Arlington Town Meeting

FinComm has released the FY07 budget document, which is available here.

And SchoolComm has (previously) released the FY07 school budget document, which is available here.

Finally, the Town Manager’s FY07 financial plan is available here.

I just received an e-mail from Town Counsel telling me that the “missing” revolving funds aren’t really missing and did not need to be in the vote. He said that state law has changed in the past year and that persuant to the change SchoolComm has taken direct control of those four funds. Accordingly, they did not have to be in the Article 35 vote.

I suggest when the school budget comes up that SchoolComm report on the balances, revenues, and expenditures of those funds it took control of, if it was not already planning to do that.

• We disposed of another 12 articles, making a total of 26 out of 66 (not counting the election article in either number).
• I wonder what happened to Mr. Pannesi. I can’t recall someone asking for personal home rule legislation not showing up when their article came up. It’ll be interesting to see if the meeting will reconsider it if he does show up at a future session.
• Why oh why did Mr. Gilligan feel it was necessary to waste eight minutes reading verbatim from a report that we all had in front of us? When I am elected moderator, one of the first things I will do will be to institute a rule (or put in an article for a by-law amendment if necessary) limiting presenting a report to two minutes (unless the speaker gets the approval of the meeting for more time). That said, it looks like he is undertaking some worthy initiatives.
• Article 35 isn’t in the books yet. Jim O’Conor of precinct 19 discovered that (relative to last year’s revolving fund vote) this year’s vote was missing:
  • The Tuition Payments Fund
  • The All-Day Kindergarten Fund
  • The Hardy School Programs Fund
  • The Building User Fees Fund

  Mr. O’Conor has notified the Town Manager about this and he is going to have the Comptroller look into it and see what happened and if anything needs to be fixed.

• I don’t think I’ve ever seen so many motions to postpone defeated. And voting down a motion to adjourn at 22:55 — that’s a new one, too! (not counting when we’re almost done with the warrant and people want to say a bit later to save coming back another night)

• Begun at 22:17.
• BOS recommended a vote as set forth in its report.
• Ms. LaCourt said there was an omission in the BOS report and offered an amendment to the vote to create a Town Hall Rental revolving fund.
• Ms. Mahon (as a TMM) said the restriction on the Field Use Fee fund (that nothing can be spent from it in years where the Town does not spend at least $40,000 on field maintenance) will help maintain the fields. She said user groups are willing to pay fees if the Town will keep the fields in good shape and thanked FinComm member Paul Olsen for his work on field fees. She listed a number of fees participants pay to be in a league. She said she hoped the Town will not increase fees further.
• Mr. Abbott said the Uncle Sam Committee hasn’t taken in or expended funds in at least two years and asked why. He moved to strike it. Mr. Daly said the committee should be left alone. Ms. LaCourt said the committee might expend funds as part of the 200th anniversary celebration. The Moderator said that if the fund was struck the money would revert to the general fund. Mr. Chaput said that the Uncle Sam statute needs periodic maintenance and the money needs to stay in the fund. Mr. Abbott withdrew his motion.
• Mr. Dunn asked how much money would be spent on a proposed new recycling revolving fund. Mr. Sullivan said it would take in around $50,000 and spend around $30,000 per year. He said he wants to increase the recycling rate, especially at apartment buildings as they do little recycling. He said even a minimal success would cover program costs. Mr. Dunn asked what the $30,000 would be spent on. Mr. Sullivan said $25,000 would be for salary and the rest on promotional materials. Mr. Dunn asked how the effect would be measured. Mr. Sullivan said it could be easily measured by comparing recycling rates. Mr. Dunn asked what the results would be. Mr. Sullivan said if recycling could increase by 10% it would save $30,000 and he was confident that could be done. Mr. Dunn asked how much could be saved in 24 months. Mr. Sullivan replied it would be a minimum of $50,000. Mr. Dunn said he wished the revenue model was being presented. Mr. Sullivan said it would be easy to see if the program works. Mr. Dunn moved to amend the BOS report to eliminate the recycling revolving fund. He said he believes in the goal but feels the implementation is bad. He said revolving funds have a tight linkage between the actions that bring in money and the actions that expend money and that this one was too loose. He said it should be funded with recyling savings, not by diverting the white goods revenue stream. He said he also did not like the amount of money being allowed to build up in the fund, saying it would approach a sort of slush fund. He said it should stay within the budget process where FinComm can monitor it.
• Mr. Tosti said he was concerned about the number of revolving funds and suggested that the BOS have the groups come in and hold detailed hearings on their operations.
• Mr. Foskett said he supported the amendment. He said the BOS proposal will remove monies from the general fund to support an ill-defined program.
• Mr. Cleinman said the figures were confusing and that he wanted to know why the actual expenditures were so far below the “not to exceed” numbers and also supported Mr. Dunn’s amendment. Mr. Maher said revolving funds are under the BOS and that Town Meeting only establishes them and approves an expenditure cap but does not approve expenditures. He said the caps are set high to provide wiggle room in case a fund needs to expend a lot of money in a particular year.
• Ms. Fiore asked that the Uncle Sam fund be left alone as the statute needs periodic maintenance.
• Mr. Jamieson said the recycling fund was developed to help fund someone to work on recycling compliance. He said the Recycling Committee has definite ideas on what the program should be and has done extensive analysis supporting the savings. He asked Mr. Sullivan why white goods were selected and if it was because their revenue stream was well-defined. Mr. Sullivan replied that it was. Mr. Jamieson asked about money from paper recyling. Mr. Sullivan harked back to white goods and did not answer the question. The Moderator broke in and told Mr. Jamieson that “questions” that were for the purpose of getting someone else to restate their case were improper and that he was not going to allow them. Mr. Jamieson said that white goods are tied to recyling and that this fund is the only way he can see for the Town to increase its recycling rate.
• Mr. Deyst said white goods revnues are appropriate to fund a recyling program and that the program looks feasible.
• Ms. Friedman moved to adjourn. Defeated.
• Mr. Abbott said saving $50,000 is a good argument to keep the recycling fund.
• Mr. Carreiro moved the previous question. Debate terminated.
• Dunn amendment defeated 35-105.
• LaCourt amendment approved.
• BOS recommendation as amended approved at 23:00.
• Meeting adjourned at 23:01 to 1 May at 20:00.

