 who's our strength and bright stars through the perilous fight. For the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming. The rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air, Gave proof through the millions that star-spangled banner yet wave. Thank you, Ms. Holland. Please. I'd like to offer a moment of silence for the people of Joplin, Ms. Missouri who were hit by that tornado last night. Thank you. Tonight we're going to start with 39. I pray fast. Yeah. I pray fast. Tonight we're going to start with 39, which is basically a lot like 38 with one or two little differences. So, if it was said once before, moderate your discussions and if you have something new to add. But I can't take lists yet. If you have something new to add, then by all means. Otherwise, it's just going to get up and say the same thing. Maybe we can move it through and if possible, we could possibly finish up everything except the budgets and the other things that are going to be tabled to laugh at our override. Are there any time-meeting members who have yet to be sworn in? None. I recognize Chairman of the Board of Selecting Ms. Rowe. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay, so we're going to come back Wednesday. Any announcements or resolutions? Mr. McCabe. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Harry McCabe, precinct 21. Mr. Moderator, the Council on Aging would like to invite all of you to a health fair on Saturday, June 18th at 12.30. Admission is free in this hall. I've left copies of this for everyone on the back table there. And if you can't come, please send a neighbor or remember the family. I think you'll be surprised. Thank you. Any other announcements or resolutions? Seeing none. Any reports or committees? No committee reports. Okay, and we're going to go right into 39. The next on this is Mr. John Warden. Motion of the Board of Selectment. And I will hand it to you now. And the amendment which is on the screen, very large type, even I can see it. No, that's for 38. We want 39 and maybe slightly smaller type. Anyway, basically, this is identical to the motion that I made under Article 38, which inserts some language into the Selectment's motion, which shall be conveyed by deed, which, and after word use, the word's for at least 30 years. And can we have that? Who's in charge here? I don't know. Maybe we'll get to it. Anyway, and there are some paper copies at the back of the hall. We ran off quite a large number of them, and there are quite a few left, so feel free. Excuse me. As in the case of Article 38, I do not favor the sale of the Crosby School, but if you do vote by two-thirds to sell it, the sale should be restricted so as to provide some protection to the neighborhood, a neighborhood that has already been threatened by 40B development on the other side of Winter Street. The other night, it was asserted that I am against affordable housing, and that's why I put this restriction in. Even though all my amendment would do is put some much-needed teeth into the motion put forward by the Board of Selectment. Arlington already has affordable housing programs provide such housing without overriding our zoning law bylaw protections, and they provide housing which is affordable for people who really need it. The Housing Authorities Buildings, the Housing Corporation of Arlington's program of purchasing and rehabbing existing housing stock, and the Exclusionary Zoning Bylaw, enacted by this town meeting which requires 15% of any development of six or more units must be available to people at 60% of median income, and this is an important distinction because 40B projects you have to have at least 80% of median. If you want to accuse someone of being against affordable housing, take a look at Article 13 in your warrant. Fortunately voted no action in the earlier session of this meeting, which would have eviscerated our Inclusionary Zoning Bylaw. Some people have been duped into believing that 40B is synonymous with affordable housing. The result of a $1 million developer finance campaign against Question 2 on last November's ballot, which would have repealed 40B. $1 million seems like a lot of money, but it's only 1% of the $100 million in illicit profits made by 40B developers over the past few years according to the Inspector General, which by the way includes $500,000 of excess profits on the 40B on Brattle Street, which is supposed to come to the town of Arlington, but we never got the money. The First Amendment, and this is going back and was circulated, that I propose would have dealt with this threat by requiring a reversion of the Crosby School property to the town if any subsequent owner tried to go the 40B route. I did not put forward that amendment. A reversion for violation of a provision and a properly drafted deed is perfectly legal and was recently upheld by the court in a case decided in Bonstable County. I abandoned that proposed amendment when I saw that the selectman seemed to be moving in somewhat the right direction. Now listen carefully to this quote. Because Arlington has less than 10% affordable housing, state law so-called 40B would allow a developer to pack in residential units, ignoring local zoning restrictions on height and density so long as he makes 25% available as affordable housing. The town would be powerless to prevent this gross overbuilding from happening. Now that isn't John Worden speaking. That's the Arlington Board of Selectmen in the same document that I referred to the other night in connection with promoting the debt exclusion for the Sims project. When someone stands on the floor of this meeting and says she isn't in favor of 40B, but just a few months ago in the run-up to the November election signed on as a supporter of the No On To campaign, that is a supporter of the corrupt 40B law in published advertisements, is she trying to kid us or like the warrant closing date did she just forget? When the Board of Selectmen and their supporters tell us they don't like my 30-year restriction to educational uses because they need flexibility, I get nervous. Ms. La Courte stated that no change in use would occur unless the quote, the owner, the Board of Selectmen, and the community as a whole agree. How does she, who is promised to leave the Board next year, propose