2021 Annual Town Meeting - Night Ten

Welcome to Night Ten of the 2021 Annual Town Meeting.  We're 27 hours in, and we still have a while to go.  I'm really hoping that we can complete the vote on Article 43 before break.  If we can do that, I'm fairly sure we have one night remaining.  If we don't do it, I think we're going into the following week.

After the attendance vote, the Moderator brought up Rieko Tanaka's rendition of the National Anthem.  The Moderator made an announcement, reminding us of how much we still have left.  He encouraged us to keep our comments short.  He has a plan for the vote on 43 which should make sense.  He invited Mr. DeCoursey to make a motion to continue to next Wednesday upon adjournment. (No meeting on Memorial Day.)

There was a call for announcements and resolutions  Ms. Kelleher from the Housing Plan Implementation Committee announced that the committee is updating the town's five year housing production plan  She noted many upcoming meetings and opportunities to participate.  Please visit their webpage for additional information.  There were no reports of committees, so Article 3 stayed on the table.

We are back to discussing Article 43.  Ms. Evans was first this evening, and she introduced her two amendments.  She noted that there are two Air BnB units registered with the town, but she said there are 28 available on the website.  (I just did a check a few weekends and found five separate listings.  It seems like someone from the town could spend an hour and message every single host and reminding them that they need to register with the town.)  Her first amendment would require a minimum six-month lease for all rentals.  This would clearly preclude their use as a short term rental.  Her second amendment would require that the owner reside in one of the two units.  These are basic protections which can be removed or relaxed later on.  She encouraged us to start cautiously and see how things progress.  Ms. Benedikt thanked Ms. Thornton for a well thought-out proposal.  At first, it sounded like she was encouraging the meeting to adopt Mr. Tosti's substitute motion, but she had her own.  It would have us not vote on anything this year.  Rather, we would establish a study committee to return next year.

Now that all the motions and amendments have been introduced, the Moderator presented his plan for scheduling the votes.  First, we will vote on the Benedikt substitute motion.  If it passes, everything else is moot.  If that fails, we will vote on all the amendments, grouped by theme.  We will then vote on Mr. Tosti's substitute motion, then the final motion, whatever it is.  The Moderator then started in on the remainder of the speakers list.

Mr. Brown is in support of the article allowing in-law apartments.  His father moved into his in-law apartment.  It kept his father involved in the community.  He also had a built-in baby sitter, so he could have a date night with his spouse.  Problems have been pointed out.  Hearing is an issue with the elderly, and they may be listening to Frank Sinatra loudly at night.  This is outweighed by the benefits of keeping family close.  The Moderator interrupted his very lighthearted presentation to encourage him to focus.  Mr. Brown asked that Mr. Tedesco be recognized to speak.  Mr. Tedesco is the lawyer who helped write the proposed bylaw.  He highlighted key results for the proposal.  There could be up to 15 new ADU's per year if Arlington is similar to other towns.  He felt the Tosti amendment would greatly limit the ability of anyone to make an ADU.  It has too many limits on the size of units.  The current proposal is more flexible.

Mr. Revilak spoke about rentals.  For a usual rental, there are no requirements to live in a unit, and all the arrangements for tenancy are up to the tenant and landlord.  He felt most of the proposed amendments interfere with that relationship.  They also restrict where the units can be built.  Mr. Revilak lives among small duplexes in East Arlington.  His neighbor would often rent out rooms.  He is not concerned about additional residents in his neighborhood.  He encouraged voting for the main motion after rejecting the proposed motions and amendments.  Mr. Christiana is also in favor of the clean proposal.  He doesn't like restrictive zoning.  He thinks the amendments are often driven by fear.  They are not accurately representing the proposal.  There were months to review the proposal leading to tonight's vote.  It was approved by many boards.  It might not be perfect, but that is OK with him.  Delay has costs.  Endless discussion leads us nowhere.  We shouldn't be just cementing the status quo.  He believes there is a symbiosis between affordability and homeowners.  Mr. Lobel has a question about how many units might be created.  Ms. Raitt indicated that Ms. Thornton should address the question.  -silence-   Mr. Lobel noted that the projection in 2019 was 4-5 new units per year.  Ms. Thornton noted that there wouldn't be a stampede.  She would be happy to see 5 a year.  Mr. Lobel noted we've spoken a lot about affordable housing.  He sees this as such an obvious way to create small, affordable units.  There are many benefits.  He fully supports the main motion without amendments.  Mr. Newton is excited about ADU's.  The HCA could add units.  We get additional small units scattered throughout town.  He is excited about multi-generational living.  Living next to instead of with makes things more harmonious.  He sees the fears driving the amendments uncompelling.  Mx. Pretzer spoke in favor of the main motion.  He spoke to many benefits.  High costs are changing our neighborhoods.  We should be willing to house people over cars.  There have been multiple opportunities for input.  He doesn't approve of amendments that make it harder to sell.  Mr. Bagnall moved to terminate debate.  It is sooooo tempting to agree, but there are so many more opinions out there.  (I am on the list with a few corrections and questions.)  I would like to hear from some more points of view before we start in on the amendments and motions.  The vote to terminate debate failed 142-90.

(It was about this time that I realized I am being very gender binary in how I name speakers.  I use formal names out of respect for our elected representatives.  If I get it wrong, I hope the member will let me know, so I can make the correction.)

The next speaker is Mr. Ruderman.  He spoke in favor of referring the motion to committee.  He believes there is too much to digest, and things need to be hashed out in person.  He isn't afraid of ADU's, and we are about to fundamentally change ownership rights in town.  We need to consider who will be benefiting and cashing in.  Diversity is both racial and economic.  How does passing the benefits on another unit on to those of means value diversity.  He thinks voting against all the amendments is just a rush to go home.  It needs to go to committee for more discussion.  Mr. MacNeill passed.  Ms. Susse spoke about housing in town.  She wants a very clean bylaw, the one that has been approved by town leadership.  It is not radical.  It will create more diverse housing.  Mr. Jamieson thanked everyone for their comments in favor of the main motion and against the substitutes and amendments.  This is his view as well.  He would have moved to terminate, but that happened recently.  Several town board have reviewed this proposal:  the Select Board, the Finance Committee, and the Redevelopment Board.  This has been vetted and should be approved.  Mr. Goff is not a fan of the motions or amendments except one, the one that limited ADU's to one per parcel.  The Moderator noted that was Ms. Leahy's second amendment.  He wants to know if there are legal issues in regards to condo associations.  Are there ways for disputes over ADU's to be resolved.  Ms. Leahy noted she is not a lawyer and cannot speak to legal matters.  However, this is the kind of thing a condo association should be discussing all the time.  Her amendment was to prevent a two family from becoming a four family.  Town Counsel noted that being allowed to do something under zoning, does not mean that the condo docs allow it, especially if it involves shared property.  Individuals will need to make their own decisions.  Mr. Goff is concerned about some aspects, but he is willing to move forward and see what happens.  It dose not seem like a radical change.  It would be better than the "side-by-side pit houses" popping up in his neighborhood.  He would like to see some modest size houses.  He is still thinking about the one amendment, but he encourages voting against everything else.  Ms. Heigham moved to terminate debate.  I am feeling better about it at this point, so I will vote in favor of the motion.  This time, the vote passed 160-73.  (It took over a minute to register my vote.  I think even the internet is getting tired of the length of the meeting.)

Now we had to sort through all the votes.  First up was Ms. Benedikt's substitute motion to refer the article to committee.  Mr. MacNeill and Ms. LaRoyer both had points of order to confirm that each individual vote for the motions, amendments, and the main motion will be majority votes.  This was confirmed by the Moderator.  The substitute motion failed 53-187.  Next was Ms. Preston's motion to require 15 ft from an ADU in an accessory structure to a dwelling on an adjacent property.  (First good clap of thunder.)  I don't like this, because it does not apply to bylaw evenly to all parts of town.  It would allow this option in the less dense neighborhoods, largely away from public transportation, but not in the more "streetcar suburb" parts of town.  I voted against the amendment, then the lightning struck, then I lost my Zoom feed.  It took a long while to reconnect.  I didn't know if this was just me or everybody.

Eventually, I was able to fully log back on.  The Moderator came back a few minutes later.  It looks like the main server for the meeting reset, and everyone was kicked off.  There was a good bit of lightning in the area.  Now came the question of what to do.  We were still in the middle of a vote.

The Moderator requested that the active vote be closed, and a new attendance vote created.  The Moderator asked Counsel for an opinion about continuing, since the connection was unstable.  Mr. Worden had a point of order to essentially have a moderator conference regarding whether to proceed.  (It is good to have that depth of experience in the meeting.)  Ms. Heigham had a point of information: when Precinct 11 went dark during last fall's meeting, the meeting continued without them.  She encouraged us to go on this time as well.  Counsel advised taking our recess now to give members time to log off and back on.  After break, we can decide if things have improved enough to continue.  The Clerk will email all members to let them know the plan in case they are not on line at the moment.  We take our break.

