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.
No comments:
Post a Comment