2022 Annual Town Meeting - Night Ten

Welcome to Night Ten of the 2022 Annual Town Meeting.  We just scratched the surface on the zoning articles at the last session, so we are in for some very interesting discussions.  We should be able to make real headway tonight.  There are eight articles between us and 38, and I hope we can get that far tonight.  We passed seven last session, maybe we can best that by one.

The Moderator called the session to order.  The Star Spangled Banner featured the dueling fifes of Cole and Owen M-Z.  The Moderator acknowledged the school tragedy in Texas, the second anniversary of the murder of George Floyd, and Memorial Day is Monday.  We observed a moment of silence to honor all of those remembrances.  The Moderator acknowledged feeling strongly about these things.  If you also feel strongly, know you are not alone.  Pursue change through the democratic process.  As we start on voting, we need to remember to treat each other with dignity and respect.

The Moderator introduced a change to voting portal.  When we are waiting for our voting wave to start, the text noting the delay would be highlighted in yellow so it would be easier to see.  This would only effect the appearance.  Members who have not been sworn in are to do so with the Town Clerk.  SBC Diggins moved that when we adjourn tonight, we do so to Wednesday, June 1.  There was a call for announcements.  TMM Wiener let people know the Jason Russell house is reopening this weekend for tours throughout the summer.  It is a great historic resource and and nice place to visit with family and guests.  TMM Foskett removed Article 3 from the table.  Alas, there were no new reports, so Article 3 was returned to the table.

We then resumed the discussion on Article 28, a proposal to enhance the character of new developments along the commercial corridors.  TMM Kaepplein asked for examples of what this bylaw would allow.  As an example, he asked whether 855 Mass. Ave, which has first floor glazing and is on the sidewalk, would meet the requirement, since all the windows are frosted over for privacy.  TMM Revilak, a member of the ARB, noted that it likely met the requirements for having an enhanced facade as provided by this article.  TMM Kaepplein asked how this was enhanced, as it is still a blank wall.  TMM Revilak noted that that situation would be different with a different tenancy, like a restaurant.  TMM Rosenthal noted that a large number of the buildings being replaced are being built without the facilities or accommodation for future restaurant uses.  Would this article have any effect in that regard?  TMM Revilak noted that there have been requests made during past hearings to provide the infrastructure.  However, this article is not about that; it is about facades and engagement, not uses.  TMM Rosenthal asked for clarification.  TMM Revilak noted this article would prevent a restaurant with a blank front wall, but it was not written to favor any particular type of business.  TMM Tosti motioned to terminate debate.  The motion passe 190-24 with two abstentions.  This brought forward the vote on the main motion, which passed 203-11 with three abstentions.

Article 29 was a proposal to require the planting of street trees on new developments.  Dir. Raitt requested that the pre-recorded video presentation be played.  The town has a tree bylaw for preserving trees on private property.  The tree warden plants 200-300 new street trees a year.  This article would require street trees as a part of new developments to increase the tree cover, reduce heat islands, and improve the environment.  The proposal includes standards for location, size, species, number of trees, and spacing.  TMM Bloom asked how we will make sure that the trees will be watered and maintained.  TMM Revilak responded that there is a requirement that the trees be maintained for three years, under the jurisdiction of the Director of Inspections in his role as Zoning Enforcement Officer.  TMM Bloom was looking for more detail.  Town Counsel noted that the Zoning Enforcement Officer would follow-up on violations, but the tree warden and members of the tree committee would be keeping an eye on these trees, as they do for other trees in town.  They would likely bring issues to the attention of Inspectional Services.  TMM Babiarz asked about interference with power lines leading to buildings.  TMM Revilak noted that the trees would be in the public right of way, not on private property.  Care would need to be taken to locate the trees appropriately.  TMM Babiarz asked how this would work with power lines; would we just end up with more forked trees like elsewhere in town?  The Moderator called on Dir. Rademacher from the DPW, but he was not in attendance.  The Town Manager indicated that there are specific species which would be selected for being planted under the power lines, to minimize the future problems.  TMM Culverhouse was very supportive, and she asked if there was anything in this article to protect existing mature trees.  TMM Revilak answered that existing trees would preclude the need to plant a new tree, but it doesn't add protections for existing trees.  Town Counsel agreed that this would not add protection, but public shade trees are currently protected under state law, requiring a public hearing before they can be removed.  TMM Melofchik had a technical issue, which the technical staff tried to address.  TMM Rosenthal raised a Point of Order to ask whether a member could participate by phone.  The Moderator noted they were actively trying to do that at this time.  TMM O'Day moved to terminate debate.  The Moderator held on accepting a second in hopes that TMM Melofchik's issue could be remedied to allow her to speak.  TMM Wagner raised a Point of Order to thank the Moderator for not terminating debate.  He encouraged allowing other people to speak while we waited.  

The Moderator called on TMM Stamps, a member of the Tree Committee, speaking for herself.  She was glad to see that the article references a nursery standard for maintenance which includes watering.  She outlined the tree protection afforded by Chapter 38 in state law.  She was glad that this will improve the tree canopy.  She also noted that the trees could be located on private property.  TMM Melofchik addressed the meeting by cell phone on speaker phone through someone else's connection.  The connection was difficult to hear in places, but she noted she has great faith in the Tree Warden and Tree Committee.  The thought there was a lack of coordination between the Tree Committee and the ARB.  TMM Stamps responded that the committee was concerned about watering, and she noted that there is a maintenance requirement which addresses that problem.  TMM Melofchik asked who could decide in the future whether the tree could be removed.  TMM Stamps noted that they would be public shade trees, protected under state law.  The Manager confirmed.  TMM Melofchik asked what this article is proposing that wasn't being done before.  Was it just encouraging the planting of trees?  TMM Revilak concurred that this is encouraging the planting of public shade trees in commercial and other districts.  This provision exists for the Industrial districts under last year's bylaw, and this would extend that requirement to other districts.  TMM Melofchik said she remained confused, but more trees are a good thing.  She thanked everyone for their patience with her connection.  The Moderator did the same.  TMM Jamieson raised a Point of Order to note that there was a large discussion after a motion to terminate debate, which is not allowed under the rules.  The Moderator noted that the motion was not debated, he just chose to ignore to motion by not accepting the second.  This was done to allow someone with technical difficulties to still speak.  He had been criticized for not doing so on other articles.  The vote to terminate debate passed 206-13 with three abstentions.  The vote on the main motion passed 220-6 with one abstention.

Article 30 was an article to encourage the development of more solar power installations.  Dir. Raitt asked that the video be shown.  Currently ground-mounted solar is only allowed in the industrial districts, and other districts have other requirements.  This Article is a part of the town's Net Zero Action Plan to reduce emission.  There would be requirements to provide solar systems on new development meeting specific requirements.  Projects under Environmental Design Review (EDR) would be required to provide a solar system equivalent to half of the area of the roof.  There were several additional regulations on access, placement, tree trimming, and development on adjacent parcels.  The Moderator noted that the real time translation is not working, and there is a link to another website where that can be found.  TMM Rudick is a new member, limiting his speaking to articles where he has expertise.  He works in solar development, and he thinks this is a tremendous change.  Solar is much better today than in recent years.  Wonderful if not long overdue.  He had one question, could a building meeting the requirement by being solar ready rather than installing the panels.  Why is a lower standard considered?  TMM Benson noted that this does require installation unless it is an older building which lacks structural capacity or solar orientation.  Installation is required, unless the property can be exempted under one of the listed conditions.  TMM Leone noted that his question had just been answered.  TMM Rosenthal thought this sounded like a great proposal, but there was something in the proposal which gave him pause.  If he has panels installed on his roof, could someone on an adjacent property build on their property and shade his panels?  TMM Benson noted this would not apply to his house, but it would apply to properties under the jurisdiction of the ARB.  In that case, he would be correct.  The bylaw does not limit the development rights on adjacent properties.  He does not anticipate it would be an issue.

TMM Rosenthal asked how this differs from rules in the residential district.  TMM Benson noted there is no general requirement to have solar panels on residences, only properties undergoing EDR.  TMM Rosenthal asked how these new rules would apply in residential neighborhoods.  The Moderator thought the question might be out of scope, but the warrant article didn't restrict the scope to specific districts.  TMM Benson noted this has nothing to do with residential districts.  TMM Friedman was a little confused about which buildings would fall under this bylaw.  She thought it was new projects, but there was mention of older buildings.  TMM Benson noted it could apply to an existing building that was undergoing extensive renovations or adding a floor or changing the use along one of the main business corridors.  TMM Melofchik called into Zoom, but the number wasn't working right away.  She asked what the ARB's plans were for working with the Historic District Commission (HDC), where she is a member.  Their rules do not allow solar on street facing roofs.  She thinks this needs to change.  TMM Benson noted that there is an exception when there is a certificate of appropriateness denying the installation of solar.  TMM Melofchik asked what the ARB's plans were to have the HDC change their rules.  TMM Benson thought that was a good conversation for the clean energy committee, but they have not been in discussions with the HDC.  TMM Miller doesn't have an issue expanding solar.  He is concerned about the pruning of trees.  Can the owner of an adjacent property be forced to trim their tree.  TMM Benson noted that the opposite was the case.  There would be no requirement to require trimming.  TMM Moore moved to terminate debate.  TMM Goodsell raised a Point of Order that that the Moderator had said he would be looking for people who don't speak often, but he just picked all frequent speakers.  The Moderator agreed to try and be more judicious.  The motion to terminate debate passed 194-24 with two abstentions.  The vote on the main motion passed 208-16 with two abstentions.  We took our break.

