2019 Town Meeting - Night Two, Part 2

After all the turmoil around the density bonus articles, we moved on the next most controversial question, should we allow accessory dwelling units.  These are small independent dwelling units created within existing single-family dwelling units.   This question has come before town meeting twice recently, and twice it was voted down.  This year's offer included greater restrictions on the use and more requirements to make it blend into the existing appearance of the property.  The initial presentation was made by the ARB, laying out the specifics of the proposal.  Michael Quinn, a member of the council on aging discussed the specifics of the article with senior residents, and reported that while there was some interest, there was concern that the proposal wasn't going to work out as intended.

I was walking to the podium as we stopped for break.  This gave me time to discuss some upcoming questions with the planning and fire departments.  When we returned from break, I tried to make the point I made during the ARB hearings:  the vast majority of land area in town is in the single family districts.  If we are serious about creating more affordable housing in town, cannot do it by limiting the discussion to only the highest density portions of town.  We must democratize the effort by including all areas of town, and the only proposal I have seen that offers this opportunity is accessory dwelling units.  I asked the Fire Chief if these units would create issues for his department.  Although he had stated earlier that these would be problems, he felt that the changes since the initial introduction of the article have addressed those concerns.  I came out strongly in favor.

Liz Pyle reported that the Residential Study Group was in opposition to this proposal.  It was brought to them very late in the process, and they had concerns about the lack of protections from their use for short-term rentals, concerns from the fire and building departments, and general concerns about enforcement.  The short term rental question would be addressed by article 35 this session.  The fire department had already indicated their concerns were addressed.  The Moderator made a rare decision to allow the building inspector to address direct quotes attributed to him, quotes which applied to an earlier version of the article, but not directly to the proposal under discussion.  This was followed up by another member of the RSG confirming that the issues with the early draft had been mainly addressed, and it was worth moving forward with the proposal.

The next speaker noted that the proposal was improved by addressing comments from previous attempts, that it will will raise the tax base, and that the ARB has worked hard to make this happen.  We say we want to be inclusive, but we won't approve those articles.  A member read the statements from the zoning bylaw stating the purpose of the R0 and R1 (single family) districts.  He wanted to know why we were going to EVICERATE the bylaw.  He focused on the sentence "The Town discourages intensive land uses, uses that would detract from the single-family residential character of these neighborhoods, and uses that would otherwise interfere with the intent of this Bylaw."  I disagree with his characterization, since the bylaw specifically requires that the accessory unit be included within the existing house, and no additional parking facilities would be created.  The intent of the Bylaw, as stated in the Purpose, includes the following, "The purpose of this Bylaw is to promote health, safety, convenience, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of Arlington; ... to encourage housing for persons at all income levels; ... to protect and preserve open space as a natural resource, ... to conserve the value of land and buildings; to encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the Town; ... and to encourage an orderly expansion of the tax base by utilization, development, and redevelopment of land. It is made with reasonable consideration to the character of the district and to its peculiar suitability for particular uses, with a view to giving direction or effect to land development policies and proposals of the Redevelopment Board, including the making of Arlington a more viable and more pleasing place to live, work, and play."  I do not believe accessory dwelling units would violate the intent of the zoning bylaw.

There was one more statement of concern that in the age of AirBnB and UBER, there could be future sharing schemes we still have not considered.  We should consider Article 35 first, evaluate its effectiveness, than reconsider accessory dwelling units.  This was the last comment before a call to close debate, which was easily passed.  I voted for the article, which while receiving a plurality of the vote (137-82), the article failed to reach the required two-thirds vote for zoning articles required under state law.

Next up was Article 17, a complete replacement of the sign bylaw.  This was encouraged by the master plan, the recodification process, and the new legal legal framework after the Reed v. Town of Gilbert decision in the Supreme Court.  I had spoken to the ARB, Town Counsel, and  and the Moderator regarding two administrative amendments.  However, these were not mentioned in the introduction of the article by the ARB.  One speaker had a question about two of the prohibited sign types, a question that could have been answered by reading the definitions section of the article.  I then presented the two changes.  The first was to fix a typo, a duplicated "that" in one of the paragraphs.  I thought it could just be done, but I had to go back and file a formal amendment request.