-------------------------

We are back.  There were still some issues with sound, which the staff worked to resolve.  After several minutes, the Moderator determined we were prepared to start.  Since the outage happened during the vote on Ms. Preston's amendment, he canceled the previous vote, and we voted anew.  The vote on the amendment failed 56-173.  Next up was Mr. Heigham's amendment to require a special permit if an ADU in an accessory building is closer that 10 ft to the lot line.  I am not in favor of this motion either.  (I almost forgot to vote, but I think it slipped in at the last instant.)  The amendment failed 73-155.  That brought up Ms. Leahy's third amendment which would limit ADU's to the R0 and R1 (single-family) zoning districts.  I'm not in favor of this either.  Ms. Preston raised a point of order because she couldn't even vote on her own amendment.  She was unable to vote, and she wanted to know what the process is when some members couldn't vote.  The Moderator noted that there was an attendance vote, and it appeared that everyone was back.  Ms. Preston noted she couldn't be connected in time.  The Moderator apologized for the problems, and he will endeavor to register all her votes.  Mr. Marshall raised a point of order to clarify whether a single-family home in any other district would be allowed under this article, and the Moderator noted it would not.  The amendment failed 36-194.  Next was Ms. Leahy's second amendment which would restrict the number of ADU's per lot to one.  I'm actually favorable to this, as I am concerned about creating two additional units in the already tightly crowded two-family districts.  This amendment failed 62-168.  This brought up Mr. Worden's third amendment to require provisions be made for tenants with automobiles.  I would hope that provisions would be made for parking before starting the process of creating the ADU, so I am against this.  It failed 47-182.  Next up was Mr. Worden's second amendment to require that an ADU created by a non-profit have both units restricted to an affordable rent.  I went back and forth on this, because it has some merit.  In the end, I had no in the vote when time expired.  The amendment failed 56-173.  This brought up Mr. Worden's first amendment to limit the size of an ADU to 1/3 the floor area or 750 sq. ft., whichever is smaller.  This is too small, and makes sure it is unreasonable to small homeowners.  The amendment failed 40-187.

Next was Mr. Gersh's amendment to disallow ADU's in accessory buildings.  This restriction would resolve a whole host of issues with using an accessory building, but I'm not convinced that those obstacles cannot be overcome or addressed through the special permit process.  The amendment failed 47-181.  Next was Ms. Leahy's first amendment to require a sworn affidavit be filed each and every year, stating that the owner is living in one of the units.  This limits the property to the owner, while the article would also allow a family member to reside in the property.  This would limit a resident's options should they be forced to relocate.  The amendment failed 52-177.  Ms. Evans's second amendment would also require a statement that the owner resides in one of the units.  Again, I'm not comfortable with someone being evicted because of a job issue, especially if it isn't their own issue.  This amendment failed 59-174.  Now we have Ms. Evans's first amendment which would require a lease term of at least six months.  This is already covered in the main text of the article, prohibiting the use of the ADU as a short-term rental.  The amendment failed 69-161.  Ms. Worden's amendment would require that the unit not occupied by the owner be rented at an affordable rate.  This undermines one of the tenets of the proposal, to create an income stream for the homeowner,  There will already be a degree of affordability due to the small size of the ADU.  This amendment failed 49-178.  I am surprised that we are moving in lockstep, although maybe I shouldn't be.

Mr Tosti's substitute motion would have us vote on a proposal that is substantially what we narrowly didn't pass in 2019.  (It received a majority vote, but fell a handful of votes short of the required 2/3 vote.)  The vote on this motion was 62-175 against.  This brought up the main motion as recommended by the ARB without amendments.  This is another major change for the town.  I believe this is a good measure, and I hope we can embrace it and have it appropriately administered.  The final vote was 189-48 in favor. I'm glad this was a strong vote.  We are done with zoning.

Now we have article 54.  Mr. Foskett has a few administrative corrections to the article.  He asked if the red-lined copy could be displayed, and he would explain the changes.  The sum to be appropriated was corrected to $671,485, the figure in the budget.  A sum of $122,284 was to be transferred, not appropriated.  The dates of the Arlington Patrolman's Organization agreement were corrected.  The transfer from the wage reserve was reduced by $2K.  The reserve is at $549,201 and will be available for other collective bargaining agreements.  This article appropriates funds to cover recent collective bargaining agreements.  The funds were already in the approved budget; we were just allocating the funds.  There were settlements with the patrolmen and library staff.  The contracts can only be made effective with a positive vote of Town Meeting.  Mr. Foskett asked if Mr. Pooler could be recognized to provide additional detail.  Mr. Pooler explained the town's goals for bargaining.  The acceptance of Juneteenth as a holiday was a part of the agreement, as was a cost of living adjustment.  There are no speakers, but Mr. Kurowski is locked out of the meeting, so we cannot vote.  Mr. Lowery brought Mr. Kurowski back in, so we can vote after all.  I am in favor of the agreement, and the vote passed 203-3.  We lost a bunch of members before that vote.

The Moderator noted that as we have done for several meetings, resolutions will only have one speaker in favor and one speaker in opposition.  There was a call for motions for reconsideration.  I raised a point of order to express my appreciation for the actions of town staff in getting us back after the storm-related issues.  The votes on Article 43 took 10 minutes before break plan a full hour after.  If we had lost half a night and an additional hour next Wednesday, we would be in really bad shape.  Getting us back might just be what gets us done without needing to go to other nights and weekends.  It is really appreciated.  The Moderator concurred, and we are adjourned.

---------------

I thought we held a good debate on the Accessory Dwelling Unit article.  The majority of speakers were in favor, but there was a reasonable mix of opinions, especially if you count all the members with amendments and substitute motions. I was surprised that it took over an hour just to run the votes.   If we really wanted to cut the night short, we could have sent it to committee on the first vote and moved on.  Instead, we stuck it out and made it through to the end, which was right where we started, the original motion from the ARB.

Where are we now?  I believe we have only the following articles left:  3, 22, 67, 69, 70, 75, 77, 78, 81, 90, and 91.  Of those, the last four are resolutions which are only allowed two speakers.  I really thought we could get it done in ten sessions, but 11 might be the new magic number.  I really think we can do it, but I may be underestimating the discussion required on a couple of the articles.

-------------

(5/27/21) It was pointed out that in my list of open articles, I missed Article 22, which was tabled earlier in the meeting.  This is from my notes from the Third Night:

"Article 22 is an article to have the town provide email addresses to Town Meeting Members if they request one.  The recommended vote of the Select Board is "No Action".  The proponent has asked for a motion to table the article to allow time to work with the Select Board on a resolution.  The motion to table the article was approved unanimously."

I had completely forgotten about it.  I have not heard anything regarding this article since that night, so I don't know if there has been any resolution. 

I also didn't include Article 3, which remains on the table to allow for the introduction of reports.  The last thing we will do before we dissolve the meeting is  take 3 off the table and close it.

2021 Annual Town Meeting - Night Nine

 Welcome back to Night Nine of Town Meeting.  We are 24 hours into town meeting - How Exciting!!  I hope all members are rested after the weekend and ready to get back to it.  Looking at my dog-eared copy of the warrant, we left off on Article 38 regarding high-efficiency foundations.  We will hopefully get to at least four other articles tonight, but we still have 16 to go.

We are starting off with a rendition of the National Anthem as played by Rieko Tanaka.  The moderator noted that we don't meet on Memorial Day, and we are running out of days.  If we need to go to June 16, we will be back in Town Hall, because the declared state of emergency will have been withdrawn.

Mr. DeCourcey moved that we continue to Wednesday if we are not done by the time we adjourn tonight.

The Moderator asked for announcements and resolutions.  Ms. LaRoyer had an announcement from the Open Space Committee.  They are working with the Planning Department on the Open Space Plan for next seven years.  The plan will assist the town with long-term planning, and make the town eligible for certain grants and funding.  She invited everyone to join them on June 10 at 7pm for a virtual community workshop.  More information is available on the Open Space Committee website.  There will be a presentation on plan followed by small group discussions.  The report process will extend into the fall.  Please email questions and comments to osrpupdate@town.arlington.ma.us.

Mr. Goff had an announcement noting the League of American Bicyclists has awarded Arlington a Silver Award for Bike Communities.  He thanked all the town entities who have worked together to help the town reach this interim goal on the way to gold.

The Moderator noted that there have been questions about additional nights for Town Meeting to squeeze them in before June 16.  He noted they have discussed Thursdays and Saturdays internally, but he is holding off to see how we do tonight before making any recommendations.  (The question came up earlier on about starting earlier and/or running later each night.  The issue there is that staff won't have time for dinner, and their work day will extend very late into the night.)

Mr. Meeks reopened the discussion on Article 38.  He noted that getting to Net Zero will be hard and expensive.  This article will allow individuals to spend their own money to make themselves more efficient and help the town reach its overall goal.  He doesn't think this will launch a wave of new development.  He supports the amendment as well.  Mr. Revilak is very supportive and is looking forward to what the clean energy future committee will propose in the future.   He wanted to know more about how the building code would be applied.  Mr. Byrne confirmed that all other code requirements would still need to be made.  He also confirmed that the open space and parking requirements would restrict how much land can be covered.  Mr. Revilak supported the main motion and opposed the amendment.  Mr. Moore rose to terminate debate.

In my mind, the real question is whether to approve the amendment or not.  I think there has been some debate, but I'm not sure we have gotten at the real question regarding the amendment.  Mr. Revilak and Mr. Byrne feel the main motion is innocuous, but others, including, I believe the committee sponsoring the article have approved of the amendment.  I voted to continue debate, but the motion to terminate passed 192-37.  This brings the amendment by Mr. Levy in front of the meeting.  I voted for the amendment, which passed 122-107.  We then had the vote on the main motion as amended, which I voted for, and which passed 226-8.

Article 39 is another citizen petition.  It seeks to limit the Arlington Redevelopment Board to uses allowed in a district when considering mixed use developments.  The ARB had issued a vote of no action on the article.  They are both a planning board and a redevelopment board (one of only two so established in the commonwealth), and under state law, they believe they have the authority they are exercising.

Ms. Dray raised a point of order to enter a late vote on the previous article.  The Moderator indicated they would try, but since the vote was closed, the vote may not be entered. 

