to ask the state to host municipal ads on a portion of its website and to seek to use the internet as much as possible to reduce ad spending.
- Ms. Mahon said the ITAC would be looking at the issue and that the BoS already has the power to go internet-only but rejected that option as unfair to those without internet access.
- Mr. Gilligan moved the previous question - debate terminated.
- Abbott substitute motion defeated on a voice vote.
- BoS recommendation of no action approved on a voice vote.
Motion to adjourn approved.
Adjourned at 22:53 to 20:00 on 12 May.

2004-05-06T03:38:00.000-04:00

Comments on Leone Remarks

You mischaracterized Mr. Kohl's remarks about the narrowness of passage last year. Contrary to what you implied, he did not claim last year's vote was improper or invalid.
The attorney general's approval of a by-law says nothing about the appropriateness or wisdom of a by-law. It only says that the by-law is not illegal/does not attempt to do something the town has no power to do. So the AG signoff of the special places by-law meant that the by-law was properly passed and was legal, but in no way implied that it was wise, well-written, or appropriate.
You said that TM has plenty of input into the special places process. That is of course true. However, Mr. Kohl never claimed that TM had no input into the process.
In your remarks you said that if abutters were against a special place designation it would not be forced against them. If special places are so special that this by-law is needed to protect them, why refuse to make a designation if abutters are against it? If a place is special, should it not be designated regardless of what abutters feel? That you would say a designation would not be pursued against opposition indicates that these supposed special places are not that special after all, which would seem to bring into question the entire rationale of the by-law.