The second amendment was to change the process for sign special permit review.  In most special permit matters in town, there are two parallel processes.  The ZBA hears requests in the lower density residential districts, and the ARB hears cases from the main thoroughfares.  The proposed sign bylaw adopted that language, but I have felt it made much more sense for the ARB to hear all sign special permit requests because they are better resourced, and this would provide better consistency.  The ZBA discussed this at our meeting the night before, and we agreed as a Board to make the change.  After a question about enforcement, answered by the Building Inspector, there was a call to terminate debate.  This was passed, and the revised sign bylaw was passed 207-8.

Articles 18 and 19 were changes to the Floodplain and Inland Wetlands District sections in the zoning bylaws.  These were made in consultation with the corresponding committees to make sure the zoning bylaw aligns with their bylaws and state law.  After int introduction, there was no further discussion, and the articles passed 214-2 and 210-1 respectively.

Article 20 was changes to the zoning bylaw to properly align with the so-called "Dover Amendment" in state law.  Towns are not allowed to imposed use restrictions on religious and non-profit educational uses in their zoning bylaw.  Our bylaw could be interpreted to require a special permit in some cases.  There was a question about the language which is oddly self-referential.  It was confirmed that was intentional and correct.  It was also clarified that Inspectional Services confirms whether a proposed educational use was non-profit or for-profit.  The article was adopted 207-4.

Article 21, a replacement of the bicycle parking regulations was presented by another member of the ARB, David Watson, an avid cyclist and cycling proponent.  The proposal decouples bike parking from car parking, requiring both short-term and long-term parking.  It also sets minimum standards for parking racks and structures.  Another well-known cyclist was very appreciative.  A member noted how his building has an abundance of extra parking spaces, but bike parking has become an issue.  There were several specific questions from members.  It was confirmed that the rules were not retroactive, commercial and residential spaces in a mixed use building could be collocated, and abandoned bikes could be addressed by notifying the Police Department.  After a positive vote to close debate, it was adopted 207-7.

 At this point, we adjourned for the evening.  Monday night we will start with the Special Town Meeting the warrant article moving forward on the town-wide vote on a debt exclusion for funding the high school project.

2019 Town Meeting - Night Two, Part 1

Welcome back to the second night of the 2019 Annual Town Meeting.  I was trying to take care of a few items during the meeting, and as a result, I missed the names of several speakers this evening.  I will just focus on the speakers who made an impression.

After the nightly singing of the National Anthem, we had time for announcements.  We then received more reports.  Tonight it was the Capital Planning Committee, the Permanent Town Building Committee, and Envision Arlington.  If you are interested in reading any of the reports, they are all posted on the Town's Town Meeting webpage.  We tabled Article 3 to close that portion of the meeting and moved on to the consent agenda

The consent agenda is a list of articles that either have a recommended vote of no action or are annual votes that are not controversial compiled by the Moderator.  Most votes can be approved by a simple majority.  Zoning and bonding require a 2/3 vote.  For this reason there were two consent agenda votes.  The first vote only required a simple majority.  It included the following articles:  10, 12, 13, 23, 25, 31, 42, 46, 49, 55, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 78, and 79.  It was passed 201-8.  The second vote included articles Article 59, 60, 61, 62, 72, 76, and 77.  It was approved 213-4.

We then resumed the debate on article 16.  The first speaker was the chair of the ARB.  They had met since Monday and had many discussions with meeting members and town officials.  Based on Monday's discussion and the subsequent meetings, the ARB changed their recommended votes on articles 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 16 to no action.  This canceled the three amendments, but left the substitute motion intact.  After a few speakers, Dan Jalkut proposed to terminate debate.  That passed on a vote of 164-55.  Jon Gersh's substitute motion was voted down 90-123, leaving the no action in place.  That was approved 208-10.  Articles 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11 had their recommended vote of no action approved by voice vote.

We then took articles 10, 12, 13, 14, and 15 off the table for discussion.  This was a slight goof since we had voted the recommended no action on 10, 12, and 13 earlier that night.  Article 14 called for adding the R7 district to the list of districts where projects can reduce their parking requirement if they adopt an approved transportation demand management (TDM) program.  This would effect only three properties in town.  There were a number of speakers who were concerned about the effect on low income residents if parking was reduced, who encouraged the town to find alternate solutions rather that requiring more parking everywhere, and finally proposed ending debate.  That passed on a voice vote, and the main motion was adopted 181-34.