Article 32 was a request from the ZBA to amend the section of the zoning bylaw concerning rules and regulations for the board.  The Moderator asked TMM Klein, the Chair of the ZBA t introduce the article.  He requested that the video prepared by the ARB be presented.  The video explained how the ZBA's rules in the zoning bylaw were leftover from recodification when the ZBA didn't have rules and regulations.  They are no longer needed, and should be removed.  TMM Rosenthal introduced his substitute motion to remove most of the portions of the rules but retain the requirement for giving oaths to applicants and make recordings.  He had spoken with the Town Meeting member who had originally proposed requiring oaths and Town Counsel.  TMM Rosenthal felt these provisions were important to safeguard the town from appeals of comprehensive permit decisions at the Housing Appeals Committee (HAC).  The Moderator invited Town Counsel to speak, and he recalled having met with TMM Rosenthal.  He did recall thinking the provision requiring an oath of the applicant but not of residents might not pass muster during the AG's review.  TMM Bloom noted in Mr. Jamieson's notes on the article, he had indicated that there was a conflict with the law.  Town Counsel thought it might have related to the oaths being applied inequitably.  TMM Klein noted that the legal question was with Chapter 40A, Section 12 under state law which requires the ZBA to adopt their own rules and regulations.  It is not for Town Meeting to set the rules.  TMM Klein explained that the procedure the board follows in comprehensive permit hearings.  The Board has not been administering oaths, as doing so to the public could make residents hesitant to participate.  He also noted that all testimony by the applicant is vetted by peer review engineers working on behalf of the town.  TMM J_Worden  stated that unless the Select Board says "no" to these projects and insist that we meet safe harbor, comprehensive permit applications will continue.  He felt confident that the town has more than 1.5% of its developable land area used for affordable housing, one of the state's "safe harbor" provisions granting the town additional rights in deciding comprehensive permits.  If the Town is not going to be diligent, this provision is still necessary.  There is no reason we cannot have a parallel set of rules.  In his opinion 40B developers are not nice people (Call to civility by Moderator.)  TMM J_Worden noted that nice people come to town seeking to follow the established rules.  TMM Wagner moved to terminate debate.  The motion passed 183-34 with four abstentions.  The vote on TMM Rosenthal's substitute motion failed 54-162 with 6 abstentions.  The vote on the main motion passed 174-45 with six abstentions.

Article 33 proposed to tweak the definition of half story.  The definition relies on a fraction.  Under this article, the numerator remains the same.  The proposal clarified that the denominator is the gross floor area of the second floor.  The Moderator asked TMM Klein to present the article.  He requested that the video presentation prepared by the ARB be presented.  TMM Phelan had originally requested to take the article off the consent agenda.  She noted her questions had been answered by the video presentation and the comments from TMM Klein, so she was all set.  She being the last speaker on the list, the Moderator called the vote.  The motion passed 209-6 with five abstentions.

Article 34 proposed to amend the definition of porches and add porches to the list of elements which could be approved in a yard setback.  TMM Klein requested the playing of the ARB's video presentation.  TMM Leahy indicated she had inadvertently requested it be removed from the consent agenda, as she thought she was only seconding someone else's request.  TMM Slotnick noted that developers in East Arlington currently dismantle existing porches to extend the building farther forward.  The front porch has been enveloped within the house.  Can the owners then just add another porch?  TMM Klein noted that under Article 35, previously approved by this meeting, enclosing a porch will now require a special permit.  Adding another porch, since it will be within the front yard setback, would also require a special permit.  TMM Hanlon, a member of the ZBA, explained that the board sees many of these cases every year, and they are mostly brought forward by regular property owners looking for a porch.  These are uncontroversial, and are typically approved with conditions that require action by the board before any further changes can be made.  The Moderator reminded the meeting that this was mistakenly removed from the consent agenda.  There were no further speakers, so we proceeded to the vote, which passed 216-6 with one abstention.

Article 36 clarifies the interpretation of the section of the bylaws concerning large additions.  TMM Hanlon raised a Point of Order asking why we skipped 35.  The Moderator noted it was passed under the consent agenda.  This article clarifies the calculation of what qualifies as a large addition.  It was removed by TMM Band, who no longer wished to address the article.  After the presentation of the ARB's video, there were no speakers to the article, so we proceeded to the vote.  The motion passed 210-5 with four abstentions.

Article 37 souht to clarify who may make the determination of whether a structure is unsafe.  Dir. Raitt introduced the video presentation.  TMM Mozina had requested to remove the article from the consent agenda.  She felt this change was redundant, as Chapter 143, Section 6 in state law already requires that the determination be made buy the Director of Inspections.  She was concerned this change was redundant, and a source of confusion.  TMM Klein reiterated the request wass to add the language here, because this was where contractors looked in the bylaw.  There was an unfortunate incident where a developer demolished a house without permission saying it was unsafe.  This left an undevelopable lot without a house and a very frightened homeowner.  While this was resolved, the ZBA would prefer to avoid any possibility of this in the future.  TMM Mozina asked to provide an amendment from the floor to indicate that this provision was in harmony whith state law.  The Moderator felt it was too complicated, and since it was not submitted 48 hours ahead, he would not allow it.  TMM Nathan said she didn't fully understand, but thought the previous speaker was correct that this could be misinterpreted.  She asked how unsafe conditions are identified, and how is the department notified?  Dir. Ciampa noted this usually comes up during construction.  The department is notified by the contractor, and it is reviewed by the department, in conjunction with a structural engineer if required.  TMM Nathan asked how often this happens.  Dir. Ciampa noted there has only been one or two cases in the past couple of years that required the demolition of a structure.  

The time was now 10:55pm.  TMM Foskett raised a Point of Order to ask if we could table this article until after the conclusion of Article 38.  The Moderator asked if he was making a motion, and TMM Foskett did so.  The motion was seconded.  TMM Schlichtman raised a Point of Order, asking whether a motion could be raised during a Point of Order.  The Moderator said "no," then realized he had just done that for TMM Foskett.  TMM Fosket noted that the Moderator had invited him to make the motion.  The Moderator thought that since we were already in this predicament, he would allow the motion to table the article to proceed.  When the Moderator asked for all who objected to raise hands, the number of hands was greater than 1/3 of the members present, so the motion failed to get the required vote of 2/3.  The Moderator then called for a motion to adjourn, which was made by TMM Foskett and seconded.  The Moderator called for notices of reconsideration.  TMM Jamieson then Raised a Point of Order and objected to all the actions over the past few minutes.  If we had just finished the discussion without these maneuvers, we could have voted on 37 tonight.  We are running behind, and we need to get things done.  He requested that we not adjourn and continue with the debate.  TMM J_Worden raised a Point of Order to ask whether it would be appropriate to move to postone to a date certain, which would do the same thing as tabling the article, but only require a majority vote.  The Moderator noted he had just indicated he would not accept motions through a Point of Order   TMM Weber raised a Point of Order and asked what Article 37 has to do with Article 38.  Why are we considering postponing?  The Moderator agreed that things have sort-of come off the rails.  It all started with allowing a motion to table from a Point of Order.  He was now going to have a formal vote on whether to adjourn, since we were past 11:00.  That vote passed 112-70 with two abstentions.  The Moderator wished us all a good night and closed the meeting.

In all the craziness, notices for reconsideration were not taken.

>> This was a really odd night.  I was trying to keep up with my notes while also introducing articles and addressing Town Meeting.  That was a hard juggling act, and my notes on Articles 32-37 lack some subtlety as a result.

>> I'm glad we passed Article 28.  This will give the ARB some leverage with hopefully getting better concessions from developers of commercial projects.

>> The action during the debate on Article 29 to not act on a motion to terminate debate is really ripe for abuse.  I would have been fine if we had just held until the speaker who was called before the motion to terminate debate resolved her issues.  However, the Moderator reopened the speaker queue, which effectively negated the motion.  I am confident it was not done maliciously here, but you could imagine a scenario where there is a call to terminate debate, no seconds are allowed, and the Moderator decides who gets to have the last speaking position before the motion is allowed to be seconded.  I like trees, so I liked 29.

>> Article 30 was a good article, and I thought the debate was interesting.  I am glad it passed.

>>Article 32 was the first of six articles put forward to the ARB by the ZBA working through the Zoning Bylaw Working Group.  The purpose of the article was to give the ZBA the autonomy it is granted under state law when it comes to drafting its own rules and regulations.  I understood the intent of the proposed substitute motion, but since those provision were already in the board's rules and regulations, it was hard to see the insistance of putting some of the provisions back into the zoning bylaw as anything other than saying the ZBA cannot be trusted to manage its own business.  I was glad that the substitute motion was defeated and the main motion passed.

>> Articles 33-36 were intended to codify current interpretations of how to apply the zoning bylaw.  I was glad that they were approved by comfortable margians.

>> Article 38 was also supposed to be simple, but I thought TMM Mozina raised a very interesting point.  I will admit that the section of code she mentionned had never come up in our discussions.  I don't thinnk we necessarily need to reference the state statute in the local code, but I do agree that if we are trying to remove redundancy, maybe the original text of the bylaw should remain.  However, since we won't be back until next Wednesday, there is plenty of time to submit an amendment. 

>> I'm not sure that I have the right words to explain the last 10-15 minutes of the meeting.  Unless there was someone coming up quickly in the speaker queue to try and terminate debate, I think the discussion would have continued for a little while.  I don't understand the necessity to make sure Article 38 comes up immediately at the start of the next session.  Perhaps the motion to table or continue will be refiled at the start of the next session.  As TMM Jamieson said, we're spending more time getting out of the discussion than it would take to have the discussion.  Let this be the appetizer for the discussion on 38.

2022 Annual Town Meeting - Night Nine

 Welcome to Night Nine of the 2022 Annual Town Meeting.  I missed the last session, so I am looking forward to getting back into the fray.  We will meet Monday and Wednesday this week, then the following Wednesday, taking Memorial Day off.  We still have a lot of work to do, so we really need to get to it.  If we can get past the pump-your-own-gas article, we might be able to get up to speed and get into the zoning articles.  There are seven articles to vote on before we get there, which would tie our best performance (excepting the consent agenda).

(All town staff working Town Meeting have the prefix "ST" in front of their name on Zoom.  It is like a big lineup of saints.)

