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 then publish the notes every night after the meeting. I do go back and make a few edits as errors are pointed out to me.

I do not try to reproduce my entire notes for this online version. Sometimes I relay a quote from a specific speaker. Most of the time I only summarize the discussion. At points I give a purely personal opinion; those are clearly labeled like this: Personal note.

The meeting opened with the Selectones singing God Bless America and the Star-Spangled Banner. Patsy Kraemer and Charlie Gallagher played the piano.

Town Moderator John Leone noted that we might finish tonight if things move speedily. He also gave another reminder on civility.

Announcements

• Harry McCabe missed a meeting and thanked everyone for the well-wishes.
• Gary Hororwitz proposed a resolution in support of the Human Rights Commissions and its mission. John Leone ruled it out of order; he said that it was potentially controversial, and should be a warrant article. This sounds like an unfortunate misunderstanding between Mr. Horowitz and Mr. Leone.
• Leslie Mayer Chairman of Parks and Recreation announced that the off-leash dog park at Thorndike will open on Monday May 21st at 6AM.

Article 3 taken from the table

•  Gary Horowitz delivered the report of the Human Rights Commission.
• Angela Olszewski gave the report of the Arlington Committee of Tourism and Economic Development.

Article 3 was tabled.

Article 27 - Transfer Of Real Property/Gibbs Junior High School - back from the table

Selectmen Kevin Greeley and Town Manager Adam Chapdelaine explained that this is extending the lease with the current residents. Chris Loreti had several questions. School Superintendent Kathy Bodie explained that we might need it for swing space for Ottoson, and thus limited the extension to 3 years. He asked how long will the leases be? 3 years says Town Manager Adam Chapdelaine. Loreti wanted to know how early of notice of non-renewal the current occupants will get.

Article 14 – Liens-School Fees taken from the table

School committee, Selectmen, and FinComm all changed their vote to no action.  No action approved.

Article 47 – Special Education Reserve Account off the table

Al Tosti moved $500,000 from FY12 be moved to the special ed reserve account. Stephen Harrington spoke in favor. Moved unanimously.

Article 52 - Signage For Historic Sites was taken from the table.

Angela Olszewski talked about the purpose of the signage, the existing signage, and what ideas they have in mind. “Come for culture. Stay for Dinner.” She had a small amendment to include consultation with other historical groups. Clarissa Rowe talked about the signage and the price tag. Lawrence McKinney made a substitute motion that is very similar. He complained about lack of coordination between Tourism committee and Uncle Sam committee. His motion was ruled out of order because it was flawed. Bill Berkowitz moved an amendment to the vote that would increase the scope of the vote and increase the amount of money spent. Al Tosti supported Angela’s language change, but opposed to the monetary increase from Mr. Berkowitz. Mr. Tosti noted that tourism committee is well organized, and the money was not requested by them. Chris Loreti asked for whether or not Berkowitz’s amendment was in scope, and the moderator ruled Berkowitz’s motion to be out of scope of the warrant article.  The moderator gave a good explanation on why it was out-of-scope.  Warrant articles set the outer limits of what you can talk about.  This warrant article was written very narrowly (about signs) and included an amount of money ($20,000).  Berkowitz wanted more than signs, and more than $20,000, and that exceeded the warrant article.  It was asked where the signs would be. Loreti was opposed to spending money to support non-profit organizations. Hugh McCrory complained that ATED meetings don’t have punctual minutes. Debate is terminated by Gordon Jamieson. Angela’s amendment passed, and main motion passed.

Article 55 - Harry Barber Community Service Program

Ann Fitzgerald said this would reinstate the program. Voted unanimously.

Article 56 –  Appropriation/Uncle Sam Committee 2012

Elsie Fiorie spoke in support of the funding. Lawrence McKinney spoke in favor. McCrory terminated debate. Approved unanimously.

Article 57 – Arlington Senior Center

No action unanimously

Article 58 - Appropriation/Arlington High School Concussion Reduction Program

Stephen Harrington moved a substitute motion to appropriate $25,000 for helmets, pads, and collecting data on concussions. He gave a presentation on the rate of concussions in student athletes. He talked about older helmets in use in the town. He wants to replace more helmets, and to put in pads to make players less likely to use their helmets. He introduced Mr. Patterson of Arlington who has a company building a system to collect data on concussions.

We had a 10-minute break.

Al Tosti described the funding process of this – there were several hearings, the schools agreed to spend the money, and he didn’t understand why there was a motion to spend more.  He was opposed. Nathan Swilling moved to terminate debate; it received 107-58 in favor, but not 2/3, and terminate debate failed. Gordon Jamieson had questions about the legality of the vote. He was opposed to the spending. Edward Harris  talked about the inherent dangerousness of football, and was opposed to the spending. Joe Curren supports the spending – he wants to see what happens to kids in the field. He called the decision a “no brainer” – I saw more than one grin in the meeting. Diane Mahon moved to terminate the vote. Harrington’s motion went down 53-121.

Article 59 Pension Adjustment

Approved.

Article 60 – Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) Trust Fund

Approved.

Article 61 – Appropriation/Overlay Reserve

Approved.

Article 62 Appropriation/Stabilization Fund

Approved.

Article 63 Appropriation/Override Stabilization Fund

Approved.

Article 64 Appropriation/Tip Fee Stabilization

Approved. Some of these votes in this string required 2/3, and some didn’t, but I didn’t capture which ones.  None of these votes were unanimous.  If I heard the “no’s” correctly, certain people were unhappy with losing earlier votes in the night, and were simply voting no on everything.

Article 65 – Transfer Of Funds/Cemetery

Approved

Article 66 – Use Of Free Cash

Approved

Article 67 – Vote/Flood Study Interlaken Neighborhood

Approved

Article 68- Vote/Geographic Information System (GIS)

John Belskis tried to make a motion, but it wasn’t in the proper form, and was ruled out of order.  Voted no action.  John is very persistent on this issue.  He doesn’t like the answer that he’s been given, and he keeps asking the question.  Someday he may even get the answer he’s looking for, but not until the town has more affordable housing than it does today.

Article 69 Vote/Rescind Eminent Domain Authoritymassachusetts Avenue Sidewalks

Mark Kapplein moved to table Article 69 so he could discuss Article 70 first, and the motion failed. Kapplein then moved a substitute motion that would reverse the vote of eminent domain. He said that the only way for the town meeting to stop the Mass Ave corridor project is to stop the eminent domain. He said the town was against the project. He said the project proponents had no data at all.  He wants to put the project on hold. Eric Berger spoke in support of the substitute motion. He thinks it will be bad for the town. He cited 94% opposition to the plan.  He raised a number of issues. Paul Schlictman is opposed to the substitute. Scott Smith explored the possible effects of delay. He went into details of the public process on the Mass Ave progress. Ed Trembley spoke against the Mass Ave project. Brian Rehrig terminated debate.  The substitute failed 40-132. No action was voted.

Article 70 Vote/Add Ballot Question On Mass. Ave.  Travel Lane Count

Mark Kapplein moved a substitute motion. He suggested that meetings on the issue were held in stealth. He said that there are hidden goals driving this plan. Kevin Greeley recommended no action and talked about the process of the project.  Mr. Greeley did get one thing wrong – the Selectmen could have put this on the ballot, but we voted not to. Charlie Foskett moved to terminate debate. Kapplein’s motion failed.  Voted no action.  The debates on 69 and 70 were both tedious – lots of long-winded speakers, lots of strawmen arguments, and a fair number of easily debunked claims were made.  And, in the end, the result is the same – most of the town thinks the project should go forward, and a vocal minority is opposed to it.  The good news is that next year, the speakers will be restricted to 7 minutes.

There was a motion to adjourn, and it failed.  We were on the home stretch, and people wanted to finish.

Article 71 Home Rule Legislation/Timothy Edward Flood

No action.

Article 72 Bylaw Amendment/Restrictions On The Use Of Outside Counsel

No action

Article 73   Resolution/Us Supreme Court Decision In Citizens United.

Dick Smith argued that Town Meeting should advocate overturning the Citizens United decision. Sean Harrington argued that Town Meeting shouldn’t consider the article. It was approved 109-42.  I did not vote on this article.  I think that it’s unnecessarily divisive to discuss national issues where there is little or no impact from our vote.