OK, I'm too tired to finish this tonight, so I will post this much now and post the remainder tomorrow.

2019 Town Meeting - Night One

Welcome to the 2019 Annual Town Meeting!  If you are new to my blog, welcome.  I use this forum to write about my experience of town meeting.  It is not intended to be authoritative or definitive.  (If you are looking for that, I would refer you to Dan Dunn's excellend blog.)

We started the evening with the usual start of meeting pomp.  The Menotomy Minutemen marched in to drum and fife.  They led us in the "Star Spangled Banner" before marching out again.  We stayed standing for the invocation, given this year by the priest from St. Agnes.  The moderator called for a moment of silence for members who had passed on during the preceeding year before swearing in the newly elected members and re-elected members.

After initially skipping ahead to reports, we went back to the annual State of the Town report.  This year, the report was given by Diane Mahon.  She touched on several topics including a big push for building a new high school, recommending passage of the AHS debt exclusion and the budgetary override, senior tax relief, and the completion of the town finance department.  There was a special note of thanks to Clarissa Rowe for agreeing to again serve in an interim capacity with the Select Board.  She concluded with a warm remembrance of Kevin Greeley.

We now properly moved onto the acceptance of reports.  There were submissions from the Arlington Redevelopment Board (ARB), the Select Board, the Finance Committee (FinComm), and the Master Plan Implementation Committee (MPIC).  Al Tosti, the chairman of FinComm had a very heartfelt remembrance of a past member and mentor who passed away last week.  This article was tabled to allow acceptance of additional reports as meeting progressses.

The position of Measurer of Wood and Bark is a colonial-era position.  If you purchase wood and are concerned that you were shortchanged, you can request the measurer come out and verofy the cordage.  This mostly ceremonial position is often held by the longest serving member of Town Meeting.  This year, that honor went to our past moderator, John Worden.

James O'Conor was elected to the position of Assistant Town Moderator for the umpteenth year.

The next article, #6 is the first of the zoning articles.  At the recommendation of the ARB, articles 9 , 10, 12, 13, 14, & 15 were tabled to allow us to discuss articles 6, 7, 8, 11, & 16 together.  These are the so-called density articles.  Articles 6, 7, 8, & 11 have no changes except that there would be a density bonus if an additional affordable unit was provided per article 16.  The articles were presented by Andrew Brunnel, the chair of the ARB.  He was given 20 minutes to make the case for the articles.  It was a good presentation, but certainly not enough to overcome doubt about the proposal.

The moderator wanted to put forward the substitute motions and amendments at the start of the general discussion.  Jon Gersh presented his substitute motion to replace the proposed vote under article 16 to the original language from the original proposal.  This would only provide additional affordable units if a development included 20 or more units (20% instead of the current 15%).  If you think of how many 20+ housing developments we have in Arlington, you can see how many affordable units will be created.  In my opinion, this proposal is more feel-good than productive.  My opinion could have been swayed by the proponent who insisted on maligning my yet unpresented amendment, using my name no less that six times in seven minutes.

I was next to speak, so I made sure to thank the previous speaker for his "warm introduction".  My amendment, removing the exemption from affordable housing from 4-5 unit buildings came as a result of discussions at the Precinct 8-10 meeting.  The proposal is to strike paragraph 2 under 8.2.4.C, simplifying Article 16 so all development bonuses require affordable units.  This makes a stronger proposal, focused on affordability.  I noted how adding units with limited financial returns can be challenging for builders.  Is this enough?  Contact with constituents made me aware of several things:  everyone wants affordability, few like the new mixed-use building near the high school, everyone likes Capital Theater building, and not knowing what we might get is disconcerting.  We need to understand that the ARB will review all proposals under these revised bylaws.  With strong resident participation, the ARB can address resident concerns regarding which projects they approve.  Should this pass, the ARB needs to be very clear that they are going to have the residents' back, that the process will be well publicized, and well explained

There were two additional amendments presented.  Barbara Thornton put forward an amendment that would better address environmental issues surrounding the increased density including surface water infiltration.  Marvin Lewiton presented an amendment to remove balconies from areas to be counted towards landscaped areas.

