[Rich, 15:07]
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).

[Rich, 14:58]
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.

[Rich, 02:28]
A reprieve!

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

[Rich, 02:26]
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.

[Rich, 09:33]
Notes completed

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

[Rich, 09:31]
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.

[Rich, 21:39]
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.

[Rich, 21:25]
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.

[Rich, 21:05]
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.

[Rich, 01:31]
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.

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

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

[Rich, 01:57]
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.

[Rich, 01:08]
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.