2004-05-06T03:14:00.000-04:00

Session 4 Notes

Called to order at 20:03.
When the meeting is adjourned, it is adjourned 20:00 on 10 May.
Ms. Mann announced that some people in town are planning a Million Mom March sympathy protest on 9 May at the corner of Pleasant St. and Massachusetts Ave.
Mr. Greeley said there would be an Alternative Transportation Fair on 16 May. He also challenged TMMs who came to tonight's session single in cars to come a different way at the next session.
Mr. Scott said the Festival would have biking and walking tours of Arlington in the morning, exhibits at the Rec Center on Summer St. starting at 11:30, and a children's bike rodeo in the early afternoon.
Article 24 - Bylaw Amendment/Recreation Vehicles:
- Resumed after being postponed until tonight.
- Mr. Moderator announced that when an article is resumed after being tabled or postponed, he tosses the existing speakers' list and starts it fresh.
- Ms. Mahon offered an amendment to strike "motor scooters" and its definition from the BoS recommended vote in Section 1 and to replace Section 2 with a single sentence saying no recreational vehicles could be operated on any way in the Town.
- Mr. Maher apologized for the bad drafting job on the original motion and also apologized to Mr. Taber for his curt answer at the previous session. Mr. Maher mentioned that a by-law almost identical to the recommended vote passed in Waltham and another municipality.
- Chief Ryan said that the intent was to produce a by-law that could survive state law changes without having to keep coming back to TM for maintenance changes. He said the proposal has been brought to TM for guidance.
- Mr. Fiore asked if the motion as amended would keep Segways off sidewalks. Mr. Ryan said it would not. Mr. Fiore said he wants Segways kept off sidewalks as they are too large and dangerous.
- Mr. Carreiro asked Chief Ryan how many complaints related to these types of vehicles there were. Chief Ryan said about one per week. Mr. Carreiro said that he favored a by-law allowing responsible use by responsible people over an outright ban and that he would vote against the Mahon amendment. He said that he was unsure on the original amendment but would likely vote against it.
- Mr. Hickman asked if there will be no regulation of motor scooters if the amendment passed. Mr. Maher said there would not, but that the original definition of motor scooters coupled with the Section 2 change would outlaw motorcycles. He said the main concern is skateboards and motorized skateboards. Mr. Hickman said he liked the original motion with Mr. Kazarian's amendment. He said too many motorized scooters are in operation in his neighborhood and that they are both a nuiscance and a public safety hazard.
- Ms. LaCourt asked if the original intent was to ban recreational vehicle (RV) use by all persons or just minors. Chief Ryan said by all. Ms. LaCourt asked why adult use should be prohibited. Chief Ryan said that sidewalk operation is bad no matter who the operator is. Ms. LaCourt asked about use on streets. Chief Ryan said there is a public safety risk there as well. Ms. LaCourt asked if there were any circumstances under which Chief Ryan would consider RV use safe. Chief Ryan said perhaps if bike lanes existed. Ms. LaCourt said she was hesistant to restrict the behavior of adults, especially to protect them from themselves.
- Ms. Lieberson said she has never seen a motorized skateboard, but has seen a number of motor scooters operated badly and so was against the amendment.
- Mr. Abbott said the article had been postponed for good measure and that it is still not clear. He moved to postpone it to 12 May.
- Mr. Maher said the problem was that people had a different opinion of what should and should not be banned and that the recommended vote as amended was quite clear. He said the BoS would not change it further but that TM was of course free to amend it as it saw fit.
- Mr. Curro pointed out that "recreation vehicles" and "recreational vehicles" were both used.
- Mr. Moderator asked Mr. Kazarian for a written copy of his amendment from the previous session. Mr. Kazarian said he gave a written copy to Mr. Maher. Mr. Maher confirmed that, but said he could not find the copy. Mr. Kazarian dictated his amendment. Mr. Moderator said that in light of what Mr. Curro found, "recreation vehicle" should be changed to "recreational vehicle" wherever it appeared.
- Ms. DeMille (I may well have missed the name) pointed out that the Mahon amendment would exempt motor scooters from the by-law and asked if that changed the intent of the recommendation. Chief Ryan said it would, but that he and the BoS were trying to simplify the vote. Ms. DeMille asked what the rationale for the fine was. Chief Ryan said that since it costs around $200 to buy a typical banned RV, a $100 file was felt appropriate. He also pointed out that the police would use their discretion.
- Motion on the previous question - debate terminated.
- Abbott motion to postpone defeated.
- Mr. Moderator said he would break the Mahon motion into three separate votes because an affirmative vote on the portion pertaining to Section 2 would render moot the Kazarian and Fiore amendments. Mr. Loreti complained about the amendment being considered in pieces as it was offered as a single motion. Mr. Moderator said he was exercising his statutory power as moderator to regulate the conduct of the meeting and was splitting the motion. Ms. Phelps pointed out that the Mahon amendment would change the title of Section 2 as well as its body. Mr. Ford asked if the motion was Ms. Mahon's or the BoS's. Ms. Mahon said the BoS had not formally voted on it, so it was hers. Mr. Oesterle asked if TM could accept or decline pieces of the Mahon motion separately. Mr. Moderator said it could.
- Part C (Section 2 rewrite) of Mahon motion to amend defeated (which also rendered moot the Fiore motion).
- Kazarian motion to amend approved.
- Part A (remove motor scooters from list of RVs) of Mahon motion to amend defeated.
- Part B (remove definition of motor scooters) of Mahon motion to amend defeated.
- Mr. Tully asked exactly what the text that was about to be voted on would actual ban.
- BoS recommended vote as amended by Mr. Kazarian in doubt on a voice vote, then approved 125-38 on a standing vote.
Article 27 - Bylaw Amendment/Dog Parks
- BoS recommended a vote as set forth in its report to make it clear that dog parks on town parks are required to be fenced in.
- Mr. Loreti said the text assumed that a dog park was within a town park, and asked if a dog park not within a town park would have a fencing requirement. Mr. Maher said the text only applies to land under the jurisdiction of the Parks and Recreation Commission.
- Mr. Rosselli made a motion on the previous question - debate terminated.
- BoS recommended vote approved on a voice vote.
Article 28 - Bylaw Amendment/Adjustment to Town Fees:
- BoS recommended a vote of no action as set forth in its report since the Town Manager is compiling a revenue manual in anticipation of setting fees being done by the Town Manager and BoS.
- BoS recommendation of no action approved unanimously.
Article 29 - Bylaw Amendment/Newsracks:
- Mr. Tosti said FinComm recommended a no action vote because the Newsrack Committee was not ready to present anything.
- Mr. Maher said that Mr. Tosti was correct, but that the Committee would have something for TM next year.
- FinComm recommendation of no action approved unanimously.
Article 30 - Bylaw Amendment/Control of Parks:
- BoS recommended a vote as set forth in its report to require a permit for all organized groups to use a playing field and to give the Town the power to force permitted users off the field under threat of an up to $200 fine if the field is closed, and would bar the town from charging any fee to issue the permit.
- Mr. Gilligan complained about the vote not saying what it was amending.
- Ms. Mahon said user groups met with the Parks & Recreation Commission (PRC) and brought up frustration with seeing groups using a field when it is unplayable condition and that the police have no power to order groups off a closed field.
- Mr. Carabello said that some organized groups are causing problems because there is no way to remove them from a closed field and that the PRC has had out-of-town organized groups use Town fields without a permit. He said the recommended vote would also allow the PRC to force people off the field when fields are closed for bad weather.
- Ms. LaCourt said she supported the spirit of the motion but that it was flawed because if the purpose is to protect the fields, should not all people be able to be forced off the fields? She also asked why there is a fine and that the resolution of a problem should simply be expelling people from the field. Mr. Carabello that the recommended vote would let the Town force off organized groups without a permit. Ms. LaCourt asked if that would not open a loophole, as the Town would be unable to force off unorganized groups. Ms. Mahon said the proposed by-law would not apply to small groups. Ms. LaCourt again said that if one wants to protect the fields, why not force off everyone when a field is closed and pointed out the MDC does just that. Ms. Mahon said the intent is to keep out organized groups when a field is closed. Ms. LaCourt said that non-organized groups can cause significant damage and therefore should be able to be kept out as well. Ms. Mahon said that leagues do a good job of educating their players to stay off closed fields and that the Town does not want to enforce field issues too tightly -- it would prefer to handle small group issues informally.
- Mr. Maher said the point of the proposal is to give the Town the power to force permitted users off closed fields. He said the police can shoo off small groups and that TMMs should trust the police to use common sense.
- Mr. Leonard mistook the text of the warrant article for the recommended vote and asked a question about some language in the article. Mr. Moderator reminded him that TM does not vote on articles and asked everyone to ignore the text of the article and focus on the recommended vote.
