Special Town Meeting - Fall 2020 - Night Five

 We're back for Night Five.  I logged in right at 8:00, so I missed the pre-show.  Apparently, there was something involving music and llamas.  Once the meeting opened, we accepted a report from Zero Waste Arlington before continuing the debate on Article 17.

The first speaker was the Building Inspector.  He indicated that his department reviewed two years of records and found no cases of the Good Neighbor Agreement being ignored.  He also pointed out that including the cross-link in the zoning bylaw will change how appeals are handled.  Under zoning, and appeal would go to the ZBA, then state court.  This would significantly delay a project.  He noted that this would apply to both developers and homeowners.  There was a point-of-order seeking clarification on how the speaker's list is handled by the moderator.  He noted that he has a different screen from the members, sorted by order of entry onto the list.  He also noted that the order is his prerogative.  As if to prove the point, the next member called upon promptly moved to end debate, something that member is well known to do.  With the extended debate at the previous meeting, the debate had covered all the points of view, so I voted to end debate.  The vote favored ending debate, 167-65.  That brought up the vote to accept the substitute motion.  I still oppose this motion, so I voted no.  I was in the minority, as the motion was adopted 151-84.  This brought up the final vote on the substituted motion.  I again voted no, and again I was in the minority as the article was approved 164-75.

Articles 18 and 19 both had a recommended vote of "no action" and no substitute motions filed.  As such, we voted them both together, and they were closed 233-3.

Article 20 was a vote to change the parking requirements for two of the business districts, B3 and B5.  In these districts, there are many buildings that have no land available for parking.  This lack of parking capacity required a variance from the ZBA in order to change the use of an existing building.  The proposal would allow the ZBA and ARB to reduce the number of required parking spaces to as low as zero depending on the conditions at the site.  The first question asked how reducing the parking would encourage more customers.  The issue is that there are enough spaces in town lots and on-street spaces.  However, those don't count toward the required parking.  To take advantage of this option, the applicant would need to provide other amenities to reduce the need for transportation services.  A representative of one of the business districts spoke in favor of the article.  A member of the ZBA explained the case of the proposed Arlington Heights pub, which needed to be issued a variance, because it didn't couldn't provide the required parking.  We had another speaker from East Arlington in favor of the article, understanding the impact it has on the surrounding streets.  He was a proponent of pedestrian and bicycle access, and this emboldens those modes of transportation.  The next speaker appreciated that the proposal would require considering each request individually.  There was a question about including residentially used business zoned parcels in the discussion.  There was concern about the amount of parking in the heights, and how it would be impacted by this article.  There was a clarification that this has no impact on the overnight parking ban.

The next speakers noted that there has been a lot of discussion about vacant storefronts.  This article will remove an impediment to attracting new businesses.  There was a question about bike sharing.  The next speaker sought assurance that the proposal would not apply to mixed-use projects.  A resident from the Heights noted that most proponents of biking live in the flat lands of East Arlington.  He decried the lack of public transportation in some areas of town.  He doesn't see how reducing parking requirements will be beneficial.  We then stopped for break.

Upon returning from break, the first speaker moved to terminate debate.  The arguments had been well articulated, so I voted to end debate.  The vote was 211-23.  The vote on the recommended vote was 213-26.  I strongly supported the article, because it removed an impediment to reuse of existing business properties.  I'm glad that it passed as handily as it did.

Article 21 was a request to amend the zoning map to change a parcel owned by the town from residential to industrial.  This parcel is between the DPW and the high school.  The town wants to use it for the DPW project, but the facilities are not allowed in a residential district.  After the presentation, there were no speakers on the list, so we voted right away.  This change is important to the renovation of the DPW, so I voted in favor.  The final vote was 237-4 in favor of the change.

Article 22 was a vote to accept the results of collective bargaining agreements.  As no such agreements have been reached, the recommended vote is reported as "no action".  This article was closed 242-0.

We voted Articles 23 and 24 last session, so we are on to Article 25.  This is a resolution regarding the display of a Black Lives Matter banner at town hall.  The proponent submitted an amendment as a part of their presentation.  I was uncertain about the original language, as it seemed to require the Select Board to get Town Meeting's permission before removing the banner in the future.  This is something that Town Meeting may not lawfully do.  The amendment removed that "requirement" and encouraged a continued public engagement and real effort towards inclusion.  This is a forward-looking statement that I welcome.  The opponents were very clear that they support the black lives matter movement.  They just oppose the Black Lives Matter banner, as it is linked to a specific organization who raises funds through a Democratic political fundraising organization.  Their argument is that Town Meeting would not vote to erect a banner for a Republican fundraising organization.  Per the Moderator's direction, there was only one statement in support and one in opposition.  The resolution is non-binding.  We had a string of Points of Order.  One wanted to clarify that the proponent agreed with the amendment, which they did.  There were several attempts to continue the debate through points of order which was rejected at every turn.  A member then tried to debate through the raise hand feature used for voting issues.  Again the Moderator closed it down.  The vote on the amendment proceeded, and it was interrupted by another point of order.  This one was real, confirming this was the vote on accepting the amendment.  The amendment passed 170-40 with 30 abstaining.  New points of order were raised, one which noted that the raised-hand was to note that there were outstanding points of order, not an attempt to continue debate.  The final vote on the amended motion finally passed 166-34 with 38 abstaining.

Article 1 was taken back off the table and closed.  The meeting was then dissolved.

I want to join the Moderator in his praise and appreciation for the staff and volunteers who made this Special Town Meeting possible and successful.

 I did not anticipate that we would finish tonight.  I hadn't considered that there were three "no action" votes in addition to a resolution.  The Moderator made good use of the speaker's list to let debate flow until it became repetitive, and he called on the closers.  The Moderator did warn us that the Annual Town Meeting in the spring will likely be on Zoom as well.  I really hope it doesn't come to that.

I am up for reelection this spring.  It has been my pleasure serving the residents of Precinct 10 these past few years.  I hope you consider my service valuable enough to consider voting for me again to be your representative for another three-year term.

Best Wishes to all, please stay safe and healthy, and thank you for your support.

Christian

Special Town Meeting - Fall 2020 - Night Four

Welcome back to the fall special town meeting.  "It was a dark and stormy night."  At the start of the meeting, there were portions of Precinct 11 without power.  The Moderator made the determination that there was a quorum, and opened the meeting.  There were no new reports to receive.  There was a motion to table articles 15-22 to bring up articles 23 and 24.  This was proposed because there was an outside consultant available tonight to address questions on those articles.  There were a couple of objections, but the vast majority of the meeting was amenable.

Article 23 was a capital budget request for an additional $8.9M for the redevelopment of the DPW Yard.  There were several reasons presented for why the town needs to allocate additional funds.  The project was delayed in the planning phase to allow coordination with the high school project on an abutting property.  The method of contracting was changed to better contain project risks.  There was an unforeseen escalation in construction costs last year.  Finally, the IT and Facilities Offices were incorporated into the new DPW plan and removed from the high school project.  This was well presented in a video presentation played at the start of the discussion.  That video is available from the Town Meeting Website.