Steve Revilak, the originator of article 16 spoke about the history of exclusionary zoning practices in Arlington.  Whether intensional or not, the result has been to limit housing production, driving prices up, and limiting who can afford to live in town.  He explained that his original warrant article was written in an pen fashion to allow the ARB some leeway in how to address the issue of affordability.  He worked with the ARB to develop the density bonus strategy.  He did not oppose any of the amendments.

There were fourteen additional speakers before we adjourned at 11:00pm.  Jo Anne Preston intorduced resident Janice Broadman, who works in international economic development who did not believe there was evidence for density bonuses leading to increassed affordable housing.  Patricia Worden spoke next.  Jordan Weinstein wanted the town to delay for a year so it could conduct its own studies, rather than rely on the experiences for other communities.  Anne Thompson, a real estate economist, encouraged a delay a year to create a more developed and nuanced proposal.  She had several arguments both for and against.  Maureen Gormley introduced Julia Myrak Kew of the Mirak business family.  As a member of the Chamber of Commerce, she made a business case for increasing development to encourage private investment and not being afraid of change.  She also noted that a single parking space for an apartment was working at the Legacy apartments in the Center.

John Worden touted his years of opposing overdevelopment without being exclusionary.  He warned of an ATTACK.  He would prefer only affordable housing to be added, but only under the existing framework.  He then referred to my amendment as lipstick on a pig.  Better a sexy pig than a stick in the mud, calling this ATTACK the town's biggest threat in 50 years.  Kaspar
Kasparian touched on a number of topics including good critical thinking skills, holding off on passing all articles, worring about the safety of cyclists,  speculating who has what interests, wanting certaintyabout the future, bad landlords, greedy landlords, onstreet parking, rent control, and the state revisiting the long term capital gains tax.  Susan Stamps read a statement from the Tree Committee opposing the density proposals because they do not adequately address impacts on tree canopy.  She recommended more study and constituent contact.

Peter Howard noted how development can strengthen the local economy, how larger buildings contribute to a higher tax base, larger buildings have more efficiencies and lead to more affordability.  Kevin Koch wanted to let MIT run a simulation on what might happen.  He also asked about preventing subdivision like at the Time Olds site.  (The moderator noted that Town Meeting acted to allow that to happen.)  Bill Berkowitz intorduced Don Seltzer who gave a history of inadequate information from MAPC.  He presented shadow studies confirming taller buildings cast longer shadows, especially in winter.  He was the only presenter with realistic graphics.  (Even the ARB stayed away from renderings of buildings.)  Joe Tully introduced Wynelle Evans who was concerned about Arlington turning into "Bladerunner" with a vertical bifurcation of the population by wealth.  She encouraged reverting to the original language (no bonus), because the proposed vote included no protection for current tenants, no meaningful increase in affordable housing, no studies, no specific application for distinct character, no linkage and impact fees, and no cohousing provisions.  (I would note that little of this can be included in a zoning bylaw.)

The next speaker from precinct 6 noted people want to be here but wasn't sure how to allow that to happen.  The ARB hasn't made the case.  It would be OK to postone making changes.  He wanted to know what the ARB thought about the other two amendments.  (Thornton : Yes, Lewiton : OK)  Bill Hayner asked about the cost of an affordable unit ($1500 max rent/ $200K max buy).  He noted affordable doesn't equalavailable to low income.  He asked about the impact on the schools even if the population is currently peaking.  If Mugar moved forwrd, it would make things worse.  Looking for more answers, he wants to come back next year.  At this point, we adjourned for the night.
--------------
According to the Moderator, we made it through a quarter of those on the speaker list.  I expect we will have a few more presentations on Wednesday, but we seemed headed for a concensus.  I would not be surprised if someone calls for a closure vote before too long.  Otherwise, we're going to go very, very long this year.

I went into the night hoping to move this forward.  Since our tax revinue is tied to property value, if we want to create more revinue without taxing ourselves, we need to create some development.  That means redevelopment of parcels and increased density.  Article 16 would encourage more affordable housing in exchange for development.  However, the late feedback from constituents, whether by form letter or original writing, is decidedly against increasing density.  The will of the meeting appears to be in favor of more research.  We are two years into this process, so I am not sure what an additional year will produce.  What is most important is participation.  Citizens need to be engaged.  They need to seek out opportunities to be involved early and often.  Signup for town notices, read the Advocate, check the town calendar and meeting agendas.  Put in the effort, and you will be amazed at the rewards.