- Mr. Bloom asked if an "organized group" was defined anywhere. Mr. Moderator said it was not. Mr. Carabello said that organized groups can apply for permits and that a definition of "organized group" could be discussed in the future if there were problems. Mr. Bloom said he was worried about a scenario like some local employees going out one lunchtime to play softball and being fined for not having a permit. Mr. Moderator said to give credence to the ability of the police to use discretion and common sense. Mr. Carabello said that if that use was occasional the PRC would let it go, but if such a group did it a lot, the PRC would tell the group to apply for a permit.
- Mr. Abbott said the article was OK but wondered if there already was authority in the by-laws to force non-permitted users off a field. He also said that he did not agree with the fee prohibition and moved to amend the vote to strike the sentence prohibiting permit fees. Mr. Maher said there was not authority elsewhere in the by-laws to force off unpermitted users. Mr. Moderator asked if the PRC can set fees. Mr. Maher said it could not and would have to go to the Town Manager and BoS to set a fee.
- Mr. Tosti said FinComm supported the BoS recommendation and informally supported Mr. Abbott's amendment. He said that the Town's fields are getting killed, cost a great deal of money, and that the Town must take control of the situation. He said enabling the Town to bar play on wet fields would be an improvement and that the police can discern the distinction between a few children playing and some organized group. He said it allows the Town to prevent out-of-town groups from using the fields and that the Town should not let out-of-town groups (especially adult groups) tear up the fields. He urged favorable action on the BoS recommendation and Mr. Abbott's amendment.
- Mr. Deyst said he agreed with everything Mr. Tosti said and that it is frustrating to try to close a budget gap while bleeding money on playing fields. He said a $200 fine is not enough since $200 of field damage can be caused very easily on a wet field. He moved to amend the $200 to $500. Mr. Maher said state law limits the Town to a $300 fine. Mr. Deyst changed his motion to amend to $300 and pointed out that the fine is "up to $300" and that the police would use discretion when levying fines.
- Mr. Rehrig pointed out that there are two references to fines in the relevant places of the current by-law and that the vote only fixes one of them. He also pointed out that since one fine covers all violations under the by-law being amended, that if passed the $300 fine would also apply to having intoxicating liquors at a playing field. Mr. Moderator administratively amended the recommended vote to fix the reference issue by in the third line of the second paragraph of the new Section 4 replacing "for the second time" with "both times".
- Mr. Allision made a motion on the previous question - debate terminated.
- Abbott amendment approved.
- Deyst amendment approved.
- BoS recommendation as amended approved.
Article 31 - Bylaw Amendment/Wetlands Protection:
- BoS recommended a vote of no action as set forth in its report.
- Ms. Mahon said the BoS only voted no action because it was told no people currently needed relief.
- Mr. Carreiro made a substitute motion to eliminate the sunset clause of the ConComm's current variance power. He pointed out that the substitute motion would not allow the ConComm to grant variances for above-ground work. He said that the claim that a no action vote is fine because no one currently needs relief misses the point and that the Sullivan's experience last year shows there needs to be a process in place so that if someone has a similar situation they do not have to try to convince TM to enact another exception.
- Ms. Fiore asked if any ConComm members were present. There were none. She moved to postpone the article to 19 May but was told the Special Town Meeting began that night. She then moved to postpone the article to 17 May because she felt it was important to hear from ConComm.
- Mr. Gilligan said he opposed to the substitute motion because ConComm does not need the variance power. He said ConComm has hearings and issues orders of conditions and can make those as weak or as strong as it sees fit. He said that Mugar could take us to court if the substitute motion passed and that the ConComm did not need a variance power last year and did not need it now.
- Mr. Pachter said he opposed the substitute motion and that it should be left to TM to grant exemptions as needed, as TM should be the body to make such exemptions.
- Ms. LaCourt asked what the Sullivans could have done for relief if they had not been able to take advantage of the exemption created for the Pierce project. Mr. Maher said there would have been no process for them to get relief. Ms. LaCourt asked how they would maintain their driveway if the variance power expired. Mr. Maher said the work done under the variance has the right to be maintained even if the variance power disappears. Ms. LaCourt pointed out that even if the Sullivan's are now all set even if the variance power sunsets, a future similarly situated family would not and that a better process needs to be in place than such a family begging TM for an exemption.
- Mr. Tully said he agreed with Ms. LaCourt's thoughts and could not understand why TM would not approve the substitute motion. He said ConComm should be left to make variance decisions as it is the expert body in the field, not TM. He said it would be wrong not to have have a mechanism for relief in place.
- Mr. Dunn, referring to people who said a variance power is not needed, said that the Town and the School Department and the Sullivans would say otherwise. He said those who say to just let people in need to relief come to TM are mistaken because he believes the Sullivans never would have got an exemption through TM on their own and that the exemption only happened because of the big guns of the Town were had to push for an exemption because of the Pierce work.
- Mr. Judd said he saw nothing wrong with giving ConComm more discretion. He said that the possibility that someone could file a lawsuit is no reason to not allow ConComm to issue this type of variance. He said we have to be mindful of property rights and that there is no need to save ConComm from itself.
- Mr. Hickman made a motion on the previous question - debate terminated.
- Fiore motion to postpone defeated.
- Carreiro substitute motion in doubt on a voice vote. Approved 95-66 on a standing vote.
- BoS recommendation as substituted approved on a voice vote.
Article 32 - Special Place/The Old Schwamb Mill:
- Ms. Mahon said the BoS recommended a vote of no action after having originally voting for positive action. She said abutters the Arlington Historical Commission (AHC) first talked to were in favor of the designation, but later discussions showed many who were against it.
- Ms. Meister said that the AHC submitted the article after talking to Mill trustees, set up a study group, ascertained which properties were affected and had some informal talks with people in the area that indicated the neighborhood was in favor. At this point the BoS made its original vote. Later discussions, the public hearing, and another neighborhood walk-through showed much stronger opposition to the designation. The BoS then reversed itself to no action and the AHC voted to not submit a substitute motion.
- BoS recommendation of no action approved.
Article 33 - Bylaw Amendment/Special Places:
- BoS recommended a vote of no action as set forth in its report.
- Mr. Kohl offered a substitute motion to repeal the entire special places by-law. He pointed out that last year the by-law only passed by one vote. He said that it belongs in the zoning by-law and not in the town by-laws; that the by-law is unfair to abutters by not allowing them to be excluded the way property owners can be excluded from historic districts; that both the 100 foot radius and measuring from lot lines regardless of where structures are on the lots is arbitrary; that the by-law is badly written, as it has inconsistencies about whether or not color is reviewable, does not provide for what happens if the AHC is tardy in its hearings, and in some cases requires people to ask the AHC for permits the AHC has no discretion to deny; and that permitting processes already existing provide sufficient protections.
- Mr. Winkler said he opposed the substitute motion. He said that the Jason Russell house had to be rescued from having line of sight to it blocked by three surrounding houses and if the special places by-law existed when those houses were built, that blockage likely would not have happened. He said there is a process for owners to follow, as they can take their case to the BoS if they cannot reach agreement with the AHC. He said that a restrictive by-law can protect you from your neighbors and that if one feels positive about Arlington, special places, and history, one should vote down the substitute motion.
- Mr. Leone said that the vote did pass and that the attorney general signed off on it, and that the by-law was not inappropriate. He said it should not be in the zoning by-law because it is not zoning but rather historical regulation of special places. He said it is not unfair to abutters and that if the neighbors do not want a designation made, the AHC would not recommend it be made. He said it is the Town's job to regulate people's property rights for the good of the Town. He said the by-law was not arbitrary and that there was a lot of discussion on the 100' vs 200' radius. He said 100' seemed to cover one or two lots out and that lot lines are the relevant things to use since they are marked in plans and their locations are known precisely. He said the wording is taken primarily from the historic district by-law, where it has worked very well. He said that without the by-law, there is no review process if you are doing something that is allowed by right under the zoning by-law and you are next to a special place. He said the process to get a permit if you are an affected property is very quick and that TM has plenty of input into the process. He asked that the substitute motion be voted down and that the special places by-law is a good by-law.
- Motion to adjourn approved.
- Adjourned at 22:57 to 10 May at 20:00.

2004-05-06T02:54:00.000-04:00

Dan Dunn's session four notes are available here.

2004-05-04T02:22:00.000-04:00

Mr. Dunn's notes are up.

