[Rich, 03:06]
Some thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rich, 02:42]
Session 11 -- the end is in sight

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

[Rich, 23:45]
How hot was it?

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

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

[Rich, 23:43]
Session 10 Notes - it's getting hot in here

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