2018 Town Meeting - Night Four

We're done!  A new record since I've been at Town Meeting.  At 9:02 on Night Four, we dissolved the Annual Town Meeting.  An hour and a half later, we dissolved the Special Town Meeting as well.  It was a good night filled with good debate.  It even had a fitting end.

Tonight was supposed too start with the Special, but we were so close to finishing the Annual, the Moderator recommended finishing with the appropriations, starting where we left off in the Town Budgets.  There were only 4 left, and there was very little discussion.  The budgets were easily  approved.  We then discussed the appropriation for committees and commissions.  We had an odd amendment presented.  The proponent sought to strike some language regarding oversight of consultants being under the direction of the Town Manager.  This was a change from previous years, and the request was to strike the language and bring it up in a subsequent special town meeting.  This could have been addressed by actually asking why the language was inserted, but that was not this member's agenda.  The Manager did address the question, noting the difficulty all volunteer boards have monitoring the day-to-day operations of consultants.  Since there was a sizable appropriation specifically for a consultant, the oversight clause was added.  The Meeting resoundingly voted down the amendment and approved the original appropriation language.

Next up were OPEB and Free Cash.  A member held these two out of the consent agenda so the new members could benefit from an explanation of these two items.  The Moderator noted that there is a well attended new member session where this is explained.  The discussion and positive votes were over quickly, but it posed an interesting question.  Whose responsibility is it to help new members understand some of the specifics of the votes we are asked to take?  Is it the Moderator, who has taken it upon himself to provide that training.  Is it up to the more senior members to slow down the meeting as we go along to provide more insight?  Is it up to the new members to seek out answers to questions they have?  I'm not sure what happened tonight was the most efficient use of the meeting's time.

We approved the town's annual contribution to the long term stabilization (rainy day) fund without debate.  We approved an appropriation into the fiscal stability stabilization fund established to hold the excess funds raised by the last override until needed.  That money will start to be spent next year.  We then jumped back to approve the collective bargaining agreements negotiated to date.  I felt sorry that the raises to the library staff were lower than to the other bargaining units, but they were all approved by the unions and the meeting.  All that was left was to close the article on accepting reports and dissolve the meeting.

Since it was so early, we delved right into the special town meeting.  After accepting reports, we started with a proposed extension of the current moratorium on recreational marijuana stores until the end of the year,  The state released guidelines in March, long after the close of the town meeting warrant in January.  The delay will give the town an opportunity to enact local laws governing where and how a business gets sited.  This was also an object lesson in the maxim that the Moderator repeats every year:  if you go on too long, your supporters will turn against you.  I came in fully supporting the extension.  One of the first speakers launched into a diatribe on a whole bunch of issues related to marijuana, but not to the topic of the article.  After many requests to keep to the scope of the article, all ignores, the moderator tried to intervene.  He was also ignored.  At his point, I was ready to vote down the moratorium.  There was then a really positive argument for not extending the moratorium.  The state and town have been very efficient in "slow rolling" the legislation to delay the legalization as long as possible within the confines of the law.  Recreational marijuana can be a replacement for opiates, helping addicts move to something far less dangerous.  Another reason to vote no.  However, the issue is without local bylaws, the town gives up its ability to direct the development of new stores, allowing them to be located anywhere business is allowed.  This is a real issue, so in the end I did vote for the extension.  I hope there will be new zoning recommendations in the fall to address this topic.

Next up was a proposal to refer to the Residential Study Group the task of trying to develop new residential development guidelines aimed at stopping "bad" teardowns while sill encouraging "good" teardowns.   Given all the controversy surrounding this topic, they will have their work cut out for them.  There were a couple of people against the new developments.  There were some people who livein those developments.  In what was the most controversial vote (that I was present for) so far this year, it was approved 157-35.  I wish that committee good luck.

We approved a home rule petition to request that the town be allowed to set a different (higher) income threshold for property tax deferrals.  The current rate is set by the state.  The article we approved will allow the town, after a vote from the Select Board and Town Meeting to set a higher rate, allowing more seniors the option of seeking a deferral.  There was then a no action vote on means-tested tax relief, because there wasn't a vote approved for us to vote upon.

