2021 Annual Town Meeting - Night Six

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

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  (Unfortunately, their web page appears to be out-of-date, and I missed the dates that were offered during the meeting.)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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2021 Annual Town Meeting - Night Five

 Welcome to night five of the 2021 Annual Town Meeting.  Tonight we will be taking up the Town Budgets and the Capital Budget.  We are taking these articles out-of-order in deference to the town staff who need to be available to address questions on their budgets.  After we vote on these two articles, we will return to the discussion on Article 35 regarding changes to Industrial Zoning.  The tone of the presentations at the last session on this topic were more appropriate for cable news opinion shows; full of innuendo and conspiracies.  It was disheartening, and hopefully, the Moderator will address these.

We are ready to begin.  The Moderator has called the meeting to order.  Tonight, the Star Spangled Banner was played by Rieko Tanaka, a town meeting member from Precinct 9.  Apparently, there was another anonymous email to members.  The Moderator encouraged everyone just throw it away.

Mr. DeCourcey moved that upon adjourning tonight, we will be continued to Wednesday, May 13.  There is an announcement from Mr. Bagnall on behalf of Arlington Commission for Arts and Culture.  There is a neighborhood haiku competition for Arlington Heights.  There will be free workshops over Zoom.  Additional information is available from their website:  <www.artsarlington.org/haiku>.

Article 3 is taken from the table to receive a report.  Mr. Yontar, the Chair of the Capital Planning Committee submitted a revised report.  Article 3 was put back on the table.  Mr. Foskett tabled all open articles from 35 to 54, so we can go straight to the budgets.

Article 55 is the Town Budgets article.  The report of the Finance Committee will be the recommended appropriation for each of the budgets.  Mr. Ellis, a member of the Finance Committee brought forward an amendment to remove $43,000 from the Police Department budget, the amount that the department has requested related to body cameras.  He is doing so, because the department has not issued any policies regarding their use.  Depending on the policy adopted by the department, use of cameras could be completely ineffective, and the footage may not be made available.  The Moderator made a call for the presenter to stay within the scope of the article in his remarks, and to stay local to Arlington.  Mr. Ellis would like the Town Meeting to review the policy before appropriating funds in support of the program.

As we have done for many years, the Moderator read down the list of the budgets, and asked if anyone wanted to discuss a specific budget.  If no one wanted to address that budget, we passed over it, and moved on to the next.  We will go through the entire list of budgets, discussing what we want to discuss, before voting on the entire budget.  Ms. Friedman had a point of order, because we didn't discuss Article 53.  The Moderator explained that it was simply tabled, and would come back after the discussion of budgets.  Ms. Friedman explained that Article 53 would possibly add positions which could effect the budgets.  The Moderator explained that point could be discussed during that particular budget.  Mr. Ellis also raised a point of order to clarify how to speak to a budget.  The Moderator will read the name of the budget, and if you want to speak, please raise your hand to speak.  If no hands are raised, we move on to the next budget.

The first budget to discuss was the Town Manager budget.  Ms. Bloom wanted to know more about increased expenses.  The Manager noted they were in regards to web services.  The Town Manager budget was closed.

The second budget to discuss was the Legal Department.  Ms. Bloom was looking for information as to how staff is listed in the budget.  The Manager noted that the benefits attorney has been changed to Deputy Town Council.  That will take effect upon adoption of Article 53.  This budget is closed.

The third budget to discuss was the Board of Registrars.  Ms. Stone wanted to know if this was the budget from which poll workers are paid.  The Manager said "no"; that is a part of the Select Board budget, which we already passed over.  This budget is closed.

 The fourth budget to discuss was Planning and Community Development.  Mr. Revilak wanted to know if the department has sufficient resources to explore sources for new growth and increasing our tax base.  Ms. Raitt confirmed that her department has the appropriate funding and expertise.  That budget is closed.

The fifth budget to discuss was the Department of Public Works.  Ms. Broder has a question about a specific position that was no longer in the budget.  (I think it was the School Sustainability Coordinator, but I'm not positive.).  Mr. Rademacher, Public Works Director noted the position was now under the school budget.  Mr. Koch asked a question for maintenance of institutional memory; now that Mr. Trembly isn't in Town Meeting, someone has to ask the annual question of how much salt the Town used last winter.  The Director reported 6,600 tons were used.  Ms. Dray asked if someone could address the position of waste diversion and enforcement.  Mr. Rademacher noted that the position will help the town achieve its recycling goals through research of trends and enforcement.  The work will go into the next waste contract, a year from now.  Ms. Melofchick was curious about the $90,000 leftover from last year.  Mr. Foskett explained that surplus funds go into free cash for use by the town in a subsequent year.  The budget was closed.

The sixth budget to discuss was the police budget.  This will be a long discussion, because as noted earlier, there is an amendment to the budget.  Mr. Christiana asked the Moderator about the status of body cameras in the police department and how the amendment might effect other priorities.  The Moderator noted we do not have line item authority, and the Chief is able to make those decisions on behalf of her department.  Chief Flaherty said that after the George Floyd murder last year, her department was asked to get body cameras.  She has been reviewing best practices using Federal and State resources.  A draft policy is being created, and that draft policy will be presented to the Select Board.  A new state law will provide minimum requirements for all police departments throughout the state.  There are upcoming public meetings to craft these state policies.  By July, 20 22, there will be town guidelines for body cameras including standards for training, allowances for protecting victims, storage of materials, and protection from tampering.  Mr. Christiana asked if the Chief has a sense of how the proposed funding cut would be absorbed.  Chief Flaherty would not move forward with cameras at this time.  Mr. Yontar asked whether under the proposed amendment, the funds would be conditional upon a policy being adopted.  He wants to know whether such a conditional hold can be approved.  Town Counsel said "No", we cannot condition a budget on the passage of a policy.

Ms. Dray is in support of the amendment.  The Chief and Moderator have been very forthcoming in discussing the amendment.  This is not a vote about cameras or trust of the police.  We are being asked to fund a policy that doesn't exist. We only know the cost for storage.  We don't know what collective bargaining will add, especially when we have a deficit coming up.  The amendment will encourage a hold until we can have an informed vote.  Ms. Culverhouse asked why a social worker position was reduced.  Chief Flaherty wasn't sure what she meant.  There is a full time social worker and a full time counselor.  The position is partially funded by the Department of Health.  The Chief noted that this is a new position.  Ms. Culverhouse's second question is how the department has been soliciting community input in the policy.  The Chief has been working with accreditors and state agencies.  There is no plan to solicit community input.  Mr. Foskett wanted to provide background to the Financial Committee vote.  The concern regarding the policy was discussed at the finance committee.  There was substantial debate at that time.  However, the budget was approved 16-1.  It is not the job of the Finance Committee to set policy when there is a professional Police Department and an elected Select Board.  Mr. Foskett asked for a memorandum of questions for the Manager, Select Board, and Chief, who responded that there will be transparency.  The Finance Committee recognizes there will be cameras and state-wide requirements.  The best path is to allow town management to address the question.  Town Meeting should vote down the amendment.  Mr. Maher wanted to emphasize and approve of Mr. Foskett's comments.  Town Meeting doesn't set policy; the Select Board and professional staff do that.  He supports vote of the Finance Committee.  He wants to ask the Manager about his position on the amendment.  The Manager would prefer that the amendment not pass, but he will follow the will of Town Meeting.  The town would delay implementation until next year if the amendment passes.