2004-05-04T02:21:00.000-04:00

Session 3 Notes

Called to order at 20:02.
When the meeting is adjourned, it is adjourned 20:00 on 5 May.
Article 2 removed from table.
Article 2 - Reports of Committees:
- Conservation Commission report received.
- Mr. Shea said that people cannot leave things only to the Human Rights Commission when things like hate literature drops happen, but that we all have to take action.
- Article 2 tabled.
Article 6 - Zoning Bylaw Amendment/Dimensional and Density Regs:
- The ARB recommended a vote to establish various lot size, floor space, and setback rules for residential uses in business districts, as set forth in their report.
- Mr. Faulkner said the recommended vote deals with a problem in the zoning by-law -- it allows residential uses in business zones but imposes no setback requirements on them, which the ARB has realized is detrimental. He said the ARB picked lot sizes slightly smaller than in residential districts and that was appropriate given the higher overall intensity in business districts. He said the ARB felt a 20' setback resulting in too much of a suburban look in a business district.
- Mr. Loreti offered his substitute motion (really was an amendment) which would make the lot sizes and setbacks higher and decrease the allowed floor area for residential uses in a business district. He said he believed the ARB vote did not go far enough to restrict residential uses and that it is important to have consistency between residential uses in business districts and in residential districts like R2 that frequently abut them. He said the typical 2-family house is about 3000ft2, yet the ARB vote would allow houses much larger than that. He reviewed pictures in his handout illustrating the differences between what his motion and the ARB motion would allow. He said that zoning should be forward looking and not reactive, and that if one wants to protect businesses and does not want to encourage developers to build homes in business districts, one should vote for his motion.
- Ms. Mahon (as a TMM) said she would like to see a positive vote on either the ARB motion or Mr. Loreti's motion. She noted how the BoS received many calls from residents who did not like the house that went up on Broadway practically right on the sidewalk.
- Mr. Fischer asked how many lots were under 6000ft2 and if it meant a property owner could not build if the lot were under that size. Mr. O'Brien said that he had no idea how many such lots there were and that a residential structure could not be built on a lot smaller than that, but that a business structure could. Mr. Fischer asked if people could get a variance. Mr. O'Brien said they could ask for one, but there would be no grounds on which to grant one. Mr. Fischer said he was inclined to vote for the substitute motion.
- Ms. Carlisle asked if a destroyed home could be rebuilt on a lot made residentially non-conforming by either change. Mr. Moderator said that there is an exemption to allow for the reconstruction of a grandfathered building that was destroyed by fire.
- Mr. Taber asked if non-conforming lots would be grandfathered. Mr. Moderator said yes and Mr. O'Brien said that neither vote would be creating non-conforming lots because the restrictions in either vote only apply to residential use in the business district, not business use in the business district. Mr. Taber asked if the restrictions only apply to residential uses. Mr. O'Brien said yes. Mr. Taber asked if there was no minimum lot size for business uses. Mr. O'Brien said that was true in many cases. Mr. Taber said he would prefer to see the structures lined up rather than a zig-zag of differing setbacks.
- Ms. Harrington said that residential uses were allowed in business districts 24 years ago, so why take so long to fix this zoning loophole. She also asked if this article had anything to do with the Time Oldsmobile lot development plan. Mr. Faulkner said that it took 24 years to realize there was a problem since not very many such houses were built until recently. Ms. Harrington asked if errors had been made and reiterated her question about Time Olds. Mr. Faulkner said it was more a case of not forseeing a pattern of development than an error, and that the Time Olds development would take place under the old rules, as its permits were pulled before the article was proposed. Ms. Harrington said she was impressed by Mr. Loreti and urged support of the substitute motion.
- Mr. Tsoi said these houses only came up rarely. He said the ARB wanted to hold the street edge and so picked the 10' setback as the smallest setback that would give residences decent privacy.
- Mr. Abbott said the substitute motion was well thought-out and that it should be supported to help keep "McMansions" off of Massachusetts Avenue.
- Mr. Beck asked if a stairway or a foundation wall is the beginning of the setback. Mr. Faulkner said if a front porch is roofed and enclosed the setback starts there, else it starts at the foundation wall. Mr. Beck asked which set of rules apply if you have a 2nd floor residence above a business. Mr. Faulker said that it is something the ARB has faced before and that the appropriate rules apply to each floor. He said that if the ARB has special permit authority over the project, it acts to make sure the building is not funny-looking. Mr. Beck asked if the substitute motion de facto changed R2 into B1. Mr. Faulkner said no, as no zoning map changes were being made. Mr. Beck asked if the substitute motion was in effect changing B1 into R2. Mr. Moderator said no. Mr. Beck asked why the ARB did not simply ask to change the zoning on specific areas it wanted to protect. Mr. Faulkner said where the zones are were not being changed and that the ARB believes business districts should look different from residential districts, as they are different zones for different things, which is why the ARB chose the numbers it did.
- Mr. Deyst said that the Morningside area benefited from a zoning change that discouraged tear-downs and that he was worried tear-downs would start in business districts without a change. He said that unlike Mr. Taber, he prefers a zig-zag effect and that he supports both motions.
- Mr. Trembly said that he did not see how one could plow a driveway on such a development and still be able to get one's car doors open.
- Ms. Fiore said she was very proud of Mr. Loreti and that he should be on the ARB. She said her fear when she saw the article was that it would be a developers dream and that the ARB does not act in rational ways. She said she supported the substitute motion.
- Mr. Rosselli moved the previous question - debate terminated.
- Loreti substitute motion approved.
- ARB recommendation as substituted approved by voice vote.
- ARB recommendation as substituted approved 190-2.
Article 7 - Zoning Bylaw Amendment/Floodplain District:
- ARB recommended a vote come into compliance with the standards needed to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program, which primarily involved incorporation state regulations by reference into the relevant zoning by-law, as set forth in the ARB report.
- Ms. Mann recapped the ARBs reasons for the recommended vote, pointing out that the vote did nothing new.
- Mr. Abbott said our by-law is more stringent that the state's and asked if the Town was loosening up or if the state was tightening. Mr. Stevens said the vote is on a zoning by-law change, not the wetlands by-law and does not affect the wetlands by-law. Mr. Abbott asked if it made our wetlands by-law less stringent. Mr. Stevens said it did not.
- Ms. Fiore said she and some supporters had a substitute motion but could not offer it due to notice requirements.
- Mr. Hollman asked why the ARB did not ask the zoning by-law be changed to remove the "1 inch" from the "may not increase a 100-year flood by more than 1 inch" clause. Ms. Mann said that was outside the scope of the article.
- Mr. Moderator asked Ms. Mann why she was against incorporating Parks & Recreation regulations into the zoning by-laws but was in favor of accepting state regulations into the by-law. Ms. Mann said she was in favor of incorporating existing, promulgated, and reviewed regulations.
- Mr. Cleinman asked what the Town was being asked to come into compliance with. Ms. Mann said it was requirements to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. Mr. Cleinman said the program has not done a thing for people in Arlington who have experienced flooding and is angry about the program demanding the Town comply with its rules when it has done nothing for the Town.
- Motion made on the previous question - debate terminated.
- ARB recommendation approved by voice vote.
- ARB recommendation approved 189-8.
Article 8 - Zoning Bylaw Amendment/Wetland and Floodplain Overlay:
- ARB recommended a vote to add a bunch of existing, delineated wetlands to the wetland and floodplain overlay to the zoning map, as set forth in its report. This would give the ARB special permit authority over relevant construction (in addition to the separate authority the Conservation Commission would have regardless of the recommended vote) as well as alert the public and the Building Inspector to the presence of wetlands.
- Mr. Faulkner reiterated what the ARB said in its report. He pointed out that this vote in no way effects ConComm's authority. He said it would help get people to comply with the wetlands by-law since it would be easier for them to find out they were affected by it.
- Mr. Greeley (as a TMM) moved an amendment to strike the area in the top map on page 13 of the ARB report (the Ryder Street area) from the vote. He said the owner is seeking a wetlands determination and would like to see this overlay addition held up for a year until the ConComm rules on whether or not it actually is a wetland.
- Mr. Jamieson asked what the horizontally-hatched areas were in the map at the top of page 11. Mr. Faulker said it was an already-included wetland. Mr. Jamieson asked how this vote would affect construction and reconstructionf of roads. Mr. Faulkner said that the Town and state agencies are generally subject to the state and local wetlands rules even when they are exempt from Town zoning by-laws.
- Mr. Rehrig said he might be confused about the effect of the zoning change. He said it looked like the purpose was to alert the community. Mr. Faulkner said that was a purpose, but it is also to put in some extra protections. He said that vote is not intended to cover anything that is not already covered under the wetlands by-law.
- Mr. Caccavaro said that the wetland Mr. Greeley moved to delete from the vote is surface water that only appears after rainfall and that it is runoff from Ronald Road. Mr. Faulkner said the ARB had no objections to Mr. Greeley's amendment.
- Mr. Kohl asked if the house shown between areas (1) and (2) on the map at the top of page 11 was really there or if it had been moved. Mr. Faulkner said it had been moved to be on Wright Street. Mr. Kohl asked if there really was a gap between wetlands (1) and (2). Mr. Faulkner said there was. Mr. Kohl asked if area (4) on that same map interfered with the 43 Dothan Street (the Sullivans) driveway reconstruction. Mr. Stevens said their permit has been granted.
- Mr. Abbott said that adding something to the overlay map in question would not change restrictions on the property but would warn owners. Mr. Faulkner said it would also subject properties to an additional permit step (from the ZBA) but that ConComm is where the technical discussion would remain. Mr. Abbott asked if placing anything on the map would make it a wetland under various laws. Mr. Faulkner said it would not, as state law and the local by-law would control. Mr. Abbott said that there was nothing in the vote that would help a resident and that it seemed reasonable.
- Ms. LeRoyer said she lived in the Ryder Street area and wanted to know who owned the affected property that Mr. Greeley was seeking to strike from the vote. Mr. Greeley said the Miraks do. Ms. LeRoyer asked the Miraks want to wait a year. Their lawyer said that the Miraks want to see this wait until the ConComm rules on the Miraks' wetland determination request.
- Mr. Ford asked what ConComm thought. Mr. Stevens said ConComm had not had a chance to vote on Mr. Greeley's subtitute motion, but could not imagine there would be an objection to it.
- Ms. Fiore said she was concerned about the amendment. She said the Town needed open areas to absorb water. She questioned why the Town should question ConComm's placing the Ryder Street wetland on the map.
- Mr. Belskis asked if any of the areas on the maps were delinated or on WPA-1 filings with the state. Mr. Stevens and Ms. Beckwith said that all had been delineated and listed who delineated each.
- Mr. Loreti said he stopped by the Ryder Street area in question and that it looked like a drainage ditch with some vegetation. He said he was against Mr. Greeley's amendment.
- Ms. Mahon (as a TMM) said she supported Mr. Greeley's motion. She said the Town notified all abutters and that the Miraks have indicated they would like to see ConComm make a ruling on their determination request before the Ryder Street wetland is added.
- Mr. Candelas said he has worked for both environmental agencies and for developers, and that the question of a wetland is more complicated than just "if it's wet, it's a wetland." He asked for clarification. Mr. Stevens said that a wetland is more than just marshes and bogs, but also streams and land subject to flooding. Ms. Beckwith said the laws talk about signs of wetness, "blotting" of the ground, and the presence of plants that are adapted for living in wet areas.
- Mr. Greeley said the owners want to go before ConComm and get a determination on the area in question. Mr. Maher said the area is classified as an intermittent stream.
- Ms. Harrington said she believed ConComm had already determined the area to be a wetland and that Mr. Greeley's motion should be defeated, since it appears to be special treatment.
- Mr. Trembly asked if a previous ConComm board delineated the Ryder Street area. Mr. Stevens said yes. Mr. Trembly asked if that was the same board that let the Sullivans fix their driveway. Mr. Stevens said he did not know. Mr. Trembly asked if a wetland can be so designated if it is only wet two weeks of the year. Mr. Stevens said it could be. Mr. Trembly said the area in question is a rocky ditch that one would consider to be a pipe if it had a top on it.
- Motion on the previous question - debate terminated.
- Greeley amendment defeated.
- ARB recommendation approved unanimously.
Article 24 - Bylaw Amendment/Recreational Vehicles:
- BoS recommended a vote as set forth in its report to amend the bylaws to ban motorized scooters, skateboards, ATVs, go-carts, mini-bikes, etc. from the public and private ways of the Town.
- Police Chief Ryan said that they have had complaints from a number of senior citizens but that the police were powerless. He said these vehicles would be prohibited until such time as the Registry of Motor Vehicles allows them to be registered.
- Mr. Taber said he felt the proposed bylaw would be invalid for vehicles that are not currently registerable. Mr. Maher said that was incorrect. Mr. Taber said he was annoyed by Mr. Maher's one word answer.
- Ms. Fiore, after first getting confused about the text of the warrant article vs the text of the recommended vote, moved to replaced "provide" with "unless" in the final sentence of Section 2 of the proposed vote. Chief Ryan and Mr. Maher had no problems with this.
- Mr. Leone asked about snowmobiles, as they are registerable. Chief Ryan said state statute kept them off the roads.
- Mr. Coletta wondered if the skateboard definition was too restrictive, as it specifically mentioned 4-wheeled and 8-wheeled skateboards. Chief Ryan said those are the ones currently available.
- Mr. Kohl asked if the phrase "any way" includes both public and private ways. Chief Ryan said it did. Mr. Kohl urged that the Fiore motion be defeated, since he felt made the vote say the reverse of what it is intended to say.
- Mr. Fiore said that Mr. Maher said "unless" was fine.
- Mr. Curro asked if "way" includes the bikepath. Chief Ryan said a separate by-law already bans all motorized vehicles from the bikepath except for those operated by municipal workers.
- Mr. Kazarian said he agreed with what Chief Ryan wants. He said he also agreed with Ms. Fiore and Mr. Maher and Mr. Kohl. He offered an amendment to in Section 2 end the sentence in the third line after "by any person", start a new sentence at "No recreational vehicle" in the same line, and to strike the whole "provided said" clause in the final line of the section. Mr. Moderator said that both Chief Ryan and Mr. Maher said that was an improvement.
- Mr. Foskett asked if this would ban Segways, and if so, that he would vote against the entire motion. Chief Ryan said it would ban Segways but that they would already be banned from sidewalks since they travel faster than 12mph.
- Mr. Tully suggested that "4-wheeled or 8-wheeled" be changed to "four or more..." and then moved to postpone the article until 5 May so that Mr. Maher could take all the input and draft a cleaner article.
- Article 24 postponed to 5 May.
Article 25 - Bylaw Amendment/DPAB:
- Ms. Mahon moved the article be tabled as it would make more sense to take it up after Article 47 has been decided.
- Article 25 tabled.
Article 26 - Bylaw Amendment/Revenue Manual:
- BoS recommended a vote of no action as set forth in its report.
- BoS recommended vote approved.
Motion to adjourn approved.
Adjourned at 22:53 to 20:00 on 5 May.