The next article sought to add an additional liquor license for a retail outlet.  We have five package stores in town, but six is better than five.  There is a "defecit" in the Heights, where this store would be given priority.  There were several speakers against the proposal stating that you can just go up to Berman's in Lexington.  As far as I'm concerned, keeping that income and revenue within the town is a better option.  The police chief confirmed that his department would be just as able to oversee compliance of six outlets as well as the current five.  This was an even closer vote, but it passed 126-67.  This now needs to be ratified by the state before it can go before the town voters next spring.

The last article sought to remove gender-specific language from throughout the town's bylaws.  This is the logical compliment to changing the name of the BoS.  There we many speakers for the article, and only a few against it.  The later focused on the cost involved in making the changes and the possibility of changing the intention of the bylaws while addressing gender-specific language.  In the end, the proponent of the original BoS article called to end debate, a very appropriate gesture.  The article was passed, we disolved the meeting, and we all went home.

I have been thinking about the take-away lessons from this meeting.  In a lot of ways, we rubber-stamped the recommendations from the town's leadership by wide margins.  I personally feel this is more a statement about the quality of the research and though that goes into the recommended votes rather than a criticism of the meeting members.  As a few members notes throughout the proceedings, it is really astonishing how professional and knowledgeable the leadership of the town really is.

It was also a really positive development to see more women come to the fore at town meeting.  There were several new voices this year, and they were really impressive.  I am really excited about where this body and this town are headed.

**************

I realize that I never wrote any notes after the February Special Town Meeting.  After 18 months of work on the recodified zoning bylaw, I was so burned out and tired.  I started some notes but gave up.  I'll try again later on.

2018 Town Meeting - Night Three

I wasn't able to get to Town Meeting tonight until around 8:30.  I had a work commitment in Billerica at 8:00 for all of 10 minutes.  However, I ended up just missing the presentation, discussion, and vote on the Minuteman School budget.

Next up was the Town Budget Appropriation.  First, we participated in what has been a common occurrence this year, correcting typos.  (More on that later.)  We then started going through the budgets one-by-one.  We had the usual "how much salt did we use" discussions, the "why are we spending so much more on this this year than last year" questions, and the "while we're discussing this department's budget, I have a question about the department" questions.

We made it through all but four of the budgets tonight, including the school budget.  On Wednesday night, we will start with the Special Town Meeting.  This seven article meeting is called to address issues that need to move on a quicker pace.  We should be able to do it in less than a night.

We have seen an unusually large number of typos in the reports issued to town meeting this year.  The authors are all very apologetic, and I understand how they arise.  It is however, disconcerting to not be certain that the information being presented is accurate.  I hope that the committees can give themselves the extra time that they need to proofread their information next year.

===

What happens on the floor of Town Meeting is only a part of the meeting.  The conversations that take place at the break and immediately after adjourning are a huge part of what we do.  I had a conversation with the Building Commissioner regarding a constituent matter, the ZBA budget, and what the department does with incoming fees.  I then spoke with the Police Chief about reporting overnight parking violations.  I was able to find out whether a particular project was eligible for Symmes Fund funding.  Lastly, I was able to speak with the DPW Director about the signal at Swan Place.  These conversations are possible because all of the department heads need to be at Town Meeting to answer questions and defend their budget requests.  This is the most informative aspect of Town Meeting

2018 Town Meeting - Night Two

What an historic night here at Town Hall.  It started frustratingly for me, but it ended so well.  I managed to get into my seat right as the meeting came to order.  I would have been early, but for the light at Swan Place.  I waited through 3 cycles at Pleasant Street without a green light at Swan.  I had hoped to find Chief Ryan or Mike Rademacher at break to see who has jurisdiction and see if there is an issue with the signal.  I was unable to get to my question, so I'll have to use the town's Online Answer Center.

Town Meeting started with the Star Spangled Banner played by our Assistant Town Moderator, James O'Conor.  We then heard a report from the Permanent Town Building Committee.  They have officially completed renovating all 7 elementary schools!  They are now working on the renovation to the Gibbs School, planning for renovations to the High School and the DPW Yard (the AHS has a separate building committee), and needed improvements to the Senior Center.

We then had a very long, a very, very long explanation of what the Pension Board does.  This is an important function within the down.  However, the explanation was for me, a blur of numbers and acronyms.  The final report of the evening came from the the Master Plan Implementation Committee.  With the passing of the Recodified Zoning Bylaw back in February, we are now embarking on changing the test of the bylaw to encourage the types of development outlined in the Master Plan.