Mr. Ellis wanted to point out that there is a lot of work to be done.  Waiting another year will not be detrimental to the development of a policy and implementation thereof.  Mr. Ellis asked about community input into the development and review of the policy.  Mr. DeCourcey noted there have not been specific discussions about how this policy will be discussed or when.  There are no specifics at this time.  Mr. Weinstein is in support of the amendment, and feels there is a misconception.  Not all policies fit all communities.  Maybe it would be better to allocate funding elsewhere.  We are putting the cart before horse.  He is aghast that there is no plan for community feedback.  (No plans yet, corrected the Moderator).  Mr. Harrelson spoke in opposition to amendment.  He has years of experience with the department.  He believes that their prior practice of discussing policy with town boards and committees will continue.  The Police Department will work with the community and state on the policy.  There will also be an immediate benefit to earlier adoption.  He encourages adoption of proposed budget.  Mr. Jamieson noted the amendment listed a specific fund.  He wants to know about the fund being used to purchase the cameras.  Mr. Foskett noted the cameras are being purchased through a forfeiture fund.  Mr. Jamieson would like to know the balance and past use of that fund.  The Chie acknowledged it is the forfeiture fund, under overview by Dept. of Justice.  It presently holds approximately $158,000.  Mr. Jamieson recommended that this should be reported as a revolving funds.  He wanted to know when the policy would be presented to Select Board?  He also wanted to confirm that the presentation would allow for public input.  The Chief noted the timeline would likely be August - September for the review of the proposed policy, with the cameras deployed in December.  Mr. Jamieson asked what would collective bargaining require to get approval for use of cameras.  He thinks this should be a standard part of the contract, and doesn't think it should require renegotiation of the contracts.  It was noted that extra costs would need to be brought before the Finance Committee.  Mr. Jamieson is gainst the amendment, and for cameras.

Mr. Varoglu went back to the social worker question.  In the Health budget, the only social worker is under the Council on Aging.  The Manager noted it is actually under the Arlington Youth Counseling Center enterprise fund.  Mr. Varoglu wondered why the amount is going down.  There is only a single full-time position.  Mr. Pooler, Assistant Town Manager noted that the police budget last year was incorrect, and some money was being paid out of the Health Department.  The position has been listed consistently as a 1.0 FTE position.  The proposed budget split is a more accurate representation.  Mr. Jefferson moved to terminate debate on this budget and the proposed amendment.  This has been a good debate about the limits on Town Meeting's ability to impact the policies of a specific department.  I am comfortable moving on.  The vote to terminate debate was interrupted by Mr. Jamieson's point-of-order to clarify that the vote to end debate included debate on the police budget.  That was confirmed.  The motion passed 184-49, and debate was terminated.  We will now move on the the next budget.

Mr. Worden raised a point of order, but couldn't un-mute himself.  His wife reported that the request was for a break.  Mr. Harrelson had a point of information confirming that the vote on the amendment will come at the end after the discussion of all the budgets.  The Moderator confirmed that was the case.  He then called for a break.

When the vote on the Amendment comes up, I will be voting against it.  I appreciate what the proponent  is trying to do.  Town Meeting can either approve the funding and wait for the Select Board to approve the policy, or we can cancel the funding and wait until the policy is complete before funding.  This will institute a half-year delay.  However, we often fund things that are not ready to go on July 1.  We fund anticipating the need over the course of the entire fiscal year.  I am also opposed to using the budget to try and influence the policy of a department.  As Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals, I would be deeply upset if someone suggested reducing the funding for the board until we had enacted a specific policy or incorporated something into our regulations.  Some things need to be left to the policy makers, and in this case, that is not Town Meeting.

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

Town Meeting, brought to you by Xeljanz and J. Crew.  (or at least the episode of Tiny Desk the Moderator streamed during the break was...)

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

Back from break, the next budget to discuss was fire services.  There was a list of leftover names from the previous budget.  Everyone eventually dropped off.  Ms. Benedikt asked what school credits are.  Chief Kelley noted that they are an incentive to encourage firefighters to seek additional education up to an associates degree.  The same question in regards to the police budget was ruled out of scope.  This budget was closed.

The next budget to discuss was Inspectional Services.  Mr. Schlichtman noted the inspector FTE number is down to 1.6 from 2.2; is there less work?  Mr. Byrne , Director of Inspections noted that they are using more part-time workers, which is working well.  Mr. Schlichtman asked whether fines make it back to the department.  Mr. Byrne noted that the policy is to try and address the issue without resulting to assessing fines.  The department has tried in the past to walk around town to look for issues, but they have not had the ability to look around recently.  Mr. Schlichtman asked if they need additional staff for enforcement.  The Manager noted that the change is staffing is to move inspector hours to a clerk position to assist in the paperwork.  There was a proposed a part-time code enforcement officer, but the Finance Committee did not approve.  Inspections and applications are not down.  Mr. Schlichtman would like to know if having an additional staff person would encourage Gentle Dental to obey the sign bylaw.  Mr. Byrne agreed to look into it.  Mr. Jamieson noted new growth is critically important to financial stability.  Expedient permitting is essential to that growth.  Is time for granting a permit tracked?  Mr. Byrne noted that his department has a feel rather than specific figures.  They are running 2-3 weeks longer than he would like.  The numbers are still good relative to other communities.  Mr. Jamieson asked how long does it take to get a requested inspection?  These metrics need to be tracked, as this is important for growth.  Can the Financial Committee note why it did not approve the position.  Mr. Foskett said the possibility of an additional position was raised by the Financial Committee.  However, no data was received justifying an additional position, so it wasn't approved.  Mr. Jamieson asked about additional inspectors in support of the high school.  Mr. Byrne noted that Mr. Ciampa has it under control, and the required documentation from engineers and architects are filed on time.  Mr. Jamieson asked that Inspectional Services request additional funds should they be required.  He asked if Civic permitting position under Public Works has anything to do with Inspectional Services, and it does not.

Mr. Revilak wanted to follow-up on several of Mr. Jamieson's questions.  If there was an additional enforcement officer, what would they do?  Mr. Byrne noted they would be doing plan reviews.  The department stayed open throughout the pandemic.  Things took a little longer than usual, but there is a lot of pride in staying open.  Being able to conduct more field inspections would be better.  Mr. Revilak sought to clarify whether the additional help would be for inspections or enforcement.  Mr. Byrne noted it would be inspections.  Ms. Memon wanted to know about the clerk and typist.  In the age of computers, is this position needed?  Moderator says yes, as explained earlier.  It allowed clerical tasks to be shifter away from the inspectors.  She also asked about  what base salary and steps are.  Mr. Pooler, said steps are part of the pay schedule.  People are hired at a base salary, and they receive steps for seniority and longevity.  Ms. Memon asked what longevity is.  Mr. Pooler explained that they are payments, usually at five year increments, that are a part of public contracts.  What is the percentage?  Each contract has its own set of payments, usually a set dollar amount., but some contracts are percentages.  Ms. Leahy is interested in sign bylaw enforcement.  Does the Inspectional Services have the manpower to enforce the bylaws.  Mr. Byrne said it is not a question of staffing; it is a question of priorities.  Signs are secondary to public safety and ongoing inspections.  Ms. Leahy asked if it would be helpful to send a letter to businesses to remind them of the regulations.  Mr. Byrne noted that the complaints his department receives are taken care of.  It is more of a complaint based system.  Email Inspectional Services if you see something.

The next budget up for discussion was Libraries.  Ms. Dray asked about $60,000 for overtime.  The Director, Ms. Nicolay noted that it is to support weekend and holiday staffing.  Ms. Dray asked if staff is paid overtime to work weekends?  Yes, it is part of the contract.  Can that be worked around.  No, it is covered under collective bargaining.  Ms. Carlton-Gysan wanted some clarifications.  How are the positions determined in regards to hours?  Mr. Pooler noted that there are multiple part-time positions, leading to an odd number.  The night time differential is for staff working evening hours under a union contract.  Mr. Deyst passed.  Ms. Stone wanted to follow up on the FTE figures.  In the budget, the positions appear to be created numerically, but the odd numbers for hours seem more random.  How are those positions determined?  Who is setting the hours?  Mr. Foskett noted that the department managers determine their own staffing levels based on need.  If they only need a person for a few days a week, there is a partial position.  Base salaray is set in the contract.  Some are positions are hourly, some are annual, and some use another scheme.  The budget was closed.