to determine what the whole community wants? Here are some options. Hold a hearing at which all the comments are heard and then the Board does what they were going to do anyway. Hold a monster meeting in this hall which both sides will try to pack and then take a straw vote. No. The only way to determine what the whole community wants is to put the question on the ballot or to consult this town meeting. So, if they want flexibility, let someone move to amend my amendment by adding this restriction may be modified by two-thirds vote a town meeting, simple as that. The purpose of my amendment, something we owe to the residents of the Crosby neighborhood is to ensure that in the event of any subsequent sale of this property, they will be limited to educational use because it would be right there in the deed. We have already protected the primary neighborhood and thank you for doing that by keeping the school as town property. The people in the Crosby neighborhood deserve no less. So, if you're in favor of selling the Crosby school, please vote for my amendment to give the neighborhood the protection they deserve. If you're against selling as I am, please vote for my amendment in case the other side wins. At least the neighborhood will have some level of protection. And then, most importantly, vote no on the final vote on Article 39. Thank you. Thank you, Sir. Mr. McCabe. Thank you, Mr. moderator. Harry McCabe, Preaching 21. I don't think we need to beat you to death again over this article. I think it's the same issue that we discussed in a previous article. The important thing we need to remember is the most important thing, that the rebuild of the Thompson School has nothing to do with this. Nothing. Zero. A previous speaker under Article 38 made a good case for maintaining our options. Well, if we sell this property, we have no options. So, I don't understand the particular person's logic. And I'm not attacking him personally. I just don't understand the logic. The way to maintain our options is to maintain ownership of this property. So, as I said, I don't intend to beat you to death over this. You very wisely voted no on Article 38. And I recommend the same and strongly that you vote no on Article 39. You're going to hear arguments that attempt to convince us that Article 39 is different. Well, in some sense, in some respects, it is different. But the bottom line is not different. The bottom line is the same. If we sell this property, it's gone forever. So, with that, I would thank you very much for your courtesy and apologize to anybody who may have been upset over any remarks that I may have made under Article 38. There was no intention to malign anybody. I believe everybody has been acting in good faith here. And I believe that we need to respect everybody's opinion. Everybody's. And I thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Ms. Radocia. Good evening. Joyce Radocia, precinct 11. I was just going to come and stand before you and say hello. I would like to ask permission for Dr. Ted Wilson, who is president of Schools for Children, of which Dearborn Academy is a program. I think Dr. Wilson can speak for himself, but I do want to say maybe 20 seconds' worth of what's going on in my mind. I have worked at Dearborn Academy for 23 years. I have owned property on Winter Street for 45 years. I have a daughter, son-in-law, and a two-year-old granddaughter who live on Winter Street. And right now, I am thinking not in terms of just money. And I know I should. My husband scolds me that I don't always put money first. I'm thinking of the long-term stability of a neighborhood. A school really adds that extra special something to a neighborhood. We live up the street from Bishop's School, even though sometimes the traffic when school gets out can be challenging. It's still a wonderful place to live near a school. And I think you have heard various times, various locations that the neighbors on Oxford and Winter Street love Dearborn Academy and love them as neighbors. Now, I would like to again ask permission for Dr. Ted Wilson to make his case for staying either through the sale of the building, through the purchase of the building, or through some kind of a favorable lease. Is Dr. Wilson a resident of the town? Does he live in Arlington? No, he lives in Winchester. Okay, so we have to ask the meeting. All in favor of having Dr. Wilson address the meeting, please say yes. Yes. Opposed? Dr. Wilson, come on in. Mr. moderator and town meeting members, thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. I'm Ted Wilson, President and Executive Director of Schools for Children, and I want to just take a few minutes to talk about Article 39, not with an attempt to sway anybody's vote on anything, but to tell you what it means to us. The result of what you'll be deliberating has, I believe, a direct and major impact on the services we provide to our students. We're an Arlington-based nonprofit dedicated to serving a wide range of students with a variety of high-quality educational programs. We currently operate out of three old school buildings, leased to us by the town of Arlington. Since 1983, we've been renting the entire Crosby Building for our highly regarded special education school, Dearborn Academy. We also rent a significant amount of space in the Gibbs Building for the Lesley Ellis School. In addition, we rent space in the Central School for administrative offices and a small diagnostic program. In total, we rent over 60,000 square feet from the town of Arlington. We are one of the largest private employers in town with 150 employees serving over 300 students from over 40 communities. Our economic impact within Arlington is significant, and we very much want to continue operating here. As you begin to discuss this article, it's important for me to be clear on one key point. We would support any article that paves the way for the town to make a permanent decision on the future of the Crosby Building and gives us the best chance to compete successfully to buy the building. Schools for children, our main goal at this point is to find permanent facilities for both of our Arlington Bay schools. That's a key part of our overall long-term plan because without such homes, our schools essentially are vulnerable to the vicissitudes