The Moderator called the meeting to order.  The attendance check-in was closed, and we moved on the the Star Spangled Banner.  Tonight, we heard the version played by TMM Tanaka.  The Moderator noted there are seven regular articles, fifteen zoning articles, and five resolutions remaining on the warrant.  An email went out over the weekend discussing how requests for reconsideration would be considered.  They will only be taken at after all the other articles have been handled, so we can be certain to have enough time to close the meeting and submit the results to the state.  SBC Diggins moved to continue to Wednesday should we not complete the meeting this evening.  TMM Maher had an announcement regarding the Symmes Fund, which provides funding to non-profits who provide medical-related services to town.  He encouraged those organizations to apply.  There were no other announcements.

TMM Fosket removed Article 3 from the table to receive reports.  No reports were offered, so TMM Fosket moved to put Article 3 back upon the table.

We resumed the deliberation on Article 17.  When we left off, the debate was about to begin in earnest.  TMM Wagner indicated no one wants self-serve gas more than he does.  However, his constituents are worried that full-service would then disappear all together.  He had other concerns about noise, mini-marts, and that not all station owners are in agreement.  Additional regulations would be required to avoid the ill effects of possible unintended consequences.  We need to support full-service, small stations, cannot support it themselves without protections.  TMM Weinstein was also opposed to the article.  He agreed with the previous speaker that there are not enough protections against possible consequences.  A vote against will promote and support jobs.  TMM Mills was passed to bring up TMM J_Worden, who was next on the list.  He also opposed the article.  He believed if it was to go forward, there needed to be protections, similar to the proposed substitute motion from TMM Benson.  TMM J_Worden noted that most of the station attendants appear to be immigrants, and these jobs are stepping-stones to better positions.  He has several questions.  Was there outreach to the gas stations in town?  If so, what was it?  SBC Diggins indicated there was none.  TMM J_Worden called it a stealth attack.  (The Moderator said that didn't follow, and they had a brief conversation.)  TMM J_Worden asked in the absence of the substitute motion, what recourse is there if someone wants to have their gas pumped, and the station refuses.  Town Counsel noted there are various agencies who can address actions against the handicapped.  For more general refusals, if there is a special permit allowing the station to operate, that could be reconsidered.  TMM J_Worden wanted to know what that person could do right away, right at that time.  Could they call the cops?  TMM Benson noted his substitute motion would put language in the bylaw, which can be enforced by the police.  TMM Mills was unavailable.  TMM Tosti moved to terminate debate.  That motion passed 174-49 with two abstentions.  This brought forward the vote on the Benson substitute motion.  During the voting period, TMM Garber had a Point of Order asking for clarification of what happens as a result of this vote.  The Moderator confirmed that this is a substitute motion.  If it fails, we proceed to a vote on the main motion as submitted.  If it passes, we proceed to a vote on the main motion as substituted.  (This was explained and reexplained in different ways by the Moderator, several times.)  The vote to substitute passed 175-49 with two abstentions.  This brought up the vote on whether to approve the substituted article.  It failed 105-119 with three abstentions.  We may not pump our own gas.

Article 19 was a proposal to name a short stretch of street in town after Click and Clack, the Tappet Brothers.  We started the deliberation last week on the substitute motion presented by TMM Schlichtman to name the street "Magliozzi Boulevard".  TMM Ruderman introduced the namesake duo and their role in history.  Their show ran for 35 years.  They were very personable, friendly, and very funny.  (The Moderator asked if there was any information being presented that couldn't be found online.  "No" was the response.)  TMM Ruderman noted that the brothers both lived in Arlington, and since Tom has passed, and given the magnitude of their accomplishments, it is only appropriate that we name the shortest street a Boulevard in their name.  TMM Schlichtman raised a Point of Order, as he was in the process of introducing the substitute motion when the article was tabled.  He asked to be allowed to complete his presentation.  The Moderator apologized, and added him to the top of the speaker list.  TMM Schlichtman noted that it is important that the street has a name.  He addressed the initial comments from the Select Board.  Ten years ago, the Select Board came to Town Meeting to rename streets.  The recommendation to bring this to the public memorials committee is problematic, as the committee does not have a full compliment of members.  The meeting needs to act.  TMM Jefferson asked for a vote against the motion.  There is a process, which goes through the public memorials committee.  We need to follow the process.  It is possible the Select Board asked the meeting to endorse a change in name in the past.  He thinks this is a good naming, but we need to follow the process.  He asked what the proper pronunciation would be.  The Moderator noted it is an Italian name, but the pronunciation may have changed over time and become Americanized.  (The Car Talk website has is as Mawl-yaht-zee.)

TMM Jalkut noted that there could be a strong desire to adopt this article for sentimental reasons, but he does not think this is coming forward in the proper manner.  Doing this could limit the possibility of naming something else more substantial after them in the future.  The joke about the length of the street could be missed or misinterpreted by many people.  He thinks there could be a better memorial.  TMM Palmer moved to terminate debate.  The vote to do so passed 199-23.  The vote on the substitute motion failed 87-143 with two abstentions.  The final vote for no action passed 168-44 with no abstentions.

Article 20 was a recommended vote of no action by the Select Board on an article seeking to improve code enforcement.  SBC Diggins noted the submitted article was in violation of the Town Manager Act, as it sought to direct the Town Manager to take a specific action.  This is the reason for the recommended vote of no action.  TMM Schlichtman submitted a substitute motion on his article.  He indicated there is additional information on the online annotated warrant.  He noted we often debate why there are many bylaws which go unenforced.  He feels that the bylaws we enact need to be enforced, or they are just municipal suggestions.  This article does not create a position or enable funding; it just creates a title for the town to use to pursue violations of the bylaws.  He is trying to use our limited legislative authority to encourage the executive to enforce the bylaws.  The Moderator had a question regarding the wording of the substitute motion.  There is a reading of the text which could be considered as being outside the scope of the warrant article.  TMM Schlichtman didn't object to an administrative change to have the complaints all be run through the proposed Code Enforcement Officer.  TMM Moore asked if the Town Manager could explain the current code enforcement methodology.  The Manager noted that the town has been struggling to keep full staffing in the Inspectional Services Department (ISD) in conjunction with a dramatically increased workload.  The department is now fully staffed and can proceed with more enforcement actions.  The Manager also noted that the increase in ZBA funding allowed a shared position to be dedicated to the ISD.  As written, this proposal will result in an increase in the budget.  The article supposes that there is someone in the Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD) to handle these enforcement actions.  There isn't such a person.  This article takes the process of creating a position and runs it backwards.  He does believe the town is now in a position to address enforcement.  TMM Baron wondered if the proponent could provide some examples of enforcement actions which have not proceeded.  TMM Schlichtman noted Gentle Dental has violated the sign bylaw for years, and it is  directly across the street from Town Hall, yet there has been no enforcement.  Had this been resolved earlier this spring, there would have been no need for the article.  TMM Baron noted we need to find a way to deal with code violations.  She mentioned fences exceeding the maximum allowed height too close to the sidewalk as another example.  She is in favor of the substitute motion.  TMM Jefferson feels there is a process that should be followed, and similar to the previous article, we should follow the process.  He thought SBC Diggins and the Manager covered the reasons why this should not proceed quite thoroughly.  He recommends a vote against the substitute motion.  The Moderator noted that in general, anyone who is in the speaker queue who is just going to reiterate what someone else said, should feel free to pass.

TMM Benson noted that this article is in the general bylaws but appears to try and address issues under the zoning bylaw.  Is that acceptable?  Town Council noted that enforcement of the zoning bylaw has to occur in the zoning bylaw.  The building inspector is the code enforcement officer.  The town bylaw has many enforcement options already included.  This article would not lead to enforcement of the zoning bylaws, but it could lead to enforcement of the town bylaws.  TMM Benson recommended voting against the substitute motion.  He is willing to work with the petitioner for possible action next year.  He also didn't like that it was in the passive voice.  TMM Atlas raised concerns about risks of bias in enforcement.  Fines can lead to unequal enforcement upon those who are unable to afford the fines.  She didn't see any provisions to allow leniency in regard to those who cannot afford the fine or the cost of correcting a violation.  TMM Revilak asked if someone from the DPCD could address the article.  Dir. Raitt indicated she did not have an opportunity to discuss the proposal with the proponent, and she is not in a position to address it this year.  TMM Pretzer moved to terminate debate.  The Moderator noted we were just over the fifteen minute mark in the debate.  The vote to terminate debate passed 203-14.  The Moderator opened the vote on the Select Board's no action, when TMM Schlichtman raised a Point of Order that we had not held the vote on whether to adopt the substitute motion.  The Moderator apologized, and he opened the vote on that action, which failed 43-182 with two abstentions.  The vote on the recommended vote of no action passed 184-31 with nine abstentions.  There was a Point of Order from TMM Rosenthal which he had raised a while ago because the Moderator's discussion of the consequences was unclear.  When the recommended vote is for no action, he heard the Moderator say that a yes vote closes the article and a no vote is immaterial.  Is there really no way to force action?  Town Council indicated that it is cleaner to vote yes, as it closes the record.  A no vote leaves it in limbo, as there is no other action to be taken.  At this point, we took our break.

Back from break, we started with Article 24, which is a home-rule petition allowing the Finance Committee to start its work with draft figures.  SBC Diggins note that the Select Board and Finance Committee both voted in favor of this article.  It provides a way for the finance committee to start the budget process early.  TMM Dennis spoke in favor of the article, but he wanted to know if it was necessary to go through the home rule process and amend the Town Manager Act, as it is a cumbersome process.  SBC Diggins passed to Town Counsel.   Town Counsel noted that this provision is in the Town Manager Act, and it is a very simple action.  He appreciated TMM Dennis's desire to act within the town's bylaws.  Counsel noted that this process will take longer, but so long as the petition is well crafted, it should pass without much delay.  TMM Weber asked who dissented on the Finance Committee vote.  TMM Foskett agreed to look it up and report back.  TMM Wagner asked if the Finance Committee is going to report on this article at Town Meeting, as was noted in the Finance Committee Report.  TMM Foskett noted that they did submit a report supplement which appears on the annotated warrant.  TMM Wagner wasn't certain that addressed his question.  (TMM Foskett was still looking for the name of the dissenting vote.)  TMM McCabe moved to terminate debate.  The Moderator identified TMM Foskett to note that Ms. Deshler was the member who initially voted in the negative.  The motion to terminate debate was not seconded, and there were no additional speakers, so we proceeded directly to the vote on the main motion.  The article passed 210-7 with five abstentions.