Back to Article 39.  Ms. Kepka entered a substitute motion on behalf of Mr. Loreti, the original proponent.  His article would amend the bylaw regarding mixed uses.  In the original discussion before town meeting, members of the ARB had stated that only uses allowed in a district could be included in a mixed use development.  He stated that the ARB is not following that promise, and this article is needed to correct that.  The ARB approved two projects in the previous year with uses that are not allowed in the districts.  He wants to limit the ARB's authority to only allow those uses on the use table.  He noted there are towns that don't allow including disallowed uses in a mixed use.  Mr. Worden spoke in favor of the substitute motion.  He was in favor of the article in 2016, but it has not been applied as he understood it would be applied, so the motion is necessary.  Ms. May passed.  Mr. Jalkut had a point of order, but he withdrew.  Ms. Pennarun wanted to know if this is primarily about the proposed hotel, since the illustrative example was for gas stations.  She wanted to know if there were other cases beyond the hotel.  Ms. Zsembery, the chair of the ARB noted that the hotel project straddles two zoning districts.  She stated that at the time of the 2016 vote, members wanted flexibility under environmental review (The ARB process for issuing special permits.)  Ms. Pennarun is looking for more information, as she believes this article is really about trust in the ARB.  Mr. Loreti noted that there was a second case where a larger apartment building was allowed in the local business district (B1), a prohibited use.  Mr. Jalcut moved to terminate debate.  I think more debate is warranted, and I am surprised the ARB didn't have members on the speaker list.  The motion to terminate passed 167-64.  This brought up the vote on the substitute motion.  I believe the ARB has the authority it is requesting, and allowing them the flexibility to use that authority is important.  I am also concerned that they are sometimes too ready to use that authority.  I did vote against the substitute motion, and it failed 106-145.  I honestly thought it would pass.  We now have the no action vote from the ARB, which passed 174-58.

Article 40 is a citizen article from Mr. Worden.  The recommended vote from the ARB is no action.  Mr. Worden has submitted a substitute motion.  He felt that it is time for the town to put its money where its mouth is and build more affordable housing.  The zoning bylaw allows commercial properties to be converted to residential by right.  He wants to have the units created in that fashion be made affordable.  Mr. Harrelson raised a point of order that the substitute motion is identical to the language in the warrant article, and wanted to know if that made the article out of order.  The Moderator explained that it was fine, but it made it difficult to amend the motion.  Ms. Carlton-Gysan didn't see how the proposed substitute motion would accomplish what the proponent says it will.  Why would there be investment in these properties if the only option is affordable housing.  Mr. Worden clarified he wasn't proposing that all the residential units in a building become affordable; only the units being converted.  She noted that wasn't her question.  (I think the Moderator may have translated her question incorrectly to Mr. Worden.)  She clarified her question per the rationale from the ARB, that this article limits the ability of property owners to redevelop their property.  Mr. Worden noted that he is concerned about large mixed use buildings with negligible retail being converted to all residential.  She doesn't see how the motion matches the stated concern.  She wants to make sure we are still incentivizing development.  Mr. Worden says the town doesn't have a responsibility to make anyone rich.  The ARB should thoroughly vet claims that residential development is needed to provide a profit margin.  Mr. Yontar rose in opposition to the substitute motion, and he had a short presentation in five points.  The original article was turned down by the ARB who included a vote of no action.  The substitute motion is identical to the article.  He doesn't question the ability of the proponent to resubmit the same language, but he questions why there was no attempt to make improvements per the comments presented by the ARB.  He encouraged a vote of no action.  The Moderator noted that was the only action he could take, since the language was locked into the warrant article.  A more broadly written article would have allowed for a variation in the language.  Mr. Foskett had a point of order to essentially make the same point as the Moderator.    Mr. Schlichtman motioned to end debate.  I think we have heard most points on this article, and I will vote to terminate debate.  The motion passed 185-40.  This brings up the vote on the substitute motion presented by Mr. Worden.  I am against this article, as it doesn't include any mechanism for supporting the affordable housing it is proposing.  It is just an additional levy on the property owner.  The vote failed 68-167.  The vote on the main motion of no action passed 191-40.  We will now take our break.

------------------------

Picking back up with Article 41.  This is a citizen article from Mrs. Worden.  The ARB recommends a vote of no action, and the proponent has a substitute motion.  She proposed a definition of foundation, building foundation, and/or foundation wall.  (All three terms were included.)  Her contention was that illegal foundation expansion is rampant and  leading to over-development.  She contended the building department is unable or unwilling to enforce the bylaw.  Mrs. Worden stated that developers use foundations for portions of a building used for accessory uses as a way to create large additions without the need for a special permit.  She urged the establishment of the definition.  Mr. Jamieson noted that this was related to something he had raised during the discussion on an earlier article.  While he agreed with the intent of the article as expressed by Mrs. Worden, he is not prepared to vote for it.  He would prefer that the ARB develop language that addressed the issue.  He volunteered to come back to the ARB next year.  Mr. Goff motioned to terminate debate.  I am voting no, as only the proponent and one speaker have addressed the article.  However, I am in the minority, and debate was terminated by a vote of 171-53.  I am not in favor of this article, as I don't think it goes after the actual issue it is intended to resolve.  I voted against the substitute motion.  The vote was 70-162 against the substitute motion.  The main motion of no action passed 183-42.

This brings up the motherlode of all articles, Article 43 on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's).  This article has 2 presentations, 2 substitute motions, and 12 amendments ... to date.  Ms. Zsembery requested and was granted 10 minutes to present.  The ARB supported the proposed vote for several reasons, including the recent state law encouraging housing.  The ARB believes this is a better article than 2019.  Ms. Thornton presented a video on the proposed bylaw.  In her presentation, she spoke of wanting to stay in her neighborhood as she and her husband age.  An ADU would be a great option.  In the video, she introduced Mr. Solomon to speak in favor of his ADU on Appleton St. (NOTE:  This is technically -not- an ADU.  He owned a single family house in a two family district and converted the house to a duplex, a by right use.  He needed a special permit for a large addition.)  He spoke extensively about the benefit of having his mother on site to help take care of his children while taking care of her.  In his personal experience, this was a great thing.  The proponents ran out of time to have Mr. Tedesco, their lawyer speak.  The Moderator noted he would try to introduce all the motions and amendments up front so they could be before the meeting.  Mr. Tosti rose to introduce his substitute motion on the article.  He noted that the current proposal is very different from the 2019 proposal.  His motion reintroduces the 2019 article.  He presented the proposed article as being contrary to the presentation of the districts in the zoning bylaw.  He noted the town is very dense today.  He noted that the town was denser in the past, but it was different then, as families were larger and there were fewer cars. Mr. Tosti stated his motion will allow the inclusion of ADU's without changing the appearance of the neighborhood.  He thinks the proposed article will greatly change the appearance of the town.  He encourages a slower approach, his substitute motion.  Ms. Anderson introduced the amendment by Mr. Gersh.  The proposal would remove the ability to create and ADU in an accessory structure.  There would be no change to creating ADU's in the primary building.  She is in favor of ADU's, but is concerned that allowing the back-to-back garages in many areas in town would create many issues.  She appeared to imply that the ZBA is not capable of adjudicating these decisions fairly.*  Mr. Jamieson raised a point of order, but he didn't come to to the floor.

Ms. Preston spoke to her amendment requiring an ADU in an accessory structure to be at least 15 ft. from an existing residential dwelling on an abutting property.  She also appeared to imply the ZBA wasn't capable of adjudicating these decisions fairly.*

Jamieson is back for point of order in regards to Mr. Tosti's substitute motion, is it in order.  It has 3 separate dates listed.  The Moderator noted it was revised twice after submission, and the dates were not all updated.  He is accepting the final date as the actual date.  Ms. Leahy has three amendments.  The first would require annual affidavits be filed to confirm the owner resides in the main or the accessory unit.  She asked that if we don't vote for her amendment, please vote for Mr. Tosti's substitute motion.  The Moderator encouraged her to pick up the pace if she was to have time to introduce all three amendments in he allotted seven minutes.  She thought she had seven minutes for each amendment.  Ms. Leahy doubled her pace and explained her second amendment would limit applicants to one ADU per lot.  Her third amendment would only allow ADU's in single-family districts.  She was speaking so fast, the Moderator encouraged her to take a breath.  "How much time do I have left?"  "Well, we forgot to turn on the clock."  She was given time to finish up.  Ms. Leahy wants Town Meeting to make sure all residents are given an opportunity to be heard on this far reaching article.

Mrs. Worden raised a point of order to surrender her speaking time to Ms. Leahy because "this meeting isn't interested in affordable housing."  The Moderator noted that was not allowed.  Ms. Dray raised a point of order to ask why proponents are not allowed seven minutes per amendment.  The Moderator noted that speakers are afforded seven minutes to speak, and may request a second time.  They can also request additional time before they begin.

Mr. Heigham introduced his amendment that would increase the by right setback from 6 ft to 10 ft to align with the current setback from residential setbacks.  Mrs. Worden presented her amendment which would require ADU's be rented at affordable rates.  These units are spoken of as being affordable, but there are no provisions requiring the rents to be affordable.  Mr. Worden noted that in all his experience on town meeting, he has never seen so many amendments to a single article.  He thinks this is a clear sign that there is something wrong with this proposal.  Mr. Tosti's substitute motion received a majority vote in 2019, and should be approved.  His three amendments, which were presented rapid-fire were to reduce the maximum size of ADU's from 900 sq. ft. to 750 sq. ft., to require parking for tenants that request parking, and to require that non-profit developers must  rent both the main and the accessory units at affordable rates.

This brought us up to almost 11:00.  The Moderator called for motions of reconsideration, and Mr. Foskett moved to adjourn, seconded by Ms. Brazile.  We'll be back on Wednesday with, I think 10.75 articles to go.