Article 38  Collective Bargaining

Al Tosti said this is to fund future collective bargaining.  Approved.

Town Meeting was dissolved.

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 then publish the notes every night after the meeting. I do go back and make a few edits as errors are pointed out to me.

I do not try to reproduce my entire notes for this online version. Sometimes I relay a quote from a specific speaker. Most of the time I only summarize the discussion. At points I give a purely personal opinion; those are clearly labeled like this: Personal note.

The Board of Selectmen meeting ran late, so I was late to Town Meeting. I walked in during Dick Smith’s announcement, and I missed the moderator’s comments. I can reconstruct the rest of the opening, but may have missed comments and announcements.

Jane Howard opened Town Meeting with the “Star-Spangled Banner” on piano.

The next meeting was set for Wednesday, May 16, at 8PM.

Dick Smith made an announcement about Citizen’s United. I imagine that it was the same announcement he made on the first night.

Article 25 – Ban Gas-Powered Leaf Blowers, continued

Moderator John Leone reprised the discussion so far: opponents to leaf blowers think they blow all sorts of nasty things in the air. Proponents of leaf blowers think they are wonderful labor-saving devices. He asked speakers to avoid repetition on these points.

Bob Radochia made a substitute motion. He would restrict use of leaf blowers to certain months, Oct 15 to May 15, the months where leaves are generally found on the ground. Maria Romano spoke against both substitute motions. She said to ignore the scare the tactics and to permit people to continue to use the tools they want. She suggested that people who aren’t happy with leaf blowers should move out of town. Bill Kaplan moved to terminate debate, and it was approved. Radochia’s substitute motion was approved 84-81. That left the meeting in a state of much confusion. If we have two substitute motions, and they are both approved, then which motion is the final one? In retrospect, I think we should have taken Bob Radochia’s motion as an amendment, not a substitute – that would have been more straight forward to vote on. As it is, I think the will of the meeting was done, and that is what matters. Band’s substitute went down by voice. Radochia’s substitute motion was approved 95-85.

Article 40 – Budgets

Finance Committee Chair Al Tosti gave a brief introduction of the budget. The moderator ran through the list of budgets, and interested members called “hold” for budgets they had additional questions for.

Planning and Community Development. Mark Kappelein would like to know where Mass Ave reconstruction easements are budgeted – the answer is, they are not in appropriated funds, but in Chapter 90 funds.

Redevelopment Board: Gordon Jamieson asked a question about Gibbs expenses – should it be under Redevelopment or Planning? The answer is the same people will do the work regardless of how the town votes in Article 27.

Public Works: Ed Trembly: how much salt did we use last year? Mike Rademacher said we bought 4193 tons at a cost of $269,000 with about 90% of it used. It was noted that last year we budgeted $577k for ice and snow, and we spent $507k. It was the lightest winter in years. Christian Klein asked what drove the lower street lighting budget – the answer is LED street lights. Paul Schlictman moved to terminate debate on the article, and that failed on voice vote. There was further discussion.

Community Safety: Bruce Wheltle spoke about animal control, and asked for more enforcement on dog control. Annie LaCourt asked about fire and police overtime, and both chiefs responded. There was a question about the addition of a custodian. It is for better maintenance of the building as we invest in it. Paul Schlictman talked about increasing parking enforcement for revenue purposes.

Inspection. Chris Loreti asked about Symmes one-time expenses, and compared it to work at the former Brighams site.

Education: Chairman Kirsi Allison-Ampe gave an introduction. She remarked on the additions made to the budget in the last two years, and noted that the budget is still below 2010. Superintendent  Kathy Bodie gave a presentation that ran through the achievements of the schools and the budget proposal for next year.  There was significant discussion about special education costs.

We had a 10 minute break.

Janice Weber asked about $3000 support for the annual census – there was no immediate answer. John Leonard asked about the state’s accelerated payment of school rebuilding costs, and it was answered that they have been received and placed in the general fund.  They are tracked in the capital budget, not the operating budget. Stephen Harrington – noted that the school budget has increased significantly over the last several years, and the report indicates a decrease in athletics spending.  There was a discrepancy in numbers for FY11 in the FinCom and School budgets, which was explained that one was after the fall Special Town Meeting and one was after the regular spring Town Meeting.  Alan Jones noted that such discrepancies would become less likely if the town adopted a more coordinated finance department as recommended by the DoR.  I thought this was a great comment by Alan.  Often times when I want to talk about the challenges of our current financial organization, I find it very difficult to say what I want without sounding like I’m attacking someone, even when that is not my intent.  Alan managed to find a neutral example – no one was exactly wrong, but the numbers sure weren’t right – they were not coordinated.  He managed to make the point about financial coordination changes without it being a fight. Roland Chaput: asked about technology in the schools, and supported the improvements there.  David Good answered at length. Paul Schlictman asked a question on athletic spending. CFO Diane Johnson said that FY11 was new budget tracking method, and that lead to errors in tracking.  She suggested that athletic spending wasn’t actually cut, but the tracking wasn’t accurate. This year, there is better tracking. John Deyst said we have the best schools in world. There was a question on maintenance of Dallin. Carl Wagner complimented the school department on producing a good report. Bill Berkowitz asked why not have a full-time grant writer? Bodie: It’s a limited budget. I sympathize with this question.  Either there are additional grants to pursue, or there aren’t, and the answer was not clear. Mark Kapplein: Followed up on athletic spending question from earlier, and then asked a series of questions on the cost of baseball helmets, concussion testing for all sports, early childhood education, the use of iPads in a pilot program and more.  His time ran out.  There was a question on bringing back ACE program that was responded to by Dr. Bodie.

Libraries: Gordon Jamieson elicited an answer that we do not need a waiver this year.

Insurance: Roland Chaput asked about HRA subscriber fee – it’s part of the new GIC program. Linda Hanson asked about the balance on the Health Care Trust Fund. It has about $3million left in it.  That was more money than I realized.  Finding the right use for that money is going to be complex.

Water and Sewer. Gordon Jamieson had several questions about several of the monetary flows. Al Tosti said that next year’s budget will show offsets more clearly, and perhaps balance sheet. Janice Brodman asked about increased stormwater drain costs. Rademacher says it is because of expected, more stringent EPA regulations.

Youth Services.  Christine Connolly talked about the dramatic change and success in the delivery model of youth services support, with more than 200 clients today.

The budget was approved unanimously.

We adjourned.

With 20ish articles left, and most of them as no-brainer finance articles, I think we have a very good chance of finishing on Wednesday!  Here’s hoping for brevity and dispatch.

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 then publish the notes every night after the meeting. I do go back and make a few edits as errors are pointed out to me.

I do not try to reproduce my entire notes for this online version. Sometimes I relay a quote from a specific speaker. Most of the time I only summarize the discussion. At points I give a purely personal opinion; those are clearly labeled like this: Personal note.

Town Meeting Member Charles Gallagher played the national anthem on the piano and the members sang along.

In Moderator John Leone’s opening remarks, he noted the progress we had made so far, and were likely to finish the Special Town Meeting tonight “if we finish the discussion on Article 10 ad infinitum.”

Chairman of the Board of Selectmen Kevin Greeley moved that the meeting will resume Monday May 14, and it was approved.

Announcements

• Gordon Jamieson made a detailed description of the Community Collection Day this May 12 9am to 1pm. Read more details on the town website.
• Steve DeCourcey announced that the Arlington High Girls Tennis team was selling baked goods in the hall.
• Christian Klein reported from the Friends of Robbins Farm Park: this Saturday at 4PM they are celebrating the return of the hillslides.
• Mark Kaepplein recounted a recent health scare at his neighbor’s house. He complimented and thanked our public safety employees. There was a long round of applause.

Article 3 – Reports was taken off the table.

• We heard the report of the Tree Committee. He talked about their work and pointed out their website, arlingtontrees.org.
• Jane Howard gave the report of the Vision 2020 committee, including noting the results of the annual survey.

The moderator reminded committees that are no longer active to come to town meeting and ask to be dissolved.

Article 3 was tabled.

The moderator declared regular Town Meeting to be recessed, and re-opened the Special Town Meeting.

Kevin Greeley set the date for the meeting to be resumed to be May 14. This ended up being moot, as we dissolved the special meeting tonight.