Article 25 was a proposal to establish early voting in town elections through a home-rule petition.  SBC Diggins noted the Select Board voted unanimously to support the article.  He thanked the Election Modernization Committee (EMC) for all their hard work.  TMM Dennis, chair of the EMC, has been pursuing this for several years.  In the past, the State was reticent to approve this type of petition, but given the change of voting enacted during the pandemic for state elections, the committee thought the time was right to put forward this article.  He announced that the committee had reached the end of its tenure, and it will dissolve.  TMM Jamieson raised a Point of Order to ask whether we needed to vote to dissolve the committee, as the chairman noted that the committee was ending.  The Moderator moved the question offline to determine what action needs to be taken.  TMM Leone noted that he didn't think he had asked to take this off the consent agenda.  If he had done so, it was an accident.  He spoke very highly in favor of the proposal.  TMM Kaepplein was initially concerned about additional costs, but the Clerk indicated that there would not be a substantial cost, but if that changed, it could be reconsidered and budgeted in future.  This would be for early in-person voting only.  He asked whether signatures are checked on mail-in voting.  The Clerk started her answer, but the Moderator declared the question out of scope.  TMM Kaepplein asked if there would still be mail in voting, and I believe the Moderator responded in the affirmative.  The Moderator noted that the EMC dissolves automatically by prior vote of town meeting.  TMM McCabe moved to to terminate debate, but in the absence of anyone else in the speaker queue, the Moderator did not accept a second, which brought up the vote on the main motion.  The vote to put forward the home rule petition on early voting in town elections passed 214-4 with one abstention.

Article 26 was the endorsement of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding application.  The meeting can only vote to endorse, we cannot change the allocations of change the amount.  SBC Diggins noted the vote was 6-0 in favor, as the Town Manager gets a vote.  He outlined the spending priorities.  No one rose to speak to the article, so we proceeded to the vote.  The meeting voted in favor of endorsing the CDBG application 220-1 without abstention.

Article 27 is the approval of the town's revolving funds.  These are accounts for a specific purpose which continue year after year.  Town Meeting needs to vote to approve the balances in the accounts.  SBC Diggins was surprised this was pulled from the consent agenda, and he didn't think he would be able to make the explanation interesting.  He noted the requirement for the vote is in state law.  The Moderator noted TMM J_Worden had removed the article from the consent agenda.  When called upon, he noted that he did not knowingly take it off the agenda.  It must have been a glitch (for the second time this year).  TMM Kaepplein asked how town hall rentals lost so much money last year.  The Manager noted that there have been few rentals, but the expenses in maintaining the hall continued.  He hoped that as rentals increased, it would come back in balance.  TMM Kaepplein asked for an explanation of the expenses.  The Manager noted the expenses listed in the report.  TMM Kaepplein asked how there are expenses if the hall isn't being used.  The Manager noted that the funds are for general cleaning and maintenance, not for work related to specific events.  TMM Kaepplein was frustrated that the town was unable to save any money during the pandemic.  TMM LaCourt noted that these are mostly programmatic funds with funds going in and out, but you cannot spend money that isn't there.  None of the funds in the accounts come from the town.  TMM Leone had a similar question regarding the ambulance services.  What's going on with the losses on that account?  The Moderator thought that was due to the timing of billings at the end of the year.  He asked whether DTM Pooler could be called upon for more clarity.  He noted there was a reduction in ambulance runs during the pandemic.  In addition the fees have not increased in several years, and the town is looking to increase the reimbursement rate.  It wouldn't lead to more money from Medicaid, but it would from private insurance.  TMM Jamieson asked about the town hall fund, and whether DTM Pooler could comment on whether the town hall floor replacement was taken from this fund.  DTM Pooler thought it came from a different account.  TMM Jamieson noted there is a report at the end of the Select Board report which provides detail on how the funds are being used.  TMM Melofchik noted that she attended a Select Board just before the pandemic, and she hasn't been back since, has the access to the Select Board meeting room been made accessible?  The Moderator asked DTM Pooler whether this was funded through a revolving fund.  DTM Pooler noted that would be through a capital expenditure, and the Moderator called the question out of scope.  TMM Allison-Ampe moved to terminate debate.  The Moderator refused to accept a second, as she was the last speaker, so we moved straight to the vote on the main motion.  The vote passed 216-1 with two abstentions.

Article 28 was the first of the Zoning articles.  It would require enhancements for developments in the Business Districts.  The Moderator noted that we have tied the record for the year by disposing of 7 articles.  Ms. Zsembery requested that the previously submitted recording be presented.  In the video, she noted that this applies to projects in the Business districts, and is in line with the Industrial Zoning District revision passed recently.  Projects would be required to provide an active face to the street including articulation, entrances, and active uses.  There were no speakers to the article.  There was a Point of Order from TMM Wagner.  He noted that the speaker queue hadn't been opened at the time the queue was closed.  The Moderator backed us up, to make sure the queue was opened.  TMM Wagner noted that the refresh timing was extended due to issues with the online connection, and this may have cause the issue.  He is in favor of the article, and he thinks this article is a good first step in addressing some of the deficiencies in the Mixed Use section of the zoning bylaw.   TMM Nathan noted that she has no background on this, and cannot figure how to vote.  She asked the Moderator for a more simplified explanation.  The Moderator called on Ms. Zsembery to give more background on the article.  She noted that this is intended to make the first floor of buildings facing the street more active and engaging so the street remains more lively.  This is something the ARB tries to do during its hearings, but this will include something in the bylaw that they can reference.

TMM Jamieson was in favor of the article, and he hoped that TMM Wagner would join him in supporting TMM 39.  (The Moderator reminded him to stay on this article and not say something which could be interpreted as a quid-pro-quo.)  TMM Stamps noted that the article says this would encourage more active uses, and she asked how that would be called out in the bylaw.  Ms. Zsembery noted that rather than list specific uses that would be considered inactive, the ARB chose more open language.  TMM Stamps asked for a better example.  Ms. Zsembery noted the proposed section 5.5.2(B) referenced "active uses".  The Moderator clarified the question was how would storefronts be made more lively.  Ms. Zsembery noted that there are several design principles including limiting the size of lobbies and requiring articulation.  TMM Foskett moved to adjourn.  The Moderator called for notices of reconsideration on this evening's articles.  There were none, so the motion to adjourn was entertained and seconded.  With that, we were adjourned.

>> We did fairly well tonight.  Seven articles was a decent number, and none of them felt rushed.  There were three instances when the Moderator had to step in and stop the only person left on the speaker queue from requesting a vote to terminate debate.  Since running that vote takes several minutes, avoiding it is really good.  I'm not sure there is a good way to avoid that issue, short of having the Moderator announce to the last speaker that they are the last speaker.  However, that might encourage someone else to come forward.

>> I was in favor of the substituted version of Article 17 allowing self-serve.  I have pumped my own gas in Arlington many times during the pandemic.  I thought TMM Benson had crafted a very reasonable compromise, but it didn't have majority support.

>> I was sorry to vote against the substitute motion on Article 19.  I really like the idea, but I think TMM Jefferson is right; we need to follow the procedure.  We should put pressure on the Select Board to staff-up the monuments committee.

>> I was against the substitute motion on 20.  We have code enforcement for zoning in ISD, but they have been understaffed and working to support a dramatically underfunded ZBA.  Now that ISD is fully staffed and the ZBA has an appropriate staffing budget, I really hope this will move the town forward with enforcement.

>> Articles 24, 25, 26, and 27 were all easy approvals.

>> Now that we are into zoning, we are likely to slow up again.  I hope we can resist the temptation to get slogged down.

2022 Annual Town Meeting - Night Eight (a little bit late)

>> I was unable to attend Wednesday night's session of the 2022 Annual Town Meeting.  I was planning on watching the session, and several people were interested in a synopsis of the session, so I am taking notes and preparing to post them.

The night started with the test vote before the meeting was called to order by the Moderator.  The Star Spangled Banner was played by the twins, Cole and Owen M-Z.  The Moderator noted that he and town officials are available outside of town meeting to answer questions.  This would be a better use of our time during the meeting.  He gave an update on our status.  We are at 59% complete, and with the exception of the Consent Agenda, the members are finishing 4 articles a night.  Our pace is slow, but we have been getting a little quicker.  At this pace, we are ending June 20, which is an observed holiday (Juneteenth).  We need to be done no later than the 15th.  Our progress is noted on the Town Meeting Dashboard on the webpage.  Swearing in of new members is to be done separately with the Town Clerk.  SBC Diggins moved that if the meeting continues, it does so to Monday, May 23.  There were no objections.  There was an announcement from TMM Auster.  He had held budgets in order to ask questions about climate change and the sustainable transportation plans.  He had those questions answered offline, and the responses are on the annotated warrant under Article 50.  He suggested members may wish to review the exchange, and asked that they be included in the record.  The Moderator noted he would not usually allow materials to be added to an article after the article is voted on, but he allowed it here due to an earlier technical glitch.  There were no other announcements.  TMM Foskett moved to remove Article 3 from the table to receive reports.  There were no reports to be received, so Article 3 was returned to the table.