There were several questions about the project.  Here is a synopsis of the responses.  If approved, the work will start in the spring and continue for two years.  The site is contaminated and prone to flooding.  We have already redone the other major department facilities, so the DPW is due.  This will come out of the Capital Budget and will not increase taxes.  The town already has moved many of its IT server needs to the cloud, so the server area proposed for the new facility will be properly sized.  Moving to the Contractor-at-Risk contracting model is a sound proposal.

This was a welcome debate on an important topic.  When the inevitable motion to terminate debate was proposed, it felt like the right time.  The debate was terminated on a 217-22 vote.  Since the vote on the main motion includes bonding, it requires a 2/3 vote.  The final vote on the recommended vote, on which I voted in favor, was approved 237-9, well above the 2/3 required.

Next up was Article 24, approval of proposed CPA expenditures.  This is a followup to the same article at the Annual Town Meeting.  It comes with a video.  These projects were moved to the fall in order to keep the annual meeting as short as possible.  These projects fall under the open space (Minuteman Bikeway) and historic preservation (archeological and historic resource surveys).  There were a few questions about the schools included in the historic resource survey.  There were also questions about the archaeology survey.  There was then a motion to close debate which passed 210-27.  The conversation was all in favor of the proposal, so closing debate appeared to be appropriate at this time.  I voted in favor of the article, and I was joined by the vast majority of the meeting (236-6).

Power is back on in Precinct 11!  (9:00pm)

The previously tabled articles were taken from the table, and the discussion on Article 15 was resumed.  The Town Manager had circulated an FAQ earlier today.  There was a question of whether a different name would be better received than "Special Police".  Why should they be armed?  Why not flaggers?  These were asked rhetorically.  There were concerns raised about persons of color and the recent call to reduce the presence of police.  There was a call for using local officers who are familiar with the town.  It expands police presence, it increases pay opportunities to our officers, and it provides value to the town.  (I'm not sure I agree that having officers everywhere makes people feel safer or deters crime, but reducing response time in an emergency would be a net good.)  There was a correction to a statement made at the last session - savings from details don't revert to the town and are not available to be used for salaries.

The next speaker had experience with road work and felt there was a lot of value in having local police officers at work sites over civilian flaggers.  There was a point of order regarding whether it was appropriate to allow a prior speaker to speak a second time to make a correction.  The Moderator indicated that ordinarily this would be an issue, but since the speaker had spoke on behalf of the Town, it was important to have the error corrected.  There was then a call to end debate.  This was another article with a solid debate, and I felt that many points of view had been presented, so I voted to close debate.  For the first time, a closure vote failed.  The motion requires a 2/3 vote and it fell short, 143-90.

We took our break before the discussion resumed.

We resumed with an appreciation of allowing debate to continue.  It is important to hear all viewpoints, and terminating debate is overused.  (There was also an attempt to take a dig at certain members who serve on town boards and try to end debate on articles on which they have reported, but the Moderator turned that down.)  There was a speaker in favor who felt discussion of flaggers was out of scope.  There was a question of whether special officers could be called to serve on ICE checkpoints.  The Chief confirmed that the APD does not cooperate with ICE on any actions.  In responding to another member, the Chief indicated that there are instances where detail officers are able to assist the duty officers.  However, the speaker asked for hard data, which the Chief did not have on hand.  The following speaker asked for confirmation that voting down this article didn't mean that there would be flaggers (confirmed).  There could be financial detriments to the town by impacting the types of work that can be undertaken by officers.  The next speaker felt it was important to allow the relatively new Chief to run her department as she feels is at the benefit to the town.  There are 20 detail requests a day, and the Town is only able to find 15 officers on a usual basis.  Other towns are using their own officers more, so they are not available to Arlington.  Having locally trained retired offices available to the Town is preferential to outside police.

There was a question regarding the percentage of details that are private versus municipal.  The Chief estimated that approx. 75% of those details are privately financed.  There was a question whether retired police officers could serve as civilian flaggers.  (They can, but that is far outside the scope of this article.)  There was a question about the state law references that was asked and answered at the last session.  There was a question about what kind of details are able to be served by civilian flaggers and which require officers.  Why does the town not utilize civilian flaggers today?  The Town Manager answered that the state law governing flaggers makes it so difficult that fewer than 10% of towns have civilian flaggers.  The proposal asks to use locally available retirees to fill positions they have expressed interest in filling.  There was a question about why this warrant article is so specific when other articles are more broad.  The answer had to do with it being home rule legislation.  This was followed by a second motion to end debate.  I was a little reluctant to vote yes this time as there were still a number of speakers.  Looking at the list, I believe several of them are looking to speak for a second time, so I did vote to end debate.  This time, it passed 185-53.

I am voting in favor of the main article.  I do feel it is a little tone-deaf in this current political climate, but I do not believe that outweighs the benefits to the town.  A no vote will just preserve the status quo, where we have active out-of-town officers filling details that are not filled by active APD officers.  Having special officers from the ranks of retired officers in good standing will be a net benefit.  The motion passed 158-78.  It only needed a majority, but it made a 2/3 vote.

Article 16 is a vote of no action, passed 228-7.

Article 17 is a substitute motion for a recommended vote of no action.  The motion is to add a line to the Zoning Bylaw referring to a section in the Town Bylaw enacting the "Good Neighbor Agreement".  The proponent rightly notes that the agreement has not been well implemented or enforced.  The cross-reference is being added to improve compliance.  I don't see how this will accomplish what the proponent is trying to accomplish.  The first speaker thought it wasn't the best solution, but it shouldn't cause harm.  The ARB Chair explained that they had issued their recommended vote of no action because it creates a circular reference between the codes and definitions of terms do not align completely.  The proponent was advised to return with amendment to Town Bylaw.  The next speaker read a statement from a town resident encouraging the adoption of this article because compliance has been so weak.  The next member had a question as to whether the town has a checklist for compliance.  The Building Inspector thinks it is not being ignored and having it in both bylaws could lead to confusion.  He does not know of any instances of when it would have been ignored.  Compliance is on the checklist for being issued a permit.  The proponent only spoke to the Building Inspector in regards to a specific project that had emergency work being performed.  The member encouraged a no vote and encouraged the proponent to work with Inspectional Services to improve the compliance and possibly file a revision next spring.

(I was on the speaker list for a while, because I wanted to ask the ARB for some context to their decision.  Once that was asked for by others, I withdrew my name from the list.  I really don't see how this will address the concerns raised by the proponent.  I believe the issue is really that residents want the agreement to apply to many more projects than it is required to under the Bylaw.  The list of project types is fairly limited.  The agreement form is also hard to locate on the Town Website.  The Building Inspector says that his department includes a review of whether the agreement needs to be filed and has been filed on every building permit checklist.)

A speaker asked if there was a survey made regarding compliance with the bylaw.  The Planning Director noted there was a survey in 2019 that found among people who should have been contacted, there were equal numbers of those who recalled receiving the notice and those who did not.  (There was a small number who could not recall.)  The member asked if there could be elaboration regarding the nature of the inconsistencies between the Zoning Bylaw and the Town Bylaw.  The ARB Chair noted that the definitions in the Zoning Bylaw would expand the scope of those projects under the scope of the agreement.  The member thought adoption of the motion would not necessarily improve the situation, but it will not hurt.  A member of the original working group who proposed the original article spoke in favor of the substitute motion.  A member offered anecdotes regarding how projects near her home hadn't provided notice that she could recall.  (From her description of the work, "gut renovation", the agreement didn't apply.)  The next member thought the Town Bylaw was clear and didn't see how the motion would make it clearer.

