I take notes during Town Meeting. They are not official in any way. As I listen to people speak, I type notes. I’m sure that, at times, I mishear or misunderstand the speaker, but my notes represent what I hear at the time. I try to publish the notes every night after the meeting. I do go back and make a few edits as errors are pointed out to me.  Sometimes I relay a quote from a specific speaker. Sometimes I only summarize the discussion. At points I give a purely personal opinion; those are clearly labeled like this: Personal note.

Tonight is the third night of Annual Town Meeting, but as we often do, we inserted a Special Town Meeting into the annual.  There are a couple of reasons we do that.  One reason is that sometimes things come up after the annual warrant deadline, and then you need a special to set a new deadline.  Another reason is that Town Meeting votes only become official once certified by the Attorney General, and that only happens after Town Meeting is completely dissolved.  For the AHS rebuild, for instance, we don’t want to wait until sometime this summer to get the vote certified.  By doing a special, and by dissolving it, we get the vote certified quickly enough to move forward.

Moderator John Leone started calling the meeting to order a minute before 8pm and we started on time.

Town Meeting Member Rieko Tanaka played the National Anthem on the piano, and the meeting members sang along.

Select Board Member Joe Curro introduced the Mayor of Nagaokakyo, Arlington’s sister city in Japan. He gave a short speech thanking Arlington volunteers and host families. The visiting students came on stage and sang a song to us.

The moderator explained Notices of Reconsideration. If you vote on the prevailing side (meaning, the side that won the vote), you can give a notice of reconsideration that night. And then, if there is new information available, then you can move reconsideration of the article at any time. The meeting can choose to take that article up with a 2/3 vote.

We tested the clicker with this question: US Presidents originally lived in the President’s Palace. 55 true, 118 false, 16 abstain. There were several fits and starts during the test vote. As the moderator said – glad that it was a test vote!

Announcements
Bill Hayner announced the elementary school mock Town Meeting and greeted the participants in the audience.

Reports

• Chairperson Jeff Thielman gave the Arlington High School Building Committee (AHSBC) report.
• Al Tosti gave the Finance Committee report. He noted the high school project has the unanimous support of FinComm. He gave some high school history: in the 1970s Town Meeting supported a rebuild twice, but it was twice defeated at referendum. The third attempt passed Town Meeting, and there was no challenging referendum. In the end, the town got a lesser project for more money than the original proposal. Don’t repeat that mistake.

Article 1 – Arlington High School

The moderator said that he wouldn’t be taking names for the list until after the main presentation. This was a bit of an unusual choice, but it makes sense to me. The beginnings of presentations are sometimes a bit of a circus with people desperately trying to get the moderator’s attention while the speaker is trying to hold the meeting’s attention. This way the audience, and any potential speakers, will have had the benefit of actually hearing the original presentation.

Jeff Thielman requested a full hour presentation. John Worden asked if opponents “who dare have a contradictory opinion” would be allowed to speak for a similar amount of time. The moderator replied that it is a very important question, and he expected that the meeting will hear everyone appropriate.

Thielman explained the need for a new high school. He went through the process with the state MSBA program. He noted that the site is small, 22 acres, and has a significant grade, and some capped contamination. He talked about the different town departments, such as IT and Comptroller, that have been moved from the AHS building into other town facilities. He talked about the design process and phased building plan.

Principal Janger talked about the good parts of the high school, including being ranked 9th in the state. The expectations of high schools have gone up over the years, from No Child Left Behind and special education needs. He talked about how the proposed design supports the educational mission. He walked through a broad overview of the layout of the school.

Committee Member John Cole talked about the architectural choices in the design, including the central spine of the building. He went into the details about why the recommendation was to rebuild, not renovate. He explained the logistics, the cost savings, and the limiting factors of the old building. He explained how by moving the building forward we can add athletic space in the back. He went into a more detailed view of the phasing of the construction.

Committee Member Ryan Katofsky walked through the environmental sustainability of the building. It’s designed to be a carbon-neutral, all-electric building. It will have a ground-source heat pump and solar panels. It takes advantage of utility programs for funding. He covered other initiatives.

Town Manager Adam Chapdelaine walked through the financial support of the MSBA and the limitations of it. He talked about how expenses will be managed. He shared some of the cost management measures that have already been taken. He explained some of the “bonuses” the town has earned for reimbursement. He gave a benchmark analysis of comparable high school projects.