The meeting resumed with the discussion on Article 60.  The Moderator note TMM Kaepplein had asked that this article be removed from the consent agenda, and he addressed the article at the previous session.  TMM J_Worden raised a Point of Order that he had tried to make an announcement.  The Moderator asked if it could be delayed.  They agreed to have the announcement, which related to an article that was removed from the consent agenda, held until that article came up.  TMM J_Worden also noted that when he was moderator, there were many long town meetings, but they always finished in time.  There is no need to panic.  The Moderator noted it is his job to panic, and if anyone wants to go back through the record to look at historic trends, he would appreciate it.  Speaking to the article, TMM Revilak asked how many BlueBike trips would be required to reach the break-even point.  Dir. Raitt noted that we would need to almost double the number of past trips.  She noted that much of that occurred during Covid, so the rates should go up. TMM Revilak asked if this would allow for additional stations.  Dir. Raitt  indicated they could add two additional stations, which would also increases the number of trips required to break-even.  She noted the costs in Arlington are the same as other communities in the system.  TMM Revilak asked whether we could generate revenue through sponsorships on signs, which we recently passed.  Dir. Raitt responded that BlueBikes has a sponsorship model we would follow.  When asked about usage trends, Dir. Raitt noted that trips predominantly originate outside of town, coming into Arlington.  The data was just made available this week, and her department is reviewing it now.  The breakdown of the reason for the trips has not been evaluated yet.  Lastly, TMM Revilak asked why this article was brought forward.  Dir. Raitt noted this is part of a town-wide policy to meet sustainable transportation plan and regional goals.

TMM Holland had a few simple points.  The principal value is that it puts Arlington's bike sharing in the same system as other towns, and allows users to not worry about risking their own bikes.  It also provides an alternate public transportation option, which is more Covid-safe than taking the bus.  The Bike Advisory Committee recommends adoption of this article.  TMM Melofchik is concerned about the expenditure in face of declining override funds.  She would like to know the Select Board's insight in supporting this expenditure.  Her constituents in Precinct 9 found the last override particularly challenging.  SBC Diggins noted that the Select Board did not weigh in on this article.  He is personally in support of this article as it helps contribute to a more sustainable transportation network.  TMM Melofchik asked whether the Select Board had a recommended vote.  SBC Diggins noted this was a Finance Committee article, so the Select Board did not weigh-in with a vote.  TMM Foskett noted the vote at the Finance Committee was 11-5 in favor of the article.  TMM Melofchik is still concerned about expenditures in the context of an override.  TMM Tosti was glad the last speaker spoke about the impact on taxpayers.  He is very concerned about the multiple hits to the taxpayer over the past several years including overrides and debt exclusions.  He supported those as they were necessary to the core services of the town.  This is not that.  BlueBikes has come to the town in the past for start-up funds.  Now they want more funds, which is not related to the core mission of the town.  He encourages a no vote.  The Moderator called a straw pole asking whether the membership feels ready to close debate.  The pole was short of 75%, so the debate continued.

TMM Wagner had a Point of Order that he is concerned that meeting members cannot see the actual straw pole.  The Moderator cut him off, noting this point had been raised previously.  TMM Foskett raised a Point of Order whereby he was shifted two spots on the list later than originally positioned.  How did that happen?  The Moderator noted this has been happening, but to his recollection, the order is relatively the same.  He is advancing to someone who has not spoken as often.  TMM Palmer was going to call the question, but given the poll, he passed.  TMM Foskett, speaking as a meeting member, noted this would be town money going to a private company to benefit a small group of residents.  This is an example of living beyond our means.  The School Department and other departments have tightened their budgets, and this article should be rejected.  TMM Quinn is a long-time bike commuter, and he is appreciative of spending on making bike use safer through adding lanes and the like.  There is nothing about this article that helps that goal.  This should not be supported.  TMM Auster was surprised about the concern about spending money with private companies, as we spend a lot of money with private companies.  This service is an experiment, and we need to give it an honest try before considering cutting off funding.  However, we should not fund it in perpetuity.  The benefits accrue to both cyclists and other commuters who will face fewer cars on the road.  He is in favor of continuing the subsidy for now.  The Moderator noted people can remove themselves from the queue rather than passing when their name comes up.  TMM Foskett raised a Point of Personal Privilege that his argument should not have been described as "waiving a bloody shirt" by the previous speaker.  That was inappropriate for town meeting.  The Moderator supported his action.  TMM Quinn raised a Point of Order and shared TMM Foskett's concern.  He encouraged the members to be more civil.

TMM Pretzer noted that as a bike owner, BlueBikes increased the ability to ride, as it allows one-way trips and allows people to go places they would not want to go on their personal bike.  The article supports using bikes for commuting and errands, and it should be passed.  TMM Wiener supports the article.  It connects the town to many nearby communities and bike ways.  It is expensive to operate but affordable to users.  There are reduced price memberships available.  TMM Moore asked what percentage of this expenditure goes towards new infrastructure and expansion versus supporting the current under-utilization.  Dir. Raitt said 60% would go towards expansion with the remainder going to other expenses.  TMM Moore thought is was a reasonable expenditure that benefited the town.  He hoped this funding would help lead to it being self-supporting in the future.  TMM Babiarz said we did not have the data to know how many people would be able to use the system.  Her work as a teacher would not be served, since she needs to carry too many items.  The disabled and elderly would not be using it.  The youth cannot use it without supervision.  We should vote against it.  TMM Garber is in support, as we are not subsidizing a company, we are providing a service.  It is a low cost public transportation alternative.  If it could extend into the Heights, it could provide alternate transportation where the MBTA is removing bus service.  She hopes we will continue the funding.  TMM L_Heigham moved to terminate debate.  The Moderator noted it was 14 minutes since the earlier straw pole.  The vote was 189-28 with three abstentions in favor of terminating debate.  The vote on the main motion was 144-76 in favor of the article with four abstentions.

Article 62 is the vote on the appropriation of the Community Preservation Fund.  TMM Rowe presented the report of the Community Preservation Act Committee (CPAC).  They are required to spend at least 10% of their annual income on each of three separate activities:  historic preservation, open space & recreation, and community housing.  The are recommending funding 14 projects this year including Menotomy Manor window replacement, supporting leases for homeless, supporting the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, Hurd Field renovations, Robbins Farm Playground, Mt. Gilboa feasibility study, Cooke's Hollow restoration feasibility study, Jarvis House preservation and restoration, Dallin Museum collections preservation, Covenant Church accessibility improvements, historic planning records preservation, Old Schwamb Mill, Jason Russell House, and Hauser Building electrical upgrade at Drake Village.  TMM Bloom asked about the Hauser Building project.  Was that an emergency?  Can it wait until July?  TMM Rowe noted this is a proactive project, so it is very important, but it does not need to happen immediately.  TMM Ruderman asked what the state's matching grant percentage is currently.  The original law stipulated 100%, but the state has always underfunded it.  TMM Rowe chuckled, and replied that it was 27% when the CPA was adopted by the town, and it is now up to 44%.  TMM Ruderman asked whether the state is planning to increase fees to get closer to full matching.  TMM Rowe indicated she was unaware of any such plan.  TMM Ruderman asked which activity the accessibility upgrades for a church falls under.  TMM Rowe requested Town Counsel respond as to why historic preservation funds were being expended on a church.  Counsel Heim noted Old North Church as an example.  The Covenant Church offers a public use and is an historic resource, so providing accessibility is a public good.  TMM Rowe noted there are community activities at the church, which the town supports.  TMM Ruderman noted that these are not similar to other projects sited, and is a mistake.

TMM Leahy agreed with the previous speaker.  She is not a religious person.  She noted that the church has a day care and is part of a larger group of churches, so she wondered why they are unable to raise funds for themselves.  TMM Rowe noted this is the first church in town to request funds, but this has been used in other communities.  The church is in an historic district.  The CPAC sought considerable advice before making this recommendation.  TMM Leahy interjected that this did not respond to her question.  Why is the church unable to raise its own funds?  Pastor Phillips from Covenant Church, a town resident, responded that the church is non-denominational but affiliated with other local churches.  They have no daycare.  A small school does rent space from the church.  The congregation is small, and it would be difficult to raise the requisite funds.  The money does not go towards programs, just to the preservation of the historic building.  TMM Leahy noted she was lucky to live in an historic house in an historic district, but she needs to pay for her own repairs.  TMM Quinn was looking at the report.  He noted we allocated funds last year for ground source heat pumps at the Jason Russell house, and he was looking for an update.  TMM Rowe reported it went very well.  The system is installed and functioning.  TMM Quinn noted he teaches a class on environmental economics, and he would want to use that information for his class.  TMM L_Heigham moved to terminate debate.  The vote passed 164-55 with three abstentions.  The vote on the main motion started, and TMM Mozina raised a Point of Order to see if it would be possible to amend the article, but since debate had been terminated, the point was now moot.  The Moderator agreed, and the voting continued.  The main motion was approved 194-25 with eight abstentions.  This brought the meeting to the 9:30 break.

Article 65 is an appropriation for the Department of Planning and Community Development to study developing business district design guidelines.  TMM Foskett noted this articles was put forward as having design guidelines for development along the Mass Ave and Broadway corridors should streamline the development process.  The Moderator noted TMM Friedman had requested that it be removed from the Consent Agenda, and he asked her to speak to that request.  TMM Friedman noted there have been several studies in regards to the Mass Ave area, and she wanted to know why this was different.  TMM Foskett noted that design guidelines provide information about the physical appearance of architecture.  The Moderator asked that the video presentation on the article be played.  Ms. Zsembery, the Chair of the Arlington Redevelopment Board (ARB) said this would revise the 2015 design standards developed after the Master Plan was approved.  The existing standards are not applicable to many of the parcels along Mass Ave and they do not extend to other major streets.  The Residential Design Guidelines will be used as a model to create a set of design guidelines for the business and industrial districts.  It will apply to all properties under the jurisdiction of the ARB for Environmental Design Review.  TMM Evans asked whether the work constitute an update or a replacement of the 2015 guidelines?  How extensive will the revision be?  Dir. Raitt noted this would be a wholesale replacement of the prior guidelines.  TMM Revilak asked whether there will be a working group and/or public process to supervise the development.  Dir. Raitt noted that similar to other such projects, there would be a working group and public engagement meetings.  TMM Revilak noted that he had served on the ZBA for a year-and-a-half, and he found the Residential Design Guidelines to be very helpful, and they led to better projects.  As a member of the ARB, he thought this would be helpful for the business districts.  The public participation in the development of the standards will provide for community input.  TMM Palmer moved to terminate debate.  The motion passed 189-29 with 2 abstentions.  The vote on the main motion passed 199-27 with one abstention.