That was the last comment, as we reached the end of the night, and the meeting was adjourned.  It was  a much better night for discussion.  I felt that I learned a lot about the articles from the discussion, and I hope others found it valuable as well.  We will all be back on Wednesday to do it again. 

Special Town Meeting - Fall 2020 - Night Three

[This blog was started many years ago as a way to answer the question posed by voters, "What did you do at Town Meeting."  It is a personal question, and this blog reflects that.  It is a catalog of my votes, my reasons for voting as I did, and my impressions of the meeting.  It is not and has never been intended to serve as a definitive or authoritative record  of Town Meeting.  I understand that there are new readers to this blog.  Welcome!  Please be aware that your reason for reading this blog may differ from my reason for writing it.]

Welcome to Night Three of the Fall 2020 Town Meeting.  There were a few improvements put in place to assist with the running of the meeting.  The most visible was that votes taken over the phone or in writing were no longer announced publicly; they were entered off-screen.  Not hearing how certain people were voting during the vote was a great improvement.

If we don't finish tonight, we will come back next Monday.  We are not going to be threatened with coming back on Wednesday, the night before Thanksgiving if we don't finish.  Hopefully, we will make some great strides tonight.

After announcements, resolutions, and receipts of reports, we had a brief explanation of why we cannot start earlier than 8:00 pm.  (This was also addressed last week.)  We are starting this evening with 229 members ready to discuss Article 4.  This was postponed from last Monday so a substitute motion could be filed.  The previous discussion included many questions about why there are hours when the bike path is closed.  It is used at all hours, and the bordering towns do not have closed hours.  The originally proposed vote maintained hours, and did not have an option to eliminate hours.  The substitute motion would eliminate the maintaining of hours.  There were several comments from the membership both in favor and in opposition to the substitute motion.  Those opposed to the motion did support the original article to allow the Town Manager to set the hours.  A letter from a previous meeting member in opposition to the motion was read into the record.  There were concerns raised about whether an inconsistently enforced bylaw can lead to inequitable enforcement.  Chief Flaherty indicated that the bylaw is not strictly enforced, and there have been a declining number of complaints regarding late night use of the bike path.  A point of order sought to clarify whether the substitute motion was within the scope of the article, which the Moderator reiterated it was.  The question was called, and debate was terminated by a 217-19 vote.  I voted in favor of the substitute, because in the pre-Covid days, I was a frequent bike path user, and I would sometimes need to use the path late at night.  At those times, there were always few people out, if any.  The substitute was accepted 211-29, and the article was approved 228-14!

This brings us to Article 9, to extend the term of the Election Modernization Committee and modify its name, composition, and function.  Debate was terminated immediately (195-39), and the vote on the article passed 234-5.  Congratulations to the fine work of the committee.

Article 10 is a vote to accept a portion of state law to allow reducing the property tax burden on the parents of military servicemen and servicewomen killed in service of the country.  There was a brief introduction to the article, followed by a question as to the financial impact on the town.  The Town Manager confirmed this would apply to one family, and there were funds available in the tax exemption overlay to cover this expense.  The next speaker terminated debate.  I was on the speaker list, because I was seeking clarification as to whether the exemption is 100%, whether it is permanent, and whether it would reduce the amount of exemptions available to seniors.  (Based on a statement from the Asst. Town Manager, it appears that it is complete and permanent.  No answer on the impact on seniors.)  The town already offers a similar exemption to surviving spouses, so extending it to parents seems appropriate.  After watching the Moderator nearly blow a gasket over the points of order raised regarding the article, the vote was taken and the article passed 229-6.  (A point of order is very limited, and there were lots of questions and requests for clarification that would have been appropriate for general discussion.  This is the problem with forcing an early end to debate.  I feel that people just want to be done.  Debate is important, and letting questions be asked is essential.)

Article 11 is a request for a personal exemption for a resident who is 8 years past the cut-off age for applying for the civil service firefighter exam.  There was no explanation offered for the request.  The first speaker spoke about how the cutoff in the law is arbitrary, and encouraged a positive vote.  Another speaker felt it looked like we could be granting a personal favor.  She recommended that the town consider changing the underlying legislation to remove or increase the maximum age.  There were many other questions regarding the composition of the force, the retirement age, and other matters outside the scope of the article.  The questions were answered, and a motion to end debate was ended 221-20.  I was eager to hear from the individual, but it was noted that due to the format of town meeting this fall, he was unable to address the meeting.  I found the argument that the rule is arbitrary compelling, and decided to vote in favor of the article.  The vote was passed 214-24.

After taking a break, we started with Article 12, a home-rule request to consolidate the elections for town meeting members.  Currently, there are four members elected each year for a three-year term.  If a member steps down early, the remainder of their term will also appear on the ballot as a separate position.  Someone running for town meeting would need to decide which race to enter.  The proposal is to consolidate the vote for all open seats in a precinct under one vote, and the seats would be allocated with the longest available terms given to the candidates with the higher number of votes.  After the introduction, the first speaker voted to terminate debate.  Again, I find the frequent stifling of debate at odds with the purpose of town meeting to be deliberative.  We swear to "participate fully", and shunning all debate is anti-participatory.  The motion to terminate debate passed over my negative vote, and the final motion passed 213-29 with my support.

Article 13 is an article to allow ranked choice voting in town elections.  The initial vote of the election modernization committee and the select board was to move forward with a vote.  Before the start of town meeting, the committee withdrew the article, and the select board entered a recommendation of no action.  A point of order was raised to express displeasure that neither agency amended their reports to reflect the changes.  There were amendments submitted, but they were withdrawn when the recommended vote was changed.  A no action vote is not debatable, so went straight to voting.  There were a couple of points of order addressing how information was provided to town meeting or why it wasn't done so in time for the meeting.  The vote tally was 222-5.

Article 14 is a home rule petition to extend water rate discounts to more categories of our older residents.  There was a request to extend the discounts to all deserving residents regardless of age (by an older member no less), but no amendment was put forward.  Debate was then ended with eight members waiting to possibly learn more about the article. It does feel like this is a deliberate move to either rush ahead, or quash debate.  I note that the last two motions to terminate debate were raised by a member of the select board who put forward the recommended vote.  I strongly encourage allowing town meeting members to debate the articles as well.  I was with the majority in favor of the article 217-9.

Article 15 is a home rule petition regarding allowing retired police officers to serve as special officers to fill detail positions.  This was originally raised during union negotiations with the police unions.  The officers are inundated with requests for details, and there are times when the town is unable to provide a detail.  There were many good points regarding the seemingly poor timing of this article with discussions of reducing the presence of police around the nation.  There were also concerns about the reduced training requirements.  There was  a discussion regarding the use of civilian flaggers for details and the savings that might be realized.  I asked for clarification regarding several direct references to state law in the legislation.  Counsel explained there were exemptions from civil service protections, exemption from disability retirement, a reduction in indemnification, a removal of collective bargaining rights, and an ability to allow termination with or without cause.  Special officers are also exempt from the full suite of training required of regular officers.  I then made a plea to town meeting to allow more discussion of articles.  There are questions that need to be addressed on almost all articles.  Ending debate on the first or second speaker was never our practice when meeting in person.  We need to be allowed to participate.