Article 10        Bylaw Amendment/Rubbish Collection, continued

Bill Kaplan moved an additional amendment. He did not believe this is really a problem, so he proposed that people have additional hours to bring trash back in from the curb.  There was a motion to terminate debate which carried.  Scott Smith said he liked Kaplan’s amendment better. This was technically extending the debate after debate was terminated, but it did help the voting considerably.  There was no longer a real risk of two somewhat contradictory amendments being passed.  Smith’s amendment went down by voice vote. Kaplan’s amendment was approved 137-40.  Main motion -was approved 133-48.

Article 1 was taken from the table.

Special Town Meeting was dissolved.  The regular Town Meeting was resumed.

Al Tosti moved to take Articles 44-46 from the table because the Minuteman Superintendent is here.

Article 44 – Appropriation/Court Judgment In Favor Of Minuteman Regional Vocational Technical School District

Mary Ellen Bilafer moved a substitute motion. John Bilafer chair of the Arlington Retirement Board spoke in explanation of the motion.  He talked about the circumstances of the $785,000 court judgment against the retirement board. Arlington administered the retirement for Minuteman for the first 10 years. The courts ruled that Arlington was required to assume the burden of the retirement cost of those employees for those 10 years. There is no option but to pay. However, by making the payment over 10 years time, that could save the town money. The purpose of the substitute motion is to put the payment in the town’s hands, and the town is more likely to get the 10 year payment agreement. The town has leverage where the retirement board does not.  Al Tosti said that the Finance Committee supports the substitute motion as the best option available. After a question, Mr. Bilafer said they had appealed the decision, but lost the appeal, and their lawyer said there was no sense in appealing further.  Mark McCabe moved to terminate debate, and it was. Ms. Bilafer’s substitute motion was substituted by voice vote. The substitute motion was then approved unanimously.

Article 45 – Minuteman Appropriation

Stephen DeCourcey is the Finance Committee’s representative to Minuteman, and he introduced the article. He noted that this year’s Minuteman assessment is up considerably. One of the biggest drivers of that increase is that Arlington’s fraction of students went from 26% to 32% of member town students. He noted a 4.97% increase in total budget at the school. He pointed out Laura Morrissette, Arlington’s representative to the Minuteman School Committee. He introduced Minuteman Superintendent Ed Bouquillon. Dr. Bouquillon referred to the previous Article 44 in his opening remarks: he said that he would work on settling the judgment with the two retirement boards (Arlington and Minuteman). Dr. Bouquillon walked the meeting through the proposed budget. He talked about achievements and improvements at the school in the last year. Charlie Foskett, speaking for himself, moved a substitute motion that would reduce the Minuteman appropriation by $700,000. He said that the Minuteman regional agreement is awful for Arlington. He noted that the awful agreement made votes like this.  He asked that Town Meeting send message to the Selectmen and FinCom to change the Minuteman agreement. He likes Minuteman, and had high praise for Bouquillon. He compared the agreement to the old NESWC agreement. He noted that part of the increase in Arlington’s assessment was because of a change in savings rate by Minuteman. Minuteman did it because we have no control, and they knew they could.   He said the Selectmen and FinCom have failed to block the feasibility study. Outlined changes needed in the regional agreement – proportional votes, capital allocation, exit agreement.  He said that we had to say no now because in two years the plan will have too much momentum and we’ll give in.

We had a 10 minute break.

Al Tosti said that  we’re discussing more than one issue, but we’re only voting on one.  We should only vote on this one.  He said if you support Charlie you’ll cost the town money when we do a special town meeting, because we will be forced to pay the full amount.  He noted that change to the regional agreement requires unanimous votes of the towns.  He noted that the FinComm supported the feasibility study 12-5 and Selectmen 4-1.  He said we need the scope and materials  from the feasibility study to sell the building to new towns, or we’re never going to get the changes.  He said vote no on substitute for practical and forward looking. Bill Hayner: was the feasibility money voted already?  yes, in 2010.  Superintendent: 40% of students are non-member.  Arlington is 32% of the member towns’ students.  We cannot charge non-member students for capital costs, but we are trying.  Chaput: schools is in good shape.  We need the school, and the programs it makes.  Paul Schlictman – they’ve made progress, but the governance is still broken.  Support the budget, but don’t vote on a capital plan without a change.  He noted that  13 of 16 towns have already voted yes.  Voting no is a moot point and muddy message.  Leo Doherty moved to terminate debate, by 119-51 vote is terminated (it required 2/3 vote, and it met 2/3).  Foskett amendment was defeated.  Main motion approved.  I had a pretty good speech for this, but I didn’t get up before the vote.  Probably just as well!  If I’d gotten up, I wanted to focus on a key point from Charlie Foskett’s presentation.  I agree with the vast majority of things that he said.  The place I disagreed was that he said we had to say no now.  I disagree.  The reason it has to be now is if you believe we can’t say no in two years; I believe we have the necessary backbone to say no.  The reason to delay the no is that it will be easier to get a satisfactory outcome if we have a feasibility study in hand.  We can use that study as the carrot to get other towns into the system and make the system viable.  My final point was about the concept of “sending a message.” I’m confident that Minuteman has gotten the message.  Candidly, I think they have a very difficult road.  I think it is unlikely that there will be a plan in two years that we can agree to.  But I think the feasibility study is the best chance we have.

Article 46 – Vote/Establish Minuteman Regional Vocational Technical High School Stabilization Fund

Al Tosti noted that enough towns had already approved this, so our vote didn’t matter.  Still, we voted no action.  We’re overruled, but we still think it’s a bad idea.

Article 32, Again

A motion to reconsider was made by Andrew Fischer.  He wants to ask everyone to stop talking about financial restructuring because some people don’t like the idea.  He claimed the DoR report was biased and prejudiced.  He said the discussion is draining, so we shouldn’t have it.  Al Tosti noted that the DoR studied what we asked them to.  We didn’t ask them to study the Retirement Committee.  He noted that there are parts of the report, like water-sewer offsets, that are already being implemented, and we shouldn’t ignore the report.  Ted Peluso: we need to look at this.  Town Reorganization Committee voted  4-1-4 to accept the report – 4 accept except parts referring to appointed/elected officials, and 1 voted accept unconditionally.  John Worden says the DoR is prejudiced, and they were out to get the treasurer.  He accused the DoR of lying about the treasurer.  I get the strong impression that there was an organized campaign to get Town Meeting to accept two statements as fact.  The thing is, nothing becomes true simply because it is repeated.  I think there is a lot more to say on the two issues: 1) whether or not the DoR was prejudiced in its report and 2) how much of the override savings fund was lost in the stock market.  Nathan Swilling move to terminate debate.  Debate was terminated.  Reconsideration failed.  This was one of the oddest motions I’ve ever seen.  I’ve never seen someone try to get Town Meeting to ask people to stop talking.  I find it unreasonable to pretend that everything is OK by not talking about the issue.  Many of us in town (myself included) think that the current system needs to be improved.  I’m going to keep talking about that. I’m going to be polite, I’m going to be professional, and I’m going to be persistent.  I will not be quiet simply because some people find the issue uncomfortable.  

Article 25  –  Bylaw Amendment/Leaf Blower Regulation

This article had been postponed.  Carol Band made a substitute motion to ban gas-powered leaf blowers.  She talked about noise and pollution. She compared leaf blowers to secondhand smoke.  She cited other communities that have restricted leaf blowers.  She compared this action to banning burning leaves.  Arlington landscaper Eli Garzon talked about how he doesn’t use leaf blowers.  There was some confusion because the amendment version Juliana Rice had was different than what Moderator read, but it was resolved.  Tommy Caccavaro said that it will cost more to get your lawn cleaned if this is passed.  He talked about other noise sources that are worse.  Janice Brodman was opposed to the substitute motion, and she contradicted some of the earlier statements about other communities based on her phone calls.  Jeremy Marin gave a presentation about the health hazards of leaf blowers.  He talked about dust, herbicides, lead paint, poop, and other particulates that are blown around by leaf blowers.  He closed saying “If I threw herbicide and feces in your open window, you’d have me arrested” and compared that to leaf blowing.  Jeremy was kind enough to email his notes, if you’re interested.  You can download the three files here, here, and here.

We adjourned for the night.

So, it’s time to start playing the annual game of “when will Town Meeting end?”  I looked at the rest of the warrant, and I picked 5/21.  But some people I talked to think it might be as early as 5/16.