The Moderator noted that we have covered the main funding articles, so we would leave articles 71 and 72 for later.  TMM Foskett said the meeting could address those two articles tonight.  He also noted Article 49 was currently tabled, and needed considerable amendment.  However, the funding covered by the article would not change.  We could take up Articles 71 and 72 now, and the Finance Committee will provide an amendment for Article 49 in time to comply with the 48 hour rule.  The Moderator agreed.

Article 71 allocated the funds leftover at the end of fiscal year 2021, referred to as free cash.  The amount has been certified by the state as being unencumbered, so the vote is to allocate half to offset next year's tax rate and leave half in the account.  The Moderator noted that there was only one person in the speaker queue, so if they were planning to terminate debate, that would take far longer than just passing and letting debate end.  TMM McCabe still moved to terminate debate.  Before the motion was seconded, a second member entered the speaker queue.  The motion was seconded, so the meeting proceeded to the vote to terminate debate.  That vote passed 204-14 with five abstentions.  The vote on the main motion passed 219-1 without abstention.

Article 72 was the appropriation for the Fiscal Stability Stabilization Fund.  TMM Foskett reminded the meeting that the amount of the funding had been changed administratively earlier in the meeting, and the change was posted to the annotated warrant.  This vote requires a 2/3 vote of the meeting to take money out of the fund.  Once this fund is expended, the town is in deficit, and an extensive override would be required.  The Moderator checked whether he had the correct figure, and TMM Foskett corrected him.  TMM Jamieson asked for an explanation of the increase.  TMM Foskett noted it was an oversight by the Finance Committee.  The Board of Assessors drew funds from the overlay reserve surplus this year.  Some of it was allocated during the Special Town Meeting, so there was less available for the Annual Town Meeting.  This was corrected in one location, but not under this article.  TMM Jamieson confirmed that it was only a difference of $100K.  He also commented on the excellent quality of all the reports and the committees who generate them.  The town could not operate without them.  TMM Melofchik was called upon, but there was a technical issue with her audio.  TMM Moore moved to terminate debate.  That vote passed 196-24 with three abstentions.  The main motion passed 213-5 with five abstentions, well in excess of the 2/3 required.  TMM Foskett moved that Articles 17-48 be removed from the table.  The Moderator noted this would obviously not include articles which have already been voted upon, as they are not on the table.  This leaves only Articles 3 and 49 on the table.

Article 17 would allow for self-service gas in town.  TMM Revilak raised a Point of Order to note that this article had been previously tabled since the proponent was hospitalized.  He wanted to ask that it be put back on the table, so the proponent could be notified about when to appear.  The Moderator noted that had already happened, and the proponent was present at this evening's session.  TMM Revilak was unaware, thanked the moderator, and removed his request.  The Moderator called for SBC Diggins to introduce the article.  He indicated he had done that at a previous session, and he would need to locate those notes if he was to do so again.  He requested that in the interest of time, the request be waived.  The Moderator agreed, and he called upon TMM Revilak to introduce the proponent.  He asked to use his time to introduce an Arlington business owner who resides in another town, and an attorney who resides in Arlington.  The Moderator held a straw-poll vote to allow the non-resident to speak to the meeting.  The Moderator reported that there were 12-13 objections, which he considered a positive vote.  Mr. El Khaouli, a resident of Everett, introduced Mr.Annese, his lawyer and a town resident.  Mr. Annese noted that while he was a resident of the town in the past and does currently own property and a business in town, he is not presently a resident of the town.  The Moderator opened a new poll to allow Mr. Annese to speak to the meeting.  He reported 26-27 objections, far less than half of the meeting, so he considered that a positive vote.  Mr. Annese noted that his client, Mr. El Khaouli operated the Eli Service Station on Broadway.  His client has to have an attendant on site to serve gas to his customers.  He has a lot of trouble keeping workers, as it is not a great job.  The town's prohibition on self-service goes back to 1975.  Arlington is one of only a few towns who has this type of prohibition.  Under this article, full-service stations can remain, but it would allow station owners to compete with self-service stations in other communities.  All of the safety requirements would be in full effect.  There is a button allowing a customer to request an attendant come and assist them.  There would still be an attendant on site, they would just not be out pumping gas all the time.  The service stations are on major thoroughfares,  under the jurisdiction of the ARB.  There would be oversight of any changes to the property.  During Covid, the station owner sought to reduce face-to-face interactions, which allowing self-service gas would address.  TMM Revilak apologized for the error regarding Mr. Annese's place of residence.  TMM Jamieson raised a Point of Order to make sure the Moderator was aware that TMM Benson had submitted a Substitute Motion.  The Moderator noted he was aware, and he called on TMM Benson.  TMM Benson introduced his substitute motion which would require full compliance with the fire protection laws, compliance with the ADA, and an attendant on site to provide assistance.  He modeled the language on a similar bylaw in Cambridge.  He thought of his mother, who preferred to have full-service as she got older.  He wanted to make sure Arlington residents had the same opportunity.  The Moderator explained the differences between the main motion and the substitute motion.  TMM Jamieson raised a Point of Order and questioned whether the article is in scope.  Were the ten signatures required for submission from town resident voters?  Is this article to be allowed.  The Moderator called on Town Council or Town Clerk to address the question of residence.  The Clerk indicated her department checked the signatures to confirm they are from residents.  TMM Jamieson said that he was fine with the Clerk's statement.

TMM Pretzer noted we heard from a service station's owner, but what about the employees.  Pumping gas is a low-skill job, and people who need those jobs don't have a lot of options.  TMM Quinn raised a Point of Order noting that he was unable to locate the proponent in the list of registered voters.  He asked for a clarification on the spelling of the name.  When provided, he noted that person is not on the list of registered voters.  The Moderator indicated the Clerk would look into that question.  TMM Pennarun was in favor of the substitute motion.  She has two questions.  First, is there any association among service stations in town, or knowledge of other operators in town agree with this article.  Mr. Annese was unaware of any objections from any of the other gas station owners.  They have not talked to any associations, just station owners.  TMM Pennarun asked if he could name any of the operators.  Mr. Annese noted that some operators do want to remain full service, which would be allowed under the change.  TMM Pennarun wanted to know if the conversion of the stations would result in construction and retrofitting, and what environmental impacts would be.  Mr. Annese noted that he is not an expert, and he is not talking about construction or renovations.  He does not anticipate that the environmental conditions would be any different than they are now.  TMM Pennarun was concerned that changing the pumps would have an environmental impact.

The Moderator noted it was nearly 11:00pm, and there were outstanding questions regarding residency.  Town Council noted that an article can be brought forward by anyone regardless of residency, so long as the ten registered voter signatures are from registered voters in Arlington.  The Moderator apologized if he added to any confusion.  He then asked for notices of reconsideration.  TMM Foskett requested notice of Articles 65, 71, and 72.  TMM Pennarun noticed reconsideration on Articles 60 and 65.  TMM Gast noticed reconsideration on Article 62.  TMM Ruderman noticed reconsideration on Article 62.  TMM Carlton-Gysan noticed reconsideration on Article 62.  TMM Rosenthal noticed reconsideration on Article 72.  TMM Fischer noticed reconsideration on Article 62  The Moderator then entertained a motion to adjourn.  TMM Foskett made the motion, and with only two objections, we were adjourned.

>>So I was not at this session, so I will refrain from editorializing on the evening.  I will only note that it is much easier to take notes when I can pause the recording.  I think it is worth getting my notes out sooner, so I will keep doing them as I have been, especially if I can avoid having to sit through the same session twice.

2022 Annual Town Meeting - Night Seven

Welcome one and all to Night Seven of the 2022 Annual Town Meeting!  If my count is correct, we have 38 more articles to go, so we are right around the half-way mark.  If this was night four, we might be jubilant, but being night seven, we are really going slow.  We are doing the business of the town with due diligence.  It just takes a while.  We did 92 articles in 11 sessions last year.  How did we fare tonight?

We started tonight with the Town Budgets.  The recommended vote on the funding comes from the Finance Committee, who has spent months vetting the requests.  At this point, members are taking this opportunity to ask specifics about some budgets, and asking general questions on others.  This is how Town Meeting is supposed to work.  We have direct access to the town's directors.  However, we only discuss the budgets that members requested to address at the start of the discussion on the article at the previous session.  Those budgets were:  Finance Committee (1), Town Manager (3), Town Clerk (11), Planning and Community Development (14), Zoning Board of Appeals (16), Public Works (17), Police Services (19), Inspections (21), Education (22), and the Arlington Youth Counseling Center Enterprise Fund (E).  We discussed Education last time, so we are starting tonight with the Town Manager's budget.  But first, we need to get the meeting opened.

We start with the "Attendance Vote."  This is just an opportunity for the members to test the voting system and confirm that everything is working properly.  The Moderator called the meeting back into order.  The Star Spangled Banner was performed by Katya Shubochkin.  The Moderator had a few comments.  We will not meet on Memorial Day.  He outlined his letter that was distributed over the weekend.  He will take a poll on termination after at least 15 minutes.  He discussed the requirements for posting emails to the Town Meeting Member email list.  He confirmed with Counsel that there is no requirement to show the voting confirmation screens on votes to terminate debate, so that won't happen tonight.  The Moderator will try to promote speakers who have not had the opportunity to do so previously.  (This sounds very different from the rhetoric before town meeting.)  We wanted to reiterate that the correct term is "Select Board" not "Board of Selectmen".

On a somber note, the Moderator announced that Elsie Fiore passed away this weekend at the age of 94.  Before stepping down, she was the longest serving member on Town Meeting, and served the town as the Measurer of Wood and Bark.  She is succeeded by her son Peter, who is a current member of Town Meeting.  We paused for a moment of silence in her memory.