• Resumed from earlier tonight at 22:03.
• Ms. LaCourt moved to amend the BOS vote by deleting the entire last sentence and replacing it with language providing that the Town Manager would appoint two people, the school superintendant would appoint one, the BOS would appoint a selectman and someone from the community at large, SchoolComm would appoint one, and the FinComm chair would appoint one.
• Mr. Schlichtman urged defeat, saying that it would make less-effective existing efforts by state-wide lobbying groups and that we instead should hold our elected officials accountable for pushing for more state aid.
• Mr. Judd said he disagreed with the previous speaker and that we need a unified voice to represent the Town and to co-ordinate efforts between different Town boards.
• Mr. Tosti (as a TMM) said he was a former president of the Association of Finance Committees and that the vote should be passed. He said Town officers already have a lot of work and that having a board that could really focus on the aid issue and advise local officials and legislators would be a help.
• Mr. Spangler said Arlington was disproportionally cut and therefore needs Arlington-specific advocacy to reverse that and make sure it doesn’t happen again.
• Mr. Abbott moved the previous question. Debate terminated.
• LaCourt amendment approved.
• BOS recommendation as amendment approved at 22:17.

• Begun at 21:55.
• Mr. Markawa said this fills a void in the otherwise continuous Pleasant Street district. He said it was supported by all the relevant boards as well as the residents and owners and was in fact initiated by the residents. He said he has heard no negative comments.
• Mr. Trembly asked if there was an owner not heard from. Mr. Markawa said it was an out-of-town owner who had been sent all the notices but did not respond to anything.
• Mr. Telenar said he liked historic districts in general, but wondered how historic something had to be, pointing out that one of the properties in the proposed enlargement was build in the 1950s. Mr. Markawa said a district is as much to protect the environs of an area as the properties.
• Mr. Ledwig urged a vote for it.
• Someone shouted out a motion on the previous question. Debate terminated.
• BOS recommendation approved unanimously at 22:03.

• Begun at 21:53.
• BOS recommended no action.
• Mr. Jamieson asked when the report would be given. Mr. Sullivan said it would happen in early fall.
• No action approved at 21:55.

• Begun at 21:41.
• BOS recommendation as set forth in its report.
• Mr. Sullivan said there are questions about where the Highland station should be, as there are complaints about Morningside response times. He said this is a study committee, which will be given $20,000 out of the capital budget, and will report back next year.
• Mr. Lewiton said the analyses conducted last year as part of the Park Circle effort showed that Morningside reponse times do not meet national standards, therefore it is important to consider where the Highland station should be before rebuilding it.
• Mr. Daly asked what the status of Park Circle is. Mr. Sullivan said bids are advertised, should be back in May, and construction starting in July.
• Ms. Fiore said the station is a replica of the old State House.
• Mr. Foskett said the Capital Planning Committee supports the vote.
• Mr. Burke said too much money is spent on studies and that the Town rebuilds properties and then fails to maintain them.
• Mr. Starr moved the previous question. Debate terminated.
• BOS recommendation approved at 21:53.

• Begun at 21:20.
• BOS recommended a vote as set forth in its report.
• Mr. Abbott asked what “department level members” meant and moved to amend it to “department heads”. More puzzlement about the wording continued for a few minutes and the Moderator decided to have the recess early.
• Recess from 21:24 to 21:38.
• Still more confusion. Motion made to postpone to 1 May.
• Motion to postpone defeated.
• Motion made to postpone to 22:00 to give Town Counsel a chance to clarify the wording.
• Motion to postpone approved at 21:41.