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 then publish the notes every night after the meeting. I do go back and make a few edits as errors are pointed out to me.

I do not try to reproduce my entire notes for this online version. Sometimes I relay a quote from a specific speaker. Most of the time I only summarize the discussion. At points I give a purely personal opinion; those are clearly labeled like this: Personal note.

The Town Meeting sang the national anthem, accompanied by Town Meeting Member Jane Howard on piano.

The Moderator said that we would start with Article 41, then open the Special Town Meeting.

• Ryan Katofsky of Sustainable Arlington announced the receipt of a grant for “Solarize Mass.” The town will use the money for both subsidizing residential panels and outreach and publicity.
• Jane Howard announced the Spy Pond cleanup on May 12th from 9am to 1pm. For more info email ekarpati@juno.com and stroker@alumni.clarku.edu.

Article 3 was taken off the table.

• John Cole gave the report of the Permanent Town Building Committee. He reviewed progress on the firehouses, community safety building, and school projects. He complimented Chief Jefferson on his money-saving efforts on the fire houses.
• Lawrence McKinney – gave the report of the Uncle Sam committee, and led the meeting a round of “Happy Birthday” for the 200th birthday of Uncle Sam.  Funny line of the night from Al Tosti: “He promised not to sing if we gave him the money for the committee.”

Art 3 was tabled.

Article 41 – Capital Budget.

Charlie Foskett gave the report.  He outlined the process, running from fall to February.  He noted that it is the Town Manager’s budget, but the Town Meeting is the body that gives approval. He reviewed the last several years: rebuilt the schools, replaced the rolling stocks, updated the water pipes, etc. He said that we are voting the public safety building repair in the special town meeting so we can get the bidding started immediately. There were many questions.  One was about the previous votes on water and sewer in Articles 42 and 43. The difference between this vote and those is the funding source.  There was a discussion of exempt v. non-exempt debt, which is debt exempt from Proposition 2.5 v. debt that is within the Proposition 2.5 limits. There were questions on the Parks and Rec spending. There was a question about which roads are being resurfaced this year (see here and here on the town website).  There was discussion of the goals and process for the comprehensive master plan. Carol Kowalski reported that October 17th will be the kickoff of the process of writing the master plan.  There was a discussion on school budget and the helmet spending coming up in Article 58.  Mr. Foskett reported that the school department didn’t make a request for capital funding, so the capital committee didn’t formally consider it (though they did discuss it with the proponents and the schools).  He noted that the school budget contained concussion-related items. Questions on Wellington Playground scheduled for 2017. Dallin school playground reconstruction was discussed. There was a question on the Mill Brook culvert work to be done under the high school parking lot. A question was asked what the mileage was on the Prius that is being replaced – the answer was that it was a 2001 with 30,000 miles.  It was explained that it was being replaced because of high maintenance costs. Carl Wagner moved to terminate debate, and it was.  The article passed on 2/3 voice vote.

The moderator recessed the regular town meeting, called the Special Town Meeting to order.  We passed all of the traditional meeting-opening motions.

Article 1 – Reports

• Al Tosti gave the FinCom report.
• Kevin Greeley gave the Selectmen’s report.

Article 1 was tabled.

Article 2 Amendments To Fy2012 Budgets

Al Tosti explained this article.  The vote changes 2012 (current FY budget).  It lowers the budget for health insurance to reflect the savings from joining the GIC.  It moved the money to several different areas, including savings.  Approved.

Article 3 Appropriation/Fy12 Collective Bargaining

We approved the spending for the unions that have settled, and saved some money for future spending.  This is the 2012 budget.  Approved unanimously.

Article 4 Appropriation/Minuteman Regional Vocational Technical High School Extraordinary Building Repairs

Minuteman had their school closed this summer by the fire inspector.  They had to rip out some walls and replace them.  This unexpected cost is assessed in the 2012 budget.  Passed unanimously.

Article 5

No action unanimously.

Article 6        Capital Budget/Community Safety Building

This issue had been mostly discussed under Article 41.  It is to do improvements to the community safety building, particularly around leaking issues.  There was a comment about the ugliness of the building.  Article was approved.

Article 7

No action unanimously.

Article 8 Appropriation/Energy Conservation Fund

Ryan Katofsky talked about energy savings projects in town.  He showed deals that didn’t go through, and deals that did.  Chris Loreti opposed – he said this was giving the town manager a $200,000 check for him to go on a shopping spree. Charlie Foskett opposed – these projects are just like every other purchase program in the town, he said.  It should go through the regular project planning.  Paul Schlictman made the case that we should save money ASAP – don’t wait for the process.  Several speakers were in favor. There were questions about several aspects of the program.  I voted in favor of this.  We need to innovate aggressively to keep costs down.  This is just the type of experiment I think we should be jumping at.  If we review the program and it’s a failure, I won’t consider this a bad idea – we will have learned.  And if we review the program and it’s a winner, even better.  Carl Wagner moved to terminate debate.  Approved by voice vote.

Article 9     Home Rule Legislation/Energy Conservation Fund

Board of Selectmen voted to recommend creating the fund, and FinComm recommended no action.  The Moderator ruled that the Selectmen had the main motion.  This was an important decision, because the two votes were very different.  It gave us a starting point for the debate.  Harry McCabe tried to make a substitute motion of “positive action,” but his intent was very unclear.  Several speakers were opposed to this fund – they think we should see how the first $200,000 goes first.  Ted Peluso says that this is a trust issue – we should trust our Town Manager; we already give him far more.  In answer to a question, the Town Manager says that this fund will help us use the $200,000 from the previous article to its fullest.  Scott Smith moves to terminate debate, and it was.  Moderator ruled Harry McCabe’s motion out of order.  The fund was defeated by a vote of 67-86. The moderator initially ruled that the fund was defeated by voice vote, but I jumped up to request a standing count.  I didn’t think the moderator was wrong in his ruling, but I had doubt, and I wanted to remove the doubt.  The standing vote showed that the moderator was correct, but with a 19-vote margin, I don’t regret the time spent on the standing vote.  On the issue itself, I was pretty torn.  I thought the debate was very informative, and while I was on the losing side of the vote, I’m not losing sleep over this one.

Article 10        Bylaw Amendment/Rubbish Collection

Selectman Kevin Greeley said that this rule would require people to take trash in from the curb if it’s not picked up.  He said we had complaints about leaf bags being out all winter.  Mike Rademacher talked about the new trash contract.  It includes weekly recycling, recycling enforcement, and a weekly household waste limit. The price we pay for trash pickup is even lower than last year, and we get weekly recycling. Having a waste limit is part of the deal to get that price.  He noted that our contractor can refuse to pick up illegal items – construction items, tires, and recyclables.   There were several concerns about times where the town or vendor fails to pickup trash, and what happens then. Scott Smith proposed an amendment to make that less of an issue.  There were concerns that 9pm is too early, and confusion on leaf pickup times. The actual vote we’re taking is about not letting people leave trash on the street for weeks at a time.  The new trash contract is really a separate issue.  The DPW Director and Town Manager decided to tackle the new contract head-on since they knew there were questions.  The downside to that is that there was confusion about the two issues being linked.  I think that there was no obviously easy way to have the conversation, so we might as well tackle it head on.  But, we should remember what we’re actually voting on on Wednesday.

We adjourned for the night.

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 then publish the notes every night after the meeting. I do go back and make a few edits as errors are pointed out to me.

I do not try to reproduce my entire notes for this online version. Sometimes I relay a quote from a specific speaker. Most of the time I only summarize the discussion. At points I give a purely personal opinion; those are clearly labeled like this: Personal note.

The Town Meeting sang the national anthem, accompanied by Town Meeting Member Jane Howard on piano.

Moderator John Leone made a couple of announcements.

• Town Meeting Member Mary Deyst has an art show upstairs at Town Hall.
• He also asked that town meeting members take their papers with them and throw them in the recycle bin on the way out rather than leaving it on the seats.

The moderator swore in 2 new members elected from precinct 21.

I moved that the next meeting be on May 7th.

• John Maher announcement about the Symmes foundation.  People interested in applying should read tomorrow’s Advocate or contact him.
• Jim O’Conor reported that Town Meeting Member Marc Butler is unwell, and asked for our thoughts and prayers.
• Michelle Durocher asked for volunteers for the Meadowbrook Park cleanup on May 5 9am-noon, rain or shine.
• Al Tosti announced that the Minuteman High related articles, #44-46, will be voted on Wednesday night May 9th because Superintendent Ed Bouquillon will be there.
• Superintendent Kathy Bodie said, in a raspy voice, that she wants to give the schools report on May 9th when her voice is better.