Jeff Theilman explained the cost of “no vote” to the town. We would lose state money, and have to fund the renovations ourselves. Doing nothing is not an option, he said, because the current building is failing. He relayed a cautionary tale from Lincoln who rejected MSBA plan, and had to pay it alone. He played a “flythrough” animated video of the proposed building. He closed with an appeal to build a school for the town’s future.

Senator Cindy Friedman spoke on behalf of Representatives Garballey and Rogers. The three of them enthusiastically support this project. She explained how competitive the state funding process is, and how unlikely and expensive it would be to forgo the state grant. Of the 18 that towns that skipped the grant in the last few years, none have succeeded in getting funding later.

At 9:31 we took a break.

At 9:40 we were back in session.

Joe Tully supports the rebuild. He asked about whether the school was being built for a big enough population. Timur Yontar is in favor. Adam Pachter is in favor. He argued: just because the committee didn’t agree with you, it doesn’t mean you weren’t heard. It doesn’t mean there is a conspiracy against you. It was a very cogent point. Patricia Worden is opposed to the plan. I read Patricia Worden’s screed before the meeting started. I shook my head at the falsehoods, distortions, and repetitively-used incorrect numbers. Two quick examples of her legerdemain: The proposed high school has a price tag of $291m, not the $308 million she cites over and over; she says in 2016 the project was promised “not to exceed $150M” – a promise never made; and a third bonus item – no one gets to pull a $29M renovation-cost prediction for Fusco and Collomb out of thin air and be believed. Later in the night, during the presentation, I was struck by the careful detail of the AHSBC pricing benchmark slide, which includes multiple footnotes about the data that was used, its limitations, and the underlying assumptions. My point: One set of people here is using facts and should be taken seriously. Similarly, some of the opponents to the project are reasonable people making reasonable arguments who can disagree reasonably. But some of the opponents just can’t be taken seriously. Michael Ruderman is in favor of the project as just and right for the next generation of students. He also had a question about the reimbursement rate. Greg Christiana is in favor of the proposal, and explored the cost of saying no. John Deyst is in favor; it’s good for our students and our real estate prices. David Baldwin, town resident, is opposed to the project; he argued that the current buildings have too much historic value to be demolished. Gordon Jamieson moved to terminate debate. I overheard the moderator say there were 15 people on the list. 166-50-3 debate was terminated. 208-10-2 it was approved.

Article 2 – no action

Article 3 – Zoning Consultant
JoAnne Preston is opposed to this expenditure. She thinks that more volunteers should be used, and fewer consultants. Beth Ann Friedman is also opposed and thinks the work should be done by the planning dept. Al Tosti spoke in favor of it. Daniel Jalkut terminated debate, and it was approved 192-20-2 I was on the list to speak, and I had some strong words, but I’m glad I didn’t get to the mic – it wasn’t necessary.

Article 4 – Real Estate
Town Counsel Doug Heim explained that it is landlocked. It’s an artesian well. The next-door neighbor has filed a complaint against the town. The town would like to not disclose the assessed value because it is subject to negotiation. Paul Schlichtman thinks the parcel is otherwise worthless and thinks this would be an excellent use of it. And also took the lead in the 2019 humor category by opening his speech with “Well, well, well. . .” Ted Sharpe is in favor, but does not want extort beyond its reasonable value. Michael Ruderman is in favor of the disposition. It was approved 218-0

Article 5 – Residential Design Guidelines
Director of Planning and Community Development Jenny Raitt explained that many towns and cities have design guides. The recommendation is to develop guidelines for R0, R1, and R2 parcels. The current process is imprecise and this would help add rigor to the process. Sophie Migliazzo noted that this was a 9-5 vote and wondered who was opposed to it. Pat Hanlon talked about how this was a tool for evaluating tear downs. Ted Paluso supports this expenditure. Ed Trembly asked if we know who the consultants would be – no, because there is a competitive bid process. Karen Kelleher is in favor. Brian Hasbrouck is in favor. Ethan Zimmer asked whether these were enforceable like zoning – the answer is it would likely be advisory to the ZBA as guidelines, and something would come back to Town Meeting in the future. Paul Schlichtman moved to terminate debate, terminated on voice vote. 197-6-3 approved.

Article 6 – Mugar Application Process
Taking this article up was going past 11PM! I approve. We want to get this done. By getting it all done tonight, we can dissolve the special town meeting.  Town Counsel Doug Heim explained that town meeting had already approved money for this, but it had carefully been spent.  We have ongoing legal costs in the fight with Mugar.  On voice vote, approved near unanimously.

We dissolved the Special Town Meeting.