of the rental life. That would be a major disruption for us and a significant loss for the town as well if we were to have to move. We believe our presence provides a direct economic benefit of the town, enhances property values, and adds to the desirability of living in Arlington. So our strong preference is to purchase the building. Why is that our preference? Simply put, it's taken our organization 20 years to mature to a point where we actually have the resources where we could complete such a step. And it's very important for us that we change the feeling of vulnerability and instability that comes from being a tenant rather than an owner. This has never been more of an issue than over the past three years. Our school is licensed by the state and has a tuition set by the Commonwealth. It's been in flux since 2008. We went from having long-term leases and predictable rent increases tied to the CPI to a very unnerving and unpredictable situation. Let me describe what happened. We've operated on a series of five- and ten-year leases since 1983. Our last ten-year lease was due to expire at the end of June 2008. In December of 2007, six months before the end of that lease, the town published the RFP seeking a tenant for the Crosby. It offered a three-year lease and included target rental rates. Six months before our lease was to end, in other words, when there was no time to consider looking elsewhere, we learned that the only acceptable response to the RFP was one where we agreed to a minimum of a 52.8% rent increase or preferred doubling of that same rent over the three-year term. It kind of took our surprise, to say the least. There was really no way that we could find, acquire, and equip a new specialized school and move before the end of that lease. So essentially we were kind of stuck in submitting a response that met that minimum term. We agreed to sign a lease with that 52.8% increase. We signed that lease 12 days before the last lease was due to run out. We also immediately began seeking alternatives to remaining at the Crosby. The fact that we're still here reflects our ongoing hope that somehow we'll have a chance to remain at the Crosby on a much more permanent basis. But we obviously can't afford to just sit and wait. In fact, two years ago we entered a bid to buy another building in another town and would have moved had the bid been accepted. We've recently hired outside help in the search for alternatives even while remaining very clear that our first preference is to buy the Crosby and stay in Arlington. From what I heard last week in the Parmenter discussion, our future in the Crosby building could be very much in doubt and we should be aggressively trying to find a new space. Those are my observations from last week's town meeting. I heard that there were suggestions that this building is a pot of gold and that the town should just ratchet up the rent and add the cost of all capital improvements to the tenant's cost. You can certainly do that, but Dearborn Academy can barely afford the current rent. It's highly unlikely that we'd sign any extension that includes rent increases beyond the CPI. You should know that Dearborn is working with some of the most challenging students in the Commonwealth. That their faculty is earning 25 to 30% less than their public school counterparts and that they have no option to raise their tuition without Commonwealth approval. Indeed, their tuition has been frozen for the past three years. We're definitely not going to be in a position to sign any lease that both raises the rent dramatically and includes an expectation that we fund all future capital improvements for this 115-year-old building. Maybe there's a group out there who would agree to do this, but I have to be very clear that it simply can't be our organization. While your responsibility is to manage this building to the maximum benefit to the town of Arlington, my responsibility is to provide within our means a stable learning environment for these kids. The second point, and very much related to the first, I heard only a limited awareness of the magnitude of the capital needs facing any occupancy of the Crosby. Just a few bits of what I know having lived there for the past 28 years. We know that exterior bricks are falling out of the walls, allowing water to erode the structure. We know the roof leaks on a regular basis, the steam pipes buried beneath the floors rupture frequently, and the heating system is barely functional. Not satisfied to simply use our own experience as a guide, we hired an architectural firm to do a complete infrastructure review. We have a very clear sense of what to expect going forward, and their preliminary results have expanded on the above list. The building has significant accessibility issues and could easily require an elevator to be installed. This would be a huge concern for anybody coming into the building. There are issues with the electrical and fire alarm systems, and the HVA system, to quote the architect, does not meet current ventilation requirements for habitation. I don't want to tell that to my staff. The list goes on, but you get the point. Whoever owns this building must anticipate spending significant dollars in the years to come. Third, many figures are being used to justify the arguments for either selling the building or continuing to lease it. Some very smart people are debating these two points of view. From my perspective, both sides of the debate are offering arguments using best guesses about market rent rates and market values to justify their particular point of view. I think the reality in this building is that it's been offered to the rental market several times over the past quarter century, and the market has responded. We've been the only bidders for almost three decades. Obviously, this could change this time around, but you won't really know until the property is offered, either for sale or for rent. We do know, however, that in the current economic times it's dangerous to make assumptions about the market. Yet these assumptions are being made, and I think they're driving the debates. Three key assumptions that I've heard. Number one, that the town will be able to easily and quickly identify a tenant who is both willing and able to pay an escalating rent