The next budget up for discussion is Education.  (Numerically, we accidentally skipped over it, but Mr. Ciano brought it to the Moderator's attention.)  Mr. Ciano noted that the school department report has not been distributed.  Mr. Fosckett noted that the school administration would like to speak.  Superintendent Bodie noted that the school report was posted, and the Moderator confirmed it was on the Town Meeting website.  The Superintendent is here to answer questions, but there appeared to be none.  Ms. Friedman had a late question.  She noticed there were many new hires, and she wanted to know if they were pandemic-related?  Why so many?  Dr. Bodie noted that some positions are determined by the number of students.  The department anticipated many fewer students, but the numbers were not down as far as expected.  Some support positions are only staffed if needed.  They are expecting higher social - emotional needs next year, as well as educational coaches.  They are being added to meet the anticipated needs of the students next year.  Mr. Marshall asked who helped develop the policy regarding whether schools would remain open?  Dr. Bodie reported there were extensive meetings over the summer to determine the correct policy.  Information was received from the Department of Education and the Department of Health.  The number of students per room was dettermined by the spacing of desks.  After reviewing multiple guidelines, six-foot spacing was considered the conservative approach.  The district Director of Nursing was involved, but there was no single person making the decision.  Ms. Dray looked for translation and interpretation services for foreign language learners.  Dr. Bodie noted ELL has a need for translation.  It is listed under the special education budget.  Funding has been increasing.  Mr. Mason, the financial officer noted that it falls under special education and administration.  Ms. Gray asked if there is an interpretation budget.  Mr. Mason said it is included in the same budget as translation.  Both are contracted services.  Ms. Dray asked if the high school handbook has been translated into any additional languages.  Dr. Bodie doesn't know answer, but she notes that the state required documents have been translated.  

Ms. Mansfield wanted to know why the special ed budget was down by 2.2%.  Dr. Bodie noted that the budget has two parts:  in-house and out-of-district placements.  The in-house spending is increasing, but the out-of-district is decreasing more.  These figures are volatile, so it is hard to know year-to-year.  Mr. Ciano (second time) has found report, and he wanted to know why it wasn't mailed.  He offered his congratulations to Dr. Bodie upon her retirement and thanked her for her service to the town.  Ms. Cohen wanted to know if the budget has money for teacher retainment.  Is there something in the budget for increasing teacher salary. (The Moderator noted this question should go to the School Committee.)  Mr. Mason said salaries are set by contract with some leeway for special circumstances.  Ms. Phelan  noted expenditure by student for Arlington is lower than other communities, and she wanted to know how the town sits relative to other communities.  Dr. Bodie noted that we have been below state average for most of her tenure.  The town has been very conservative in managing money.  This budget was closed.

The next budget up for discussion is Health and Human Services.  Mr. Marshall saw that there are two new positions, and he wanted to see if the Director could describe the positions.  Ms. Bongiorno noted the two additional health compliance officers were hired using a federal grant for Covid related services.  The positions were staffed last year and are being maintained for the upcoming year.  One of the positions is vacant due to a retirement.  Mr. Jefferson wanted to acknowledge and thank the Health Department for their professionalism and Ms. Bongiorno and Ms. Waden for their exemplary service in keeping us safe and healthy.  Ms. Bloom wanted to know about health compliance / sealer position with additional hours.  Ms. Bongiorno noted that this year the budget is indicating the true hours of various positions that are paided by grants.  These were not reported in the budget in the past.  This budget is closed.

The next budget up for discussion is Retirement.  Mr. Jamieson noted there was a wonderful review in our AAA rating in Standard and Poor, but there was a concern regarding the investment strategy of the Retierment Board.  Mr. Foskett noted that the retirement funds are invested with the state retirement board.  Mr. Jamieson encouraged we refer to the Standard and Poor report.  This budget was closed.

The final budget up for discussion is the Council on Aging Enterprise Fund.  A point of order was raised because we skipped the recreation enterprise fund.  The Moderator disagreed, and since no one wanted to actually speak to the Council on Aging enterprise fund, that completed the Town Budgets.  The first vote will be on Mr. Ellis's amendment to the police budget.  As I noted earlier, I do not believe this amendment is an appropriate action for Town Meeting to take.  We should not be micro-managing individual budgets in this fashion, regardless of our good intentions.  The amendment fails 45-171.  The Town Budget was approved 213-10.  This is a low number - where is everyone?

It is after 11:00, so the Moderator asked for notices of reconsideration.  I raised a point of order to clarify the order of business at our ext session, since we did not get to the Capital Budget this session.  The Moderator confiirmed that we will open with Article 61 and the budget for Minuteman.  We will then go back to Article 5 and the Capital Budget.  Than, we will go back to continue the discussion on Article 35.  With that, we adjourned.

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

It took a while to clean up my notes this evening.  I hope no one was sitting by their computer waiting for them to come out.  Since we took very few votes, there was little downtime during the meeting to edit my notes.  There was just a lot of questions and answers.  That is the best part of being on town meeting.  Even if you are not the one asking the questions, just being in the room makes you much better informaed.  I think Town Meeting is one of those civic duties that everyone should try to be a part of at least once in their life.  It has been a pleasure so far, and I look forward to every session.

 

2021 Annual Town Meeting - Night Four

 Welcome back to Night Four!  I hope we are able to pick up the pace.  There was an interesting proposal circulated on the Arlington List asking members to voluntarily limit their speaking to keep things moving.  It is an interesting idea, but I have not decided if it is something I would like to endorse.  I'm not a big speaker, but there are a few articles I feel strongly about, and I would rather hold my speaking time to those items.

After our attendance vote, we watched the Helmuth version of the National Anthem.  The Moderator noted that there are still 32 articles to go.  We made very little progress on Monday and we must be done by June 16 to file with the state before the next fiscal year begins on July 1.  He wants us to pick up pace, but not stifle debate; speak for less time and not repeat; be judicious and be prepared.  He also encouraged us "um ... don't give ... um ... a stream of consciousness speech, ... like I'm giving now."  Point well taken.

The Moderator noted that there is an issue with the broadcast of Town Meeting on Comcast.  The town, ACMi, and Comcast are working on a resolution.  In the meantime, anyone can live stream Town Meeting at ACMi.

Lastly, the Moderator expressed his displeasure at someone sending unsigned spoof email opposing one of the articles up for debate.  The email encouraged voting against the article because one of the proponents had voted against some other article.  This is disconcerting and cowardly development.  We were encouraged to dispose of the email and pay it no heed.  I didn't receive the email, so I cannot comment on it further.

Mr. DeCourcey moved to continue the meeting to Monday, May 10 upon adjournment tonight.  No announcements or resolutions were put forward.  Article 3 was taken off the off the table.  Mr. Joseph Barr presented the Master Plan Implementation Committee report.  He spoke of the work of many of the subcommittees including the Zoning Bylaw Working Group (Industrial District Zoning Bylaw Amendments), the Design Review Working Group (Residential Design Guidelines), the Sustainable Transportation Plan, the  Housing Production Plan, and the Open Space Plan.  He also noted several Pandemic-related activities of the committee.  Article 3 was laid back on table.

This reopened the debate on Article 24 regarding Ranked Choice Voting (RCV).  Ms. Carlton-Gysan moved to terminate debate.  I'm ready to move on as well.  The motion passed 199-36, so we could move on to the two amendments.  The first was the proposed amendment from Ms. Friedman requiring the publication of votes subject to RCV at each stage of the tabulation.  This amendment was adopted 204-29.  Mr. Schlichtman's amendment to limit RCV to single-seat elections was defeated 33-204.  I thought this would be more confusing and would create different voting systems for different members of the same board or committee, so I tried to vote against it.  However, the system froze while transmitting my vote, and my vote didn't register in the system.  I'll need to be more careful watching it every step of the way in future.  The main motion vote, as amended by Ms. Friedman's amendment is something I strongly support.  The article was approved 202-38.  It will now go to the state to decide if we will be allowed to adopt this new voting method.