SBC Diggins moved that when the meeting adjourns this evening, we do so until Wednesday, May 18.  There was a call for announcements and resolutions.  TMM Foskett, Chair of the Finance Committee requested an administrative change for the ZBA Budget under Article 50.  The report indicates that the employee position is a 0.49 FTE, when it is really a 0.29 FTE, and has been so for the past many years. The Moderator and Clerk accepted the correction. There were no other announcements.  Article 3 was removed from the table to receive reports.  TMM Barr, Co-Chair of the Master Plan Implementation Committee (MPIC) submitted their report.  He reported that it was a busy year.  He provided brief highlights in the committee's work to advance the goals of the Master Plan.  The Select Board approved "Connect Arlington", the sustainable transportation plan.  The Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD) started work on the Minuteman Bikeway improvement project planning, hosting several community meetings.  Housing Plan was approved.  Safe Routes to Schools, bike sharing, a town-wide archaeological survey continued this year.  The Open Space and Recreation Plan started implementation.  The Community Center renovation project was completed.  The project to overhaul the Department of Public Works (DPW) yard and offices continues.  TMM Mann noted how several of the Master Plan goals related to zoning articles before the meeting this year.  The MPIC voted to endorse several articles.  (I believe he noted 28, 29, and 41.)  They made no recommendation on Article 38.  (He spoke really fast, so I hope I caught all that.)  Article 3 was then placed back on the table.

We returned to discussing the budgets.  The Moderator noted we would complete the discussion of the budgets as requested at the prior hearing.  We would then vote all the budgets as a single vote.  The late request to add a budget hold at the end of last evening was denied.  There is no reconsideration on the discussion on budgets.  First up was TMM Revilak to address the Select Board budget.  He had some general questions in regards to finance, which the Moderator allowed.  He asked how we define new growth.  TMM Foskett responded that it is new development that adds to the tax base.  TMM Revilak  asked how this impacts the need for tax overrides?  TMM Foskett noted that per five year plan, referencing Property Tax Line E, one can see it increases by 2.5% on existing assets.  Anything above that comes from new growth.  TMM Revilak asked it was fair to say that new growth can reduce the need for overrides.  TMM Foskett appeared to respond in the affirmative.  TMM Revilak noted that the Town Report indicated that our growth rate last year was the lowest among our peer communities.  TMM Foskett responded that unlike several of those communities, we have no available land for growth.  Fast growing communities have room for growth.  (Scope question raised by the Moderator)  TMM Revilak noted that with the need to control spending, while we may not be able to attract a lot of new growth, any new growth would be welcomed.  TMM Moore passed.  TMM Levy didn't respond.  TMM L_Heigham passed.  TMM Miller thought it might be appropriate that our overrides are larger, and they might be appropriate for land strapped communities like ours.  TMM Trembley passed.  TMM McCabe called the question on the Select Board budget.  That motion passed 201-24 with five abstentions.   The Moderator reminded the members that he will be calling members out of order to try and spread around the speaker time.  (Rain has started - nice background sound.  Now its gone.)

Budget #3 is the Town Manager budget.  This had been held by TMM Maher, participating in his 48th annual town meeting.  He noted that Town Manager Chapdelaine is leaving in June.  After thanking him, TMM Maher noted that the salary line item in the budget is his concern.  It is difficult to find a strong professional manager.  There are several other communities looking right now.  The Select Board is allowed to negotiate a separate contract with a selected applicant.  He considers the current salary quite low.  He asked for an update on the search process.  SBC Diggins noted that he was authorized to negotiate with Deputy Town Manager (DTM) Pooler to elevate him to the position of Interim Town Manager for the remainder of the Current Town Manager's contract.  TMM Kaepplein wanted to ask a question of the Town Manager.  The town appears to have high headcount growth and low capital expenditures. (Scope Call)  Why didn't the town use furloughs during the Pandemic?  (Scope Call)  Why do we have 12 new positions using ARPA funds?  How will they be supported when the federal funding ends?  The Town Manager wasn't familiar with 12 positions.  He understood there were at least two.  Those positions were understood to be temporary, ending at the end of funding.  TMM Foskett thanked Mr. Chapdelaine.  He wanted to make sure we looked at compensation, looking at the next manager's ability to control spending.  He was the last speaker to this budget.

Budget #11 was the Town Clerk's budget.  The Moderator re-explained his straw pole plan.  TMM Benedikt had asked to hold the budget.  She passed.  TMM Atlas was looking at the budget, and thought there might have been a typo in the report.  The Town Manager noted that section B on elections was added to this budget, and removed from the Select Board's budget.  That was all the speakers on this budget.

Budget #14 was the DPCD.  TMM Auster noted he is trying to save our time, and he asked the question of the Director before the session, so he will now pass.  The response he received will be posted to the online annotated warrant.  TMM Bloom noted the expenses increased by $81,000; is that another employee?  The Town Manager noted that the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Administrator position was not previously reported as a part of the budget.  It was in a special account.  It is now listed as an offset in the DPCD budget.  That was the last speaker on this budget.

Budget #16 was the Zoning Board of Appeals budget.  TMM Friedman had asked for the hold, but she passed.  That was the only speaker on this budget.

Budget #17 was the DPW.  TMM Trembley asked whether the town is looking to reconfigure any intersections in town this year.  Dir. Rademacher indicated there were two projects in the planning and design phase:  Appleton Street at  Mass Ave and Chestnut Street at Mystic Ave.  TMM Trembley asked whether at Appleton, permanent curbs would be installed?  He reported trucks have problems making deliveries.  The Director noted that it was too early to tell as both projects are in planning and design.  TMM Trembley asked whether there would be public hearings.  The Director responded in the affirmative.  (Somehow, TMM Trembley failed to ask how much road salt had been used by the DPW during the previous winter.  This was his famous question.  Now we might never know...)  TMM Kaepplein had a head-scratcher regarding the Gilboa Road project.  It was previously noted that it had been repaved using private way funds, even though it is town owned property.  The Director noted it was classified as a private way.  TMM Kaepplein thought it was all town property.  He was the last speaker on this budget.

Budget #18 was held by TMM Thornton.  She noted that the town spends a tremendous amount of money on facilities.  They appear to be appraised at a fraction of their replacement value.  Full appraisals would help maintain the town's assets.  She also noted that there has been a lot of turnover in the director position.  She asked for a status update on  the Director and the annual report.  The Town Manager noted there had been turnover, but a new Director started today.  Given the lapse in leadership, the annual report had not been prepared on time for the Annual Report.  DTM Feeney acted as the interim director.  TMM Trembley noted that Mr. Feeney had reached out to him to respond to all his questions.  The town has had trouble attracting workers to fill vacant maintenance positions.  How many open positions are there?  The Manager noted the town is working hard to address current vacancies.  TMM Trembley referenced the positions reclassification discussion we had last week, and he hoped the town could be fully staffed in the near future.

Budget #19 was the Police Services budget, held by TMM Weinstein.  He had three questions.  First, regarding social workers, he noted there had been a drop in the salary.  He believes the position had been reduced from full-time to 0.75 FTE, and he asked why.  Police Chief Flaherty noted that the position wasn't reduced, it was now shared with another department's budget.  TMM Weinstein sought additional clarification on its having been reduced twice in two years.  DTM Pooler was asked to clarify the situation, as in the detail of personnel services, the number keeps being reduced.  DTM Pooler noted that there was an overestimate in the prior year when the position was first shared, so this year there was an additional correction.  TMM Weinstein asked, regarding overtime, why are we are paying the same amount every year, and why so much?  Couldn't it be reduced by increasing the employee count?  DTM Pooler said this was a good question.  The department tries to balance need vs. number of employees.  There have been vacancies, leading to more overtime than desired.  They have had difficulties with hiring.  The Moderator prompted for the third question.  TMM Weinstein noted that overtime has been consistent year after year, and he wanted to know if the town could look into that.  His third question was in regards to the use of body cameras.  He wanted to know where that appears in the budget.  The Chief said it is not in the budget yet.  The town is negotiating with the patrolmen.  TMM Garber noted that there was a note which appeared to indicate $22K was spent last year for the body cameras.  She asked if there was a policy on their use in place.  The Chief noted that they have not purchased cameras, and they are working on the draft policy.  TMM Garber asked about stipends in the budget.  DTM Pooler noted that the stipend line in the budget covers a stipend for the purchase of uniforms.  TMM Jamieson tried to address the meeting, but his connection was very challenging.  The Manager referred his connection to the tech team.  When his line cleared up, he noted that he kept getting muted.  He had questions about police details.  He noted that we voted last year to increase the pool of people available to work details.  Did that help?  The Chief noted that for the most part it has.  However, the town needs 3-30 detail officers every day.  Some details still go unfilled, but the number is much lower.  TMM Jamieson asked the Chief to continue working with the new acting town manager and consider civilian flaggers.  In regards to the earlier connection issues, the Moderator noted that Zoom might be cycling off the permission to talk when the signal is weak.  TMM Fischer shared the previously noted concern regarding overtime.  He wanted to know what was the most common reason for overtime, and how is it managed?  The Chief noted that there is minimum required staffing, and if there are too few officers available, another person is brought on through overtime.  TMM Foskett wanted to address TMM Weinstein's overtime question.  The budget line is similar year-to-year since it is only a budget.  The actual expenditure does vary year-to-year.  TMM L_Heigham moved to terminate debate on the police budget.  (There is a little thunder in the distance.)  The motion passed 170-53 with 3 abstentions.

Budget #21 was held by TMM Jamieson.  He welcomed the new director of Inspectional Services.  He asked for an explanation of the roles of the department.  Dir. Ciampa noted the main function of the department was the review and issuance of building permits and the enforcement of the Zoning Bylaws.  He noted there were new employees being added to the payroll to address the backlog of cases and help address violations.  TMM Jamieson asked about the new final cost affidavit.  The Director noted positive results, even while the program was still rolling out.  The estimated construction values on permits were much more in line with actual values.  TMM Jamieson asked about the benefits of using the department.  The Director noted that there was a tremendous amount of building going on right now, including unpermitted and unsafe practices.  Some home owners are being defrauded.  There are now penalties being assessed.  TMM Kaepplein thanked the Director for bringing a new level of integrity to the office.  The Moderator asked the speaker to avoid casting aspersions on past employees.  TMM Kaepplein noted that there are many complaints that go unaddressed including a church with too many signs and the low-balling of construction cost estimates.  Dir. Ciampa noted that there will be more enforcement going forward, since there were many issues with under-staffing.  The department was getting to the backlog of complaints.  There were no more speakers on this budget.