There was a solid debate about the parameters on these positions.  The Chief noted that special officers would still be required to undergo training on their own time to qualify and maintain the positions.  The work performed by special officers does not impact any retirement account.  The special officers will not be salaried; they are paid directly out of the money paid to hire the detail.  Although civilians can be hired to serve in many of these positions at a lower cost, the difference is not as great as I would have thought.  We were going great with real debate when the clock struck 11:00pm, our evening cutoff time.  The speakers list is being held over to Monday, November 30.

---

This was a successful night in terms of passing through articles.  Until the last article, it was a poor night for informed voting and informed debate.  I think the reason for the abuse of the point of order is the inability to move forward with debate.  As town meeting members, we were not elected to rubber-stamp the reports from boards and committees.  In order to fully understand the articles and the implications to those who may be different from ourselves with different opinions and different experiences, we need to be able to hear their questions and the responses from those in authority.  Without it, we are not able to serve the residents.

Enough preaching, time for a nightcap.  Happy Thanksgiving to everyone.  I hope you are able to find a way to share the holiday with those you are not able to be with.

Special Town Meeting - Fall 2020 - Night Two

Welcome back.  Try to stay awake.  At the outset, the Moderator noted that at the blistering pace from Monday night, we will be complete after 18 sessions.  We must do better.  The Moderator made sure we understood what actually qualifies as a Point of Order, which will hopefully cut back on superfluous comments.

We started back on Article 5 regarding restrictions on new fossil fuel infrastructure.  The vast majority of speakers were in favor.  As a practicing architect, I spoke about how my consulting mechanical engineers have switched to heat pump systems to avoid installing new equipment that are reliable on fossil fuels.  Given the typical 30 lifespan of mechanical equipment, reduction of emissions will be pushed out past 2050.  That is too long.  There was a voice in opposition, discussing how homeowners should be allowed to make their own decision regarding how they want to heat their home.  The question was called, debate was ended, and the motion passed with 93% support.  Yeah!

This brought up Article 6, the creation of a Police Civilian Advisory Board study committee.  Two amendments were proposed and seconded, both reducing the space for the police department on the committee.  The Chief spoke about the efforts the department is taking to establish a review board independently.  There were comments encouraging holding off on the study committee until the Police Department's committee has a chance.  There was support for the article and the amendments.  There was concern about how the discussion might influence department morale.  An early motion to terminate debate was proposed, which I opposed.  The motion passed 182-58, so debate was ended.  I do not agree with reducing the police department's impact on this committee, as the committee needs the members of the department to feel that their concerns were also taken into consideration.  I voted against both amendments, but they both passed 162-77 (Kelleher) and 148-90 (Dray).  I do support the main motion, and although I do not agree with the amendments, I believe we are better off with an imperfect study committee than without any study committee.  I am hopeful that the concerns of the Police Department will not be ignored, and that the committee can come up with a proposal that is acceptable to everyone.  The final vote was 205-36 in favor.

Article 7 is a revision to the bylaws regarding Envision Arlington (formerly Vision 2020), including updates to terminology.  After the article was introduced, the first speaker requested to terminate debate.  I think it is bad form not to allow some debate when there is a speaker list, so I vote no.  Debate was terminated 231-10, and the final vote passed 242-3.

Article 8 is a proposal to establish a Municipal Affordable Housing Trust Fund for the town.  This fund would be administered by a local board who would disperse funds in support of affordable housing projects in town.  This one has four proposed amendments.  One would prevent the trust from investing in 40B projects (G3).  I think this would unduly restrict the administration of the trust, so I oppose it.  I also oppose the proposed amendment that would prevent local experts who live in other jurisdictions from serving on the trust (G2).  The two amendments regarding the income threshold for consideration by the trust are more difficult.  One could possible raise the threshold (K), and the other would lower the threshold (G1).  It is tempting to leave the original language alone, but I think it is better to err on the side of supporting only projects with lower income thresholds.  After a couple of speakers, the question was called, 182-52.  In the amendments, I voted yes for G1 (failed 66-166), no on G2 (failed 56-179), no on G3 (failed 51-172), and no on K (passed 170-53).  I got 50% on that portion of the voting.  I voted to approve the amended motion, and it passed 221-13.

We then quickly adjourned for the night.  This was a much better session.  In general, although there seemed to be a steady stream of voting issues, they were ably handled in the background during the voting period.  There were only a couple of superfluous points of order.  We were able to move quickly from topic to topic.  I was a little disappointed at how quickly debate was terminated on several items.  It is hard to be a deliberative body when we are not allowing debate to occur.  Maybe we will be more chatty on Monday.

Special Town Meeting - February 2018

I'm sorry I've been so busy that it has taken me a few days to get to my notes regarding the special town meeting.  I try to be quick about it, but sometimes it takes a little bit...

And that's all I wrote at the time.  It was a busy time at work.

2019 Town Meeting - Night Four

Welcome to night 5.  Madrigals came tonight.   No one selling snacks.

(OK, I don't think I have these in order.  Like the other ones, these are my rough notes.  I didn't go back to edit them, and now it is a year too late.)

John Leone - 22 articles left, should be able to finish tonight if we try hard
Diane Mahon - meeting continues to Wednesday, but hands in prayer that we finish tonight
ARFRR - Arlington residents for reasonable redevelopment
Porchfest
Al Tosti - Patrolman's bargaining accepted
No Reports

Article 37 (continued)
Christopher Moore - recruiting process (TM) process for selection in and outside of CS, support, assessment center
Bill Hayner - opposed, exam sets criteria, 3-4 grade teacher shouldn't be eligible
John Deist - move question, term deb yes (voice uncertain) (109-90)
Charlie Fosket - opposed, not broken enough to take whole departments out, only the police chief
Joe Tully - opposed, protection against political agendas
Betty Stone - support, assures open and competitive process, safety for everyone, best fit, largest pool
John Leonard - opposed, home rule required? (DH) no, home rule was due to position not being solely a chief
Gordon Jameson - supports, Maher & Moore persuasive, search should be broader than just department
Pete Guest - focus seems to be on ability to fire, rather than to hire, (DM) chief needs autonomy
Steve DeCoursey - opposed, expectation set that position will remain in CS, standard for termination, just cause removal
Bob Jefferson - Fire Chief, opposed, need strong independent voice, make strong equitable decisions, under a different TM, this could be a very different discussion
Jordan Weinstein - personal service agreement? (TM) yes, just cause firing, police chief is different from fire chief, concern about ICE and police involved shooting, Pedrini issue (poly-phobic), with that context, town needs to be able to assert control, support
Annie LaCourt - former APD hired as chief in other communities (TM) non-CS hires, who decides if OK to hire other than top candidate (TM) state CS commission, could we fire if policy against will of town (TM) appeal-able to CS board, (DH) other legal protections exist if outside CS, should be allowed to fully negotiate
Mark McCabe - opposed (not terminate - soo-prise, soo-prise, soo-prise) people enter to serve, take tests to improve themselves, to take chief out of contention, cuts morale, hire someone who doesn't know heart and pulse of time
Bob Redocia - oppose, similar to McCabe and Foskett, should be someone who comes up through the ranks, police and fire most important public safety organizations
Timor Yantar - inserted at request of town manager, why?  (TM) flexibility, accountability, CS not used in 30+ years, committed to hire from within for this cycle, support
Steve Revelak - what positions are hired under CS (TM) complete FD and APD ranks
Samantha /Deutcher - opposed, studies change in organization, too much disruption is detrimental
Eric Helmuth - move question, term deb yes (voice)
Vote no (126-81)