The next article is Article 25 to allow for a Real Estate Transfer Fee.  The funds raised would be placed into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.  Mr. DeCourcey introduced a video presentation by  Mr. Benjamin Bradlow, a member of the Housing Plan Implementation Committee.  The fee would be imposed at the time property title is transferred.  This is a home-rule petition, since towns are not allowed to impose new taxes unless approved by the State.  Similar petitions have been submitted by other towns and approved.  If approved, the town would then finalize the local regulations.  This is just the first step.  Mr. Hayner introduced a video presentation in opposition to the fee.  Mr. Gates, a long time resident of the town hosted the video.  He supports affordable housing, but doesn't think this is a good way to do it.  It should be done through a general real estate tax.  That would provide a more adequate and sustainable funding source.  Mr. Jamieson introduced an amendment to allow some variability in setting the minimum value required to pay the fee.  There isn't an exemption in the proposal, and he felt a hard cutoff would be unfair.  Mr. DeCourcey clarified that the fee would apply to all property sales, not just residential.  Mr. Heim clarified that the fee would not be assessed on the property owner's heirs upon being willed a property.  Mr. Jamieson liked the possibility of using CPA funds to fund the trust fund.  The Moderator requested the speaker stay on scope.  He noted that he will be making these requests with more frequency.

Ms. Ehlert spoke in opposition to the article.  She feels the funding mechanism is unfair to those who don't have a lot of equity in their property.  Mr. Tosti passed.  Ms. Garber, is in favor of the article, but wanted to know if there could be a progressive schedule for the tax.  Mr. Heim said that in theory, we could have a graduated rate.  If approved by the state, the local bylaw would need to include the structure of the article, but there is some flexibility.  Mr. Newton introduced Ms. Pam Hallet, a resident of the town and Executive Director of the Housing Corporation of Arlington.  Thirty-three states already assess this fee.  She said the recommended percentage is 1%, split between both buyer and seller.  This would not be so egregious.  Mr. Newton said this is a values vote in support of affordable housing.  Mr. Deyst moved the question.

Ms. Crowder saw an ambiguity in the language, and raised a point of order.  She thought the text setting a minimum house value was confusing, as it referenced both the state median home price and a threshold to be set by Town Meeting.  She referenced some proposed language emailed to Counsel earlier in the day, and asked that it be considered.  My sense is that it is too late to make those changes at this time.  I voted yes to terminate debate, and the motion passed 187-47.  I am not opposed to Mr. Jamieson's amendment as it allows for additional flexibility in setting the lower home value threshold.  The amendment was adopted 113-108, much closer than I was expecting.  The vote on the main motion as amended was passed 187-50.  This will be a great start to funding the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.  As several speakers noted, I hope this is not the only mechanism for funding this important resource.

We are now moving on to the zoning articles.  Many of these will require a 2/3 super-majority as required under state law.  Several will only require a simple majority due to a change to state law made earlier this year.  Article 28 would increase the period of time required for compliance with the inclusionary zoning section of the bylaw to align with the time period set for for special permits and variances.  There was no discussion, so we went straight to the vote.  This should be an easy approval, and it passed 235-4.

Article 29 would create a new definition for "Apartment Conversion".  The definition could be implied by referencing a few sections of the zoning bylaw, but a straight definition is much clearer.  Apartment conversions only apply to larger houses in specific districts being subdivided into smaller apartments to preserve the usually historic housing.  At this point, the Moderator called for a break.

The Moderator noted that we don't have any new content to play during the break.  I don't know if he is taking submissions or not?

---------

We started back with Ms. Friedman, who is in favor of the article, but she wanted to know if there were any imposed parking requirements.  Ms. Zsembery noted that there are no changes to the residential parking requirements.  Ms. Friedman asked for a clarification on the parking requirements.  Ms. Raitt noted that the current parking requirement is for 1 space per unit in single-, double-, and three family housing.  With no further questions, we went to the vote.  Similar to the previous article, this is a fairly simple request to simplify the use of the zoning bylaws.  It was passed 225-7.

Article 30 seeks to clarify how usable and landscaped open area are calculated.  The applicable land area is divided by the gross floor area of the house to calculate the required percentage.  This is a clarification, not a change.  Ms. Zsembery made the presentation.  Mr. Koch was "severely confused" asked a question regarding whether land on a roof could be included in the open space calculation.  This should have been ruled out-of-scope, but the question was answered.  Ms. Friedman asked for clarification to a proposed change in the same section, but that change is being proposed in Article 33.  Ms. Leahy is trying to determine if this proposal is to increase gross floor area to decrease required open space.  Ms. Raitt clarified that that this makes no change to the bylaw or its outcome.  Ms. Broder was confused before, but now realizes the scope.  She wants performance standards for open space.  The Moderate called her out for being out-of-scope.  Ms. Allison-Ampe moved to terminate debate.  Since the questions so far have not dealt with the topic of the article, it feels like this is overdue.  The motion passed 211-20.  The main motion passed 222-14.

Now on to Article 33.  This is a set of five administrative changes to the zoning bylaws that should be easily adopted.  Ms. Zsembery introduced the article and presented it by video.  Ms. Memon raised a point of order to ask questions.  The Moderator entertained the questions, but he noted that they did not meet the requirements of a point of order.  Mr. Jamieson asked about whether the correct change was to strike "three inches or more" or just "three inches".  The former was confirmed by Ms. Raitt.  Mr. Byrne confirmed that the attic area area would be reduced.  Mr. Koch pointed out that the change would increase the gross floor area.  Ms. Dray asked why this change to gross floor area is different from the previous article.  Ms. Raitt and Mr. Heim indicated that since the two articles were taken sequentially, the changes included in both would be incorporated in the zoning bylaw.  Mr. Schlichtman moved to terminate debate.  This is a good time, so I'll vote yes.  The motion was approved 207-13.  The main motion passed 223-6.

Now on to Article 35, proposed changes to the Industrial Zoning District.  This will take a while.  There are three video presentations and an amendment.  I serve on the Zoning Bylaw Working Group, so I was involved in the development of the recommendations.  Ms. Zsembery introduced the article and presented a video regarding the contents of the article.  Ms. Anderson proposed an amendment to remove the ability to introduce residential development in the district.  Mr. Ruderman introduced Mr. Seltzer, a town resident for a video presentation.  Ms. Reynolds introduced Mr. Hollman, a town resident for a video presentation.  Ms. LaCourt raised a point of order in regards to the maligning of character taking place in the the third video.  The Moderator noted that the video was also somewhat out-of-scope.  Mr Worden had some technical difficulties in coming to the microphone.  He was also on the ZBWG, and he agrees with Mr. Seltzer.  He is in favor of Ms. Anderson's amendment.  He believes the consultant study was not to include residential.  The town shouldn't be trying to enrich developers.

It was now after 11:00, so there was a call for reconsideration and a motion to adjourn.

-------

This was a better night in terms of getting things done.  I thought the Moderator did a good job keeping things moving.  I miss the days when we could yell "SCOPE" from the floor when a speaker was drifting off topic.  That cannot be done now.  May be there could be a button for that!

After four sessions, we have disposed of 63 of the initial 91 articles, including six tonight.  Our next meeting will begin with a discussion of budgets, so I don't know if we will get back to article 35 before the break.

2021 Annual Town Meeting - Night Three

 Good evening and welcome to Night Three of the 2021 Annual Town Meeting.  We were a little slow at last Wednesday's meeting, and I hope we can pick up the pace.  I hope we will have fewer network issues than last time.  I see we have another voting option to exercise (vote by text), so maybe that will help.  We are still working our way through the warrant articles that propose changes to the Town Bylaws.  We still have zoning articles, budget and appropriations, and resolutions to go.

 We should be starting with a pair of articles that have a recommended vote of "No Action" by the Select Board.  This recommendation means that the Select Board has decided against recommending passage of the article, and there isn't a matter to discuss.  However, both proponents have submitted a Substitute Motion, so there will be something available to discuss.  We then should move on to Ranked Choice Voting and a Real Estate Transfer Fee.