-----------------

I know my notes on the last article are a little thin.  I decided to join the speakers list, and I was writing notes in the background on what to say to town meeting, so I did not type as many notes as I did earlier in the evening.  Although there are so many amendments and motions, I took fewer notes, because I was trying to multitask, and somewhat failed.  There were a couple of statements that got my hackles up, and I want to address them.

We did sort of as I expected tonight.  For a bit, I thought we were moving faster, but we got bogged back down where we were always going to bog down ... ADU's.  By my count, we have heard one substitute motion and ten amendments.  We still have a motion and two amendments to be introduced.  I don't have the faintest idea how the Moderator will even start to sort out the motions and amendments.  We have three separate setback proposals for an ADU in an accessory structure, and a fourth that eliminates them all together.  The substitute motion doesn't even consider them.  I am so glad I don't have to figure it out.

*  In regards to these statements, I have had an opportunity to discuss them a little with one of the members.  Her concern is that the proponents of the article have made a big point out of the accessory ADU's requiring the approval of the ZBA.  However, the take-away was that it would be up to the neighbors to prove that the ADU would be detrimental, not that the applicant would need to prove that the ADU would not be more detrimental.  Since the Board has a very high approval rate for projects for reasons entirely unrelated to this particular issue, many believe that any case that comes before the ZBA is a foregone conclusion.  As a member of the ZBA, I want to assure those members who are concerned that we take our responsibilities very seriously.  We work hard to find concensus and work between the proponents and the neighbors whenever possible to come up with a compromise that works for the site and district that still complies with the requirements of the zoning bylaw and other town regulations.

2021 Annual Town Meeting - Night Eight

 Welcome to Night 8 of the 2021 Annual Town Meeting.  The Moderator sent an email out this afternoon explaining that we would start the evening with the ongoing debate on Article 53.  We will then take up Article 45, which was postponed from the previous hearing.  We would then pick up with the ongoing discussion on Article 35.  After that, we are back to proceeding in order.

Mr. DeCourcey moved to continue to Monday if we are not done tonight.  Mr. Yontar had an announcement to thank the members of the Capital Planning Committee and all the department chairs, and the committee chairs for their assistance in preparing the report and recommended budget.  Their hard work is appreciated by all.

We are picking back up with Article 53 on Positions Reclassification.  First, we are going back to hear the National Anthem, a rousing rendition without sound.  Now with sound, as played by Mr. Helmuth.  The Moderator encouraged any other members who play to send in a video to be put in the rotation.  (He may have mentioned needing talent, but I wouldn't let that hold any of us back...)

Now we're really on to Article 53.  Ms. Friedman passed.  Mr. Reck moved to terminate debate.  There was only one other person on the speaker list, so calling the question feels wrong, and I'll vote no.  (If he had passed, the last speaker could have spoken, and it might have gone quicker than holding the vote to terminate debate.  However, others could have joined the queue as well, so who knows.)  The motion passed 191-25, so we will vote on the main motion.  This vote should pass easily, and it did pass 213-8.

Next up is Article 45.  The recommended vote from the Arlington Redevelopment Board (ARB) is for no action.  The proponents, represented by Ms. Garber have proposed a substitute motion to allow for a discussion and vote.  The proposal would increase the proportion of affordable units in a development from 15% to 25%.  The town has not met its affordable housing goal, and this would create more units.  Ms. Garber introduced Ms. Kiesel who gave more background on the proposal.  She also noted that this article had substantial support from the public when it was before the ARB earlier in the spring.  Mr. Revilak contemplated how this proposal would interact with the requirements for 40B.  They would both have the same affordability percentage, and 40B has additional benefits for a developer.  He asked whether this would lead to more 40B applications.  Mr. Benson from the ARB indicated that the ARB opposed the substitute motion, and he was about to go into a longer speech, when stopped, and asked to answer the question.  He responded that 25% was unaffordable for a developer without subsidies.  Mr. Revilak asked about safe harbor under 40B.  Mr. Heim didn't think there would be an impact.  Mr. Revilak asked if mixed use was allowed under 40B.  Ms. Raitt said it was.  Lastly, he asked about the Nexus Study being funded under a CDBG grant.  Ms. Raitt explained that the study would look at the amount of development required to support affordable housing goals.

Mr. Hamlin agrees that increasing the percentage is a good thing, and he would encourage any percentage higher than what we have now.  Mr. Ciano is in favor of more affordable housing, and he would like to hear from the ARB.  He wanted to know if the ARB was in favor of the motion.  Mr. Benson said that everything the ARB has referenced has indicated that 25% is unattainable in smaller developments, which is what Arlington has available.  He reported on data from other towns, and they indicated that lower percentages were what were attainable.  Higher percentages led to less development.  Mr. Ciano encouraged voting against the substitute motion.

Ms. Carlton-Gysan was curious about the number of units built since the inclusionary zoning bylaw was adopted.  Ms. Raitt gave an accounting of housing projects since its passage and the number of units involved.  There is one underway now.  She didn't expect a change in the rate of development going forward.  Mr. Moore moved to terminate debate.  (He does this often, so as soon I heard his name, I thought that was where we are headed.)  I think we could do with more debate, but my mind is made up, so I'm voting to terminate debate.  I think we should stick with the ARB's original recommendation.  I am concerned that increasing the percentage will either stop development of projects or lead to more 40B applications.  Both would be a bad outcome for the town.  Debate was terminated 165-70.  Next was the vote on the substitute motion.  I lost track of how many times I hit the refresh screen trying to record my vote against the motion.  The motion failed 71-164.  We now vote on the main motion, which was for a vote of no action.  That vote was arduous, as the call to start the vote was delayed by network lag for almost a minute, then rceording votes also lagged. The vote of no action was approved 195-41.  Articles 35-91 were taken off the table by Mr. Foskett.

We are picking up where we left off on Article 35.  I am somewhere on the speaker list for this article.  Ms. Pennarun has a point of order.  At what point does the speaker list get reset.  The Moderator noted that the list in front of us is the held over list from a week ago Monday.  Ms.Crowder had a point of order, asking if the report containing the article could be referenced.  Ms. Anderson had a point of order in regards to new information made available since the previous session.  Mr. Heim will provide some clarification.  The Moderator started with a statement that the previous two videos violated the civility rules of Town Meeting.  He gave Ms. Zsembery an opportunity to address the charges levied in the videos.  She dismissed charges of the process being sneaky and underhanded, and noted the long timeline. She also displayed minutes and memos indicating the open discussion of the possibility of residential development.  She also noted that the town is working hard on increasing development, but there are few options.

Mr. Gast introduced an amendment to allow for taller buildings in the industrial zone.  There is limited land area, so allowing for taller buildings will increase the available floor area.  Ms. Cohen had a point of order asking who RKG/Harriman was on the previous set of slides.  They were the town's consultant on the project.  Ms. Preston supports the amendment to oppose residential development.  The artists spaces will not be made affordable.  She notes the town needs its industrial land.  She continued the false claim that residential was added at the last second.  She noted that Arlingtonians pay a significant portion of taxes, more than other larger towns with large, well established industrial areas.  We need to attract more businesses.  The Moderator asked Mr. Heim whether the written article limits development to only artists mixed use.  He indicated that was the way it was written.  I had my chance to speak, and I addressed the timeline for including residential development which went back to the Master Plan.  I encouraged members to vote against the amendment removing residential and for the main motion.

Mr. Badik was one of many members who posed the question to Atty. Heim earlier in the day seeking an explanation of whether residential development would be constrained to the listed uses.  He is proposing an amendment on the fly to link some of the subsections.  The Moderator is trying to figure out if this is possible to do tonight.  He called for taking our break now so Mr. Heim and Ms. Raitt can fashion an amendment.

-------------------

Mr. Heim and Ms. Raitt are still working on language, so Ms. Stone came forward.  She introduced Mr. Davison, a Commissioner on the Arts Commission who spoke in favor of including artists mixed use in the industrial district.  He referenced a letter issued earlier today that outlined actions needed to preserve space for artists, and this proposal addresses many of those needs.  While we were still in a lull, Mr. Koch raised a point of order to ask the score in the Red Sox game.  Mr. Schlichtman gave a game report. (Boston leads 6-1 in the 6th)  Mr. Heim was recognized to discuss what he and Ms. Raitt have been considering.  They propose adding a reference in the footnote D to the table of uses to the section on Artists Mixed Use.  There is also a similar reference added to the section on mixed use in the Industrial District.  The Moderator has accepted it as an administrative change to the main motion as it doesn't change any meanings, and it only seeks to clarify the intent.

Ms. Kepka had a point of order that we should not take up the meeting's time speaking about sports scores.  The Moderator had called on her as being next on the speaker list.  This confusion led to a heated exchange with the Moderator noting it was a long standing tradition to review the sports scores.  Ms. Kepka was then invited to address the motion.  She is opposed, as she has experience as an artist, and these types of developments do not create and maintain affordable units.  She also believes we need to preserve industrial uses.  Her artist friends leave town after their kids graduate because it is too expensive to live here.  Ms. Butler noted that our industrial districts are all former mill sites, snaking along the old Mill Brook.  Ms. Ford-Weems asked if the artist housing will be allowed as condos or only as rental units.  Mr. Heim didn't think there was an ownership restriction, and Ms. Raitt concurred.  Ms. Ford-Weems supports mixed use in the business districts, but she feels the limited industrial sites are precious, and should not allow mixed use, especially if that would include condos.  They would make it more difficult to reclaim parcels for future redevelopment.  Ms. Stamps noted how confusing this discussion has been.  The first part of the discussion focused incorrectly on luxury residential development.  She wanted to know if there is some guidance on how to make the spaces appropriate for artists.  Ms. Raitt noted that the art coalition would be involved in setting policy.