Article 3 was taken off the table.

Stephen Gilligan gave the report of the Treasurer.

Art 3 was tabled.

Article 29 – Vote/Lower Interest Rate For Property Tax 

I briefly introduced the article.  This article changes the rate of interest on taxes deferred by seniors who take the deferment exemption option.  Jim Doherty, chair of the Board of Assessors, explained some of the requirements for the deferment: must be 65, can defer  portion or full, must be the primary residence etc.  He said the assessors didn’t vote to support, and they were concerned about the lower interest rate. Senator Ken Donnelly spoke next.  He said that this is not a financial issue, this is a social issue.  He talked about seniors and their role in the community. Chris Loreti moved an amendment that put a floor on the interest rate of 4%.  He made a lot of comments about the way deferments works.  He said he thinks the recommended vote is deficient because it doesn’t note the state maximum of 8%.  The proposed vote is nearly identical to the language suggested by the Mass DOR; I’m reasonably sure it’s properly written.  Diane Mahon expressed her support (she had missed the final vote, and wasn’t on record in the report). Al Tosti said the FinCom unanimously supports the vote.  He noted we’re not doing this to make a profit.  There were questions about the current cost of borrowing money, circuit breaker for seniors, and whether or not this would really help seniors. Paul Schlictman moved to terminate debate, approved.  Loreti’s amendment failed.  The  main motion passed.

Article 32 – Report/Implementation Of Consolidated Town-School Finance Department

Town Manager Adam Chapdelaine first presented some details of the report, then his plan on going forward.  Just as he started, he realized the timer said he had 7 minutes left to speak.  The moderator was playing a joke on him – the manager had said he could do it in 7 minutes, and the moderator tried to get him under 7 minutes.  He reviewed the methodology and findings of the report. He outlined the procedure he was planning on with the various boards and officials to work on progress towards the report. Assessor Jim Doherty was unhappy with the report, and wanted to debate it.  The moderator noted that the motion was only to receive the report, and not really debatable. Treasurer Gilligan vehemently objected to part of the report. He believes the report incorrectly blames his office for the loss of some money.  It’s tough for me to say from the short dialog exactly what was being referred to.  My first impression is that the report blurred two different issues, and Mr. Gilligan was emphasizing the second issue as the relevant one, and discounting the first issue.  It’s impossible to say, really, without a discussion of the details that did not happen there.  The report was received. I continue to think that the town should pursue a structural change that results in better financial coordination.  I know a lot of people say “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”  I’m not ready to say “it’s broke” – but is sure could use a tune-up.

Article 33 – Home Rule Legislation/Municipal Finance Department

Voted no action.

Article 34 – Home Rule Legislation/Wireless Antenna Lease Proceeds

I explained what this motion will do.  Chris Loreti thinks it’s unnecessary.  Hugh McCrory doesn’t get why we do this fund.  I think the best short answer to that is “because Town Meeting voted to do it this way.”  What Town Meeting does, it can reverse, of course.   Annie LaCourt noted that this funding method avoids waiting for the money to cycle through the general fund and be certified by the DoR as free cash, etc.  Annie further said that years ago Town Meeting gave up something – open space, horizons, etc.  The money was therefore allocated to parks, to offset the negative effects.  Harry McCabe – St. Paul’s gave the antenna money to parks, and that was the root.  John Deyst moved to terminate debate.  Motion was approved.  There was a question that since this was home rule legislation, do we need a standing vote? Senator Donnelly says: all we need is a majority. That was an interesting statement by the senator, and it ends a procedure we’ve followed for as long as I’ve been in town meeting!

Article 35 – Acceptance/Local Option Taxes

No action.

Article 36 – Endorsement Of CDBG Application

I explained that this is federal money, and the selectmen seek input from Town Meeting.  I explained that the amount of funds coming from the federal budget was declining, but by using “program income” we had avoided most cuts.  There was discussion about funding scholarships.  There was a question about how much of this was “use it or lose it.”  Chris Loreti asked if some of this is for non-profits; the answer was yes.

We had a break.

Annie LaCourt noted that money was issued on a reimbursement basis, not outright grant.  Mark McCabe moved to terminate debate.  The article was approved on voice vote.

Article 37 – Revolving Funds

Gordon Jamieson noted that $2,000,000 in expenditures is possible under this article.  FinCom Chair Al Tosti says the committee has been concerned with the creation of the funds.  Adam Chapdelaine explained the new fund for Central School.  Gordon Jamieson and others asked for more granularity in future reports.  I am of two minds on this request.  On one hand, I’m a big fan of government transparency.  On the other hand, we have $126 million dollars that we spend a year – it’s not clear to me that detailing the outflows of the Town Hall rental fund is a particularly useful report for Town Meeting.  I wonder what the right solution to that question is. There were a series of questions.  Chris Loreti elicits that Town Manager controls the funds.  Questions about urban renewal plans, several of the funds, and another request for more detail.  Terminated debate.  Approved unanimously.

Article 38 – Collective Bargaining

Tabled.  Negotiations ongoing.

Article 39 – Positions Reclassification

Approved.

Article 40 – Appropriation/Town Budgets

It was 10:15, and the meeting wasn’t ready to tackle the budgets, so they were tabled.  I was ready to go – I think we could have got a lot of them done.  As it was, we got good work done.

Article 41 – Capital Budget

Postponed to Monday.

Article 42 – Appropriation/Financing Of Construction Or Reconstruction Of Sewers And Sewerage Facilities

There were several questions.  In the discussion, we heard about how much leakage and damage there is in the system, and the plans to resolve them.  It was noted that at a mile of pipe per year, it will be more than 100 years to replace all the town pipes.  There were several speakers in favor, noting that it is a big problem.  Approved unanimously.

Article 43 – Appropriation/Financing Of Construction Or Reconstruction Of Water Mains And Water Facilities

Approved unanimously.

Article 44-46

Postponed to Wednesday when Minuteman Superintendent Ed Bouquillon will be here.

Article 47    Appropriation/Special Education Reserve Account

The exact amount to be put in the fund is not yet known, so the article was tabled.

Article 48                   Appropriation/Committees And Commissions

Approved unanimously.

Article 49 Appropriation/Town Celebrations

Approved unanimously.

Article 50 Appropriation/Miscellaneous

Approved unanimously.

Article 51 Appropriation/Water Bodies Fund

Approved unanimously.

Article 52 Appropriation/Signage For Historic Sites

There is an amendment planned, so the article was postponed.

Article 53 Appropriation/Electronic Town Meeting

No action unanimously.

Article 54 Appropriation/Paid Parking Study

I briefly said that we had considered proposing a paid report, but were persuaded not to spend the money unless there was political will to implement it.  We wanted to see what Town Meeting though.  Carl Wagner, the proponent, asked to postpone to May 9, and that failed.  Town Manager Adam Chapedelaine talked about how parking is an asset of the town.  He noted there are many options for meters.  The chamber of commerce said the business owners were opposed to meters.  Al Tosti said don’t spend money if you’re not going to do it, but liked the idea of learning more.  Paul Schlictman talked about how impossible it is to enforce the parking limits in non-metered spaces.  Premium parking is free, secondary parking is metered – it’s backwards.  It leads to minimal enforcement on Mass Ave, but strong enforcement in lots.  There was an amendment to consider parking garage – ruled out of scope (warrant article talked about “currently marked short term parking”).  John Worden noted that we used to have meters, and he was very glad they had been removed.  Parking is an intractable problem.  Bill Logan said we should let voters decide.  Hugh McCrory  asked for a public hearing and to reduce the 2-hour limit.  Nicole Knobloch moved to terminate debate.  The motion passed 103-49.

I heard Elsie Fiore serve notice of reconsideration on article 48 and Andrew Fischer on 32 and Al Tosti on the financial articles.

We adjourned.

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 then publish the notes every night after the meeting. I do go back and make a few edits as errors are pointed out to me.

I do not try to reproduce my entire notes for this online version. Sometimes I relay a quote from a specific speaker. Most of the time I only summarize the discussion. At points I give a purely personal opinion; those are clearly labeled like this: Personal note.