2004-04-29T09:58:00.000-04:00

ARB Report Available

The Arlington Redevelopment Board Report is now up. (1.7MB PDF).

2004-04-29T02:17:00.000-04:00

Mr. Dunn's notes are up.

2004-04-29T02:01:00.000-04:00

Now That's the TM We All Know and Love

Here are my notes for Session 2. And I would be remiss if I did not thank Ms. Mahon for volunteering to "court report" the meeting and thus allow us to proceed. Without that gesture, we would have had to go home. I'm sure it had to be tiring.

Called to order at 20:00.
When the meeting is adjourned, it is adjourned to 20:00 on 3 May.
Ms. Phelps noted that the stenographer did not show up, and asked if we could legally meet. Mr. Moderator initially said yes, but after a review of by-law reversed himself and said the meeting could not legally proceed. At this point, Ms. Mahon (a court reporter by trade) saved us all from having to go home by volunteering to substitute for the missing stenographer.
Mr. Moderator announced that TMMs could have their handouts posted on Live From Arlington by emailing them to tm@livefromarlington.com.
Town Counsel Maher said the Town had won a trial in a civil rights suit against a police officer and said that we are not sued often because we have good employees. He then began some long, involved joke about Mr. Moderator, Mr. Tosti, himself, a measurer of wood and bark, a field driver, a cow, a rabbi, a nun, and a bar, and then bailed out of it in mid-stream.
Article 2 - Reports of Committees:
- Mr. Shea read the report of the Human Rights Commission. He said the HRC has existed for ten years and that it has investigated complaints, done educational programs, condemned hate crimes, and is an important Town resource.
- The report of the Zoning Bylaw Review Study Committee was received. Mr. Leone said the Committee has two vacancies.
- A minority report of the Affordable Housing Task Force was received.
- Article 2 tabled.
Article 4 removed from the table.
Article 4 - Assistant Moderator:
- Mr. Moderator said the candidates would have five minutes each to speak, after which the ballots would be collected and counted.
- Mr. Caccavaro said he had been thinking about the post since last year and that he had the time and energy to take it on.
- Mr. Leone said he is a life-long resident of the Town and has been a TMM for 10 years, with a 100% attendance record. He said knows a lot of how town meeting and town government works and that he deals with the Town a lot in his legal practice.
- Mr. McCabe said he had been a TMM for almost 40 years, the moderator for 12 years, a selectmen for 3 years, on FinComm for 6 years, and on the Council on Aging (which he helped found) for 38 years. He said he had has a broad range of knowledge and experience. He said that as moderator he lead the effort to replace Robert's Rules of Order with Town Meeting Time and began the practice of using a list to track speakers.
- The results:
  - Leone - 122
  - McCabe - 34
  - Caccavaro - 34
  - Carreiro - 10 write-ins
  - unintelligible - 3
  - and $0.40 placed in a ballot box.
Article 17 - Vote Amendment/Parmenter School:
- Both the BoS and the ARB assumed the other would make the main motion, so neither report contained a main motion.
- Mr. Tsoi of the ARB moved that the text of the warrant article be adopted and explained that it was a necessary housekeeping article since in 1993, 1998, and 2003 the Town forgot to renew the "surplus" status of the Parmenter school. The article is to make up for that and to renew through 2008. It is needed because the leases the Town has with tenants there depend on the school being surplus.
- ARB recommendation approved unanimously.
Article 18 - Environmental and Energy Efficiency:
- ARB recommended a vote of no action as set forth in its report.
- Mr. Chaput said the ARB asked Sustainable Arlington to come back next year with a proposed standard better suited to the Town.
- ARB reccommendation approved.
Article 19 - Bylaw Amendment/Snow Removal-Residences:
- BoS recommended a vote as set forth in its report, to raise the fine from $10 to $25.
- Ms. Mahon said Articles 19-22 came out of the BoS Snow&Ice Committee and recognizes that concerns residents have expressed about the need for better enforcement of the bylaw.
- Mr. Trembly asked if a citation has ever been issued (to much laughter). Police Chief Ryan said yes. Mr. Trembly asked if the recipients cared. Chief Ryan said citations are issued after requests for voluntary compliance are snubbed. Mr. Trembly asked how many citations have been issued. Chief Ryan replied that the last time he checked, around 12 had been. Mr. Trembly said that some of the things in the by-law (such as removing "all snow and ice") are impossible to comply with and so it is not fair to raise the fine. He also said that raising the fine will increase the stakes between neighbors who are battling and using the by-law as a weapon.
- Mr. Berkowitz said that both education and enforcement will be needed to change behaviors and wondered if the Police Department could properly enforce the by-law given its staffing levels. Chief Ryan said he had been directed by the Town Manager to "get creative" to find ways to step up enforcement. He said the APD has issued press releases and reminders about the by-law and will do again next year. Mr. Berkowitz asked about possibly putting reminders in tax bills. Ms. Mahon said the Town will post the snow policy in the Advocate this year and that the BoS would like to hear people's suggestions to make people more aware of the by-law.
- Mr. Scott Smith said that he had attended the Snow&Ice meetings and supported the article, and that most people and businesses do a good job complying. He said the article is aimed at getting the attention of those few who do not.
- Mr. Taber moved the previous question - debate terminated.
- BoS recommendation approved.
Mr. Sandrelli improperly used a point of information to attempt to continue debate, asking about plows pushing the snow back. Mr. Moderator shot him down after a bit.
Article 20 - Bylaw Amendment/Snow Removal-Apartments/Condominiums:
- BoS recommended a vote as set forth in its report, to raise the fine from $10 to $25.
- Mr. Doherty asked why it was being proposed to only raise the fine for apartments/condos to $25, when it was proposed to be raised for businesses to $50, given that apartments/condos and businesses both tend to abut busily travelled sidewalks. Mr. Moderator interjected that perhaps the BoS should re-visit the entire snow removal section of the by-laws and propose a unified by-law. Mr. Doherty moved to amend the BoS vote to change the fine to $50 instead of to $25.
- Mr. Carreiro, on a point of order, asked if the amendment was within the scope of the article, which specifically mentioned $25. Mr. Moderator ruled the amendment within the scope, saying that $50 was not sufficiently different than $25.
- Mr. Sandrelli said that the Town used to plow sidewalks and that residents thus did not have to worry about snowy sidewalks. He complained that the sidewalk clearing burden was placed on the taxpayers. He asked what residents are supposed to do when street plows push the snow back onto your sidewalk.
- Mr. O'Conor said that the current by-law specifies three hours to remove the snow, not the eight hours the "this is how the bylaw will now read" text on the BoS report has. Mr. Moderator said that is not a problem, because the operative part of the vote is only addressing the fine, so that regardless of what the rest of the text says, the time will remain at three hours.
- Mr. Trembly said it is unfair to fine an apartment/condo owner $50 to remove the snow within three hours because it is not possible to do so.
- Ms. Fiore asked that plowers be instructed to not block sidewalks between homes.
- Mr. Bernardin said he was in favor of the amendment to raise the fine to $50, as Chief Ryan had made it clear people are given a chance to voluntarily comply before they are fined.
- Ms. Phelps asked if a two-family house was a residence or an apartment. Mr. Moderator said the terms are defined in the Zoning By-Law and that an apartment is defined as having four or more units. Ms. Phelps asked if a condoized two-family is a residence or a condo. Mr. Moderator said they are residences and again questioned the wisdom of having multiple pieces of the snow removal by-law. Ms. Phelps said she believed the fine should be $25 to match that in Article 19.
- Ms. Russian asked if there is any exemption for the elderly/disabled. Mr. Abbott, sans microphone, said the by-law provides for the BoS to promulgate regulations to exempt people who would be at a hardship. Ms. Mahon said the BoS tries not to punish people for doing the right thing and uses its discretion in such matters.
- Mr. Gilligan moved the previous question - debate terminated.
- Doherty amendment approved.
- BoS recommendation as amended approved
Article 21 - Bylaw Amendments/Snow Removal-Business:
- BoS recommended a vote as set forth in its report, to raise the fine from $25 to $50.
- Mr. Jones moved the previous question - debate terminated.
- BoS recommendation approved.
Article 22 - Bylaw Amendment/Public Ways:
- BoS recommended a vote as set forth in its report, to prevent anyone but Town employees from dumping snow, dirt, etc. on roads and sidewalks.
- Mr. Scott Smith said this was more important than the prior three and that it also grew out of citizen input to the Snow&Ice Committee. He said that right now nothing prevents people from dumping snow on sidewalks and streets.
- Mr. Leonard moved to amend the recommended vote to insert "leaves" as one of the forbidden things to dump.
- Mr. Fiore said he was in favor of the recommended vote, having had problems with a neighbor plowing him in and finding out that the behavior was legal.
- Mr. Carabello moved the previous question. Before the vote could be taken, Mr. Judd improperly used a point of order to try to continue debate, saying the recommended vote was flawed since taken literally it would prevent one from putting down salt and sand. The motion on the previous question was defeated, allowing debate to continue.
- Mr. Trembly, per the relevant by-law disclosed that as a snow plower, he has a financial interest in this article. He asked why Town employees are exempted from the dumping ban. Mr. Maher said that DPW workers have to move large amounts of materials around in the performance of their jobs. He also said the APD should be given credit for using common sense and discretion when enforcing the by-law. Mr. Trembly said that Arlington driveways are generally small and tight and that it is impossible to not leave some snow on the street when plowing the driveway. He said the recommendation is too broad and should be more narrowly targeted at those who offend.
- Mr. Gilligan moved the previous question - debate terminated.
- Leonard amendment approved.
- BoS recommendation as amended approved.
Article 23 - Bylaw Amendment/Repairs to Private Ways:
- BoS recommended a vote as set forth in its report, to add thincoat and drainage work to the list of temporary repairs the Town can make to private ways, to increase the required "downpayment" by abutters from 1/3 of the project cost to 2/3 of the cost, and to decrease the payback time from 20 years to 5 years. The BoS said it would also ask the Assessors to give it data on the amount of road betterments funds collected, so that future Town Meetings could be asked to appropriate that out of free cash and into the revolving fund.
- Mr. Hurd said the purpose is to revitalize the temporary repairs program by getting more money into the repairs revolving fund.
- Ms. Harrington moved to amend the BoS recommendation by changing the 2/3 downpayment requirement back to 1/3. She said members of her precinct were in favor of her doing that and that it will make it more affordable for people to use the program which will result in more private ways being repaired.
- Mr. Streitfeld said Ms. Harrington beat him to the punch. He said that the appropriations from free cash into the revolving fund are much more important than the size of the downpayments, so they should be left at 1/3.
- Mr. Rehrig asked why we do not create an enterprise fund to take the repayments over time instead of letting them go into the general fund. Mr. Maher we already have a revolving fund for this. The problem is that since the "installment" payments are collected persuant to a tax lien, they are required by state statute to go into the general fund.
- DPW Director Sanchez said that repair projects cost a significant amount of money and that if downpayments are only 1/3, there will not be a enough money in the revolving fund for the program to work for the first five years. He said the DPW worked hard on the numbers and determined that 2/3 would make things work.
- Mr. Gilligan said he supported the BoS recommendation and asked the meeting to keep in mind that the costs are not imposed by the Town but are requested by private way abutters. He said they get a good deal because the Town is already doing the repair work elsewhere and that using the 2/3 downpayment will save everyone else in town money because the float being financed by the Town will be smaller.
- Mr. Hurd said that the revolving fund funds the repair projects, but that "installment" repayments have to go into the general fund. He said in the future the amount of these repayments will be tracked and the meeting will be asked to appropriate them into the revolving fund.
- Mr. Ellis asked if the downpayments and the installment payments go into the general fund. Mr. Moderator replied that the down payments go into the revolving fund and the installment payments go into the general fund. Mr. Ellis asked if there was any sense of how the proposed change would impact the number of people using the program. Mr. Sanchez said that there are 24 miles of private ways in Town and that very few people use the program because there is no money in the revolving fund. Mr. Ellis said that many people are bitter that requests to fix plow damage go unanswered. He asked how decisions are made about private way repair and if rebuilding the revolving fund would affect that. Mr. Sanchez said that the program only covers temporary repairs, not rebuilds. Mr. Ellis asked where temporary repair funds come from. Mr. Ellis said they come from the revolving fund.
- Mr. Carrigan asked how much it costs to repair a street. Mr. Sanchez said between $100 and $300 per foot. Mr. Carrigan asked what a typical project cost is. Mr. Sanchez said between $10,000 and $50,000. Mr. Carrigan said it would be outrageous to double the size of the downpayment.
- Mr. Fischer jokingly asked if the people on Cutter Mill Road could put in a tollbooth to make up for the wear and tear on it due to cut-throughs. He said the downpayment should be left at 1/3, since a 1000ft project that might have 10 abutters could cost $100,000 and this would mean the downpayment would rise from $33,000 to $66,000. Mr. Hurd said that in his experience, a typical per-home cost for a chipseal repair was $800, for a thincoat report $1,500-$1,800, and for a 2-inch repave $2,500-$3,000. So for a chipseal the downpayment would rise from around $260 to around $520. Mr. Fischer said he was now in favor of 2/3.
- Mr. Streitfeld said that if you put enough seed money in the revolving fund the 1/3 vs. 2/3 question would be irrelevant. [at this point confusion broke out, with Mr. Streitfeld apparently confused about how the money moved and other people being confused about what Mr. Streitfeld was asking, and it eventually got resolved with another repetition from Mr. Maher and others that the downpayment goes into the revolving fund, the installment payment goes into the general fund, that the state law only allows the Town to make temporary repairs, and that the BoS believes that the downpayment has to be 2/3 for the program to work.]
- Mr. Leonard said he was against the recommended vote because it was too confusing. He asked if more people would use the program if asphalt was used instead of chipseal and said it is unfair for the Town to decide what type of repair to make. Mr. Sanchez corrected him saying the Town does not impose a method of repair but rather the particular method is decided upon by the landowners based on how much money they wish to spend. Mr. Leonard asked if the landowners have the right to choose the repair method. Mr. Sanchez said they do.
- Mr. Judd said he had several problems with the recommended vote. He asked why the Town had not been appropriating funds into the revolving fund all along, and that the revolving fund can be built up without changing the 1/3 to 2/3. He said that he also did not like that 2/3 of abutters can bind the remaining 1/3 to pay for repairs whether the dissenters like it or not and that this could pose a financial strain on people. Mr. Maher said that he (Maher) had not previously thought of replenishing the revolving fund by tracking the installment repayments and appropriating them into the revolving fund.
- Mr. McCabe said the program is voluntary and urged people to vote for the 2/3 requirement so there would be a program. He said one has to live on a private way to truly appreciate the program. He said he did not believe the $10,000 or $100,000 numbers mentioned earlier and does not know what his private way association would do without the program.
- Mr. Carreiro moved the previous question - debate terminated.
- Harrison amendment defeated.
- BoS recommendation approved.
Motion to adjourn approved.
Adjourned at 22:58 to 3 May at 20:00.