Article 34 Reconsideration
Schlictman - meeting unaware amendment would prohibit certain existing practices
no (85-93)

Article 38
TM - increase limit tax deferment , set to highest threshold
Sophie M - only 12 benefit today, how many could be added, not certain how many, but 12 is really low, deferment paid upon sale of property with interest (3.5%)
Christopher Moore - how does mortgage enter into equation, bank would need to sign off, does this limit participation, hard to determine, encourage town to figure out if there are issues
Michael Quinn - program for seniors May 23, in favor, better communication could lead to more participation
John Worden - great program, allows people to stay in home
Vote: yes (207-2)

Article 39:  Library Art Print Collection - Given in 1890's
Director - sell before value reaches $0, will of Winfield Robbins care and increase of prints 1925, first concerns, 1946, not worth cataloguing, many prints at National Portrait Gallery, laid off curator, BPL and Harvard both encourage dropping prints, vexed town for too long
Gordon Jameson - any Rembrandt in attic? No, Smithsonian gets to keep
Vote:  yes (186-7)

Break

Article 40:  Library Parking
Fisher - former 2hr/1/2hr, now 4hr, no free 15 minutes, resourced can park at library, others cannot, fees create barriers and reinforcement distinctions between users, Libraries now fine-free, visit shouldn't cost $1/hr, resolution
Michelle Dirocher - did library notice any changes in feedback (L) more turnover, complaints about cost, relied on parking committee, wouldn't want to see lower cost at risk of abuse
James O'Conor - appreciates desire to increase access, library wants to increase users, how do we include everyone? encourage town to find a way to make this happen
Rodderick Holland - meters at free public library bothers people, supports
Mustafa V - supports, could validation work?
Paul Schlictman - term deb yes (voice)
Substitute Motion: yes (121-61)
Vote: yes (125-52)

Article 41:  no action (voice)

Article 43:  Senior Tax Exemption
TM - home rule based on Sudbury / Concord model, redistribute burden from some seniors onto all others, would need to go before voters, depending on number of participants could increase bills by ~$65
Steve Revelak - income limit is ~70% of AMI individual, ~93% AMI couples (TM) set by State, how do we set mean property value (TM) assessed by similar property type
John Deist - great sympathy, would like to help, why such emphasis on elderly instead of younger people (TM) cannot completely rework Prop 2.5, would be surprised if State would allow individual towns to jiggle formula; that's what was figures
Sophie M - same people as deferral? (TM) 968 qualify, unknown number would benefit; could use both exemption and deferral (TM) yes; impact would vary based on property value (TM) yes
Charles H (1) - does wealth as opposed to income come into account (DH) application should account for that at State level; (TM) exemption also in bylaw language
Michael Quinn - many have zero assets apart from home, circuit breaker doesn't have asset requirements
John Worden - cannot pay real estate taxes from Social Security, suprised at number of people with home and nothing else, supports
Gorden Jameson - circuit breaker is more complicated than just having low income, should mimic state circuit breaker formula
James O'Conor - state pension does count against circuit breaker credit, house rich - cash poor
Anne Fitzgerald - white-haired senior, O'Conor's comments informative, windfall elimination tax can reduce social security, need to help seniors, keeping seniors in their home means one fewer student household
Paul Schlictman - term deb yes (voice)
Vote: yes (188-5)

Article 44: no action yes (voice)

Article 45: extend voting rights to legal permanent residents
Paul Schlictman - (Ben Rudick) home rule petition to allow town voting by all legal residents without regard to citizenship, simple fairness, wouldn't Arlington benefit from hearing from all residents, non-resident voting used to be more accepted, no longer since 1928, state needs to act
Rieco Tenaka - very important, Japanese immigrant, student to citizen in 28 years, paid taxes right away, many foreign countries do not allow dual-citizenship
Jim Detulia (12) - supports motivation, has reservations, talking to recently naturalized citizen, Form N-400, section 12, question 2 "Have you ever registered to Vote?", question 3 "Have you ever voted", same section as other disqualifying questions, make sure we are not harming prospective citizens, leave up to newly established committee
Michael Ruderman - proponent has a persuasive and dynamic presentation, engaged taxpayers deserve to vote, how do we decide who is worthy, pathway to citizenship should be followed, good and serious reasons to vote no
Timor Yontar - is this legal? (DH) home rule petition can be enacted to change state voting requirements,; symbolic? (DH) not wholly, but not likely to pass, state needs to act
Muldoon? - state has disenfranchised felons, working to get right to vote back, this is a great progressive action by TMM to encourage the state to move, welcomes opinions of all residents, franchising good, (BR) will accomplish nothing until state acts; citizenship application question (BR) if state approves, federal government would need to consider how question is evaluated
Ian B(?) - how would the practical side of voting work, any separate procedures (D Mahon) would be entirely same (TM) former election commissioner, new code in voting registry for local only voters
Sophie M - immigrant, became a citizen to vote, if you can vote without being a citizen, why bother, what is citizenship to each of us.
John Worden - may have multiple homes without voting in all locations, all kids married foreigners, if you want to be engaged, you can become a citizen, may be more complicated, but it can be done
Moore - term deb yes (voice)
Vote yes (131-51)

2019 Town Meeting - Night Three

Alas, sometimes the best plans go awry. I kept very careful notes on Wednesday night, but I didn't synchronize the file, and when I went to flesh it out on Thursday, it was gone.  ARGH.  I will have to go from memory. (Fat chance - a year later, and no idea what happened.)

We started with the traditional singing of the anthem and acceptance of reports.  Our deliberations started with Article 22.  This article corrected citation errors in the zoning bylaw.  During recodification, we missed a few references, and this made the corrections.  It was readily adopted.  Article 23 had been voted no action during the consent agenda.  Article 24 was a citizen initiative on behalf of the Residential Study Group to correct a problem with our definition for a half story.  Our residential zoning is based on a 2 1/2 story house.  This should be a two story house with a partly built out attic floor.  Under the former definition, it was possible to build out the attic into a complete third floor without violating the letter of the law.  This article would correct that problem.

I proposed an amendment to resolve two other issues with the definition.  The former definition listed specific roof shapes, which precluded other roof shapes.  I proposed to extend the definition to all sloped roof shapes.  I also proposed establishing a minimum roof slope to qualify for a half-story.  The chosen slope is the flattest roof that can support an asphalt shingle with full underlayment, 2:12.  After a few questions, the amendment was adopted and the amended article was approved.