The Enterprise Fund for the Arlington Youth Counseling Center (AYCC) was held by TMM Benedikt. She had a question about the psychiatric nurse.  She noted several budget  increases, while the psychiatrist position was reduced to zero.  The Town Manager deferred to Dir. Bongiorno.  She believed there is an error in the Finance report.  The former psychiatric nurse / psychiatrist combo retired, so it is being staffed by only a psychiatrist now.  The change in budget was reported on the wrong line.  There had been a great increase in requests for counseling services among the town's youth.  The Clerk will make the administrative correction to the report.  TMM Benedikt asked if there were any plans to add back the psychiatric nurse or hire additional psychiatrists.  The Director noted it was very difficult to hire qualified people, as there is a general shortage of professionals.  This was the last speaker on this budget.  The Moderator noted that Budget 24 was not held, as it was not noted at the proper time.  As there were no other held budgets, so we moved to the vote on the appropriation for all the town budgets.  The Moderator noted a yes vote funds the town, and a no vote would deny the town the ability to support its government.  The vote on the article passed 224-7 with three abstentions.  This brought us to our break.

Article 51 is the Capital Budget as prepared by the Capital Planning Committee.  TMM Yontar,  Chair of the committee, wished everyone well.  He extended thanks to all those in town who contributed to the work of the committee.  He gave a detailed report on the spending plans included in the proposed vote.  Roughly speaking, this article allows the town to purchase items, raise funds to pay for them, and pay the payments on that debt.  TMM Leone had a question regarding a line item for additional classrooms at the Pierce School.  The School CFO was unavailable to answer.  TMM Yontar noted there was a small reconfiguration within the building to gain classrooms.  He was unable to indicate what space may have been converted.  TMM Leone then asked about the Hardy School roof.  TMM Yontar noted the Hardy is the second oldest elementary school in town.  The schools of this vintage are reaching the age where they need major maintenance of roofing and mechanical systems.  TMM Leone was glad that there was a plan in place to maintain our facilities.  TMM Harrelson was called upon, and he was curious about the microcomputer program.  Chief Information Officer Sheppard said it included many types of equipment from administrative laptops to servers and switches to printers.  It is a hardware funding item.  TMM Benson asked about the engine pumper for the fire department.  He asked whether the town considered an electric model, as we have a net-zero plan.  He asked if that was considered.  Chief Kelly was not present, so TMM Yontar noted that there was not a discussion regarding an all electric engine in his committee, but he was glad that they are becoming available.  He thought that due to the mass of the truck, it was closer to the end of the line for the transition.  He deferred to the Town Manager who added that the electric unit was only publicly announced this week, it costs 50% more than the budget, and he was uncertain about the winter performance.  TMM Benson hoped there would be a serious look at the technology for the next purchase.  TMM Jamieson noted there were concerns from Brackett parents at the Precinct 12-14 meeting regarding the closed school playground.  He was looking for confirmation that the school playground would be operable by next fall.  TMM Yontar said there were funds available to be expended over the summer to repair the playground for the near term, until a larger project can be designed and added to a future capital budget.  Robbins Farm playground is on the Community Preservation Committee's proposed budget this year.  TMM Jamieson asked who was funding the repairs, and the school department was identified. The Moderator noted the Superintendent would be reached for comment.

TMM Trembley asked about how much was spent on the step replacement project in front of Town Hall.  TMM Yontar noted it was in a prior year's budget.  TMM Trembley asked about the line item for bike racks.  Dir. Raitt noted that there are multiple racks to be installed in consultation with the Recreation Department.  This item was unrelated to the BlueBikes appropriation.  TMM Trembley asked about a line item for consultants.  Dir. Raitt noted that this would be used to hire experts for specific tasks beyond the capabilities of the staff.  The request would be an open call for consultants.  TMM Trembley asked about the roadway engineer line item.  Dir. Rademacher noted that there are times the engineering division needs an outside consultant.  TMM Trembley asked about the line item about traffic signal upgrades.  The Director noted the town's signal system is older, and the funding would be to upgrade the control boxes.  TMM Trembley asked whether the signal timing could be adjusted, and he noted several signals he would reprogram.  The Director noted that would require a study before making changes.  TMM Trembley had a question about the Big Belly compactors; do they pay for themselves with reduced staffing needs.  The Manager noted that with expanded outdoor dining, there was a change in workflow.  Disposable items are now being thrown out far more frequently in public bins on the street.  The compactors will help to contain the higher trash volumes.  In response to a question about funding for maintenance, the Manager noted there would be a long warranty.  Dr. Homan, the Superintendent of Schools joined us.  The question regarding the source of the funds to repair the Brackett Playground would come from the school's revolving fund for facilities rentals.  In regards to the Pierce School classroom reconfiguration, there will be a turnover of space.  The staff daycare will be converted to being an additional classroom for next school year.  TMM McCabe moved to terminate debate on the article.  The vote was passed 189-31 with three abstentions.  The vote on the article required a 2/3 vote as the article would issue new bonds.  The vote passed 222-3 with two abstentions.

Article 53 was an appropriation to finance sewers and sewerage facilities in town.  TMM Foskett noted that this and the following articles allow the town to borrow money from the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) at zero interest and pay them back through service fees.  TMM Anderson had asked to pull this article from the consent agenda to bring attention to the condition of our sewer lines.  There are cracks in the older sanitary sewer lines which allow additional water to leech into the system along with illegal rain leader and sump pump connections, causing capacity issues, potentially leading to discharges further down the line.  This system-wide issue leads to sewage discharges into local water bodies including the Alewife Brook.  We need to support this article.  TMM Leone had questions on both this and the following article.  How many feet of pipe does this cover in a year.  Dir. Rademacher noted this covers 1 mile of water main and one section of town sewers.  (The town is divided into 13 regions, and the worst issues in one section is addressed each year.)  TMM Leone asked how long it would take to replace all pipe?  The Director noted that we have 130 miles of water pipe in town.  If we could replace 2 miles of water main each year, the oldest pipes would only be 70 years old.  TMM Leone asked if this still works with higher costs due to inflation?  The Director noted that he has had to increase the funding request and doubling the length would cost that much more.  On the sewer side, costs are stabilizing as the first round of repairs have been made around town.  TMM Murray moved to terminate debate.  The vote passed  209-11 with three abstentions, which brought up the main motion requiring a 2/3 vote.  It passed 223-0 without abstention.

Article 54 was a close relative to Article 53.  It was an appropriation to finance repairs to the water mains and facilities.  It was held from the consent agenda by TMM Band, who did not rise to address the article.  TMM Kaepplein said he had received a communication from a resident regarding consistency in billing for water.  He wanted to know why some people appear to not be paying very much at all.  Dir. Rademacher noted that there were times when there were "weird things" that would sometimes appear in the reporting.  There was an ongoing program to replace the older water meters.  That being the only speaker, we moved to the vote on the article, which required a 2/3 vote.  The motion passed 218-0 without abstention.

Article 57 was the appropriation for Town celebrations and events.  It was taken off the consent agenda by TMM Wagner.  TMM Foskett spoke to the recommended vote by the Finance Committee.  This covers events and honorifics.  There is nothing exceptional in the article.  TMM Wagner noted that Town Day is a celebration of Uncle Sam's birthday, and he hopes that link would be restored.  He also noted that the Friday night fireworks were greatly enjoyed, so he hoped they could be brought back.  His being the only comment, we moved to the vote on the main motion.  The vote passed 218-1 without abstention.

Article 60 was an appropriation to support the operations of BlueBike in Arlington.  If the Arlington List is any indication, this could be somewhat contentious.  TMM Foskett introduced TMM Lacourt to speak to the article.  She reported that the majority of the committee felt that it was an important service, and the proposed funding would extend the current contract for 2 additional years.  It was a one-time request.  TMM Kaepplein said there was no shame in failure.  When Lime left the area, that should have been a warning.  The town should cut its losses, sell the stations, and consider providing e-bikes instead.  He also had an issue as there was no similar allocation for the disabled.  He noted he emailed the membership, and noted that there could be better uses for the money.  He thought the funding from the federal government was hokey.  The funding program was not to support recreational use.  (Scope Call)  TMM Kaepplein said people want e-bikes and motorized options.  People can buy their own bikes for less than a membership.  Please vote no.  TMM MacNeill was a member of  the Arlington Bike Committee, which was asked to consider supporting this article.  He was initially concerned, but had come around.  The BlueBike program does not shift profits to a private company.  All raised funds go towards providing the service.  Should we be paying for this contract?  There were 1.3 rides per bike per day.  Many of the rides go beyond the boundaries of town.  The system breaks even at 2 trips per day.  There was a fundamental difference between BlueBike and Lime, in that one used docking stations, and the other did not.  There are good benefits to offering the BlueBike system, and it is not a waste of time.  TMM Weber raised a Point of Order to move to adjourn.  The Moderator asked for notices of reconsideration.  The motion to adjourn was seconded, and we were adjourned without objection.

>>  That night felt better than last week.  I left with a sense of accomplishment.  I thought we had a good mix of discussion and voting.  I think we might need to live with less discussion if we are to get to the end.

>> On the Town Budget, I voted to end discussion each time it came up.  The Moderator noted that questions do not need to fielded on the floor, they can be emailed separately.  That is probobly good practice.  I did support the final vote as well.  I also supported the Capital Budget, although my vote didn't seem to register.

>> The MWRA articles are no-brainers.  A zero-interest loan to keep the critical infrastructure maintained.  Yes, please!

>> I support the town funding celebrations, but I wish there was more funding available.  As it stands, there is very little supported under this article every year.

>> BlueBike is a tough one for me.  On the one hand, it could be a valuable service.  However, unless it has widespread availability, it will continue to have limited use.  Owning my own bike, I really don't see the need to participate.  I used Lime once in Winthrop, but I never used it again.

>> My apologies to my constituents for missing the next session.  I have a family obligation, and I really don't want to miss it.