In an unusual move, the Chairman of the Board of Selectmen rose to apologize for the large quantities of typos in the Selectmen's report this year.  He noted it probably wasn't a good idea to start a new job and take up the chairmanship on the same day.  He promised that they would do better next year.

As discussed on Monday, rather than picking up where we left off, we tabled several articles to move onto the Capital Budget.  The chairman, Mr. Foskett gave a very good primer and presentation on what the Capital Budget is and how it is funded.  There was good discussion about some of the items, including a couple of errors.  The work of this committee is always appreciated, and the Meeting overwhelmingly approved the budget.

We then tabled several more articles and took up the Community Preservation Fund appropriation.  We learned about what projects the money has been used for in the past couple of years, and what it will be spent on this upcoming year.  Although we didn't learn why the Community Preservation Committee isn't called the CPC as was promised on Monday, we did heartily approve the allocation.  [This is a friendly jab at Eric, who promised on Monday that he would explain.  The reason is that we already have a CPC, the Capitol Planning Committee.  We don't want to double up on TLA's.]

After break, we took all the articles back off the table and went back to where we left off on Monday night.  Article 19 was proposed to create a Finance Department.  I had expected a lot of discussion, but there was almost no discussion at all.  It was accepted 200-7.  For the first time, we have all the town's various financial managers working together.  I look forward to the efficiencies that will come with this consolidation.  One aspect I hadn't considered until it was mentioned in the presentation was the possibility for mentorship and development of the lower level managers who don't often have contact with their peers between departments.  This should be a great opportunity for them as well.

The big event of the night was Article 20, a bylaw amendment to change the name of the Board of Selectmen to a non-gender specific title.  This was a "ten registered voter" article, meaning that it came from the citizens rather than from a government body.  The recommended vote, called for the new name to be the "Select Board."  Some think it sounds clunky or doesn't explain what it is.  There were two substitute motions:  one to use the term "Town Council" instead, and a second to establish a committee to explore options for a better name and report back to Town Meeting next year.  Naomi Greenfield, a sponsor of the amendment and second year Member, gave one of the best speeches at Town Meeting this year.  She very persuasively made the case that this change away from the male-centric language was long overdue, vital given the low representation of women in town government, and in the best interests of the town as a whole.  I opposed the name "Town Council" because we have a "Town Counsel", and homophones are very confusing things.  (Thanks to Jen Susse for making that point on the floor.)  I thought the most moving speech was from Selectman Kevin Greeley.  He spoke about how he came to realize that he had been wrong to oppose this change in the past; that it was important to have the board to reflect all the diversity in town; that if choice of words was an impediment, than those words need to change, but that the term "Select" is of historic significance going back to before the town's founding and should be retained.  There was then a motion to end debate, premature in my opinion, which passed in spite of my opposition.  The two substitute motions were beaten down mightily, and the Meeting changed the name to loud applause.

The next article was also a name change.  Vision 2020 was founded in the 90's when 2020 was way off.  It is now almost upon us, so the committee was seeking to change their name and sharpen their mission.  After a unanimous vote, they are now "Envision Arlington."

We then passed several articles in quick succession.  There as a "no action" vote on accepting local option taxes (nothing was proposed at the state level in time for the town to act), the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG, sponsored by HUD) funding allocation was approved, the reporting on revolving funds was accepted, as were positions reclassification within town government.  We tabled the approval of collective bargaining agreements until the end of Town Meeting to give the Town Manager an opportunity to complete the negotiations before we vote on them.

Lastly, we approved the appropriation of the town's parking meter income.  I hadn't realized that the meters are leased.  This year, the funds are being held or rolled back into the program.  Starting next year, the funds will be used within the "parking improvement district" where the meters are located.

That was the last item for this night.  We adjourned early at 10:56.  Next Monday, Meeting is scheduled to start with the Minuteman Budget, the School Department Budget, and the Town Budgets.  I unfortunately have a work conflict.  I need to be at a Zoning Board hearing in Billerica at 8:00.  I have a Zipcar reserved at the Russell Commons Lot, so I can boogie back as quickly as I can.

