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 (Unfortunately, their web page appears to be out-of-date, and I missed the dates that were offered during the meeting.)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.
No comments:
Post a Comment