After our attendance vote, there are 237 members in the meeting, so we are ready to proceed.  The Moderator called the meeting to order.  A prerecorded rendition of National Anthem by Mr. Helmuth was played.  There was a notice displayed from the Council on Aging and the Department of Health.  They are looking to identify any seniors over the age of 75 who have not been vaccinated.  They are encouraged to call (781) 316-3400 for assistance with receiving the vaccine.

The Moderator noted that Monday, May 10 will be Budget Night at Town Meeting.  We will start with the Operating Budget (Article 55) and then move on to the Capital Budget (Article 56).  This is announced ahead, since it requires all division heads be in attendance to address questions regarding their individual budgets.

The following session, Wednesday, May 12 will start with the presentation on the Minuteman Regional Vocational Technical High School appropriation (Article 61).  The presentation from the superintendent is available online on the Town Meeting Warrant page.

The moderator was perturbed that someone was implying that the Town was trying to hide material from a resident regarding Article 35.  This person has created a video that they would like presented at town meeting.  However, their appearance must be at the behest of a Town Meeting Member.  As of this time, no member has stepped forward.  As such, the video is orphaned on ACMi.  The resident who made the video needs to find a meeting member to sponsor the video on their behalf.

Mr. DeCourcey moved that the meeting will continue to Wednesday night upon adjournment this evening.  The Moderator called for announcements, resolutions, and reports.  Seeing none, we start into the Articles.

Article 21 is a proposal to limit spending through the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to projects serving residents earning 60% Area Medium Income (AMI) or less.  The bylaw passed last year set the limit at 100% AMI to align with the language in the Community Preservation Act (CPA).  However, this level is significantly higher than the AMI of black and Latinx households.  Ms. Kiesel, a resident of the town, presented a substitute motion, as the recommended vote was for "No Action".  She was introduced by Ms. Garber.  Ms. Worden spoke in favor of the article while taking shots at the ARB and the DPCD.  She was reminded by the Moderator to stay on scope.  Ms. Kelleher spoke in favor of the message conveyed by the proponent.  She spoke how there has been little private development of affordable housing.  It was her amendment last fall that established the 100% AMI threshold, and she is concerned that the proposed bylaw amendment will not lead to more affordable housing.  There are two paths to affordable housing:  public subsidies and private developers can use it to couch excess profits.  [The Moderator steered her back onto scope.]  She wants us to allow the Trustees to actually start doing their job.  We need to be honest about supporting a proactive policy.  Mr. Dunn also salutes intent but opposes the motion.  We need to customize a solution to our community.  The Trustees need to be allowed to meet for the first time before tying their hands.  Ms. Murray had a question about the "area" in AMI.  Town Counsel deferred to the Director of Planning and Community Development, Ms. Raitt to respond.  The area is Boston-Cambridge-Newton region, not just town.  Mr. Meeks noted there are two types of affordable housing, deeply affordable and more modestly affordable.  He sees this trust fund as needing to focus on subsidizing the deeply affordable housing.  Since the proposal only requires a majority go to 60% AMI or below, other projects can still be funded.  Mr. DeCourcey, Chair of the Select Board salutes the intent, but noted that neither the Trust nor the Trustees exist yet.  Of the other communities with trust funds, none of them have an income restriction in the bylaw.  These are usually included in the trusts rules and regulations.  All CDBG funds go to housing below 50% AMI without a bylaw requirement.  Imposing a figure in the bylaw limits the flexibility of the trust to operate.

Mr. Jamieson is looking for clarification of what funds are being limited.  Counsel determined it would be non-CDBG  funds.  He encouraged keeping the limits in the regulations, the Trust Plan, which has yet to be established.  Ms. Rowe made a point of order as Chair of the CDBG Committee.  It was determined that it was not a point of order by the Moderator.  Mr. Ciano asked if Trustees have been chosen.  (No)  He is in favor of the amendment.  Ms. Henkin is in support.  It is only a majority that needs to be spent at 60% AMI.  She is concerned that we are reluctant to put this into law.  We should be thinking about different solutions for upper and lower level need.  Ms. Heigham moved the question.

I agree with many of the speakers that it is essential to support affordable housing to a great extent.  However, to determine that the Trust and Trustees need to be limited in their actions before the Trust is even established is premature, and honestly micro-managing.  I am also concerned about what happens if a great project appears at 70% AMI, and it is the only project being presented, does that mean that the fund will be unable to act on the project?  The motion to terminate debate passed 174-62.  [The Moderator misspoke about what we were voting on, and when it was pointed out to him, he loudly uttered an expletive.  It was very funny.]  Mr. Worden had a point of order asking if his "machine" won't get to the portal, can he still call in his vote.  The Moderator indicated he had given the information to his wife, and he reissued the phone number.  I voted against the substitute motion, and it failed 84-154.  The main motion before the meeting is a vote of "No Action" which passed [The Moderator took offense to the charge that he was blaming the voting issues on the Members.  He noted that it is an issue with the system, and he is merely asking the members to space out the timing of their votes so the system doesn't freeze.]  The vote of "No Action" was approved 190-49.

Mr. Holland raised a technical point of order noting that the portal has an understandable failure mode, and we have a workaround.  The system isn't perfect, but it does work.

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

Article 24 is the proposal to allow for ranked choice voting (RCV) in Arlington.  Mr. DeCourcey noted the Select Board was unanimous in its approval of using RCV for single seat elections, and 4-1 in favor of using it for multiple candidate elections.  Mr. Dennis, Chair of the Election Modernization Committee made the presentation.  Vote splitting can lead to lower preference candidates being elected.  RCV allows preferential voting to make sure that all elections are won by candidates with majority support.  Since there won't be vote splitting, more candidates will run, and it should lead to greater civility.  This is a home-rule petition, so if this is approved by Town Meeting, it still needs a positive vote of the state legislature to allow it to be implemented.    He also cautioned against the proposed amendment since it would lead to some elections being held differently in different years.  He thanked the members of his committee.  It is 9:30, so we are on break.

---------

We are back, and Mr. Schlichtman has a slide presentation for his amendment.  He is now asking for a vote of "No Action".  He feels the committee did not live up to its mandate, and it was openly proactive regarding RCV.  He says it doesn't end gamesmanship, it just changes the game.  He will now need to ask for #1 votes.  He doesn't think this will make things more civil; it will be a detrimental change.  He wants his amendment adopted and the main motion voted down.  Mr. Levy has a point of order asking whether his amendment is within scope.  The Moderator says it is in scope, and just because he wants the main motion to fail, doesn't mean he cannot propose amendments.  Mr. Levy hopes other such amendments will be reconsidered, since they appear to be raised to change something that the proponent wants to be defeated anyway.  Ms. Friedman has a simple amendment requiring the Town Clerk to publish the tabulation of the voting for all rounds.  This will make is clear how the tabulation was conducted.  There are many people on the speaker's list.  Mr. Ciano supports the Schlichtman amendment, but doesn't understand how RCV works.  He would like someone to explain how it works.  Mr. Dennis patiently explained how it works for single and multi-seat elections.Mr. Ciano is not in favor.  Mr. Worden feels similar to Mr. Schlichtman, if it ain't broken, don't fix it.  RCV leads to slavery.  [Lincoln would have lost the 1860 elections, the South wouldn't have seceded, and slavery would have remained in place.]  He doesn't think RCV is fair.  It can take days or weeks to figure out who won.  Mr. Worden doesn't trust computers.  [Lots of obfuscation]  Mr. Deyst had a point of order requesting that the speakers be held to scope.  Mr. Levy moves the question.  The motion to terminate debate, which I supported, was defeated 115-118, so we go back to the speaker list.