Mr. McCabe rose to terminate debate.  (He is the other terminator.)  Mr. Tosti asked for clarification whether the only allowed residential use would be artists studios.  The Moderator noted that Artists Mixed Use is the only allowed residential use.  Mr. Tosti stated that was not what was stated in the vote.  Ms. Raitt confirmed that would be the only residential use.  Ms. Anderson had a point of order is confused about the process, but the Moderator cut her short, as he determined she was continuing the debate.  Ms. Memon has a point of order that the footnotes are listed "Notes".  Mr. Heim gave an extensive explanation of what is in the article and in the administrative amendment.  Ms. Crowder wants to know why there isn't a cross reference to the listed residential use in the table.  Mr. Heim noted it was implied.  She wanted a follow-up question, which is a debate, not a point of order.  The Moderator was cutting her off, but Mr. Heim stepped in to offer a further clarification.  The motion to terminate debate passed 181-53.

The first vote on the article was on Mr. Gast's amendment to allow taller development.  I'm not sure it is a good idea to go that tall on these small parcels, so I'm voting no.  Mr. Worden has a point of order wanting to know whether this was the amendment seeking an increase to five stories.  It was.  Ms. Bloom asked if the amendment could be shown on the screen.  It was.  The amendment was adopted 125-95.  The next vote is on Ms. Anderson's amendment to remove residential uses.  As I noted earlier, I am opposed to this amendment, so I am voting no.  The amendment was rejected 58-166.  This brings up the vote on the final language including the amendment by Mr. Gast and the administrative changes by Mr. Heim and Ms. Raitt.  I am in favor of this proposal.  The vote was 201-41 in favor of the article.

The next article is Article 38.  Ms. Dray had a point of order where she was very concerned about the Moderator's tone with Ms. Kepka.  He explained that he didn't appreciate being interrupted, and he didn't realize she was asking a point of order.  The exchange got quite heated, and was really unfortunate.  I think Ms. Dray had a valid point, and given that we are 23 hours into town meeting  with no end in sight, I can empathize with the Moderator.  We will all need to keep our cool.

Mr. Maher raised a point of order stating that the Moderator has been exceptional given the circumstances.  He also noted the Bruins won in overtime.  Mr. Jalkut thought the previous discourse was inappropriate.  Mr. Vakil asked to remove his amendment to Article 38, as it is duplicitous with the other amendment.

Ms. Zsembery introduced the article through a video presentation.  She introduced Mr. Levy to provide additional comments.  He spoke in favor of the article and offered an amendment.  The amendment would remove a possible loophole that could have allowed an increase in the size of a building, which is not the intent of the article.  In order to achieve a well sealed home, it is important to improve both the above ground and in-ground portions of the building.  Mr. DiTullio offered his unabashed support.  This article is essential if the town is to meet its net zero energy goals.  Mr. Monks noted his district has many non-conforming lots, and he is glad that this will allow his constituents to get their basements net-zero ready.  He agrees that this is an essential step.  Mr. Jamieson wanted to talk setbacks.  His lot is conforming, can he tear-down and replace?  Mr. Byrne noted he could.  He further asked if his lot was non-conforming, could he do so.  Mr. Byrne said no.  Mr. Jamieson asked about general setbacks.  If his lot had 5,000 SF he can rebuild.  If he has less than 5,000 SF, he needs special permit.  Does the amendment allow any basement in town to be replaced.  Mr. Levy noted that anyone with a non-conforming lot, could provide an energy efficient basement within the same footprint.  Mr. Jamieson had images he would like displayed.  What happens with a non-conforming setback.  He showed pictures and asked how it was allowed to be built.  (The house is on my street, and I think they kept the original foundation.)  He asked about another house was allowed to be built.  (That one was allowed to consider the post foundations under the front and rear porches to constitute the extent of the foundation, and the developer enclosed them within a new frost wall.)  The Moderator tried to keep him on task.  Mr. Jamieson wanted to show that under the current bylaw, large homes were being built using the existing foundation.  His time expired, and it was after eleven.

After receiving notices for reconsideration, the meeting was adjourned.

--------------------------

OK, tempers are starting to flare.  We still have five zoning articles to complete, six budget articles, and four resolutions.  I think we could be on track for two more nights, but we will need to keep our cool.

Like anything else, Town Meeting has its quirks and traditions.  Those are often conveyed to new members by their asking longer serving members seated next to them in Town Hall what is happening.  These might be reporting sports scores or tittering when certain speakers rise.  That is lost online.  Similarly, when we meet in person, it is much harder to confuse someone being called forward to speak on an article and addressing someone jumping to their feet and shouting "Point of Order!"  This is all much harder without social cues; it takes longer, and there is more confusion.  It also gets frustrating.  I think the Moderator let the moment get the best of him this evening, and he was called on it.  I'm not going to go into details; you can look it up on ACMi.tv.  I hope we can take the weekend to regroup and come back with a better sense of ourselves.

Also, if you are a newer member, and you have questions about what is going on, you should find a longer serving member to text with during the meeting.  You could learn a lot, and you might make a good friend.  I still miss many members who no longer serve who I sat with week after week, year after year learning the procedures and being introduced to the true characters of Town Meeting.  I cannot wait until we get to be back in person.

2021 Annual Town Meeting - Night Seven

 Welcome to Night Seven of the 2021 Arlington Annual Town Meeting.  My initial pessimistic guess was that we would go for ten nights this spring, and I am sorry that we seem to be on track for that being correct.  There was an email from the Moderator earlier today noting that there were amendments and substitute motions submitted late on Friday, after the town offices were closed.  He noted articles 35-43 and included links to documents for Articles 35, 38, and 54.  I am not sure what we are going to cover tonight.  We will certainly pick-up where we left off on the Capital Budget, but I'm not sure where we go after that.

We tried to begin the meeting with the Star Spangled Banner as played by Mr. Helmuth, but there was no sound.  After a little technical work, we were able enjoy to the video with sound.  The Moderator noted that the Governor will be lifting the State of Emergency which allows Town Meeting to meet remotely.  That will go into effect on June 15, so June 14 will be the last session we can have online.  If we go to June 16, we believe we will be back in Town Hall.

The Moderator put forward a resolution seeking to limit speaking time for the remainder of this year's annual meeting.  Presentations would remain at seven minutes, but floor speeches would voluntarily be limited to four minutes, and two minutes on your second time.  I went back and forth on this several times, but I left my vote as "no".  If speakers want to limit their time, that is OK, but I really think debate is necessary and important to the function of the meeting.  The vote was 185 in favor and 39 in opposition.  We will be asked to keep our speeches short.  The Moderator also noted that there would be a slight change in what happens when there is a network issue during a vote.  Rather than receiving a network error message, there will be a new page showing someone waiting for the T.  It will have a countdown clock leading to an automatic page refresh.  We'll have to see how that goes.

Mr. DeCourcey moved that the meeting be continued to Wednesday, May 19 upon adjournment.

Article 3 was taken off the table to receive the report of the AHS Building Committee.  Mr. Thielman, the Chair of that committee provided an update on the project.  The project is on budget and on schedule.  Phase 1 will be completed in February 2022.  There have been improvements to the mechanical systems added to the project scope.  In April, test borings for geothermal wells discovered contamination seeping down into the bedrock.  The system had to be adjusted.  The building will still exceed the original sustainability goals.  Mr. Thielman thanked the building committee, especially Superintendent Dr. Bodie, who is retiring this year.  We were encouraged to visit the committee's website at www.ahsbuilding.org.

Mr. Slotnick presented the Zero Waste Arlington report.  He thanked the members of the committee.  He noted that online meetings had greater participation.  He discussed their webinar series.  He discussed the upcoming negotiation for the town's trash hauling contract.  Unfortunately, only 10% of the plastic collected through recycling in Arlington becomes a new material.  There was an appeal to divert organic waste to composting services.  There is a written report available on the town's website.  Their next webinar is on June 23.  Please refer to their website for more information.  Article 3 was laid back upon the table.

This brought us back to the discussion on Article 56, the Capital Budget.  Mr. Foskett, the past Chair of the committee and current FinCom Chair encouraged a vote against Mr. Leonard's amendment.  He spoke in favor of the additional funds requested for the DPW project.  These facilities need to be upgraded for the important work they do for our town.  The cost increases are due to increased material costs that are due to Covid related production disruptions and recent construction increases nationwide.  There was a point of order from Ms. Garber regarding the order of articles to be presented this evening.  The Moderator noted that after the Capital Budget, we would be taking 44-49 off the table for discussion.  In a second point of order, Ms. Leahy asked how much time the proponent of an amendment or substitution motion would have to speak.  The Moderator indicated that as a proponent, they would have seven minutes, but everyone has seven minutes; they are just being asked to use less time to keep things moving.

Ms. Bloom asked about the difference in costs between two proposed school buses in the capital plan.  Mr. Yontar, the Chair of the Capital Planning Committee, noted that the costs are a net against the trade-in value of the bus being replaced.  (One had more value than the other.)  Ms. Memon asked whether the damaged marble at the Highland Firehouse will be replaced with marble.  Mr. Yontar noted that it will be new marble, but there will be better bollards to protect the new work.  Ms. Memon asked if there have ever been in-kind donations from local businesses.  She believes this is something to consider.  (I will admit that I couldn't tell where she was going with this question.  Was it that local businesses could make in kind donations in lieu of taxes, or would this be out of the goodness of their heart.  The latter is fraught with the potential for abuse.)  The Moderator was concerned about liability and unfair competition.  Ms. Memon wanted to know if the proceeds of the sale of a specific building was applied.  The Moderator thought it was out of scope, but Mr. Yontar thought it was in scope since it will be applied against the upcoming budget.  The proceeds are being used to defray capital costs across the board.  Lastly, she wanted to know if any funds were going towards sustainability improvements.  Mr. Yontar noted the town is shifting towards hybrid and electric vehicles for new purchases.  She wanted to know if there were improvements being made to buildings.  Mr. Yontar noted those happen during renovation projects.