Article 25 was voted no action under the consent agenda.

Article 26 was the second part of the vote on the revised sign bylaw.  Our former bylaw was in both the zoning and general bylaws.  The earlier vote under Article 17 replaced the portion in the zoning bylaw, and this article would make the corresponding change in the general bylaw.  After some discussion about the effects of the change and what regulations remain, the article was adopted.

Article 27 was about the amount of time speakers have at Town Meeting.  In the past, speakers had up to 15 minutes to make their case.  That was first reduced to 10 minutes, then to the 7 minutes we have today.  This proposal was to reduce that to 5 minutes.  The Town Meeting Procedures Committee recommended a no action vote, but the Select Board voted to approve the measure believing that it would improve Town Meeting's efficiency and encourage participation.  The There was a substitute motion to

2019 Town Meeting - Night Five

(I took a break after the end of Town Meeting before writing my comments.  I am writing from my notes taken during Town Meeting.  At least I was before I let a year go by.  Now these are only partially complete, but they will need to stay that way.)

Welcome to Night 5.  No new members tonight, but there are still buttons awaiting pickup at check-in.  Jane Howard played the anthem. Several announcements about community cleanups, and Al Tosti, the chair of the Finance Committee is to be the Rotary Club Citizen of the Year!

Moving on to reports:  the Dallin Museum's report is in the town's report; the Recycling Committee discussed outreach and education and reducing waste at Town Day and the Beer Garden; and the School Committee presented their report.  We then tabled Article 3, although I don't recall taking it from the table.

Per an earlier decision, tonight is school budget night.  We opened with Article 63, th Minuteman budget with their superintendent, Dr. Bouquellan.  He opened with an update on the new building.  The project is a year ahead of schedule and still on budget.  The ribbon cutting is scheduled for October 4, but it will be open for the fall semester.  Additional fields will be developed for the former building site, and those will open fall 2020.  He also showed an updated fly-through video pausing in completed portions of the building to show how the plans came to fruition.  Very nice.

Diane Dupont had a question about custodial staffing.  The budget calls for outside staff.  Dr. Bouquellan confirmed, noting retirements lead to search for cleaners experienced with a building of this type.  They have bid out for this service.  Roderick Holland spoke in support, noting his son attended and he was very engaged.  He is now a practicing engineer.  The final vote was unanimous, 209-0.

Articles 57-58 off table

Deist: Question on process, don't vote on vote both with and without override, sends bad message, we can come back
Tosti:  Coming back would be worse

Karden:  School report, five year budget plan, 600+ additional students, accompanying faculty and staff, additional funding, still below state average
Dr. Bodie:  thanks for support, could begin next summer, state house recognition of green initiatives, improve cultural competency, FY20 level budget

Which to discuss:  2 3 6 7 9 11 13 17 20 21 22 24 26

Select Board:  Mayor's Coalition membership - remove funding, not a city (Worden)
Paluso:  How does override work?  Tosti:  some funds directly to schools, seniors, and DPW, remainder goes into stabilization

Town Manager:  No one

Comptroller:  Jameson - process and comptroller report

Treasurer / Collector:   Trembley - no warning card for late excise tax, cards did go out, Ed "I'm totally wrong"

Assessors:  Yantar - Concern about increases (Kathleen Maloon) Control rising tax burden on residents, maintain an affordable community, 40 year resident, 6% last year, 16% this year, others higher,  dramatic land value increase, applied for abatement, told would need a building inspection, why if only a land value increase, abatement denied, increases are higher than people can absorb, no double-digit tax increases (Stanley O'Connor) denial of abatement, law requires reassessment of building and home, denial of entry is legal basis for denial, use sales to set rates, certified by Dept. of Revenue
Fisher - Does a rise in one neighborhood lead to a decrease in another (Tierney) No, tax rate reduction due to higher overall value of property in town, no link, Fisher: taxation without representation
Tosti:  2.5% cap is across entire town, not individual properties, overrides and debt exclusions, four exclusions all hit last year, alongside reevaluation made a big impact, our expenses are just increasing
Revelak:  big division problem with multiple constraints to set tax rates, land is just more expensive
Dave Reedy:  are LLCs handled differently than residential owners, for teardown's - final sale price is used
Holland:  rising values nice, people sell houses, neighborhoods don't sell houses, if you are not in the market, you don't see the value, can we assess long time residents differently than speculators (must use Mass standards for assessment, assessor only values the property, doesn't set the rate  (Heim) looking for other legal methods for abatement, needs state special law
Friedman:  where does land valuation come from - (O'Connor) sales
LaCourt: tax rate is much lower now than in 1982, but values are so much higher now
Schlictman: term debate (voice)

Town Clerk
Revelak:  any thought of digitizing the town's records (yes, but no action), good to preserve history and make it accessible
Muldoon:  is registrar of voters still in budget, separate budget, no remnants under clerk

Parking:  Fuller - no longer a parking clerk, who performs this function (TM) still figuring that out, still in Treasurer's office, under Treasurer line item
Yantar:  parking fines (TM)$426K, $390K previous (Y) chalking not allowed as trespass (TC) ruling does not apply to our circuit

Public Works:  Tremblay - how much salt? (Rademacher) 6,600T ($450K) (Tremblay)  why are employee salaries rising higher than 2.5% (Sandy) FinCom report does not realistically portray increases, shows two-years at a time, so actual is about half
LaCourt:  how does DPW determine where to spend money and how much is needed (MR) TM tells us our budget, look at previous years for direction, seeks to keep budget as tight as possible (Lacourt) town employees' costs go up when yours do, raises are important
Schedule for street sweeping

Fire Services: Fiore - concern about propane delivery trucks, house across from Hardy has propane tank (FC) cannot answer question, state regulation, town employees are trained for dealing with propane fires

Inspections

Education:  Jameson - read the annual financial plan, do a good job containing increases
Deist - Arlington schools among the top schools academically, spending per student in the lowest third

Health:  Stone - who is diversity position (CB) ADA coordinator is retiring, will take on that and coordination with town diversity committees (BS) Schools? (CB) 3/4 position, CB is on school diversity group, really exciting group, strategic planning
Mendel - on parent-led diversity group, coordination with health (CB) DIGS is a part of the discussion at the school level, town liaison would overlap

Insurance: pass

Deist motion:  don't vote on budget second votes depending on passing of override (TC) contingent budget is OK, voting this down means meet between June 11 and June 30 to change
Vote:  no (29-175)

Vote:  yes (207-2), contingent budgets: yes (198-11)

Art. 58 Capital Budget - Foskett:  3 projects, still well within state borrowing limits

Mustafa:  regarding $750K, reallocate from Lake Street Signal funds to flood mitigation west of Lake Street, never seen him stop at that intersection anyway
Patricia:  historic preservation good, culvert too small, leads to flooding, epitome of arrogance...

2019 Town Meeting - Night Seven

Welcome to night seven.  Hopefully, the last night.

(These are my rough notes, as I never got around to fixing them after Town Meeting.  It is a year later, and I couldn't complete them if I tried.)