Mr. Rehrig is interested in hearing the opinion of the minority vote on the Select Board.  Mr. DeCourcey noted that vote was in regards to the multi-seat elections, and the issue was with how the votes redistribute.  This is a point of issue with many systems for multi-seat elections.  The approach favored by the committee is unusual or unique.  It is possible to enact single-seat RCV without multi-seat.  Mr. Deyst passed.  Mr. Heigham asked to see the text of the main article.  What are "two or more sequential skipped rankings" as noted in Section 8.B(a)2.  Counsel noted this applies when a ballot has skipped preferences on their ballot.  A single skipped rank would promote the lower rank up that gap.  Where there is a double skip, it will treated as if the rest of the ballot was blank.  This is fairly standard language in RCV bylaws.  The voting machine will kick out ballots with improperly allocated votes as it does today.  The Moderator stepped in to control the debate and assign questions.  The committee does not have a definitive number of communities that use specific forms of RCV, but it is on the order of 2-12.  Ms. Muldoon, a member of the Election Modernization Committee and the League of Women Voters is in favor.  The League supports it as the most fair voting method, and she noted that the Town did vote in favor of the RCV ballot measure last year.  She noted that our tabulation machines are able to tabulate these votes.  We need to include a greater range of voices, and it will increase turnout if it promotes more candidates entering races.  It will hopefully expand diversity in government.  She also thinks there should just be one system of voting used, so RCV should be for both single and multi-candidate elections.  Ms. Brazile, the Town Clerk and TMM strongly supports RCV.  As Clerk, she does not see any issues in switching to RCV.  She anticipates receiving quick results.  She recommends voting against the Schlichtman amendment to avoid confusion over voting methods.

Mr. Christiana wasn't certain how Mr. Worden knew the second choice votes in the 1860 election.  He has experience working on campaigns and informing voters about CRV, and has noted that more candidates are more civil under RCV so as to not sink other candidates with similar views.  He would like to know if there are any challenges to reporting the tabulation.  (The question was not addressed.)  Mr. Foskett went back to Mr. Worden's comments noting that our current system has worked for centuries.  He is offended that he is being told that "bullet" voting is wrong:  he can vote however he wants.  He thinks it is too complicated.  Voting isn't broken.  Vote no on the whole article.  Mr. Curro has no objections to strategic voting.  He thinks voters may like the opportunity to rank preferences, but they are not required to do so.  The committee suggests RCV will increase turnout and candidates, but he is not entirely sure that will be the case.  He noted that in his last election, he won with 11% of registered voters (45% of votes cast).  Ms. Stone is very much in favor of the main motion and against the proposed amendment.  RCV for only single-seat races results in inconsistent elections for boards where they are majority rule some years and ranked choice in others.  That is not equitable.  The multi-seat proposal is the same procedure as the single-seat procedure.  There is no difference for the voters.  There is a delay in implementation to allow for the education of voters.  Eliminating the benefits of RCV for high-stakes elections, is not the way to go.  Mr. Jalkut thinks the core question is whether this proposal will make our voting system better or worse.  He had a mathematics class given by Tom Lehrer who noted that there is no perfect voting system or election strategy.  Even if there isn't a perfect system, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't move in that direction.  We should try for something better than winner-takes-all.  He is not in favor of the Schlichtman amendment.  Asking voters to rank their preferences is not so hard.

Ms. LaCourt noted that we are not voting whether to implement RCV, but rather whether RCV should go on the ballot for the rest of town to vote.  She feels RCV will improve democracy by increasing the participation in voting.  She asked whether Mr. Schlichtman's contention that the committee was improperly functioning was true.  The Moderator thought the question was out of order.  The Moderator closed discussion for this evening, called for reconsideration, and asked for a motion to adjourn.

--------

The moderator also noted that at tonight's pace, we have another 30 sessions ahead of us.  We voted on one article, tabled a second, and debated a third.  Granted, the discussion on RCV is important, and we need to make a well informed decision.  However, we are not getting a wide breadth of opinions.  There are many similar opinions on both sides, with a scant few in between.

In my opinion, this is largely a result of being online.  When we were meeting together in Town Hall, it was possible to read the temperature of the room.  It was possible to get a nearly constant sense of whether the discussion had come to its conclusion, or whether it should continue.  We had more speakers pass.  It felt more concise.  Now, while I respect the comments from all my colleagues, and I really appreciate the debate, we need to find a way to inform the debate rather than prolong the debate.  Unless we get at that, we will absolutely be meeting throughout June.

A quick shout-out to all the town staff who come in early and stay late to make Town Meeting work.  Your efforts are deeply appreciated.  I hope we don't overstay our welcome.

2021 Annual Town Meeting - Night Two

Good evening and welcome back to Town Meeting.  We started the evening with a lovely playing of the National Anthem.  There were no new members to be sworn in.  The Moderator showed a video with introductions from the division heads in town government.  Mr. DeCourcey then put forward the standard motion to continue the meeting upon adjournment to Monday, May 3.

The Moderator opened the floor to announcements.  Mr. Ruderman, the town's representative to the Minuteman School Committee noted that he has received many questions about whether baked goods were available from the culinary arts program.  We have been spoiled in years past by having them for sale in the side aisle during our break.  Unfortunately, the program does not usually prepare additional goods in light of Covid.  However, through the Soup Group program, special arrangements have been made to allow members to order goods for later pickup.  Go order your snacks!

Article 3 was removed from the table to allow receipt of new reports.  No new reports were offered, so it went right back on the table.  We then returned to Article 7 regarding a proposed rock removal ordinance.  Town Counsel started with answers to questions asked Ms. Memon at the previous session.  There were ten permits over the past ten years for blasting spread over seven sites.  Other towns have different approaches to regulation.  Under state law, more stringent regulations are implemented in denser communities.  Mr. Yontar moved to terminate debate.  We were introduced to a new "Second" button on our console allowing all members an opportunity to second a motion.  The motion was seconded by many, many people.  I would like to hear some more debate on this article, so I voted "no".  The motion failed to reach a 2/3 vote (134-86), so we will have an opportunity for additional debate.  

Ms. Band asked if the town has ever denied an application for blasting.  The Fire Chief was unaware of any denials.  She further asked if there is such a thing as an un-blastable lot.  The Chief didn't know how to answer the question.  Mr. Lobel thought this is a well intentioned article, but it is not the right solution.  He wanted to know how expensive the blasting report is to prepare.  Counsel didn't know an exact figure, but thought it would be a few thousand dollars.  Mr. Lobel noted the ongoing project on Brunswick Road which is causing concern in his precinct.  He noted that there is concern about permanent damage to homes in the area with blasting.  While long term and annoying, chipping would cause less permanent damage.

Ms. Carlton-Gysan asked if the environmental impact of the two removal methods had been or would be evaluated.  Counsel indicated that if there wasn't a wetland or stormwater issue, it wouldn't be evaluated.  Mr. Jamison noted that blasting sites he has seen have mats to control the dispersion of material.  He is OK with the notification requirement.  He is OK with it entering the bylaw, but he doesn't think it will end chipping.  Ms. Butler had great concerns  as there are a significant number of subterranean water features that are forgotten or undocumented.  They could be ruptured.  Ms. Culverhouse was concerned that the 30 day period to file damage claims was insufficient.  Mr. Worden wanted to know why residents have to be faced with blasting or chipping at all.  He would like a more comprehensive study to determine how to protect residents and outcroppings.  "When people had brains," they knew better than build on these sites.  These projects should not happen.  Mr. Moore moved to terminate debate, and the motion was seconded.  I think the debate has been better, so I will vote to terminate.  It passed 189-27.  This is a really difficult decision for me.  Passage will require a contractor to consider blasting, but it would not be required.  It is possible that research will help them make a better decision, but it might also just mean it is that much easier to choose blasting.  In the end, I voted against the article, since it doesn't really seem to get at the root of the issue.  Rock removal is noisy, dusty, and annoying, and there is no way around that.  We need a proposal that will offer more protection regardless of the manner of removal chosen.  I wasn't alone in this opinion; the article failed 62-172.