Ms. Murray motioned to terminate debate.  This is a fine time to terminate debate.  I received the new waiting screen, which was fun.  I hope I don't get it too often.  The motion passed 197-30, so we move on to the various votes under this article.  First is Mr. Leonard's amendment to not fund the marble replacement at the Highland Firehouse as it is a repair.  This is a true capital expense, so the amendment should be rejected.  There was a point of order from Mr. Holland requesting that the Moderator provide a synopsis of the amendments and other votes before we start to refresh our memories.  The Moderator said he was just about to do that.  After the explanation, the votes were completed, and the amendment failed 23-205.  Mr. Foskett's amendment to add funds to cover the increase in the DPW project is vital to the project, and I am in favor.  The vote was 210-20, and it passed.  Ms. Memon has a point of order asking for an explanation of the change put forward in Mr. Foskett's amendment.  There is both a new line item and a revised sum.  The Moderator brusquely indicated both were in the vote.  He apologized for being short with her (which he was).  Since this vote authorizes the issuance of bonds, it requires a 2/3 vote.  This is an important and well considered budget, and I am in favor of its passage.  The final vote was 228-7 in favor, so the Capital Budget is approved.

Mr. Foskett moved to take articles 44-49 off the table. (As with most motions like this, it was seconded by the Clerk, Ms. Brazile).  This brings up Article 44, which would extend the parking changes approved for zones B3 and B5 last year to all business districts.  Mr. Revilak introduced Mr. Fleming, a resident of the town and the proponent of the article.  He asked that the video presentation be played.  The video made the case for allowing the number of required off-street parking spaces to be reduced in cases where there is no way to add off-street parking on existing lots with existing buildings.  It would allow for sufficient parking while preserving existing property values.  It would allow the ZBA or ARB (as applicable) to approve a project with fewer parking spaces without the need for a variance.  Ms. Memon is bothered by the proposal, because there is industrial property at the end of her street.  She thinks this will be a big problem for residents.  She wanted to know if this done in other towns.  Ms. Raitt noted that other municipalities have allowed it.  Ms. Memon thinks that Arlington is different from the municipalities noted by the Director, and she encouraged a vote against.  Mr. Pretzer noted we have very good public transportation, and in trying to reduce the environmental impact, we should vote in favor of the article.  Mr. Ruderman is speaking against the article based on prior experience and real estate principles.  The redevelopment of the Balich 5 & 10 was contingent on a variance in regards to the parking rules.  Mr. Ruderman is worried we will see this up and down Mass Ave.  From where he lives near the Center, and he has observed that limiting parking doesn't really mean that people don't drive.  It just limits where they can legally park, so they will park elsewhere, like in the residential neighborhoods.  They will bring late night noise back to their cars.  He also didn't accept the proponents analysis of real estate values in their presentation.

Mr. Moore moved to terminate debate.  I'm not entirely sure this is the right time to do so, even with attempts to move things along.  I'm voting against terminating, but I am anticipating that the motion will pass.  In voting, I hit the new waiting screen four times in a row before I could vote.  I'm not sure this is really any better.  The motion passed 168-64, which brings up the vote on the main motion.  I am in favor of this article, because it allows existing buildings to be reused for a different purpose without possibly requiring a variance.  There will still need to be a special permit, so the residents will get a say in the outcome on any particular project.  The article was approved 180-51.  It is a few minutes early, but the Moderator called break at this logical point.  We'll be back in 10 minutes.

------------------

We are back from break.  Article 45 seeks to increase the required percentage of affordable units in multi-family developments.  Ms. Garber spoke on behalf of the proponents of the article.  They were not informed that the Moderator was going to change the order of the articles this evening, and they are not available.  Ms. Garber requested a postponement to Wednesday, May 19 which was granted.

Article 46 would establish a temporary moratorium on the demolition of smaller, older homes.  The recommended vote from the redevelopment board is for no action, but the proponent, Ms. Culverhouse has submitted a substitute motion. The proposed bylaw change would institute a two-year moratorium on the destruction of post-war cape houses.  She feels it is time to implement a preservation plan for this type of housing before it is too late.  The moratorium would support the reuse of existing housing, which is more sustainable.  It would help preserve existing trees.  It would only apply to houses built prior to 1950 with less than 1,000 square feet of floor area.  It would not apply to the sale of houses, only to the demolition of houses.  Ms. Culverhouse noted that 20-25 of these houses are demolished in any given year, and the new houses usually cost double the cost of the original home.

I have been struggling with how to tackle this issue for years.  The idea behind a starter home is that you can buy something smaller for less and move up to something larger once you have some equity built up.  Right now, that equity is swallowed up by developers, and the town is loosing affordability.  This is a serious issue that the town needs to address.  However, this article just kicks the can down the road while leaving the current owners of these homes in limbo.  We need a real plan.

Ms. LaCourt has several concerns about the article.  Many people have most of their assets in their home.  Limiting how the property can be developed will drive the price down, essentially taking from the owners.  It would also raise the costs on other properties in town, since there would be fewer redevelopable properties.  At the end of the moratorium, if there are new restrictions on redevelopment, the current owners will still have a reduced value.  She encourages voting against the article.  Mr. Worden spoke in support of the article.  It is a small percentage of the houses in Arlington.  This is only a temporary moratorium to see if there is some way to preserve some of the houses.  The town has approved historic districts, often at the request of the homeowners.  (We do not know if the homeowners are in favor of this proposal.)  Mr. Worden thinks it is time to introduce a pause to give ourselves some time to come up with a plan.  Mr. Vakil opposes the motion.  While he agrees with the intent of the goals of the article, since it reduces the owner's value in their home, it penalizes a specific group of homeowners.  He encourages the proponents to come back next year with a plan to share the costs of the plan across all homeowners in the town.

Mr. Reck moved to terminate debate.  Although it is early in the debate of the article, I don't think there are other significant points of view that have not been presented.  With that in mind, I will vote to terminate debate, and that motion passed 158-70.  This brings up the vote on whether to adopt the substitute motion.  (If this fails, then the recommended vote of no action remains.)  I don't want the motion to pass, but in some ways, I would rather it be voted down as the main motion.  However, that carries risks, so I am voting against the substitute motion.  It failed 57-172, so we now vote on the motion of no action.  That vote was approved 189-37.

This brings us to Article 48, which seeks to require the enforcement of accessibility standards.  Ms. Devney, the Chair of the Disability Commission introduced the video presentation.  There was a concern that the redevelopment board (ARB) does not review the accessibility requirements as a part of the Environmental Design Review process.  Ms. Devney would like accessibility applied at the start of the project.  The Disability Commission is only informed of a project if there is a variance filed with the state Architectural Access Board.  That review process often leads to the acceptance of violations.  There are no questions, so we go right to the vote.  I did have some concerns during the warrant article hearings before the ARB.  The original language included the ADA, which as a federal code, is not under the jurisdiction of the local inspector.  I also believe this belongs in Title VI of the Town Bylaws (Building Regulations) rather than the Zoning Bylaw.  While it no longer includes the ADA, it did remain in the zoning bylaw.  The article was adopted 230-2.  (The Moderator chastised those abstaining - "We're here to vote.")

This article brought up a much larger point:  there are way too many projects being constructed with glaring accessibility problems.  I almost dare someone to find a legal accessible parking space in town.  As an architect who spent years working with a national client to remedy accessibility code violations, I can see issues in lots of public spaces.  I don't know if it is an enforcement issue or if the developers are receiving variances from the state accessibility code.  I am sympathetic to the concerns of the Disability Commission, which is why I support this article.

Article 49 is a proposal to introduce side yard exposure planes.  The recommended vote was for no action, but the proponent, Mr. Fields has a substitute motion.  His video presentation was played.  Average home sizes have doubled in the last 100 years (1,800 sq. ft. to 3,600 sq. ft.).  New homes sometimes hulk over their neighboring homes.  A sky exposure plane, by setting an angle from the lot line outside of which you cannot build, would define a construction area more towards the center of a lot that limits the impact on abutting properties.  This would apply to new residential construction, but not to additions or existing homes.  Mr. Ruderman is in favor of the article.  The proponent has introduced a simple metric to resolve a complicated issue.  Residents don't like large new homes in their neighborhood blocking their light.  Unsure of the unintended consequences, but is in favor of the intended ones.  Mr. Jamieson would like to know if the home in one of the pictures is actually in Arlington (yes).  He asked how many tear downs per year?  Fire Chief Kelley is uncertain of the actual number, but it is certainly more than 10.  He said there are may be 15 on his current list.  Mr. Jamieson described his existing home and how imposing the sky plane on his narrow lot would lead to an awkward outcome.  He encourages a negative vote.  Ms. Evans speaks in favor of the article.  Sky exposure planes are often used in commercial codes.  Arlington has extensive residential rooftop solar, and this will serve to protect those installations.  Mr. Revilak wanted to understand moving the building to the center of the lot, irrespective of the solar orientation.  The proponent noted that reducing massing was their primary concern.  Providing access for solar was secondary.  He also wanted to know whether Inspectional Services had any comments regarding enforcability.  Mr. Byrne (Director f Inspections) admits he is a little confused about it, but his department will enforce whatever Town Meeting approves.  Mr. Revilak had a question about the angle of the hypotenuse, as you only need two sides and an angle to define a triangle, and this has more information than required.  Ms. Zsembery noted that the ARB recommended no action and indicated that there was not enough research in trying to determine the impact on odd lots.  Mr. Revilak thinks this a neat idea, and would encourage resubmittal next year if not approved.