2018 Town Meeting - Night One

Welcome back to Town Meeting!  Many thanks to the voters of Precinct 10 for reelecting me.  It has truly been a pleasure serving our neighborhood these past many years, and I look forward to the challenges and joys of the upcoming three years.

We held our joint precinct meeting with precinct 8 yesterday afternoon.  After reviewing the warrant, we had a lively discussion on a variety of topics relating to our town and our neighborhoods in particular.  We spoke about a need to consider spending priorities for the aging in our town, rather than only focusing on our school needs.  We talked about traffic calming measures for Jason Street.  The most interesting idea was to use the town's reverse 911 system to call residents to remind them of election day in an effort to get better voter turn-out.

Tonight was opening night of the 2018 Annual Town Meeting.  We started in the usual way with the Menotomy Minutemen marching in and playing the national anthem.  I hadn't noticed the date on their flag before.  The militia was formed only 13 days before the battles of Lexington and Concord.

Dan Dunn presented the state of the town address, focusing on the success we've had over the last year and the challenges we are going to be facing.  After swearing in the new members, taking a minute to remember those who have passed, and accepting reports, we moved onto the first real votes of the night.  First up was the election of the Measurer of Wood and Bark.  Elsie Fiore was easily reelected on a voice vote.  Similarly, James O'Conor was reelected as our Assistant Town Moderator.

We then moved onto the consent agenda.  This is a list of usually non-controversial votes and non-issues that we vote on all at once to move things along.  There are usually a few items that are taken off the agenda so they can be addressed in depth.  Tonight, however, there was some one who seemed bent on taking things off the agenda just for the sake of doing it.  They had nothing to discuss and no alternate language.  I thought it was annoying and disrespectful to the time of the members.  In the end we passed and increase for town employee survivor benefits, rescinding borrowing authorizations from prior years, funding for reconstruction sewers and mains, funding for town celebrations, the water bodies fund, the Harry Barber service program, pension adjustment, reallocating overlay reserve funds, funding cemeteries, and miscellaneous appropriations.

Starting with article 6, we now started working in order down the warrant.  We approved a change to the makeup of the Capital Planning Committee to allow them up to two extra members to help with high volumes of work in certain years.  We voted to refer a question on whether to continue mailing the warrant to the government subcommittee of Vision 2020.  We added some categories to the town charges that can be added to a lien on property.  We voted to end  a particular funding letter in favor of several online resources.  This was all done relatively quickly.

The first article to garner a lot of discussion was an article making changes to the town's dog ordinances.  The changes, structured on state statute, allows the local police more discretion in how to address animal complaints.  There were some speakers who felt this went too far, especially in light of the state laws, but the majority felt it was an appropriate measure.  It passed handily.

We also spent some time discussing changes to the vacant storefront registry.  The proposal was to allow more time for owners to rent their property when it became vacant.  Some of the discussion was due to unfamiliarity with the articles (do your homework, people) and an unease about allowing certain town staff the power to grant waivers.  In the end, this passed easily.

The longest discussion of the night revolved around the town's Betterment Bylaw.  This allows owners of private ways a mechanism to get streets paved when not all owners want to do it.  The changes would allow more flexibility, allow the town to make emergency repairs at its discretion, and better define when the town is an abutter.  Most of the discussion revolved around individual streets and local concerns.  It was great to hear from a lot of unfamiliar names, but the discussion wasn't entirely within the scope of the article.  This too was passed by  a large margin.

We approved the creation of an Arlington Council for the Arts to serve as an umbrella for the myriad arts organizations in town.  We increased the fee for removing a protected tree during the development of a parcel of land.  We upheld no action votes on noise abatement, starting town meeting earlier at night, and changing the demolition delay ordinance.

The last action of the night was to change the Comptroller position to be an appointment under the Town Manager.  Several protections were included to protect the integrity and autonomy of the position.  We moved quickly to approve it, and them adjourned for the night.

It felt like we spent most of our time picking up typos in the articles.  I think we really need someone to spend some time checking this language before it gets set in the bylaws.

Alright, it's late and I need to go to bed.  We will pick back up on Wednesday with a discussion of the Capital Budget before backing up to where we left off tonight.  Next Monday, which I will miss a portion of due to a business conflict, will focus on budgets.  A week from Wednesday will be the special town meeting articles.  That might be all the time we need.