2004-04-28T11:38:00.000-04:00

How About an Arlington CD-ROM?

I had to stop in at the Town Clerk's office today to pick up a copy of the Town By-laws (for $10), since the version on the Town website is not up-to-date, plus the printed version has a helpful list of all the Legislative Acts that affect the Town, all the way back to March 5, 1838.

Walking out of Town Hall and wishing my wallet was $10 heavier, I was hit by the thought that in addition to selling $10 copies of dead-tree versions of the Town By-laws, it would be great if the Town would make a CD-ROM with:

the Town By-laws
the Zoning By-laws
All the zoning maps and overlays (surely the GIS system we have should be able to create PDFs of those, and if not, then GIFs/JPGs).
All the Board of Health regulations
All the regulations issued by the Board of Selectmen
School Department rules and procedures
Official School Department curriculum documents
Blanks of all the various forms/applications the Town has
and so on.

Then sell the CD-ROM for $1 or $2 or $5 or so.

Yes, I know (and agree) that all this should be on the Town's website. But websites have their own inherent limitations (for starters, you have to be online to access them). Being able to stick that CD-ROM in a computer and search, view, and print out what I need would be really nice.

As for format, I don't really care initially. The first edition of the CD-ROM could simply be a collection of all the relevant existing files, whether they are Word, PDF, etc. I'll take pragmatism over ideological purity on this any day. However, once the files are discovered and collated, an effort definitely should be made to convert them to searchable PDF to the extent possible. Consider that the second edition of the CD-ROM :-)

If you like this idea, tell that to the relevant Town powers. I think it would be a great idea, but of course, I'm biased :-)

2004-04-28T09:32:00.000-04:00

More Documents Available

Courtesy of the test/preview version of the Town website:

Board of Selectmen's Report (PDF|Word)
PDF of list of TMMs used to print that big sheet you see Stephanie checking us in on (though it is already out of date, as Precinct 19's Pat Deal resigned on Monday night).

The test site also has an entry for the ARB report, but apparently the underlying file isn't there, since hitting the link returns an error.

2004-04-27T12:27:00.000-04:00

2004 TMM List Available

The list of 2004 TMMs is now available.

2004-04-27T11:55:00.000-04:00

FinComm Report Available

The FinComm report is now available at http://fincom.carr-jones.com/reports/TM2004/FY05_Report_to_2004_TM.pdf (warning -- it is a 1.8MB PDF).

2004-04-27T01:52:00.000-04:00

Dunn's notes are up and at http://dandunn.org/tm2004.html

2004-04-27T01:45:00.000-04:00

Thoughts

Very slow going at first, but things did generally pick up in the second half of the session.
In the one counted vote we had, only 158 people voted (out of 244 current TMMs -- 8 slots are open for various reasons). Sigh.
No more than five minutes after the Moderator explains that reports should be in written form, should generally not be read aloud, and presentations of which should not be more than five minutes, the Rental Reinspection Committee reads a very long report that should have been printed, handed to us, and a 30 second comment made about the brochure being drafted and the building inspector's upcoming seminar.
Were people just determined to fail to read Mr. Abbott's subsitute motion on Article 12? I counted at least three completely incorrect claims made about it, all of which would have been seen to have been obviously false after about 15 seconds of looking at his substitute motion.
It would be nice to have mikes that could pick up sound from more than 4 inches away. People really should follow Mr. Abbott's example and just take the mike out of the holder and hold it up to one's mouth.

2004-04-27T00:25:00.000-04:00

Session 1 of N, where N is a large positive integer

I regret that the notes will be somewhat incomplete, because they will often refer to the contents of reports given to us. Normally you could get those reports on-line and follow along. Unfortunately, they are not yet available on-line. However, it would be too much effort to reproduce in my notes what is already in those reports. So let's just hope they get put on-line soon.