Next up is Article 15 regarding Domestic Partnerships.  (Articles 8-14 were disposed of in the Consent Agenda.)  Mr. DeCorcey noted that the Select Board is recommending a version of the article that limits partnerships to two people rather than more individuals.  His concern is that the Attorney General will have a concern about plural arrangements, and this could lead to the article being invalidated.  Mr. Meeks provided a video introduction to the proposal, explaining why the Town needs to explicitly include domestic partnerships.  He also referenced his amendment that would include partnerships with two or more people, but it would remove language equating partners with spouses to avoid state scrutiny.  The bylaw would not cause any financial impacts; it will just provide parity for partnerships.  He takes this personally, as he has two long-term domestic partners, and he is seeking to have protections extended to his family.

Mr. McNeill thinks the main motion has broad appeal, so he wants to address the amendment.  This is a civil rights issue for people in polyamorous relationships.  Mr. Hamlin asked for a positive vote for the main motion.  He further explained why it is important that the town extend protections to plural partnerships.  There could be issues at the AG, but we should not let that hold us back.  Mr. Harrelson wanted to know why there appears to be a narrow definition in the motion.  Assistant Counsel noted it was included to not conflict with state law.  Ms. Stone spoke in favor of the article, but she had questions regarding the termination language in the amendment.  It says any member may terminate the partnership.  Does that only exclude the person seeking to leave, or would the entire partnership be dissolved?  Assistant counsel thought it would dissolve the entire partnership.  She was also concerned about the language used to direct notification of such termination.  Mr. Dunn supports motion and amendment.  He is so relieved by the protections he is able to now enjoy as a gay man, and he feels it is time to extend those protections further.  Mr. Yontar passed.  Mr. Goodsell also supports both the main article and the amendment.  He wanted to know how the state might act.  Mr. Cunningham indicated that the future is unclear.  The communities that allow for plural partnerships are cities, and they have special disposition in regards to how their bylaws are approved.  Mr. Jamieson wanted confirmation that Cambridge and Somerville have plural partnerships.  Mr. Cunningham has confirmed that Somerville allows plural partnerships, but city ordinances are not state reviewable.  (Mr. DeCourcey cut in to indicate that Cambridge has voted recently to so as well.)   Mr. Jamieson wanted to know if the city ordinances would work in the town's favor, but that was unknown.

Mr. Gast moved to terminate debate, and the motion was seconded.  (I voted in favor, and it passed 202-29)  I really appreciated the full debate on this article, and it really helped to clarify the issues involved.  It is a great thing to allow multiple forms of long-term domestic partnerships to flourish and be recognized.  The amendment was adopted 192-37, allowing the main vote to advance plural partnerships.  The vote on the amended main motion was 221-11, and it was approved.  Off to our break.

-----

Back from break, we start in on Article 20, a recommendation to create a study group to consider how remote participation in meetings can continue after the Covid restrictions are lifted.  Mr. DeCourcey introduced the article.  Mr. Auster introduced his amendment to have the committee also consider how information from public boards can be better disseminated.  Ms. Dray has two amendments.  One would have the committee recommend actions that would not require a bylaw or an expenditure of funds be implemented immediately.  The other would include a member from the Council on Aging and two from Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion on the study committee.  The three seats would be taken away from Town Meeting.  Mr. Berkowitz spoke in favor of the motion and the amendments, as they serve to be more inclusionary.  Mr. Varoglu spoke in favor as well.  He thought that the added transparency could help with the upcoming discussions on an override.  Ms. Smith strongly supports the main motion and the Auster amendment.  She has noticed the increased participation since we have gone remote.  She had concerns with DEI having undo influence over the discussions.  Ms. Migliazzo supports motion and amendments.  She wanted to speak up for handicapped residents who have had problems attending in-person meetings who were able to participate online.  Mr. Holland is in support of the motion and the amendments.  He has researched collaborative environments for government participation, and picked up social science wisdom.  They are successful when each role can do what they believe they need to do.

Mr. Jamieson thanked Ms. Dray for her article and amendments and Mr. Auster for his amendment.  He encouraged an extension of the time period to January 15, 2022 to allow the committee additional time to work and still report to Town Meeting that spring.  (There was a question as to whether the amendment was appropriate at this time, and the Moderator confirmed that simple changes that are easy to understand can be made from the floor.)  Ms. Gruber tried to ask a question of the proponent, but the Moderator denied the request.  She is anxious that we move as quickly as we can, and she would like to know what the implication would be of extending the work of the committee to January 15.  The Moderator indicated that should the amendment be adopted, the committee can still report early.  The Manager stated that the town is committed to implementing a hybrid practice, and there will not be a quick turning off of online participation.  The Moderator reminded the members that we are discussing the forming of a committee, not the possible impacts of the results of that committee.  Mr. Schlichtman wanted to know how much authority the Select Board as over directing the format of meetings by other committees and boards.  Mr. Heim noted that we can only hold the meetings online due to executive order.  The Select Board can help determine how resources can be expended in support of the recommendations of the committee.  Mr. Schlichtman supports the first two amendments but strongly opposes the second Dray amendment since it removes elected town meeting members from the committee.  Ms. Henkin, as a disabled person and a graduate student spoke strongly in favor of the accommodations provided by a hybrid model, and she encouraged swift action.  Ms. Heigham is in favor of the main motion but against the second Dray amendment.  It is important for elected officials to have a voice in determining policy that impacts our ability to best serve our constituents.  Mr. Yontar strongly supports the study and looks forward to the results.  He questioned whether the Auster amendment was in scope since it doesn't relate to the operation of public meetings.  (The Moderator found the amendment in scope.)  Mr. Franzosa moves the question and all matters before it.  It feels like time, so I vote yes.  Debate is terminated 186-46.

[Mr. Goodsell raised a point of order asking that the texts of the various amendments be displayed during the voting so it is clear what we are voting on as we do so.  The Moderator agreed:  there are five votes under this article.]

We have four amendments and the main motion.  Mr. Auster's amendment is an important addition, as it makes sure information is better disseminated to those participating by other means.  (Approved 207-19)  Ms. Dray's first amendment to encourage early implementation is a sound suggestion.  (Approved 197-37)  Her second amendment would be acceptable to me if it included one person from the CoA and one from the DEI.  However, giving one point of view additional influence at the loss of almost all town meeting representation is too much for me.  (Fails 98-131)  I think Mr. Jamieson's amendment is innocuous, and it does allow the committee additional time should it be needed.  (Approved 118-106)  The final vote on the original motion as amended by Auster, Dray 1, and Jamieson passed 230-6.

Since it is 10:57pm, the Moderator called for notices of reconsideration and a motion to adjourn.  It was seconded and held up by a point of order.  Mr. Worden reported that he had the database error message multiple times.  This has occurred to many people, myself included.  He is disappointed that his votes have not been recorded.  The Moderator has indicated that I.T. will research the issue and get back to us on Monday.   We are adjourned ... almost.  Mr. Marshall has a point of order.  He asked whether it would be possible to receive votes by text.  The Moderator noted that the receiving line is a land line and cannot receive text messages.  Now, we are adjourned until Monday.

-----

This was kind of a slow night.  These were very important articles, but we only got to 2 1/2 of them.  This is the point where I get concerned that there will be a turn to expediency over deliberation.  We were elected to properly conduct the town's business, "participate fully and ... fairly evaluate all matters before Town Meeting."  We must resist the temptation to quash debate in favor of an early dissolution.  We must also be selective in our deliberations and not spend excessive time repeating the remarks of prior speakers.  It is a much harder balance to reach online that in person.  On the floor of Town Hall, you can read body language, and speak with your neighbors to help determine if you should speak.  We don't have those clues here, and I believe that is to our detriment.

I also hope we can work out the technical issues that have been plaguing us this spring.  It has not prevented me from participating or voting, but there are members reporting this.  I am hopeful that the Moderator can report back to us on Monday with some solid solutions.