of as much as 10% per year for the next 10 years and be responsible for all capital improvements for the next 20 to 30 years. I've already clearly stated that this will be necessarily someone other than your current tenant, as that approach will absolutely price us out of this market. Second assumption. Doctor, you're almost done. I am, yep, within a page. Thank you. That financial projection is based on the proposed long-term rental scenarios are immune to the possibility of any downside risk. Graphs and spreadsheets look very different, with no revenue entering the picture for any time the building stands empty. Surely the Sims project provides ample warning of the need to consider risk in any analysis. Final assumption, that there are numerous entities willing, interested, and able to make bona fide offers to purchase the building under the restrictions cited in the warrant article, and within the timeframe desirable to the town of Arlington. The hope is that such competition will drive the price to desirable levels. That may or may not be possible. Nobody knows who will emerge in response to an RFP to buy or lease the building. Charter schools and 40B developers were but two that were mentioned last week. You simply don't know who will respond when that door is opened. So in conclusion, I can offer two facts to ways you consider your options. The current Crosby tenant, which occupies 100% of that building, is ready, willing, and able to cement a permanent relationship with the town of Arlington by purchasing the building. If you're concerned about the long-range future of the current school in place at the Crosby, you might remember that I've already said that we have two schools needing permanent homes. The Crosby would work well for either of them. Selling to us makes it extremely unlikely you would ever have to deal with the re-use restrictions noted in the substitute article. Second, we have no issue with the restrictions contained in the Selectman substitute. We have to finish up. Just for some up, please. The final summary, we very much want to have all of our operations remain in Arlington. We'd be a tenant or an owner that would create a win-win solution for the neighborhood, the schools, and the town. Thank you for your listening. Mr. Berger, I let him go on because I thought he was almost done. This is the building for 28 years. It's invested over half a million dollars since 1983 in necessary capital improvements to the building's interior. To name but a few, it includes a hardwood gym floor, an expansion of the school kitchen, and added lifts to much of the building to make it further more. The academy has a way to the past that currently is under a lease that has a triple-deck basis clause. Therefore, not only does the Dearborn Academy right now assume responsibility for the cost of heating, electricity, and water, it has also been willing to be responsible for the cost of maintaining the building and the issue that was brought up last week that we needed. And adjacent yard and gardens. Furthermore, the academy has invested in exterior brick and stone repairs. The second reason is that we heard tonight that Dearborn Academy has established an excellent relationship with its neighbors, particularly on Oxford and Winter Street. Two streets in the community surrounding the community. It's also helped beautify the area by planting shrubs, trees, etc. Three, Dearborn Academy enjoys a first-rate reputation for a long time as an educational institution for children with special needs. It has very small class sizes, a highly individualized instructional approach, and a comprehensive career. And as such, the Dearborn Academy provides a valuable knowledge resource for our own public school. As they save the best ways to educate children of all ages of special needs in the district, the more you can educate special education children in a variety of options in your own district, the less costly it is. The Dearborn Academy supports the Army of Public Schools' effort to do all it can to educate more children in special education populations so they don't have to be sent away. Mr. Berger? I'm going to ask you to move to one of the other mics. That one's not going out over to TVLiand. Thank you. So partnering with the Dearborn Academy to create more options within its special education programming amid you can help keep more children in our home environment, which could reduce costs. Such partnering doesn't simply mean sending the students to Dearborn Academy. These students could be educated in the Arlington Public School buildings through partnership with the Dearborn Academy. And that partnership is going to be made a lot more difficult if the Dearborn Academy leaves and goes somewhere else. As you heard, Dearborn Academy is part of the schools for children organization, with the Leslie Ellis School as the other one. Now, you heard tonight, they want to remain in Arlington. They want to stay here. However, the organization you've heard has reached an evolutionary point where the stability afforded by owning the Crosby School building in an agreement that's acceptable to the town, of course, is vitally needed for the continued health and upward trajectory of the organization. This organization has saved enough resources to make a very serious financial sound proposal. Of course, it has to be acceptable to the town, but they're prepared to make it. They have the money to make it. Now, if they're a serious competition to buy the Crosby School building, my substitute motion honors the excellence of the long tendency of the Dearborn Academy in that building by giving the schools for children organization the opportunity of the right of first refusal. In that way, the school for children organization could match or beat someone else's best offer. And I think that's the least you can do for an organization that's been in town for 28 years. You heard how many employees they have. They've invested hundreds of thousands of dollars locally to our businesses over these years, these employees. So I maintain that my motion honors the loyalty of the schools for children to our town. It speaks to loyalty and equity. And you heard they're looking for another place if they have to. They need some long-term commitment. And it would be a shame for us to lose this school. The time is now, I say, to resolve the matter for the good of our town because we've talked before about assets and resources. If we lose this school, we've lost an important asset in more ways than one. And I say we honor their request and negotiate the sale of the school and give them the right of first refusal. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Berger. Ms. Rice, I have a question. Can you speak to the legal enforceability and legality of this? Because we're now into land use and everything else. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. I was just handed this. I haven't had a chance to consider the length or to discuss it with the proponent. But the way I see it, there are two ways to apply it. One of which would be illegal. The other of which would actually be harmful to the current tenant. The right of first refusal idea is one in which a price is reached between an owner of a property and a third party. And then the party with the right of first refusal has the opportunity to purchase the property at that price. That is if we went to a request for proposal the town reached a deal with the third party then schools for children would have the opportunity under this amendment to meet that price. I don't think that's what's intended. I think what's intended is that schools for children be allowed to bid on its own without having to meet a price of a third party that might be artificially inflated. Under the Uniform Procurement Act the town after going through the request for proposal process may select someone other than the highest bidder. It just has to publish a notice of the reasons it's selecting that bidder. If this amendment were put into place without going through the request for proposal process that would be illegal. Although I understand the intention but I think if it were to be applied it would actually probably be harmful to the current tenant. Thank you. Did I have a second on this motion? Okay, thank you. Mr. Sir. Do we have this in writing? Yes. Okay, I apologize. When was it passed out? This evening. I think this one right there. It's a minor it's a minor small change. We've been allowing those. Thank you. Mr. We have a motion to terminate the debate on all matters before the article. Yes. All in favor please say yes. Opposed say no. No. My opinion is not two-thirds. Mr. Kaplan. Go ahead. You had your hand raised last week. Which one? Mr. Kaplan had a hand raised, yes. Thank you. Mr. Bill Kaplan precinct six. I am opposed to the idea of selling the Crosby school. It's an asset to the town and once we sell it it's gone. I think there's all these suggestions of limitations we can put on the purchase. I'm not sure any of those are actually enforceable. If we sell to the Crosby school or to the Dearborn Academy for $1.3 million six months later a developer offers them $5 million. What are we going to do? We're not going to buy it back for $5 million. I don't know that we're going to litigate to stop that. Dearborn Academy has a responsibility to themselves, their board to make the best financial deal they can. The town of Arlington doesn't have that responsibility to Dearborn. Of course, Dearborn wants to buy it. $1.3 million is a great price for a large chunk of land that's walking distance to alewife steps to two bus lines. I mean, of course they want to buy it and I don't really understand they can't afford to keep renting it if the rent includes the cost of maintenance but they can afford to buy it and perform all the maintenance. It doesn't really make sense. I mean, obviously it would be financially favorable for them to buy the property. Arlington right now is in a financial crisis and we're about to ask for a giant override and maybe now is not the time to be making donations to private schools no matter how worthy they are. We're all free to make a donation to Dearborn Academy. It's tax deductible. It doesn't mean the town should be doing it. Honestly, I mean, I kind of think we should be finding a way to make more money off the property. At the very least, though, we should be breaking even and holding on to it so that at least we have the option to make money in the future. Selling it now for not what it's worth just seems remarkably irresponsible. I think, you know, if we like Dearborn Academy and we want to keep them in that space because they're good neighbors we can keep renting it to them for what is really nice. I mean, if our town management is saying that we may not actually be able to afford to rent it out, we're losing money, that's a pretty good deal for the tenant. If we can find a way to break even and continue renting to them, that's still a pretty good deal for them and at least in 10 years if we need that land or if we want to sell it for top dollar, we could still do that. I guess that's pretty much it. I just feel like this is not the time to be making a major donation to a private institution no matter how worthy it might be. I urge you to hold on to this property and, you know, we'll see what the future holds. Thank you, Mr. Kaplan. Mr. Rerig. Thank you, Mr. moderator. Brian Rerig precinct 8. I am generally in favor of the town holding on to its hard assets. We don't know what our needs are going to be in the future and they are not replaceable. That's generally how I feel. I also feel that this is a special case. I feel that schools for children for all the reasons that you've heard tonight is a valuable part of the fabric of this community and a valuable economic engine to the community. At 150 employees, I believe it's either the third or fourth largest employer in town. The special circumstances here include the fact that Schools for Children has expressed its fervent desire to buy the building and the previous speaker rightly raised the question of why a non-profit like Schools for Children could afford to buy the building and can't afford to lease the building at an equivalent market rate. I think the reason is fairly straightforward. Having been through this with a couple of non-profits it's easier to run a capital campaign to buy something than it is to fund operations year after year after year after year. I accept the assertion that Schools for Children can afford to buy the building and I also accept their assertion