Called to order at 20:04.
The Menotomy Minutemen presented the colors and performed the Anthem.
When the meeting is adjourned, it is adjourned to 20:00 on 28 April.
Article 2 - Reports of Committees:
- Received the reports of BoS, the ARB, and the Noise Abatement Study Committee.
- Mr. Ferrar of the Rental Reinspection Committee read the report of the committee. Key points are that the only nearby municipalities that require apartment inspections when an apartment turns over are Boston and Chelsea, that Medford was considering it but gave up after overwhelming negative feedback at a public hearing, and would be very hard to budget for and staff due to the uncertaintly and spikiness of apartment turnovers. The committee instead decided to focus on education ("educate instead of mandate") and will be creating a brochure for tenants and landlords. The Director of Inspection Services will be giving a seminar on apartment compliance with codes.
- Pat Thomas of the Tree Committee asked everyone to fill out and hand in the Committee's tree survey form which was in the TMMs' packets.
- The FinComm report was received. Mr. Tosti gave a high level overview. He said the crisis continues, though there are some signs the state is pulling out of the recession. He said the Town cannot survive on its own revenues and requires a steadily increasing local aid passage to survive. He reviewed page 3 of the report which explains what the Town's increase in revenues consisted of, what the projected deficit was, and how it was closed in the proposed budget. He reviewed pages E1-E2 which discussed the use of reserves and pointed out that we are using reserves unsustainably and that there will be big problems when the reserves are drained. He also reviewed the current and proposed school-related debt service on pages D1-D2 of the report and pointed out that Stratton will require either another debt exclusion or absorbing it into the regular capital plan.
Mr. Tosti moved that the recommended votes of the BoS, FinComm, and the ARB be before the meeting without further motion. Approved.
Article 3 - Measurers of Wood and Bark:
- BoS recommended that John A. Fitzmaurice be appointed to the post.
- Town Counsel Maher said that the office is one of the last of the colonial-era offices that is still selected by the Town (as opposed to by Town officials). He said the office is still active, and if you buy a cord of wood you can have the measurer come out and tell you how much wood you really received.
- BoS recommendation approved unanimously.
Article 4 - Election of Assistant Moderator:
- Mr. Moderator explained that nominations would be taken, then closed, and the article tabled. Ballots would be made up which would only be given to TMMs at checkin on Wednesday. Once the Wednesday session begins, the ballots will be collected and counted and the results announce. He said that the candidates would have the chance to address the Meeting and discuss their qualifications and why they want the position.
- Mr. Abbott nominated Mr. Leone.
- Mr. Greeley nominated Mr. Caccavaro.
- Mr. Rosselli nominated Mr. McCabe.
- Motion to close nominations - approved.
- Motion to table - approved.
Article 5 - Zoning Bylaw Amendment/Bicycle Parking:
- The ARB recommended a vote as set forth in its report to explicitly add bicycle-related verbiage to the "Circulation" part of Article 11 Section 11.06 of the Zoning By-Law.
- Mr. Tsoi said that the ARB is also the planning board of the Town and takes its responsibility to comment on zoning and land use articles very seriously.
- Mr. Chaput said this was a housekeeping article to fix some flaws in last year's bicycle parking zoning change, as the requirements were not as apparent as they could have been.
- Mr. Johnson of the Arlington Bicycle Advisory Committee said that the purpose of the recommendation was to add a cross-reference to the bicycle parking rules to the relevant Environmental Design Review section of the Zoning By-Law. He said it would not expand or restrict the bicycle parking requirements.
- ARB recommendation approved unanimously.
Ms. Fiore moved to postpone Articles 6-8 to 3 May, saying that they were complex and we had not had enough time to study them properly.
Mr. Fischer asked if the ARB could make its presentation on the articles and then have the Meeting postpone them. Mr. Moderator said that was not possible given the motion to postpone was already made.
Motion to postpone Articles 6-8 to 3 May was approved.
Article 9 - Zoning Bylaw Amendment/Off Street Parking:
- ARB recommended a vote of no action as set forth in its report.
- Mr. Abbott offered a subsitute motion which was the text of the article. He said that current single-room occupancy developments (SROs) are one of the cheapest forms of affordable housing we have. He said they are not currently causing problems and that his substitute motion would make a state of no problems be a condition of the parking waiver special permit and would place the burden of proof of no problems on the SRO owner.
- The Meeting recessed for the mid-session break and then returned.
- Ms. Mann said the ARB was concerned about definitional issues -- what exactly is an SRO, what is the definition of "affordable" to be used and so on. She said she and Mr. Abbott had discussed this during the recess and that Mr. Abbott agreed to work with the ARB over the course of the year to ironing out these issues. Mr. Abbott indicated he no longer had problems with the recommended no action vote.
- Mr. Gilligan moved the previous question - debate terminated.
- Abbott substitute motion defeated.
- ARB recommendation of no action approved unanimously.
Article 10 - Zoning Bylaw Amendment/Industrial Zone:
- ARB recommended a vote of no action as set forth in its report.
- No discussion. Recommendation of no action approved unanimously.
Article 11 - Zoning Bylaw Amendment/Affordable Housing:
- ARB recommended a vote of no action as set forth in its report.
- Mr. Tsoi said the ARB supported the intent, but that no action was needed because the Zoning By-Law already allows what the proponents of the article were seeking.
- ARB recommendation of no action approved unanimously.
Article 12 - Zoning Bylaw Amendment/Affordable Housing II:
- ARB recommended a vote of no action as set forth in its report.
- Mr. Abbott offered a substitute motion which was the text of the article with an additional clause making it explicit that the ARB was not obliged to accept the developer's offer.
- Ms. Mann said this would defeat spirit of the afforable housing by-law be weakening the rule that afforable units be on-site.
- Mr. Lyons said there is nothing more important in this country today than preventing segregation. He said to not let developers buy their way out of the by-law.
- Mr. Gilligan said he opposed the substitute motion. He said that in addition to what people already said, the motion was not specific enough on definitions or on criteria for the ARB to follow.
- [missed name, sorry] said he likes the existing by-law and that other towns are considering it as a model. He said he was worried that state law does not explicitly allow such by-laws and so would not want to complicate our existing one and risk drawing a challenge.
- Mr. Ellis pointed out that some of the prior criticisms of the substitute motion are invalid, as the substitute does not give developers the ability to buy out of the rules (in fact, the existing by-law already allows for that). He said he liked that it would allow even more affordable units to be created. He noted that his neighborhood used to be affordable and is rapidly ceasing to be so. He noted that the ARB would still have the power to turn down an offer and that the substitute motion would carry out a worthy goal.
- Mr. Abbott reread his substitute motion and pointed out it does not allow for buyouts. He said he had confidence in the ARB to do the right thing.
- Mr. Tully said he was bothered that the ARB is not willing to accept the authority being offered to it. He asked Mr. Maher if other town's have a similar by-law and what their experiences have been and if such a by-law would cause legal problems. Mr. Maher said that the by-law did not seem on its face to cause problems but that he really could not speak to the question because there is no good way to know how problematic such a change would prove to be. He also said that no other town had such a by-law.
- Ms. Harrington said she could not believe Mr. Abbott would be bringing up anything that would ghettoize people. She moved to postpone the article to Wednesday so the ARB, Mr. Abbott, and other parties could continue to discuss it. Her motion to postpone was defeated, 53-105.
- Mr. Leone said the Zoning By-Law Review Committee unanimously voted no action on the article and that it felt the substitute would complicate the legal situation and was against the spirit of the affordable housing by-law.
- Mr. Taber said he opposed the subtitute motion. He said he was worried it would lead to increasing concentrations of high-end and low-end housing.
- Mr. Bernardin moved the previous question - debate terminated.
- Abbot substitute motion defeated.
- ARB recommendation of no action approved.
Article 13 - Zoning Bylaw Amendment/Temporary Signs:
- ARB recommended a vote of no action as set forth in its report.
- Ms. Mayer offered a substitute motion to allow for temporary signs to be put on fields by non-profits and sports leagues. She noted that under this article she was only proposing the enabling zoning changes. She said the BoS recommended vote under Article 15 would set the actual rules for which fields would have signs and so forth. She said the approach is conservative, balanced, and respectful, and would only be at a few designated fields, and that input was solicited from many groups. She said that school sports teams are already doing fundraiser after fundraiser to try to keep fees manageable and it is still not enough. Mr. Moderator broke in and pointed out a major flaw in the substitute motion -- it would incorporate by reference into the Zoning By-Law whatever the current Parks and Recreation Commission regulations on temporary sign use were -- and that would be an illegal delegation of zoning power to the Commission.
- After some discussion about when the next Parks and Rec Commission meeting was, Mr. Gilligan moved to table the article, which was approved.
Article 14 - Zoning Bylaw Amendment/Off Street Parking:
- ARB recommended a vote of no action as set forth in its report.
- Mr. Faulkner reiterated the ARB's comments in its report that what the article proposed would make inconsistent parking space rules between houses and apartments and would make housing less available and less affordable.
- Mr. McKinney complained about the number of cars belonging to the tenants in a rental property neighboring his and said that there should be a way to either require landlords to provide parking for all their tenants or else limit the number of cars the tenants could have.
- ARB recommendation of no action approved unanimously.
Article 15 - Bylaw Amendment/Temporary Signs II: Tabled (see discussion on Article 13).
Article 16 - Abandonment of Exterior Lines:
- BoS recommended abandoning exterior lines at 874-880 and at 980 Massachusetts Avenue. ARB endorsed the BoS recommendation.
- Ms. Mahon presenting the BoS recommendation and noted that a lawyer for the developers was in the room if people had questions.
- Mr. Streitfeld asked if an "exterior line" means a line on a map beyond which fixed structures cannot be build. Mr. Maher said yes.
- Mr. Reedy asked which other properties would be candidates for this. Mr. Maher said that no one knows and referred to the ARB report which discusses that in more detail. He said that lots of structures on Massachusetts Ave are likely in violation of the exterior lines.
- Mr. Jamieson asked if any transfers of property were involved. Mr. Maher said no.
- Ms. Fiore asked if this would affect the width of sidewalks. Mr. Maher said no.
- Mr. Fischer asked what the point of doing this was. Ms. Mahon replied that it would allow buildings to be build closer to the street, providing more of a buffer to abutting residences.
- Mr. Curro asked if (given that the exterior lines were established by Town purchases) we could could get any money for abandoning them. Mr. O'Brien said that the lines are outdated, are a nuisance, run contrary to the desire of the Zoning By-laws to have commercial developments be closer to the street, limit the creativity of architects, and in fact would be something the Town would be willing to pay to get rid of. In light of all that the Town is not going to try to get compensated for the abandonment.
- Mr. Fiore asked if the exterior lines easement allow the Town to widen sidewalks. Mr. O'Brien said no, since sidewalks are on the public right of way but the exterior lines are on private property. He said the lines do not give the Town any rights but only prevent buildings past the lines. Mr. Fiore asked for Mr. Maher to speak to his question. Mr. Maher said that the exterior lines are not easements as they are normally thought of. He also said that they only prevent development past a line and do not allow the Town to put sidewalks in mandated space. He said the Town could only do that via negotiation or eminent domain proceedings.
- Mr. Starr moved the previous question - debate terminated.
- BoS recommendation approved.
Meeting adjourned at 23:03 to 20:00 on 28 April.

2004-04-27T00:09:00.000-04:00

The FinComm report has been released. I am told that it will be available on the FinComm website "soon". I will have a link when it becomes available.

2004-04-26T12:26:00.000-04:00

The Smell of the Greasepaint, the Roar of the Crowd

The 2004 Annual Town Meeting begins tonight at 20:00. So far the BoS and the ARB have released their reports, but as far as I know they are not yet available on-line. Once they are, I will have links to them.

2004-04-26T12:24:00.000-04:00

State of the Town

The State of the Town address is being delivered by new BoS Chair Diane Mahon tonight at 19:00, most likely in the Town Hall auditorium.

2004-04-15T12:20:00.000-04:00

Warrant Review Tonight

The Warrant Review sponsored by Arlington Vision 2020 and the Arlington League of Women Voters is tonight. Regrettably, I will be unable to attend due to illness.

2004-04-15T12:19:00.000-04:00

Special Town Meeting Warrant Opens, Closes 20 April

The Board of Selectmen have voted to open a warrant for a Special Town Meeting. The warrant will open at 8:00am on Tuesday, 20 April, and close at 4:00pm on the same day.

In contrast to the mere 10 registered voter signatures that are required to insert an article into the warrant for the Annual Town Meeting, the signatures of 100 registered voters are needed to put an article in a Special Town Meeting warrant.

UPDATE:
According to Michael Quinn and Ray Bloom, the STM will be about the Dallin and Hardy schools and will be scheduled for 19 May. Also, there will be another STM called later in the year about the Symmes development (no doubt to do the necessary rezoning to enable the project to proceed).

2004-04-04T20:12:00.000-04:00

Live, From Arlington...

Check out the Live From Arlington website. They've done a really nice job.

2004-04-04T00:09:00.000-05:00

Official Unofficial Results

If you want to see election results that (a) are formatted much more nicely than my simplistic HTML forays, and (b) are as official as we can get until the official results are out, then see this page on the Town Website (it'll still be a couple of days before the write-in results will be known).

2004-04-03T22:40:00.000-05:00

The Town Meeting Member is dead. Long live the Town Meeting Member!

Here is the list of defeated incumbents and new TMMs. "New" means elected as a non-incumbent (not necessarily a TMM rookie). "Defeated incumbents" does not include incumbents who chose not to run for re-election.