Mr. Schlichtman moved to terminate debate, although he was the last speaker on the list.  Mr. Goff raised a point of order asking if since there are no other people seeking to speak, do we really need to take up time with this vote.  The Moderator confirmed that we do.  The motion was approved 221-7.  This brings up the vote on the substitute motion.  Similar to Article 46, I am tempted to vote to put it in front of the meeting, but I don't think that is a great idea.  I am in agreement with Mr. Revilak.  Mr. Jamieson has a point of order to clarify that there are existing side yard setbacks; he felt the Moderator might have said something that confused that issue.  The Moderator agreed that we have side yard setbacks.  The vote on the substitute motion failed 90-134.  Ms. Bloom asked a point of order checking that we are voting on no action.  (The text on the screen was confusing.)  The vote on the recommended vote of no action was approved 176-41.

Mr. Foskett moved to take articles 53-60 off the table.  This brought up Article 53 on position reclassification.  The Town Manager explained that it includes reclassified positions as recommended by the Director of Human Resources and the Human Resources Board.  They are mostly title changes which would also include a change in the employment category.  The list also includes additions and deletions of positions.  Ms. Friedman had held this article off the consent agenda.  She wanted to know about two positions listed as new positions.  It was explained that the school sustainability coordinator position is being formalized after several years, and it will now be under the school department budget.  The DEI coordinator was established this past year, and we voted to fund it last week.  There was a question as to whether an employee was working for the town or serving as a contractor, and if the latter, how does that compare with what is in the budget.  The Moderator warned that we are drifting off topic.  Ms. Friedman asked whether the position would be increasing the person's compensation.  The Manager noted that if there is no corresponding compensation listed on the classification table, the position listed is just a reclassification without additional compensation. Mr. Ciano introduced Mr. Leonard, another town meeting member.  In the Finance Report budgets, positions to be removed are shown with a zero value, and new positions show a zero for previous years.  The Information Technology budget should be shown this way in future.  The Manager noted that in that specific case, the position of Chief Technology Officer was changed to Chief Information Officer to better align with what they do.  Since there was no change in salary or responsibility, the "old" position was not zero-ed out.

The Moderator ended debate for the evening, called for motions of reconsideration, and asked for a motion to adjourn.

------------------

Overall, that felt like a good night.  We covered a fair amount of ground, and I thought we gave appropriate time to all the questions before us.  By my count, we still have 20 outstanding articles, several of which are quite consequential.  I have high hopes that we will be able to finish next week, but it will take some solid work to get it done. 

In a prior post, I noted that the Diversity Task Group''s web page was out of date.  Mr. Gruber pointed out that she had requested interested people to go to the Town Calendar to find information on their upcoming meetings.  (I had missed that nuance earlier.)  One could also navigate to the Envision Arlington webpage for more information.

2021 Annual Town Meeting - Night Six

Welcome to Night Six of the Annual Town Meeting.  The Moderator noted that there are 26 articles left, so we need to pick up the pace.  Rieko Tanaka played the National Anthem.  Ms. Mahon moved that we continue to Monday, May 17 upon adjournment.  Mr. O'Conor, our former Assistant Town Manager asked to address Town Meeting.  His family moved to Ayer, so he is no longer on Arlington Town Meeting.  He thanked the town for letting him serve for 23 years on town meeting and for giving him the experience to be elected Town Moderator in his new community.  We wish him good luck.

There were a couple of notices.  Ms. Gruber from the Diversity Task Group announced some upcoming events.  (Unfortunately, their web page appears to be out-of-date, and I missed the dates that were offered during the meeting.)  Mr. Ruderman, the town's representative on the Minuteman School Committee announced that 5 students from Arlington had been selected for the National Skills USA Competition.  He described it as the Olympics for vocational and technical high school students.  We wish them well.  No reports of committees were presented, so Article 3 remained on the table.

Mr. Foskett moved to table articles 56-60 to bring up Article 61.  This was announced last week.  Tonight is the discussion of the Minuteman Regional Vocational High School budget.  The Moderator introduced Ms. LaCourt, the FinCom rep to Minuteman.  She thanked Susan Sheffler, the outgoing town representative to the Minuteman School Committee and congratulated Michael Ruderman on being her successor.  The school is doing well and will be starting a capital project for new athletic fields and lighting.  Dr. Bouquillon, the superintendent of Minuteman is here to present the FY2022 budget.  There are 170 Arlington students attending Minuteman this year.  Enrollment is increasing, and the percentage of in district placements is increasing as well.  I encourage anyone who wants to do a deeper dive into their budget, to go the the Town Meeting website and review the slides.  Arlington's assessment for this year is $6.8M.

Mr. Kardon proposed an amendment to reduce the appropriation by $10 as a symbolic measure to protest the allocation of students for next year's freshman class.  This was denied by the Moderator.  Mr. Kardon then encouraged the members to vote down the budget.  The school is getting too popular.  Twenty-two Arlington students were wait-listed while out-of-district students were enrolled.  We were supposed to have priority as we are an in-district school.  This is likely a symbolic vote, but it would send a message to the school.  The Moderator allowed Dr. Bouquillan to respond.  His understanding is that there are only 13 Arlington students on the wait list and 13 additional in-district students wait-listed.  There were 277 applicants from 9 member towns.  The Admission Policy was created when the school was under-enrolled, and there was room for all students.  The administration didn't want to change the policy in the middle of the admissions process.  He sees this as a real problem, and is appreciative of all the efforts Arlington made to get the school rebuilt.  The Moderator asked what the chances are that the 13 students will get in?  Dr. Bouquillan thought there was a good chance, but he couldn't guarantee it would happen.

Mr. Heigham asked if there was there a limit on the number of Arlington students. The superintendent said "No", but there is a slot allocation formula based on previous years' allocations.  They try to honor those allocations.  Arlington had many more applicants than slots.  More slots were provided to Arlington, but there are still more potential students.  Mr. Heigham asked about the large increase in the town's assessment.  Is this trend going to continue?  Mr. Foskett noted that the increases are due to the capital improvements.  The operating budget increase is actually less than 3%.  We have a debt exclusion for the capital portion.  Mr. Heigham asked if the increases should be leveling off?  Dr. Bouquillan noted there is a multi-town agreement, and assessments are based on the number of students attending.  Minuteman is popular in Arlington.

Mr. Jamieson had a question about capital costs.  Was reconstruction of the fields not included in the rebuild cost?  The superintendent noted that some field funding came out of the MSBA funding, and money was pooled from several sources.  The district is seeking to borrow funds for lighting.  Mr. Jamieson was worried about additional non-MSBA capital expenses being assessed.  He had several questions about expenses and allocations.  The superintendent didn't know whether federal Covid relief funds would be sent directly to regional schools.  Mr. Jamieson was also concerned that Arlington students are not all being admitted.  Ms, Weber thanked the superintendent for his presentation.  She noted there were many acronyms and asked if there could be a glossary included with the presentation next time.  Dr. Bouquillan agreed that would be a good idea.  Mr. Quinn thanked Mr. Kardon for bringing the admission question to us.  His understanding was that being a member of the district would benefit us and our students.  He would like a better understanding of situation.  The Moderator broke it down to "What's in it for us?"  Dr. Bouquillan noted the policy for acceptance is based on state regulations and deadlines.  There was a February 15 application deadline and multiple rounds of admissions.  There might still be slots coming available.  Arlington got 35% of the available slots.  Mr. Quinn felt like a disservice was being paid to Arlington students.  Ms. LaCourt was asked for comment.  She stated that our assessment is mostly based on number of students sent (based on a four-year rolling average).  This was the first she heard of there being 72 slots.  Eighty-one students were admitted first round.  She also noted the per pupil cost of attending Minuteman is higher than Arlington High.

Mr. Hamlin made a motion to terminate debate.  It is a tough question, but I think we need to move on.  We need to pass this budget now or later.  It is far from ideal that Arlington is not having all its applicants accepted, especially when out-of-district students are being admitted.  However, voting down the budget won't change that condition.  I believe we need to have our Minuteman School Committee member raise heck.  The vote failed by one vote, 151-76 (66.5%), as it is a required 2/3 vote.  Mr. Foskett noted that the Finance Committee unanimously approved the budget.  Their operating budget increase was less than Arlington and Arlington Schools.  The process and deadlines for submission were explained, and the superintendent noted he was uncomfortable with the outcome this year.  There is also still time to admit more students.  The town is in a multi-town agreement.  If we vote it down, we will be assessed by the state for being in violation of the agreement.  He strongly encourages favorable action.  The Moderator asked what happens if we reject the budget.  Mr. Foskett noted we would need a special town meeting to allocate the funds, and we run the risk of being sued by the state.

Mr. Dennis raised a point of order.  There had been a standard of allowing a small easily understandable amendments.  The Moderator had rejected Mr. Kardon's amendment, because it put the town in financial risk.  Mr. Jamieson noted that we have been told in the past that voting it down would not matter.  The Moderator noted that we would still need to come back to vote on the funds.  Town Counsel noted that under the Minuteman agreement, the budget needs the approval by 2/3 of the schools in the district.  Voting down the budget might have no effect there.  However, we would need a special town meeting to allocate the money as our books will be unbalanced.  Ms. Morgan was listening to the 2016 Town Meeting (Dedication!) to revisit the discussion on approving the override for the Minuteman rebuilding.  At that time, the district was under-enrolled, and Arlington was essentially guaranteed admission.  She worked hard to get the new school and agreement approved.  We don't want our students to be held out by out of district students admitted before all the in-district students are accommodated.  Dr. Bouquillan noted that during this year's admissions process, 10 out-of-district students were admitted, and Arlington still has 13 students on the wait list (23 including students from all in-district towns).  He is not able to determine how many of those 10 spots might have gone to Arlington students as opposed to other in-district towns.