Articles 47:  PEG Fund
TM Intro
John Maher:  support, feds are coming
Vote: yes (183-1)

Article 48: 
No discussion
Vote: yes (178-1)

Article 51:  CDBG
DM Intro
Vote: yes (175-0)

Article 52: Revolving Funds
Klein - overspending on ambulance fund
Fuller
Menman - zero balance funds, private/public road funds
Vote: yes (189-0)

Article 53:  Parking Fund
AC
Leonard - surplus will carry forward, need TMM approval
Worden - replacing sidewalks, why, (TM) prioritize accessibility, deplorable condition; bricks are more inviting and attractive
Derocher - scope of parking benefit fund expenditures, what is appropriate (TM) infrastructure improvements, operation of district including snow removal, stamped brick
Butler - bricks are unlevel, set in sand, liability suit waiting to happen, set in sand is not the way to do it
Melofchik - Cambridge Common is a good example, Broadway plaza include Memorial Park (TM) yes; public participation (TM) within 2 months; move anything (TM) no, sidewalks only, veterans group exploring moving memorial; wants to be informed
Helmuth - term deb yes (voice)
Vote: yes (185-3)

Article 54:
No action (voice)

Article 56:  Collective Bargaining
DTM - settlement of collective bargaining, ranking officers
Tosti - FinCom unanimously supports
Weinstein - what are average salaries now and going into future (DTM) $70K - 125K
Moore - retroactive
Friedman - typical period of contract (DTM) 3 years
Subst. yes (voice)
Vote: yes (189-2)

Article 60:  Transportation Infrastructure Fund
TM - money from Uber and Lift rides originating in Arlington, permanent implementation of Bus Rapid Transit
Vote: yes (188-4)

Article 64:  Committees
Sophie - why 8-7 vote (AT) public art keeps growing, not core mission, was over amount of seed money; commission on disabilities (AT) all funding through town meeting, trying to be more active; oversight of committees
LaCourt - part of pushing arts, FinCom appointed a liaison to the arts community
Yontar - Term Deb yes (voice)
Vote: yes (187-2)

Article 65: Events
Sophie - are we funding Town Night (TM) primarily private funds, decision to cut night was due to volunteer commitments, no current plans or funding for town night
Vote: yes (187-4)

Article 72: Overlay Reserve
Jameson - money from excess growth, move to stabilization (DTM) lots of money
Vote: yes (193-0)

Article 75: Cannabis
Tosti - "tokin" discussion, establish fund for future revenues, $1
Vote: yes (185-2)

Article 77: Fiscal Stability Stabilization
Vote: yes (190-1)

Article 3: off table

2019 Town Meeting - Night Six

Welcome to Night Six

(These are presented as rough notes, as I was too tired to try and edit them down.  It is now a year later, and I couldn't fix them if I tried.)

 

Test Vote
Announcements:  financial program for seniors
Meetings regarding Restorative Justice
Opportunity to Thank You - 50 years for John Worden - street sign

Reports of Committees:  none

Back to Article 58: 
Worden Amendment - flooding mitigation
Levy - delay DPW and Senior Center 2 years
Jameson - "discontented" rescinding previous years' borrowing, so many trucks, why voting machines (no response), wants to know more about DPW Project
Dennis - purchasing voting machines, our machines are outdated, use WinXP, no longer manufactured, is there a state reimbursement (don't know), will be ready for 2020
Dunn - against amendment, why intersection project is important, is there a problem - yes, how to resolve it - TAC did two studies before SB approval, at 75% drawing
Foskett - (Rademacher) flooding is hard, cannot increase culvert an push problem downstream
McNeal - approve Lake Street crossing before someone dies
Hayner - for Lake St crossing, will anyone police it
Friedman - override and Capital Budget, (Foskett) keep Capital Budget at 5% of total non-exempt budget, override includes both, how much will override add ? (TM) $350 / ave. house
Fisher - how much playting field being lost to parking for DPW? net gain with AHS/DPW projects
Bilskis - thanks to DPW, lives near Lake St crossing, on design committee, Brooks and Lake, will town perform followup (TM) yes
McCabe - term deb yes (150-57)
Amendment - no (20-189)
Vote - yes (198-14)

Table 59-67
Article 68 - CPA
Helmuth -
Melofchik - Wittemore Park, tree canopy, doesn't want to lose tree canopy, doesn't like urbanization, sun baked plaza, doesn't reference other historic parks, don't think she understands project, projects should have climate resiliency at its core, environmental concerns, wait a year, who owns the property, lots of money, application questions, deed restrictions, Amendent
Rowe - opposed to amendment
Schlictman - park is underused, fences keep people out, beer tap only attraction, sick trees will go anyway, amendment will only eliminate reworking of park
Tremblay - what is the funding?  (Rait:  $500K is phase 1, CDBG for phase 2, CapBud for phase 3), how much to remove 4 trees (MR) $5-8K, how much to remove railings (MR) week of labor
Greenfield - reservoir, supports making it a safer place to swim, got sick last year, Spy Pond Park playground upcoming? (EH) in CapBud for 2020
How much for beer - $1500, extra fee for exclusive use ot town hall park
Leonard - out of scope
Stamps - professional wanted to remove 13 trees, tree warden says 5, remaining trees will be healthier and canopy will fill in
Worden - 1984 why is Wittemore under historic preservation, original plan was to get rid of tracks, supports amendment
Jameson - term deb - yes (voice)
Amendment - no (20-191)
Vote: yes (199-15)

All articles off table, 3 back on table

Heim to speak on 35 and 50 - short term rental regulations
New State Law (12/18), registering, regulating, and taxing; state requires registration with the state, $1M liability insurance;
Moore - certification requirements on owner, specific inspections not required
LaCourt - registration required, requiring all departments to inspect is difficult for town, owners certify, implementation (TM) cannot proactively reach out until State regestry is established, SB to be helpful; in favor, town has a plan
Susse - runs an AirB&B, is in favor of all except 31 day requirement; 1/3 of renters are grandparents visiting for births, 1/3 are professors (DH) 31 day is state requirement
Revelak - what about non-conforming structures (DH) looking at illegal apartments
Yantar - term deb yes (voice)
Vote yes (202-10)

Table 36-49

Article 50 - STR Fees
Guest - agent and owner same rules
Vote yes (202-12)

36-49 off table

Article 36 - Election Modernization
Kelleher amendment - ex-officio to avoid conflict of interest, two TMM's
Moore - no requirements
Yantar - 9 goals, does this include goals of better distribution of materials, increase voter turnout, easier to run (DM) not specific charge but important, how do people get involved
Waxman - Cambridge election commission, rank choice voting, excited what this committee could do but doesn't meet specific qualifications
Olzinski - LWV in favor
Dutra (20) term debate no (voice)
Kelleher yes (109-84)
Moore no (152-47)
Vote yes (188-9)

Article 37 - Civil Service
Dunn - Civil Service limits pool and how they are evaluated, our process is broken, difficult to change civil service at state level, management control over police chief, if we had a chief at odds with TM and TMM, SB can fire but not under civil service, 19% of chiefs in state have civil service
Mahon - basic merit, assure employees against political pressure and arbatrary rule, keep politics out of it, don't relax requirements for the head of the department, CS requires training and examination at all levels, are certified, vote against
Jefferson - (Brian Gallagher)  APD, ranking officer association, vote against, loss of CS would impact leadership of chief, has worked well for 17 years, well respected department
Mahar - support recommended vote, former town council, requirements regarding hiring and firing, merit diluted by bonuses, firing for cause can be negotiated in contract, strong town manager act, best to give TM full authority, unfettered authority

2020 Town Meeting

Well, that was the strangest Town Meeting I've ever been a part of.  Two hours start-to-finish.  It was over way to early.