PRECINCT 1
Defeated Incumbents
   Barry-Smith
   Paul
New TMMs
   Steinhilber
   King
   Hatfield (technically lost her race, but presumably Steinhilber and King,
             who both won 3yr and 2yr slots will take the 3yr slots, leaving
             Hatfield to take a 2yr slot)

PRECINCT 2
Defeated Incumbents
   S. Cella
New TMMs
   Meister

PRECINCT 3:
Defeated Incumbents
   Boschi
New TMMs
   Allison

PRECINCT 4 - none of either

PRECINCT 5
New TMMs
   Lovelace
   Malin

PRECINCT 6
New TMMs
   Logan
   Kazarian
   Spitzkoff

PRECINCT 7:
New TMMs
   Lehrich
   Loreti

PRECINCT 8 - none of either

PRECINCT 9
New TMMs
   Coletta

PRECINCT 10
New TMMs
   Grealish-Kelly
   Lee

PRECINCT 11
Defeated Incumbents
   W Maytum
New TMMs
   Schoenthaler

PRECINCT 12
Defeated Incumbents
   Thomas
   Nicholas
New TMMs
   Dunn
   Jamieson

PRECINCT 13
New TMMs
   Brandt

PRECINCT 14
New TMMs
   Stetson

PRECINCT 15
Defeated Incumbents
   Lavalle
New TMMs
   Kirby

PRECINCT 16
Defeated Incumbents
   Franzen
New TMMs
   Koch

PRECINCT 17 - none of either

PRECINCT 18 - none of either

PRECINCT 19
New TMMs
   Sweeney

PRECINCT 20
Defeated Incumbents
   Coffey
New TMMs
   Putnam

PRECINCT 21
New TMMs
   Abbott

2004-04-03T21:37:00.000-05:00

Complete Unofficial Town Meeting Member Election Results

Here are the complete, unofficial results of TMM races:

(*) = winner
(I)  = incumbent

Precinct 1
Three Years
(*)(I) Boltz	73
(*)(I) Cleinman	66
(*) King	63
(*) Steinhilber	54
(I) Paul	47
(I) Barry-Smith	46
Two Years (2)
(*) Steinhilber	69
(*) King	66
Hatfield	49
Precinct 2
(*)(I) Carey	106
(*)(I) DeCourcey	100
(*) Meister	89
(*)(I) A Cella	87
(I) S Cella	84
Precinct 3
(*) Allison	90
(*)(I) Haussman	79
(*)(I) Hayward	72
(*) Flaherty	69
(I) Boschi	56
Precinct 4
(*)(I) Scoppettuolo	52
(*)(I) Marshall	51
(*)(I) Logue	48
(*)(I) Piandes	47
Precinct 5
Three Years
(*)Lovelace	70
(*)(I) DuBois	69
(*)Smith	68
One Year (2)
(*) Malin	73
Precinct 6
Three Years
(*)(I) Fischer	70
(*) Logan	60
(*) Kazarian	59
(*)(I) Reale	56
Two Years (1)
(*) Spitzkoff	27
Logan	26
Kazarian	23
Precinct 7
(*)(I) Connors	67
(*)(I) Sharpe	64
(*) Lehrich	64
(*) Loreti	64
Precinct 8
(*)(I) Friedman	166
(*)(I) Foskett	154
(*)(I) Rehrig	143
(*)(I) J Worden	134
Boehm	90
Precinct 9
(*)(I) Hallee	133
(*) West	131
(*) Coletta	119
(*)(I) Judd	113
Precinct 10
(*) Grealish-Kelly	114
(*) Lee	98
(*)(I) Kenney	94
(*)(I) Quinn	91
Marullo	88
Precinct 11
(*) Schoenthaler	123
(*)(I) Faulkner	118
(*)(I) Sheehan	108
(*)(I) C Maytum	106
(I) W Maytum	96
Schwartz	87
Precinct 12
(*) Dunn	217
(*)(I) Chaput	202
(*) Jamieson	179
(*)(I) Thrope	172
(I) Thomas	160
Gera	85
(I) Nicholas	51
Precinct 13
Three Years
(*)(I) J Deyst	174
(*)(I) M Deyst	173
(*)(I) Doherty	155
(*)(I) Anderson	133
Bayer	124
Two Years (1)
(*) Brandt	108
Bayer	101
Precinct 14
(*)(I) Wyly	86
(*) Stetson	85
(*)(I) McCarthy	83
(*)(I) Canaday	76
Budding	53
Precinct 15
(*)(I) LaCourt	146
(*)(I) Spangler	146
(*) Kirby	132
(*)(I) Ciano	127
Mahoney	89
(I) Lavalle	76
Precinct 16
(*)(I) Phelps	105
(*) Koch	96
(*)(I) Sandrelli	92
(*)(I) Dingee	88
Czapski	84
(I) Franzen	72
Precinct 17
(*)(I) Olzewski	72
(*)(I) Gibbons	67
(*)(I) LeRoyer	66
(*)(I) Berzins	61
Precinct 18
(*)(I) Ford	106
(*)(I) Parsons	102
(*)(I) Hadley	98
(*)(I) White	89
Precinct 19
(*)(I) Doherty	92
(*) Sweeney	88
(*)(I) O'Conor	84
(*)(I) Trembly	79
McElhoe	72
Precinct 20
(*)(I) Mann	103
(*) Putnam	97
(*)(I) Phillips	92
(*)(I) Daly	82
(I) Coffey	58
Precinct 21
(*)(I) Mayer	76
(*)(I) Malone	71
(*) Abbott	66

2004-04-02T22:20:00.000-05:00

Annual Town Election tomorrow (Saturday) from 8am to 8pm!

Remember to get out there and vote, everyone! Even though there's only one contested town-wide race, there are plenty of contested Town Meeting Member races. And remember that both RCN and Comcast will be carrying the post-poll-closing TV show from Town Hall (channels 8 and 3 respectively).l

2004-04-01T19:50:00.000-05:00

War is peace, freedom is slavery, we don't want to deny you your property rights, we just want to tell you what you can do with your property.

From today's Advocate:

According to Historical Commission member Michael Ruderman, the zoning isn't used to deny property rights. Instead, it allows the community to have input in changes near beloved resources.

and

Ruderman said that only work that requires a town permit to change more than 25% of a structure's exterior elevation would be tagged for review.

and this direct quote from Ruderman

More commonly, this would affect someone who buys a house by the mill and wants to build a McMansion.

In Town Meeting, please vote against the designation of Schwamb Mill as a "special place" and vote for the complete repeal of the "special places" by-law.

2004-03-24T14:44:00.000-05:00

2004 Warrant Available, Article 18 seeks to impose "green"-ness on private builders

The Warrant for the 2004 Annual Town Meeting is available here. (Warning -- it's a large PDF file).

A quick scan has Article 18 jumping to the fore as That Which Must Be Defeated(tm), as it seeks to have the Town impose "green" building "standards" on private, commercial developers.

2004-03-08T23:50:00.000-05:00

It's Town Meeting Time time!

According to the Massachusetts Municipal Association website, the ordering information for Town Meeting Time is:

Town Meeting Time is considered by moderators to be their bible for town meeting. The book, subtitled "A Handbook of Parliamentary Law," was written specifically to guide town meeting procedures. The book was written by a committee of the Massachusetts Moderators Association, which first published it in 1962. The association published the third edition in 2001. To order a copy, send a check for $25 (including postage), payable to the Massachusetts Moderators Association, to Stow Town Moderator Edward Newman, 27 Whitney Road, Stow, MA 01775. The book can also be found in many public libraries. For more information, call Newman at (978) 897-7076.

2004-03-03T23:28:00.000-05:00

A scan (converted to PDF) of the draft warrant for the 2004 Annual Town Meeting is now available here, courtesy of Michael Quinn. Warning -- it is a 1.3MB file.

2004-03-02T21:47:00.000-05:00

Looks like the BlogStreet feed has returned to its blank, non-working state. *sigh* So anyone pulling an RSS/XML feed of this blog should stick with the so-called Sportsblogs feed for now. I'll leave the BlogStreet link so people can check it out now and then if they want, and we'll see where things go.

2004-03-02T14:15:00.000-05:00

Still haven't received the Powerpoint file of the Peirce Field presentation.

2004-03-02T14:12:00.000-05:00

It appears the BlogStreet feed is now "functioning", but it does a very minimalist scape -- you get no idea at all what the items are. We'll see if it gets any better. In the meantime, I've also added a link to yet another scraper. That can be accessed via the "RSS|XML(Sportsblogs)" link on the top left and also as http://rss.sportsblogs.org/makeRSS.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Farlingtontm.blogspot.com (yes, I know that's horribly ugly). Unlike BlogStreet, the Sportsblogs scraper will put the blog post contents in the RSS description field, so you can (yay!) read the post from your RSS reader without having to click through to the blog if you don't want to.

2004-03-02T11:22:00.000-05:00

Grrr. Looks like BlogMatrix (what I was using to build an RSS feed from this blog) is going away. They suggested using Blogstreet in their place. I've created an account and registered this blog with them. They spit out http://feeds.blogstreet.com/43088.rss as the generated feed, but it's completely blank at the moment. I don't know if there's a day or two delay before a newly registered blog actually has content shown or if they're just hosed.

So if anyone knows of other free/cheap RSS generation sites, I'd be interested in hearing from you. I do know that Blogger/Blogspot offers RSS feed generation to paying members, but they aren't taking new paying members at the moment.

2004-02-26T09:07:00.000-05:00

Dan Dunn has his STM notes up here.

2004-02-26T00:30:00.000-05:00

I'm working on getting an electronic copy of the presentation that Mr. Maher et al made on the Peirce Field settlement amendment. Once I have it, I'll make it available and put up a link to it.