that they will be looking for space to buy the building if they're unable to buy the building and under those circumstances I think which are very different in my mind from the circumstances at the Parmitter School I support giving Schools for Children and the town the opportunity to come together on a sale that makes sense for the long term. I also I'm going to disagree with the previous speaker's assertion that if it came along a few years from now that Schools for Children having bought the building could in the face of this of what's proposed tonight resell it at a significant profit if they could find another educational institution to resell it to at a significant profit well perhaps that would be the case but we are looking here at a vote that does not change the selection to include a deed restriction in any sale that restricts its resell to an educational use I support Mr. Warden's amendment which does not change the substance of what the select men have proposed and I'm frankly puzzled by their opposition to his amendment for that reason all it does is say in the deed and ensure that it is in the deed and that it is for the maximum length of time for which a deed restriction such as this can be recorded in Massachusetts which is 30 years that such a deed restriction can also be re-recorded at the 30 year point and its life be extended beyond 30 years I'm going to suggest that for some of the reasons you've already heard that Mr. Berger's motion while I think well intentioned is not effective a right of first refusal is an appropriate tool to try to control the resale of something but it's not a tool that's really applicable to the immediate sale to a transaction between the current owner and a next owner it really has to do with the next owner after that which is why a right of first refusal in favor of the town on a resale is included in the selectman's vote and would be part of the deed restriction so I urge a no vote on Mr. Berger's amendment a yes vote on Mr. Warden's amendment and a yes vote on the resulting motion thank you thank you sir Mr. Ruderman we have another motion to terminate the debate it's been seconded all in favor please say yes opposed say no in my opinion it is a two-thirds vote okay we have before the now main motion of the selectman which was handed out and dated May 11th we have Mr. Berger's amendment and Mr. Warden's amendment first we're going to vote on Mr. Berger's amendment then we're going to vote on Mr. Warden then we're going to vote on the main motion okay all in favor Mr. Berger's amendment please say yes opposed say no okay my opinion is defeated we now have a force Mr. Warden's amendment all in favor Mr. Warden's amendment please say yes yes opposed say no in my opinion it is an affirmative vote we have now the main motion of the board of selectmen as amended by Mr. Warden this car is a two-third vote all in favor please say yes yes opposed say no in my opinion that is a two-thirds vote we don't need that standing correct Julianna we're not going to stand anyways yeah yes exactly all in favor please rise same tell us as before all in favor please rise Mr. Schlichman how many is my left 23 Mr. Tremblay how many in the right center 25 Mr. O'Connor 30 in the left center and Mr. McCabe 36 in the right all opposed please rise zero up front Mr. Schlichman 13 Mr. O'Connor 11 Mr. Tremblay 15 and Mr. McCabe 5 it is a total of 125 in the affirmative 44 in the negative and it does pass it's two-thirds I declare article 39 to be closed the next article before us is article 49 article 49 Mr. Tosti fellow town meeting members I'd like to propose a substitute motion for the no action vote of the Board of Selectment and Finance Committee hopefully you've kept your town government reorganization committee packet that was handed out a while ago I would like to propose the submission of the article 49 vote as stated in the town government reorganization committee if people haven't haven't saved that hopefully I can read it too yep seconded I'll take it but I have one oh time it's on page 7 of the town government reorganization report Charlie did you want go ahead I was asking if Mr. Foskett wanted to speak as well just you did he Mr. moderator I'd be happy to read it quickly if that's needed I got you Mr. Foskett if you want to read it go ahead okay voted that the town economic advisory committee being hereby as established said group to be charged with responsibility consistent with the town manager act and all other applicable laws of making recommendations to town officials appropriate for board and committees and town meeting regarding national state and local economic and financial issues affecting the town of Arlington the membership of said committee shall consist of the following nine persons the town manager the superintendent of schools the director of assessments town treasurer chairman of the finance committee two former Arlington town officials with executive level experience and two residents of the town with private sector executive level experience appointed by the town moderator the names of all appointees shall be forwarded to the town clerk's office by the appointing authority no later than 30 days from the date of German of the 2011 annual town meeting the town moderator shall act as temporary chair with the responsibility of scheduling the date time and location of the organization meeting of said group shall designated qualified person to serve as secretary to the group this was the fourth and last meeting of the town's chairman reorganization committee primarily we have a lot of commissions and committees and such that look at sort of the next year and look at you know the five year plans and various elements like that the capital plan we don't have a group that perhaps looks beyond that look at the economic situation or changes that might occur which could affect Arlington maybe not this year but in this group strive to develop some relationships with various boards this group would have no public policy authority or power it's only authority is to make recommendations to the various groups within the town that it feels are relevant nothing in this warrant article establishing this group shall be construed as preempting the authority or diminishing the department town treasurer