[Rich, 02:13]
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.

[Rich, 02:12]
Mr. Dunn's notes are up.

[Rich, 09:17]
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.

[Rich, 09:17]
Mr. Dunn's notes are available.

[Rich, 02:01]
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 :-)

[Rich, 01:59]
Mr. Dunn's notes are now available.

[Rich, 01:57]
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.

[Rich, 02:23]
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.

[Rich, 02:22]
See Mr. Dunn's comments here.

[Rich, 02:21]
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.

[Rich, 02:20]
Mr. Dunn's notes are now available.

[Rich, 02:11]
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.