Ms. Cohen piggy-backed on Ms. Morgan's question.  Why were in district students held out when out of district students were admitted?  The superintendent repeated that there were 98 applications from Arlington for 72 slots (based on prior years' attendance), and 81 students were admitted.  The students are scored based on their applications, which determines the order in which they get placed.  Ms. Cohen asked why out-of-district students get any priority?  Dr. Bouquillan said the admissions policy was approved by the Department of Education, and it allows out of district students to apply.  Ms. Cohen asked if we reject the budget, are we sending a message?  The Moderator commented, "That's one way to look at it."  Maybe, the moderator should have allowed the amendment, so we can send a message without jeopardy to the town.  Mr. Schlichtman, a former representative to the Minuteman School Committee raised a point of order.  A reduction of even $1 would be considered a rejection of the budget. If the budget isn't approved by a vote of the towns, the district needs to revise and resubmit the budget.  If the town doesn't hold a special town meeting to vote on the revised budget, it is assumed to be approved.

Mr. Jalkut, like many of us, is a little taken aback by this topic.  This is a difficult issue to address. 
It is good that it is coming forward on a year when we are not asking for more money.  That would be terrible PR.  We are a major contributor to the school, paying way more per student to have them at Minuteman than at AHS.  Past enthusiastic support of Minuteman left the impression that being a member gave special admissions privileges to students in member towns.  We mistakenly thought out-of-district students would only be considered if there were spaces after all in-district students were considered.  What other towns are being wait-listed?  Dr. Bouquillan noted that 7 of the 9 member towns have wait-listed students.  Sixty-five out of district students were wait-listed and will not likely be admitted.  The point system has led to some Arlington students being wait-listed.  Mr. Jalkut asked whether there were other policies aimed at increasing the diversity in ways that don't benefit Arlington students.  The Moderator stepped in and stated we have gone way off topic, but the question will be allowed.  Dr. Bouquillan noted that a policy to increase diversity would be illegal under state law.  He also noted that the State had made admissions closed to students from urban areas.  (There was no explanation provided for this decision by the State.)  It is 9:35, so we will take our break.  The Moderator wants to get us back to the actual discussion of the budget upon our return.

---------------------

Back from break, the Moderator said that missing the "Attendance Vote" at the start of each session does not mean that members are marked absent from the session.  Any vote taken during the session will count as verifying attendance.

Mr. Moore asked if there was a way to separate the approval of the budget from the allocation of the funds, possibly as two votes.  Town Counsel said we could not do that without putting the town in jeopardy.  Mr. Hanlon had a point of order asking whether after the approval of the budget, the meeting could pass a resolution expressing our displeasure.  The Moderator said yes, but it is not a point of order.  Mr. Dunn very emphatically stated that this is not the way it should work, this is the first time this has happened, and the Minuteman school committee needs to address the issue.  Ms. Leary wanted to know that since the state requires access to a vocational education, will affected students be given an alternate path to get that education?  Will the town have to pay for that?  The Town Manager believes that the responsibility falls on the town, which would need to pay the costs involved to send the student elsewhere.  Ms. Leary thought it was unfortunate that the students and families would need to scramble to find a placement, now that all the deadlines have passed.  Ms. Heigham noted that we need to determine whether Minuteman is fulfilling their side of the agreement that they have made with the town.  She stated that Minuteman is not meeting their obligations under state law for admitting students from Arlington.  She continued that we would not be in trouble with the state if we voted down the budget.  There would be a remediation period first to address the issue, and this situation would surely apply.  Ms. Heigham was concerned that the program of study was not publicly available, and asked if it could be shared with Town Meeting.  Dr. Bouquillan confirmed that it is on the school's website.  Ms. Heigham asked if it was known which programs the effected students were requesting.  The superintendent stated that each student selects three different areas of study and then enter an exploratory semester before choosing a course of study.  He did not have the breakdown of the preferences on hand.  Ms. Heigham noted that students interested in a vocational education might inadvertently rank low, because they have not been engaged in their traditional school.  She encouraged a vote against the budget.

Mr. McCabe moved to terminate debate.  This is the second time, so I think we are more apt to pass it this time.  Oh goodness, this is a difficult decision.  I agree that it is not appropriate for Arlington's students to be held out of Minuteman, especially if there were slots used by out-of-district schools.  However, we have made a commitment to the district to pay our fair share.  Still, Minuteman is not keeping up their end of that bargain.  The motion to terminate debate passed 201-23.  This brings up the vote on the main motion.  I am not convinced that the possible downside of failing to pass the budget is worth the risk.  I would agree with Mr. Hanlon's idea of having a resolution voted and sent to the Minuteman School Committee expressing our displeasure.  The vote on the budget passed 169-55.

Article 56 is now taken off the table.  This brings the Capital Budget in front of Town Meeting by an affirmative vote of the meeting.  Ms. Worden had a point of order that she could not register her vote on the previous article.  She kept getting the spinning icon.  The Moderator noted that we sometimes need to refresh the screen several times.  I would have hoped that this bandwidth issue would have been resolved by now, but it seems to be persisting.

Mr. Foskett presented an amendment to the Capital Budget to correct a typo and change some of the borrowing amounts.  Mr. Yontar asked for 15 minutes for the committee's presentation, which was granted.  He hopes we have all watched the videos posted to the website.  We then watched a video from the DPW project architect, Mr. Alberti. Construction costs are particularly volatile since we started emerging from the pandemic.  Since the vote to increase the budget last October, the cost of steel has increased nearly exponentially as has lumber, copper, and many finishes.  We are now short $5.4M.  There is a proposal to raise the additional funds through the issuance of a bond.  This will impact capital budgets for several years.  Mr. Reedy, Chair of the Town Building Committee noted the committee voted unanimously to request additional funds for this project.  The existing buildings are currently degrading, and postponing the work will only raise the costs.  Postponing work on the Mill Brook culvert could increase risk of flooding.  The construction contingency needs to be increased to correspond to the increased budget and material costs.

Mr. Ciano introduced Mr. Leonard to present an amendment regarding repairing the exterior marble at the Highland Station.  (While Mr. Leonard is a Town Meeting Member, he was joining the meeting through Mr. Ciano's connection.)  He asked why are the residents being taxed to make repairs to a building that has already been paid for?  He feels we are being asked to pay for someone else's mistake.  Ms. Weber wanted to know why we are always building on contaminated land, but we are never eliminating the contamination.  Town Counsel noted this was a good question as this comes up many times.  The question of who owns the contamination is unclear.  Many previous uses added arsenic, coal gas, and other contaminants.  It is unclear who needs to pay.  Ms. Weber believes we should just eliminate the contamination.  (Based on my professional experience, the costs of full remediation are staggering.)  Mr. Jefferson asked that we not support Mr. Leonard's amendment, not because Mr. Jefferson was Fire Chief at the time, but because this has already been vetted by several committees.  It is a repair and not a continuation of the building project.  Chief Kelley, the current Fire Chief stated the damage came from the trucks hitting the marble bulwarks.  The plan includes improved bollards to protect the repaired bulwarks.  Mr. Yontar also recommends a vote against Mr. Leonard's amendment.  There is no line item veto, and voting against the repair just means that it won't be fixed.  Mr. Jefferson strongly recommends a vote for the main motion.

Mr. Auster had a question about the request that some of the additional funds come from the water and sewer enterprise fund.  Mr. Yontar explained the proposed split between capital budget and water and sewer was derived by evaluating how much of the DPW use of the site is typically applied to water and sewer operations.  Mr. Auster asked if we will be increasing water rates.  Mr. Yontar noted the required expenditure should be able to be paid from reserves, but there could also be funds available from federal infrastructure grants.  If the full cost needed to be paid by ratepayers, the cost would be approximately $5 per household per year.  Mr.  Jamieson noted that this is an extremely difficult site to work on.  We are only building there because that is all the land we have.  He asked whether the items that were removed from the budget be returned.  Mr. Reedy said that the cost reductions implemented would likely remain out of the project even if bids came in lower than anticipated.  The committee is not interested in adding to the project.  Mr. Jamieson recommended that any leftover funds not revert to the project as this is the second request for additional funds.  He asked whether items noted as debt exclusions are being exempted appropriately.  Mr. Foskett indicated they are, as they are reserved for specific purposes.  Ms. Butler rose in favor of approving the increased funds.  In renovations, you need to address problems that you discover, or they will keep coming back.  She also had a great anecdote about living in an apartment over an abandoned spring; watch the video on ACMi.

The Moderator reserved the speaker's list for the next session, took notices for reconsideration, and requested a motion to adjourn.

---------------------

It is a tough call about how we did as a whole tonight.  The conversations we had were really important, even if they did drift off scope at times.  When there are multiple speakers addressing the meeting on the same topic, even if they want the same outcome, they often have important differences in why.  Some of the later speakers had relevant experiences that were really important to hear.  I'm at a loss for how we can avoid going into June.  The only hope is once we get back to and passed the zoning articles, the remaining appropriations will not require as much deliberation.  We are a deliberative body that likes to deliberate, but without the social cues we recognize meeting together in a big room, we tend to go on longer that necessary.