collector clerk assessors town manager or the superintendent of schools so that that's basically it it's fairly simple it's creating a group receives no pay that simply meets periodically and look tries to look ahead and bring up issues which might not be in the one year vision of what people are looking now therefore I'd recommend proposed substitute motion to you and hope you'll give it favorable consideration and be happy to answer any questions now I'm speaking as chair of the town government reorganization committee member I go to the central Mike if I'm from the finance committee thank you very much thank you Mr. Jones hi my name is Alan Jones I'm increasing 14 and the vice chair of the finance committee and if that microphone was working I should probably be standing over there according to today as reported in the finance committee report the finance committee voted unanimously to recommend no action on article 49 the committee believes that the objectives of the motion are already met by existing committees including vision 2020 the budget and revenue task force the capital planning committee the long-term planning committee and to a lesser extent the committee on tourism economic development the finance committee planning department the town manager I don't know how you do that but just take away more time from all the staff and volunteers who already work on all these other committees thank you Mr. Jones Mr. Foskett oh pass Mr. Jamison okay is that seconded yeah you guys who moved the question got to come up to the mic introduce yourself like everybody else name precinct rank okay we have motion to terminate debate all in favor opposed say no my opinion it is a two-third vote we have before the substitute vote of the town economic town government reorganization committee to set up a committee all in favor please say yes opposed say no my opinion as a negative vote we now have before us to recommend a vote of the board of select for no action all in favor please say yes opposed say no it's recommended no action my opinion that closes article 48 we are now to article 52 revolving funds anyone wish to speak to revolving funds so I'm going to introduce it no Mr. Jamison yeah I think it's just yeah why don't you just bend that mic down until we get it fixed there we go okay mr. moderator Gordon Jamison precinct 12 I did discuss this briefly this article briefly with the deputy town manager I wanted to point out a couple things to the body these these monies total about three quarters of a million dollars a year in receipts of these by my count and on the three biggest items and on the one that's being added I had a couple quick questions if I think maybe the deputy town manager might address those since I had discussed or mr. whichever we'll put your question to the well let's start with the life support rescue one what's your question I have some questions about the utilizations of funds last year and plans for this this year and going forward so it's my understanding that some of these funds were utilized I think most appropriately to cover some of the fire department's costs that were overruns last year is that correct they are ambulance related expenses that what you're referring to the ambulance fund yes we related to fire department costs from the previous years when the budget was closed out which is part of this because this is last year's ending right FY 10 yes and these are all related to fire department expenses for ambulance service okay so but did cover some of their deficit yes okay I note that you have some use in the past in the current going forward towards the capital plan to cover the cost of the rescue I should assume the equipment yes capital equipment that's good I'd like to see more of that you also I believe in the FY 12 budget are covering some costs some some firemen these proposed as based upon the back of the finance committee there's a thing that said to firemen are going to be covered by the ambulance fund the rescue fund that's correct we're proposing to cover a second ambulance and those additional staff people will be charged the revolving fund okay and the expenditures not to exceed will still be fine and the receipts with those additional receipts that you anticipate yes and you're covering the cost of those two employees does it cover cost of their healthcare insurance and pension costs I don't believe in the first year although we'll certainly make sure it does in the second year that would be great we always like to see things that would be great thank you on that one on the town hall rental does that cover capital costs or is that just sort of like a working capital things for expenditures and encourage renting this building out to different good purposes it covers more maintenance items as opposed to capital improvements smaller redoing floors lighting systems that type of thing it helps fund those things and those in the library if we do rugs and stuff are part of the capital plan these are exempt from that use there's enough in there to cover that large of an item okay it doesn't cover employees costs at all yes it does I was surprised a couple years to learn that even part-time employees pay into the pension plan so in the future similar to my previous comment it'd be nice if the pension costs were also covered okay and last I'll make a comment so I don't have to get up later the recycling committee volunteered to have its three thousand dollars taken out of the one more Mr. Sullivan that's my job three thousand dollars appropriation taken out of the committee budget which we'll get to later or after we get back from the override and that's going to be taken out of the white goods recycling article 35 fund instead at the discretion of the director of public works and we think that's a nice way for us to not use as much town funds to continue our good work there and that's in my respect my capacity as co-chair of the recycling committee and last question was the same capital fund that you're creating here would that be a capital funds or just the repair type thing more repair yeah we're not going to get enough money to cover any significant improvements to it so this is more in the nature of repairs okay obviously I'm going to vote in favor of this and I urge the body to do so and I'm