We started filing onto Peirce Field to sit in chairs six-foot on center.  It was cordial among the members, but it was strange not being able to really say "hello" and catch up.  The Moderator opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance instead of the Star Spangled Banner.  The blessing was delivered by Dr. Wong from St. John’s Episcopal Church.  It spoke to the racial tensions around us, and the involvement of the youth in working to better the community.  This was followed by the swearing in of the new members.

After brief remarks from Mr. Hurd on behalf of the Select Board, reports from the various boards were received.  We reappointed Mr. Worden as the Measurer of Wood and Bark and Ms. Wren nominated Mr. O'Conor to serve as the Assistant Moderator.

We opened with the first of two consent agendas.  This one was intended to accept all the "no action" votes put forward by the Select Board and the "refer to committee" votes by the Arlington Redevelopment Board.  Since there were no substantive votes, and no substitute motions were filed, the agenda should have passed quickly.  The Moderator still needed to give an opportunity for members to identify articles to be discussed if there was anything to discuss, which there wasn't.  Someone opted to hold on the first article.  They had no substitute motion, and seemingly no reason for holding.  The Moderator explained again why there was nothing to discuss, and the hold was withdrawn.  We then kept all the articles on the consent agenda, and approved the recommended votes.

We then skipped ahead to Art. 50, the Community Development Block Grant, a federal program under HUD.  It was accepted without debate.  We then had Dr. Bouquillon present the Minuteman budget.  It sounds like they are a little bit of a victim of their own success.  Assessments to the member communities are up because in-district enrollment is up, limiting out-of district funding.  There were several questions that were covered in the submitted report.  Please do your reading!!  The budget was approved.

There were only a few items on the Town Budget that members wanted to discuss.  There was a clarification sought on the difference between "Signal Maintenance" under the Town Budget (operational maintenance, like painting) and "Signal Maintenance" under the Capital Budget (long-term investments, like replacements).  There was a question on the amount of the reduction in funding under the school budget (10% reduction on the proposed increase, like all departments, as in the reading), answered by the new School CFO, Mr. Mason.  This was followed by Mr. Leonard's timely question about security at the AHS work site.  There was a theft reported last week, but the budget doesn't include funding for security.  Dr. Bodie reported that she had a discussion earlier in the day with various parties, and new high-resolution cameras were being installed around the site to supplement the existing building cameras.  There would also be better procedures for the storage of keys and locking the site.  Ms. Friedman had a question about the budget for the Ed Burns Arena, since it has been closed.  Mr. Pooler noted that there had been some layoffs of temporary staff, but there was every reason to believe that the rink could be reopened in the fall.

The really interesting discussion was over the police budget.  Mr. Weinstein raised an interesting question about the raises among the leadership in the police department.  All the upper level officers received 5-8% raises, while the patrolmen only received a 1.25% raise.  The answer, according to Mr. Pooler was that the larger raises actually reflected a two-year increase; year one was in collective bargaining article from 2019.  Meanwhile, the patrolman's union was operating without a contract for several years, and had now entered arbitration with the Town.  The conclusion is expected in the fall.  There was a further question about whether Town Meeting could discuss specific line items in a budget.  The Moderator said no; we could amend the budget for the department, but not for a specific item in the budget.  There was then an impromptu attempt to defund the police.  Mr. Weinstein sought to reduce the police budget by an unspecified amount.  It was unspecified, because the Moderator cut him off there, and indicated the request needed to be in writing.  He gave Mr. Weinstein an opportunity to write his request, indicating his displeasure at not receiving the request before the Friday morning deadline.  The Moderator seemed to talk himself out of granting the opportunity, decided that it was too late, and decided the request was out of order.  We never got to hear the final proposal.  As the sun set behind the DPW, and the field grew noticeably cooler, the Town Budget was approved.

The Capital Budget was presented by Mr. Yontar, new Chairman of the committee.  He replaces Mr. Foskett after 30 years of service.  As a town, we are indebted (really more like not in debt) because of his steadfast and reasoned leadership.  The Capital Budget is the only budget not reduced from earlier this year.  The decision was made, because delaying the expenditures only means making the same purchases later, possibly at a higher cost.  Mr. Weinstein noted that the police budget is the largest budget under the Town Manager, and asked about how the funding level for new police vehicles was reached, and whether a reduction was considered.  It was presented that the town typically purchases three vehicles every year with those funds, a marked vehicle, an unmarked vehicle, and motorcycle.  Ms. Dray asked about the longevity of the vehicles, and received a different answer from Chief Flaherty.  She indicated they tend to purchase two marked cars and one unmarked car every year, with a motorcycle purchased every four years.  The vehicles tend to last 3-4 years; longer in the Heights than in the East due to miles driven.  The parking division has two employees and one vehicle.  They are looking to replace that vehicle and add a second in the coming years.  The animal control van is five years old, and it too will need replacement in the coming years.

Mr. Jamieson noted that the police budget wasn't the largest, as water and sewer was more than three times as large.  He also extolled the 5% plan, where by the capital budget is set at 5% of the overall budget every year.  This has kept us on an even keep for decades.  Ms. Lacourt Noted that the DPW budget is even larger.  She wondered if the 5% could be lowered in times of crisis.  Mr. Yontak agreed it could, but doing so could lead to deferred maintenance and a larger capital expenditure in the future.  Mr Deyst asked about the possibility of electric police vehicles.  A large portion of an officer's time is spent in the car with the engine at idle, using the electronics to perform their duties.  The efficiency of using power that way was presented as 5%.  An electric car would be much more efficient.  The Town Manager noted that Ford has an all-electric "pursuit-rated" vehicle, but it is still a couple of years from being practical.

We quickly discussed the sewer and water mains enterprise funds, then voted them along with the capital budget.   Since all three votes required a 2/3 majority for bonding, they were held together, they were approved unanimously.  We did community development in there somewhere, and it was unanimously approved as well.  We then voted the second consent agenda for funding items needing only a simple majority vote, and that were uncontroversial.  That was approved.  This left only the Fiscal Stability Stabilization Fund, which was approved as well.  Mr. Tosti rose to take Article 3 off the table to close the meeting.  Before doing so, he noted that he was stepping down after decades at the helm of the finance committee.  He thanked all those who had served on that committee and those who serve on Town Meeting.  He then called to dissolve the meeting for the last time.  He will be sorely missed.

With the meeting over, we couldn't just leave.  To maintain social distance, we were dismissed by rows, so we wouldn't bunch up on the way out.  Since it was only 8:30, there was still some time spent socializing and discussing the state of the town, the virus, the isolation, and what comes next.  Whatever it is, I hope it will be safe enough to do it a little more socially.

Best, and good health,

Christian