• Begun at 21:17.
• BOS recommended a vote as set forth in its report.
• Mr. Sullivan said there is about ten years of space left in the cemetary and that the Town wants to avoid running out of space. He said the vote would only establish a study committee to look into what space could be acquired.
• BOS recommendation approved unanimously at 21:20.
• Mr. Telenar asked if the committee would be looking at non-burial options. The Moderator told him to pass that idea to the committee.

• Begun at 21:16.
• BOS recommended no action.
• Ms. LaCourt said Article 28 made this one redundant.
• No action approved unanimously at 21:17.

• Begun at 21;15.
• BOS recommended a vote as set forth in its report.
• Ms. LaCourt moved to postpone to 3 May, saying the BOS will be revisiting their vote at its 1 May meeting.
• Motion to postpone approved at 21:16.

• Begun at 20:48.
• BOS recommended a vote as set forth in its report.
• Mr. Sullivan said there are limits to how long BANs can be rolled over and that there is a requirement after two years to pay them down. He said that while the extra time would likely not be needed, he wanted the extra flexibility to make sure that Symmes would not hit the tax rate.
• Mr. Jamieson asked if this would be the only direct vote on Symmes. Mr. Sullivan said it was. Mr. Jamieson moved to postpone to 8 May so as to hear the Symmes status report before voting on this article. Mr. Sullivan said there was no reason to postpone but that he was not against it.
• Mr. McCabe questioned some odd wording in the vote. Mr. Tosti suggested that “being paid” be inserted after “revenue funds”.
• Mr. Judd said he hoped the Legislature would give us what we asked for. He asked who would issue the BANs. Mr. Tosti said BANs are automatically authorized when Town Meeting authorizes borrowing and that the Treasurer and BOS decide when and what will be issued under that authorization. Mr. Gilligan said he supported the vote and was against postponement. Mr. Judd asked if the developer would be making any interest payments. The Moderator cut him, saying that was not germane. Mr. Judd asked if the project could be held up any further. Mr. Maher said all the deadlines for appealing have expired, so he could not see what course of action a litigant could take.
• Mr. Streitfeld asked if the time extension would only apply to the Symmes debt. Mr. Tosti said it was so limited.
• Mr. Loreti (as a TMM) said it was unlikely this would clear the Legislature before the sale of the property made the needs for BANs moot. Mr. Tosti said that it was still needed so that the otherwise-required debt paydown wouldn’t cause a hit on the tax rate. Mr. Loreti asked if stretching out the debt repayment would allow more money to go into the general fund rather than going to pay down debt and why wouldn’t all Symmes revenues be used to pay down the debt. Mr. Tosti said the vote to establish the Symmes account only said that debt service had to be funded from the account and that the Treasurer and BOS would decide how quickly to pay off the debt and how much Symmes money would go into the general fund. Mr. Loreti said this was inconsistent with the representation that monies would be used to pay off the debt and that this vote looked like a way to get extra money into the general fund by stretching out the repayment.
• Mr. Gilligan said that if this did not pass it might force money to be taken from services.
• Mr. Daly moved the previous question. Debate terminated.
• Mr. Loreti said Mr. Gilligan was incorrect and that there would be no such taking money from services. The Moderator cut him off since a motion to terminate debate had passed.
• The Moderator said that after consulting with Town Counsel he was moving to “being paid” to just before “from revenue funds”.
• Motion to postpone defeated.
• BOS recommendation approved 183-5 at 21:15.

• Begun at 20:37.
• BOS recommended no action.
• Ms. LaCourt said the BOS was strongly against creating at-large TMMs.
• Mr. Schlichtman submitted a substitute motion to make the members of the BOS, SchoolComm, the Treasurer, the FinComm chair, the Moderator, and state legislators who reside in Arlington all at-large TMMs. He said the motion is counter-intuitive and would not dilute the votes of TMMs. He said it would open up more Town Meeting seats to ordinary citizens and would increase citizen involvement. He said it would be good for Mr. Marzilli and Mr. Havern to have a say at Town Meeting.
• Mr. Tully said that if things were not broken, why fix them. He said the people in question already have plenty of authority from their town-wide offices, so why give them more. He said the change will not increase involvement though it will centralize authority. He noted that Mr. Havern and Mr. Marzilli would have no problem getting to speak before Town Meeting should they desire to do so.
• Mr. Dunn noted that our Representative Town Meeting form of government descended from the Open form, where any registered voter can vote and so is very egalitarian. He said that while we do have a representative form now, we’re still egalitarian in the sense that every TMM had to go through the same process to become a TMM, and that we should keep it that way.
• Mr. Carreiro (less coherently than he would have liked) said he agreed with the previous two speakers, pointed out that if a precinct did not like town-wide office holders doubling-up as TMMs it could vote them out, pointed out that if a town-wide office holder wanted to open things up, he could simply not run for TMM, and asserted that there is no reason why being, for example, a member of SchoolComm should automatically make on a TMM.
• Mr. Leone moved the previous question. Debate terminated.
• Schlichtman substitute motion defeated.
• BOS recommendation of no action approved at 20:48.