Town Meeting Member Charlie Gallagher played the national anthem on the piano accompanied by the meeting in song.

Moderator John Leone announced that Precinct 12 needs to hold its organizational meeting.

The moderator talked again about the new oath of office for town meeting members. He said that the oath is aimed at changing the tone and tenor of town meeting, and last week’s meeting was an example of what needs to be changed.  He noted that the ARB and other officials were accused of various shortcomings and self-serving behavior. He would appreciate it if we kept that sort of tone out of the meeting.  I completely support the moderator’s efforts in this area.  Last week, I made similar comments myself that I thought the tone was inappropriate.  I received quite a bit of feedback on my comments, some supportive, and some who thought I should keep my mouth shut on the topic.  I had thought pretty carefully before I made my comments, and I then contemplated the feedback I received at length this weekend.  I still stand by my comments.  Town Meeting is a superb institution, and it helps keep Arlington great.  I think that personal attacks and a lowering of the quality of debate erode the strength of Town meeting.  I believe that discouraging the personal attacks serves to strengthen the meeting, and I will continue to try to do so.  I respect the many differing opinions that we have, and I support everyone who seeks to express their opinion.  I simply have a strong opinion about the tone in which those opinions are delivered.

The oath was taken by a couple new members.  They were applauded.

We will meet next on May 2.

Kevin Greeley welcomed the delegation of students from our sister city in Japan, Nagaokakyo. Social Studies Director Kerry Dunne also welcomed them and talked about the program. The visitors made a gift for Marie Krepelka (pronounced correctly!).

Article 3. Taken from the table.

James O’Conor gave the Town Meeting Procedures committee report.

Article 3 is tabled.

Article 8, continued - Zoning Bylaw Amendment/Accessory Apartments

There was a speaker in favor – the accessory apartments are limited to 700 square feet, and that is quite modest. A speaker was opposed because of the terms of the article. Another speaker was opposed because they thought it was too broadly written.  Brian Rehrig moved to terminate debate, approved by voice vote. John Worden’s amendment failed 115-73 (I think I got the count wrong here, but I’m within 5 votes). Patricia Worden’s amendment failed by voice vote.  Main motion failed by voice vote.  I voted in favor of this.  I look at the aging of the population in this country, the cost of assisted living and nursing homes, and the way families today have a stronger demand for privacy than previous generations.  I think that making it easier for multiple generations to live under one roof is a good thing.  I hope that sometime in the future we can find a formulation for this that gets support of Town Meeting.

Article 11 - Zoning Bylaw Amendment/Comprehensive Permit Applications

Christine Scypinski of the ARB explained the article. The purpose is to require testimony be electronically recorded, under oath, for comprehensive permit hearings. It would help the town if there should be an appeal on such a permit in the future. After a question, it was explained that the recording itself isn’t used right away in an appeal, but that the recording can be transcribed and certified by a court reporter, and then it is useful in the appeal. Paul Schlictman moved to terminate debate, approved by voice vote.  Approved unanimously on voice vote.

Article 12 - Bylaw Amendment/Human Resources Department

Kevin Greeley explained that though the final vote was 3-0, he was there for the hearings on these articles, just not the final vote.  Al Tosti explained that this article is more housecleaning than actual change – it just updates the bylaws into conformity with the Town Manager Act. It also removes an obsolete reference. After a comment, it passed unanimously.

Article 13 - Bylaw Amendment/Budget Submissions

Al Tosti explained that this will delete a requirement that we don’t actually do anymore. Unanimously approved.

Al Tosti asked that the Town Government Reorganization committee be dissolved, and it was

Article 14 – Bylaw Amendment/Municipal Charge Liens-School Fees

School Committee Member Leba Heigham moved that it be tabled, and it was.  I wasn’t 100% clear on why it was tabled – I thought everyone we needed was in the room.  But I may have missed someone.

Article 15 - Bylaw Amendment/Submission Of Meeting Minutes
No action unanimously.

Article 16 - Bylaw Amendment/Time Of Town Meeting Sessions

Kevin Greeley introduced and spoke in favor of this article. He notes the meeting is much emptier after the break, and he wants us to end earlier and keep members for the whole meeting.  FinCom Chair Al Tosti said that Finance Committee recommended no action. FinCom meets at 7:30 every night before Town Meeting, and can’t move it to 6:30 and still get quorum. James O’Conor said the Town Meeting Procedures committee voted no action. They are concerned about travel times for members and are concerned about time to read the paper on the chairs. John Maher moved an amendment to change the time of start to 7:30. Chris Loreti suggested this should not be a bylaw, but the vote is more appropriately done at the start of town meeting every night, as we already do.  Kevin Greeley reacted strongly to the one of Loreti’s comments, and there were raised voices.  This was an ugly scene.  First off, I thought that Mr. Loreti’s comments were inappropriate.  His innuendo about “favors” performed for and by the Selectmen was uncalled for.  I am sure that this is exactly the type of commentary that the moderator is trying to remove from the meeting.  That said, I wish Mr. Greeley hadn’t reacted to the comments.  I don’t think it advanced the debate. Ted Peluso said that he wanted to talk about attendance, not to the people in the hall, but the people who aren’t in the hall. Mr. Tully noted that it would be easier for the department heads if the meeting got out earlier, too. Mr. Worden elicited an answer from the moderator that he needs prep time for the meeting and 7pm is too early. Carl Wagner moved to terminate debate, approved by voice vote. Maher’s amendment was approved 121-69. As amended, the article went down by voice vote.

Article 17 - Bylaw Amendment/Newspaper Bins

Kevin Greeley introduced DPW Director Michael Rademacher. He said the current bylaw doesn’t help us with obsolete newspaper bins. This change would cause bins to “expire” and if they aren’t renewed, then they are removed.  Article was approved.

We had a break.

Article 18 – Bylaw Amendment/Historic Districts

I introduced the article, and stuttered through the explanation of how it would remove the police from enforcement of the historic district and give the committee more flexibility in reporting.  This was my first article introduction, even my first town meeting speech this year.  Before the meeting, I knew that I might be doing some articles tonight.  But I didn’t know that I was doing this one at this time and I hadn’t run through my speech in my head.  Ouch! I can do better than that.  There was a question about the role of police in the process.  Article passed unanimously.

Article 19 - Personnel Bylaw Amendment/Vacation Carryover

I explained that previous Town Meeting had set a vacation carryover policy for town employees that is set on the calendar year.  School vacation policy, however, should be on a school calendar.  This amendment puts the same policy in place for the school department, but with a different year start/end. There was a question about the day that town employees receive their vacation from Chris Loreti.  There was a question about which has precedence, this or collective bargaining agreements: the bargaining agreements.  John Deyst moved to terminate debate, approved by voice vote. Passed.  This is where we run into the practical challenge of taking notes and speaking at Town Meeting.  My notes are pretty thin through these articles where I’m also doing presentations.

Article 20 - Bylaw Amendment/Time Limits For Town Meeting Speakers

Carl Wagner, the proponent of this article, gave the explanation.  He explained that this will change only the first time someone speaks, and limit their time to 7 minutes, and does not affect the second, which is still five minutes.  He noted the shorter times at other area town meetings.  Jim O’Conor of the Town Meeting Procedure Committee was opposed – the meeting is tightly run enough.  They do not want to stifle debate.  Eric Berger is opposed to the change because he wants conversations and debate. Mr. Harris, a competitive debater gave an argument in favor. Nathan Swilling moved to terminate debate, approved by voice vote.  I was on the list for this article, and I voted against terminating debate.  It would have been the first time I’ve really spoken on an article this year, but I guess that will have to wait! If it had gotten to me, I would have said something like this: I don’t go home at night and worry that we didn’t have enough debate on an issue.  I go home and worry that we didn’t have enough attendance, or enough town meeting members running for office.  I support this change because I think we need to make town meeting more speedy.  I love the debate, but I’m OK putting a little pressure on to make the debate more succinct.  The motion approved 125-59. It will take effect next year.

Article 21 Bylaw Amendment/Electronic Town Meeting Voting

No action.