My oldest son completed is Hampshire College Division III project review during tonight's meeting, so I think a little celebration will be forthcoming in our household.

2021 Annual Town Meeting - Night One

 Good evening and welcome to the 2021 Annual Town Meeting.  Thank you to all those who voted for me this year.  I am proud to represent our precinct, and I am glad to be able to do so for another three years.  For new readers, these notes are my personal notes from Town Meeting, recorded to allow my constituents to see what I do at town meeting.  These notes are NOT intended to be authoritative, nor are they reported without my personal bias.

We are on Zoom again.  I wish we were able to meet in person, but I think many of us have not yet been vaccinated; I haven't.  When we last did this in the fall, it was much slower than being in person.  We have many more articles this time around, and I hope we are able to move quickly and efficiently through the articles.

In the fall, there was also a spate of members calling for an end to discussion at a fairly early point in the consideration of articles.  They came before many questions were asked, and it felt like the process was being short-circuited.  I am hopeful that we are more patient with our fellow members.

This year, there are 91 articles to consider.  Many of them have substitute motions or amendments already filed.  I think this could go on for a long time.  Since I cannot go anywhere anyways, this shouldn't be a problem.  It is taking a while to get all the members up on the system.  The town has a great team of technical staff working with members to troubleshoot problems.  Our thanks to them.

At 8:19, we have 241 members present, so the Moderator is calling the meeting to order.  We are starting with a recording of the Menotomy Minutemen marching into Town Hall.  (It is from a few years past, judging by the age of their youngest member.)  We then had a very thoughtful prerecorded invocation by Rev. Marta Flanagan from the First Parish of Arlington.  After a brief introduction from our Moderator, John Leone, our first official vote was to allow Town Meeting to be conducted online.  This vote passed 235-1.  We can now proceed with town meeting.  The Moderator continued with his introductory comments and instructions for voting, debate, and points of order.  The Moderator asked for a moment of silence in honor of past town meeting members who have passed away in the previous year.

Next up was the swearing in of new members.  It was not as exciting as in person, when it is followed by applause.  Mr. DeCoursey made a motion to allow all those with business before the meeting to be allowed within the "virtual" enclosure.  This was approved by a similarly virtual voice vote.  The Clerk confirmed that the meeting was properly noticed.  Mr. DeCourcey moved that when we adjourn, that we pick up where we left off on Wednesday.  That was also a virtual voice vote.

There were no announcements or resolutions from members, so we started in on Article 3.   (Article 1 is the Annual Town Election, which was back at the start of the month.)  The main reports were accepted, and the votes included in those reports were put before the meeting without further action.  This was voted to be lain upon the table.  (This was inadvertently noted as Article 1, when it is actually Article 3.)  Article 2 is the state of the town address, which is delivered by the Chair of the Select Board.  This year, that is Stephen DeCourcey.  (That means he is up for reelection in 2022.)  He gave a very nice speech touching on so many topics that have impacted the town over the past year.  I encourage people to watch the speech online at ACMi.tv.

 Mr Foskett, the Chair of the Finance Committee presented the Financial Report to the Meeting.  He thanked everyone involved in the preparation of the report and those who worked so hard to keep the town going over the past year.  He presented the impending deficits due to the Town Budgets growing at more than 2x national inflation rate.  He implored the Town to work to reign in spending and take advantage of improvements in digital communications to save money.  Article 3 was then properly put upon the table.

Article 4 is the appointment of a measurer of wood and bark.  As is our practice, John Worden III, the longest serving member was nominated and approved 222-5 with 5 abstentions.  Article 5 is the election of an Assistant Town Moderator.  James O'Conor had served in this capacity for as long as I've been on Town Meeting, but he has moved out of town.  There were two nominations:  Adam Auster and Michael Ruderman.  They were both given time to address the Meeting before we voted.  I voted for Mr. Ruderman, as I have known him for many years, and I believe he would do a good job as our ATM.  Our voting is limited to three choices: 1-Yes, 2-No, and 3-Abstain.  It was determined by the Clerk that 1 would be Auster and 2 would be Ruderman.  The vote was 126-108 for Mr. Auster.  Congratulations to him.

Before starting with Article 6, the Moderator has asked that we review and vote the Consent Agenda.  This is a list of articles that are anticipated to be able to be voted without need for debate.  There were a few administrative corrections to various articles.  The Moderator chose to take break before starting on the Consent Agenda.

After break, the Moderator read through the consent agenda to see if there were any articles to be removed from the list.  Articles 6, 53, 62, 81, and 90 were removed from the list, leaving 42 articles to be voted as one.  I voted in favor of the consent agenda.  It was approved 222-1 with 2 abstentions.  That should take at least a week off Town Meeting.  Now we move on to the second part of the consent order, the articles requiring a 2/3 super-majority vote.  (These are usually zoning or bonding issues.)  After removing articles 28 and 33 from the consent agenda, we voted the other 6 articles together.  I voted yes, and the final vote was 228-1 with 1 abstention.  That saved us another week.

We are now back to the next article on the warrant which is #6, regarding the term limits for Community Preservation Act Committee members.  The existing bylaw includes a term limit for at-large members, and the proposal is to remove that term limit.  Ms. Gruber thought it would be valuable to allow others to serve, and term limits would enhance that ability.  Ms. Melofchik opposes and wants to keep the term limits.  She would like to see more diversity and more turnover.  Mr. Helmuth (as town meeting member) noted he is no longer on the committee, and he thought there was value in having some institutional knowledge, and there are no other committees with term limits.  Ms. Rowe noted there are two current vacancies and the committee needs people to apply.  Mr. Chrisitana appreciated the comments looking for fresh faces on committees.  Ms. Culverhouse thought we should have more broad term limits on boards and committees.  Ms. Henkin also supports more term limits and is concerned that we don't have more term limits.  Mr. Reck moved the question and requested to terminate debate.  This felt like the correct time for this vote.  While I agree that turnover is good, most committees require someone to be reappointed.  If someone is interested in serving, they can notify the appointing authority that they would like to be considered.  I think there are some people who continue to serve because they are concerned that no one will take their place.  Knowing that there is someone to take their place might encourage them to move on.  If there are to be term limits, they should apply to all boards and committees (and maybe town meeting too.)  The motion to terminate debate was approved 190-39 (1 abs.), and the vote on the main motion to eliminate the term limits was approved 164-70.

Article 7 would add a new bylaw regulating rock excavation.  Mr. DeCourcey introduced the article on behalf of the Select Board, and asked Town Counsel to present.  Mr. Heim noted there is a history of issues over the years regarding excavations.  The current bylaws regulate noise, and they do not allow for the town to stop work or seek damages.  Proposal would require a pre-blast survey for any excavation in excess of 50 cu. yd., which would require engagement with abutters to document existing conditions.  It does not require blasting.  However, blasting is faster and tends to be less disruptive.  The town also heard several negative experiences with blasting.  This article addresses some neighbor concerns in regards to current practice.  Ms. Dray spoke on behalf of the residents in precinct 8 asking town meeting to reject this article.  There is a lot of rock removal in this precinct.  She asserted that the bylaw would not protect the residents.  Some damage may not show within the 30 day time period.  Mr. Koch was confused why if blasting is so great, why is there so much chipping.  Mr. Heim noted that blasting is more regulated and more expensive to implement.  Contractors tend to underestimate the impact of chipping.  Ms. Allison-Ampe is concerned that the bylaw could push contractors to more seriously consider blasting.  Symmes blasting translated through bedrock to houses far outside the 250 ft radius.  Ms. Memon asked how many of these permits are issued annually and is blasting used more extensively in other areas.  Mr. Heim asked if he could respond to the questions on Wednesday.

Since it is after 11:00, the Moderator asked for motions of reconsideration, the speakers list was recorded, it was moved and seconded, and the meeting was adjourned.

 

Special Town Meeting - Fall 2020 - Night Five

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christian