Article 22 Establish Committee To Study Electronic  Voting For Town Meeting

Eric Helmuth, the proponent, spoke in favor. He explained some of the options this committee could consider, from methods to cost to voting rules.  He asked that we don’t just create a committee – only vote for this if you have enthusiasm for the change. There was a question about maintenance? Traveling mic maintenance is an example. Paul Schlictman asked that the technology take the temperature as we go, to speed debate.  A speaker was opposed – this would be an erosion of social aspects of the meeting. The speaker also said what if the member is shy, and didn’t want to face an angry constituent? This particular line of argument I find unpersuasive.  I think if you take votes in a public meeting, if you’re elected to the position, you have to be accountable for your votes.  Phelps  moved to terminate debate, approved by voice vote. Positive vote on the main article.

Article 23 - Bylaw Amendment/Second Water Meters

No action. I think I heard an objection; I don’t think it was unanimous.  But there was no substitute motion provided.

Article 24 –  Bylaw Amendment/Evening Park Use

No action. This article was about unleashed dogs.  It had the potential to join the pantheon of contentious articles.  I’m glad the proponents chose to let this one rest this year.  I think we made great progress last year, plus the dog park being built at Thorndike this year, and it was best to let the current situation settle out somewhat.

Article 25  – Bylaw Amendment/Leaf Blower Regulation

Carol Band moved to postpone to May 9, and that was approved.  I voted against the postponement.  The proponents were on the agenda for the Board of Selectmen twice for a hearing on this article, and they didn’t make a presentation.  Furthermore, it’s the third night of Town Meeting – any substitute motion should have been prepared long ago.  Also, this article was considered by Town Meeting recently, and failed.  I suspect I will be opposed to the substitute motion, and will support no action, but it depends on the substitute motion.

Article 26 – Establish Committee/Building Maintenance

No action.

Article 27 –  Transfer Of Real Property/Gibbs Junior

Chris Loreti would prefer that this property go to ARB, not the Town Manager. He thinks the selectmen don’t raise rents enough. He moved that the article be postponed so that he could get more information about if the ARB could manage the property.  In my opinion, this could have been resolved weeks ago, or discussed at the previous hearings on the article.  I voted against the postponement.

Article 28 – Vote/Street Name Standardization

I explained that as the town departments’ maps are entered into the GIS system, we are finding that some streets have inconsistent names depending on which map you look at.  We need to standardize on a single name to make the mapping system effective.  Some street names were standardized by the selectmen, and three need to be standardized by Town Meeting.   The selectmen earlier tonight voted to modify the original recommendation, specifically we were now recommending “Albermarle” with an R, not “Albemarle.”  We hadn’t passed out the new vote as a handout yet.  The moderator accepted the modification verbally.  This was a bit of a sticky moment for me.  As you know, I don’t want to postpone articles – we should be ready.  But we weren’t ready in writing because of a last-minute change.  I think it worked out fine, however.  There were questions about other streets that were standardized (see Appendix A of the Selectmen’s report).  There were questions about the source of the data – most of it was from GIS Coordinator Adam Kurowski, and it was reviewed by the town historian Richard Duffy.  The change was approved.

Article 29 – Vote/Lower Interest Rate For Property Tax Deferrals For Elderly Residents

Clarissa Rowe asked for the article to be postponed to May 2.  A substitute motion was being proposed, and no one had had a chance to review it yet, including Senator Donnelly, who was a proponent of the main motion.  Postponed.

Article 30 – Vote/Increase Annual Income Limit For Elderly Residents To Qualify For Property Tax Deferrals

I didn’t have anything to add to the written comment, so I didn’t make a comment.  There were questions about what the article did, so I explained that this was partially in response to the tax override passed last year.  As a part of that override, we examined the tax relief available to seniors, and this was one of the recommendations.  There were discussion and questions about the thresholds involved.  Treasurer Stephen Gilligan noted that less than a dozen residents take advantage of this.  Several speakers were in favor.  Again, my note taking here was spotty – I don’t have a good record of the dialog.  The article was approved.

We moved to adjourn.

There were several notices of reconsideration, but I did not record them.

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 then publish the notes every night after the meeting. I do go back and make a few edits as errors are pointed out to me.

I do not try to reproduce my entire notes for this online version. Sometimes I relay a quote from a specific speaker. Most of the time I only summarize the discussion. At points I give a purely personal opinion; those are clearly labeled like this: Personal note.

Arlington Town Meeting, 2nd Session was called to order by Moderator John Leone.

The meeting sang the National Anthem led on the piano by Town Meeting Member Jane Howard.

A few new town meeting members were sworn in, and were applauded. The Town Moderator explained the new language for the oath being used this year. He said that the Town Meeting Procedures committee had suggested the language. They were seeking to make the tone and tenor of town meeting more respectful and collegial. There was disagreement from Charlie Gallagher; he thought the oath needed to be published in advance and adopted by all town meeting members, not without warning and taken only by some members.

We agreed to come back Monday for our next session.

Kevin Greeley gave a few quick notes. He said he had back surgery, and that was why he was walking with the cane. He said that some people asked about a joke he made last session, and that Marie Krepelka is not really the Mayor of Arlington but is the “mayor” of Arlington – she’s one of the people who gets stuff done for the Selectmen and the town. He asked the meeting to think and pray for Bill Shea who is unwell.

• Assistant Moderator Jim O’Conor gave a few quick words of thanks for his election.
• Al Tosti said that two boxes of copies of the FinCom report were taken last session. If you got extras, please bring them back. If you need a copy, please download it from the town website.
• Ted Peluso noted that he proposed the new oath of office.
• Stuart Cleinman thanked Josh Lobel for the Town Meeting Member identification pins. Mr. Lobel noted that the red stars on the pin signify 25+ years of service. He was applauded.

No reports were given (though Article 3 came up later in the night).

Article 9 – Zoning Bylaw Amendment/Memorial Park

Mike Cayer of ARB introduced the article. He noted that the town is running out of burial space. This zoning change would permit certain open spaces to be used as a “columbarium,” a sort of cemetery; that would be permitted only with the approval of several committees. He showed a map that showed all the open space in town. He also showed a map that showed the sub-set of spaces that this article would apply to. He talked about the many commissions and committees that worked on this proposal and supported it, including the Conservation Commission, Historic Commission, and Cemetery Commission. He talked about the relation of this space with the other cemeteries. Paul Schlichtman spoke against it. He said there was insufficient notice of the proposal. He said this was an attempt to circumvent the process and backdoor the change. I totally understand and respect that Paul Schlichtman doesn’t want this burial use at Cooke Hollow or other places. I think that is a point where reasonable people can disagree, and an excellent and appropriate debate for Town Meeting to have. I have disagreements with two of his arguments. First, and most strongly, I wish he hadn’t accused the proponents of having nefarious intentions. Words like “backdoor” and “anti-democratic” are challenging the motives of the proponents. I find that very inappropriate. The members of those committees and commissions who worked on this are volunteers who are acting in what they think is the best interest of the town. For Paul to assault their intentions damages the culture of volunteerism that keeps Arlington great. My second disagreement is with his attack on the process and the notification. I believe that he is trying to create controversy where there is none; the meetings and this proposal have been public and noticed.  Town Meeting would be better served if we all stuck to the real issues, not fictional ones. Clarissa Rowe spoke, and said she did invite Paul to a meeting. She said we have a problem we need to address. She talked about how this is a creative solution to that problem. She talked about the demands of the many religions that are accommodated in the town cemetery. There were a couple questions about the wall that would be used and how it would work. A speaker said the change applied to too many parks.  We hit the meeting’s low point so far, when a speaker complained that this change would lead to  “a dog peeing on Uncle Joe.” Elsie Fiore talked about the history of Cooke’s Hollow, reading from the Town Report of 1972. She thinks that the proposed plan is contrary to the original intent of the park. She is opposed. Question about funds – yes there are funds already to make this happen. Martha Scott said the she disagreed with Mr. Schlichtman that there is not a great conspiracy. She has faith in our elected officials and volunteers. I think Martha was well spoken in defense of volunteerism. There was concern that this was insufficient, a bandaid, and other parks would be used for this purpose. It was noted that there are no “pre-need sales” of lots in Arlington; they only sell a lot if you have already died. There are less than 500 spaces left in Mt. Pleasant cemetery. That information lead to the best line of the night. Alan Jones polled the meeting and asked members to raise their hands if they wanted to be buried in Arlington.  Several raised their hands. “There will be room for you,” he said. “If you hurry!”

Break for 10 minutes.

A speaker asked us to come back to the question of cemetery space, not meeting notice requirements. Mt. Gilboa came up and how it might be affected. Carl Wagner moved to terminate debate, approved by voice vote. The motion failed with 75 in favor, 95 against. In the end, I think this failed because it applies to too much land. I suspect if it was just Cooke’s Hollow (somehow), it would have a better chance than the version that failed tonight.

Article 3 was taken off the table.

Charlie Foskett entered the Capital Planning report. He asked that we take that budget up the same night as special town meeting because they are linked.

Article tabled.

Article 8 - Zoning Bylaw Amendment/Accessory Apartments

The article was taken from the table.  Bruce Fitzsimmons explained the article.  It would permit accessory apartments in areas R0 and R1. He described the process of crafting the amendment, the surveys done, and the public hearings that were made. He talked about the restrictions on where this is possible – the house must be owner occupied, must have enough parking, must obtain a special permit, etc.  John Worden proposed several amendments. He thinks the proposal is too loose, and permits manipulation by a developer. In particular, he would make the permit expire more aggressively. Patricia Worden proposed another amendment to require that the rent be capped at an affordable rate. She was opposed to the article. Her speech was insulting to many town residents.  Unfortunately, that has become her trademark.  Anyone who disagrees with Mrs. Worden is labeled and maligned.  I wish that she saw that reasonable people can have different opinions about housing and zoning.  There were questions about the legality of the amendments – is it permitted to require relationship by marriage, or restrict eligibility to the disabled? The answer wasn’t certain. Joe Curro pointed out to me from his copy of the bylaws – our bylaws do not permit us to discriminate on these bases for housing.  See Article 9, Section 2 (D).   Several speakers characterized this as spot zoning, opening big loopholes, and the same as changing to R2. Other speakers were in favor of the change because of the flexibility it offers the towns’ residents.  Speakers were opposed to it because they fear that it would change the nature of neighborhoods.

We adjourned just after 11 without taking a vote on the article.

 

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 then publish the notes every night after the meeting. I do go back and make a few edits as errors are pointed out to me.

I do not try to reproduce my entire notes for this online version. Sometimes I relay a quote from a specific speaker. Most of the time I only summarize the discussion. At points I give a purely personal opinion; those are clearly labeled like this: Personal note.

Arlington Town Meeting of 2012 was called to order by Moderator John Leone.

The meeting sang the National Anthem led by Menotomy Minute Men.

Lieutenant Michael Harper of Salvation Army gave the invocation.

John Leone welcomed new Town Manager Adam Chapdelaine and new Selectmen Joe Curro and Steve Byrne.

The moderator reviewed the meeting speaking rules.  He reviewed the rules of how business is conducted; specifically he reminded everyone that the proposed vote is what matters, not the language of the original warrant article.  He talked about Article 73 and how he disagrees that such political resolutions should be on the warrant.  He proposed limiting debate to a single pro and con speaker.

The annual vote about seating rules was made.  The only people allowed “on the floor” are Town Meeting Members and various officials; guests and observers should watch from the balcony.

We voted to reconvene on Wednesday.

Article 2 – State of the Town

Chairman of the Board of Selectmen Kevin Greeley gave the state of the town.  He asked the members to give their own assessment of the state of the town, and talked about the next century of Arlington.

Announcements and Resolutions

• Dick Smith announced a May 15th Citizens United discussion.
• Sean Harrington Pct 15 asked for a moment of silence in honor of the passing of Town Meeting Member Ken Marquis.

Article 3 – Reports of Committees

Many of these reports can be found on the town website: http://www.arlingtonma.gov/public_documents/ArlingtonMA_TownMeet/2012ATM/reports/index

• Town Government Reorganization Committee final report was provided by Al Tosti. He said that the committee had made progress on a number of issues, but some of the issues did not progress as far as hoped.
• Zoning Bylaw Review Committee report given by Jim Doherty. They are looking for new members.
• Arlington Redevelopment Board report was entered by Bruce Fitzsimmons.
• Finance Committee report was given by Al Tosti. He talked about the proposition 2.5 override. He thanked the many people who helped the process of getting the town into the GIC health plan. He noted there are still several financial challenges to the town, including federal and state budgets. He noted the passing of Erin Phelps.
• Board of Selectmen report was given by Kevin Greeley.
• Al Tosti moved to incorporate the motions in the various reports as the main motions for the various articles.  This vote is very quick and easy, but it’s very important.  If we didn’t make this motion, at the start of every article, the Moderator would have to call on someone to start the debate process by making a motion under that article, find a second for the motion, etc.  Instead, through this vote, we automatically start each article with a motion already made and ready for debate.  

Article 3 was tabled.

Article 4 – Measurer of Wood and Bark

Harry McCabe asked the meeting to thank John FitzMaurice for his past service.  He moved that Elsie Fiore be appointed, and she was.

Article 5 – Election of Assistant Town Moderator

Michelle Durocher nominated Jim O’Conor.  No other nominations.  He was elected.

Article 6 - Zoning Bylaw Amendment/Amend Sign Definition

Bruce Fitzsimmons introduced Don Benjamin of the Planning Department.  Mr. Benjamin showed several examples of public art that this could enable.  The current town bylaws would seem to prohibit these examples of public art.  He described the support he’s found for this change.  There were speakers in favor and one against it.  Paul Schlictman moved terminating debate, which carried by voice vote.  The motion passed by 2/3 vote – a non-unanimous voice vote.  In previous years, this vote would have required a standing count.  With last year’s rule change now kicking in, the moderator was free to declare this a passing vote.  If more than 5 people had stood up in protest we would have had a standing vote.  In this case, no one did – it was pretty clear this motion had more than 2/3 support.

Article 7 - Zoning Bylaw Amendment/Business Use

Planning Director Carol Kowalski gave the article’s explanation. Today, property owners in certain business districts can convert the property to residential use. In some cases that conversion is “by right” and in some cases by “special permit.”  This change would create something called “mixed use” where the first floor is for commercial or light industry, and upper floors are residential.  The permitted residential would be relatively high density.  The mixed use would require a Special Permit process and an Environmental Design Review.  The higher density is controlled by parking requirements and other requirements. Higher density is only permitted when there is business and residential.  The intent is to keep business usage in a situation that would otherwise be going all-residential. Chris Loreti asked for three extra minutes and was denied. I voted in favor of the three extra minutes.  I will always vote to permit speakers extra time, unless they are abusive of the privilege. He called this a major change. He said he is in favor of mixed use, but not this one. He showed slides with potential developments that he feared might happen, including a 50-foot building next to a home.  He talked about reductions in protections for neighborhoods.

We took a break for 10 minutes.

A speaker asked if this was proposed because of demand? Answer: there haven’t been specific requests for this mixed use, but there have been related requests. Adam Auster spoke in favor of this. He thinks this is the way for the town to grow and support businesses, and several speakers agreed.  Two speakers asked questions relating to Chris Loreti’s slides.  The answers to the questions said that the slides were impossible – those projects would never be approved by the Special Permit process and an Environmental Design Review process.  I think that this discussion was helpful in putting some perspective on Loreti’s examples.  They were good rhetoric, but not on point.  Jim Doherty made a motion to include B1 in this change.  There was further discussion of the controls in the Special Permit and Environmental Design Review process.  There was discussion of how this would interact with a future Master Plan process.  It was noted that there would be pressure to build residential whether we approve this or not. John Deyst moved to terminate debate, approved.  Doherty’s amendment fails on voice vote.  Main motion defeated on voice vote. I voted in favor of this.  I have been very unhappy as our business districts have been converting to residential.  I thought that this was a smart way to stem that tide.  Unfortunately, I think the complexity of the change and fear of the unintended consequences kept us from moving forward with it.

Article 8 and 9 were tabled.  With only 18 minutes left in the meeting, those issues were too much to bite off.  I think the Moderator made a great choice here – we kept working productively up until the close.

Article 10 - Zoning Bylaw Amendment/Banners For Historic Sites

Andy West introduced the article.  He said that it would clarify some current confusion about what signage is permitted to direct visitors to and inform visitors of historic sites.  Chris Loreti asked a large number of questions about why this change was needed.  He wasn’t sure if he was opposed or supported it.  Sean Harrington moved to terminate debate.  The change was approved by voice vote.

Meeting was adjourned.