very pleased with the increased utilization of these monies to cover expenses that normally would have come previously had come out of the general funds and I urge the body to do so thank you sir Mr. Warden thank you Mr. moderator John Warden precinct 8 I just have a question it's on the on page 26 of the Sligman's report the second item is the library Vend you tell us what that means in regular English thank you I believe that's just a library vending machine any yes anybody else wish to speak to the article seeing none we have a force to recommend a vote of the board of Slechman to reauthorize revolving funds all in favor please say yes opposed say no my opinion is unanimous vote that brings us next to article 53 cbd cdgb applications the board of Slechman gave us a budget I supplement the other day may 11th Mr. Court you want to speak to it so you should have before you the cdbg budget this is a budget which is controlled by the board of Slechman we ask for your endorsement every year the committee that determines how these funds will be distributed consists of myself and Mr. Dunn this is a committee that Jack heard sat on with me for many years and I'm going to take the discussion on how wonderful it was to serve with Jack what a great job he did of upholding our community's values on this particular piece of work that we did every year there is one small change to the distribution as you have in your budget and that is that it was pointed out to us that there is a federal rule that allows us to take what's called program income from any program that is actually earning income and move it into the public services budget which is otherwise restricted to 15% of the total allocation that we can take 15% of that program income and add it here we were able to do that this year and so we have increased the contribution to Arlington high school athletic scholarships we see this as bridging from this year to next year when we're hoping that the income they'll be earning from selling advertising will fill in this gap and allow them to cover more scholarships for the students this is money that the high school students will have to be income eligible under the HUD program to receive so we'll see how that goes this year you would need to add $35,000 therefore to align two AHS athletic scholarships including that from $8,000 to $43,000 and subsequently modifying your subtotals so there are two sections of this budget that as I said are restricted one is public services which can only be 15% of the allotment with that exception I just described and the other is administrative costs which is restricted to the amount that you see here I believe it's 20% of the allocation otherwise we're able to distribute the money between rehabilitation housing and public facilities and improvements as we choose and these are the choices that we've made this year and I hope that you will see fit to endorse thank you thank you Madam yep come on yes thank you Mr. Moderator my name is Anne Fitzgerald pre 617 I am the outgoing chair of the council on aging who requested me to speak to the reduction that we received this year from the CDBG funds and we are hoping at some point to address the select meeting to see if we can ask that we have at least $18,000 restored as you may not be aware of the dialeride program and the van program provides frail elder with rides to the doctors to the grocery store to get their essential business done and we rely heavily on the CDBG funds to help us we do have a few other funds a Sanborn cancer fund which reimburses the COA for the rides provided for example if you have a full treatment for cancer you probably would need if it was radiation you would probably need at least 28 rides so the Sanborn fund will reimburse the cost to the COA there are currently over 10,500 seniors residing in Arlington many are over 70 and many at 80 have usually been either forced or reluctantly give up their license to drive so that means that in order to stay independent and in some cases to remain at home they need the support from the COA we know that this is we cannot change what the selectmen have already they have already decided but we would ask that in future they could see if there is a possibility of giving us back the funds we initially ask for the 4,000 if you do the math and reduce it by 16.7% which is what Congress reduced the funds to it would be 58,300 as opposed to the 4,000 the 40,000 excuse me so we're just bringing this to your attention and as a selectman but my board did request this so I am making this request for them as well so thank you for your attention thank you Mr. Schlickman Paul Schlickman, Presig 9 almost in teacher mode here because I've sat through so many of the CDBG applications I'd just like to ask a couple of questions of the selectmen just to put it on the records so the meeting has an understanding of where we are and what this is about does the town meeting as the legislature of the town have a say in what is appropriate under CDBG no so basically in endorsing it we're basically the vote before us is do we want to accept federal money is that right well the more less I would so yes blessing looking for your blessing is correct and what happens let's say hypothetically if we didn't bless it I don't know Ms. Rice do you know nothing so as I know it's no consequence no consequence so essentially we're debating a moot article aren't we excuse me well they come to us as an informatory mode I feel that as the appropriating body of the town what we're doing with the money it sort of fits into the whole financial plan and that the request for endorsement in my opinion it matters to me whether or not you're willing to endorse but you know I can't tell you that the effectiveness of that endorsement is different than it is so basically the options before the meeting right now are to either endorse and say yes we'd like to have this wonderful federal money or no not to endorse it but we'll still apply for the federal money with a little less blessing attached to it and maybe a negative consequence next time that congress looks to appropriate in our direction right and if I were going to be on the board of selectmen next year and I was going to be chairing this committee again I would take seriously your complaints okay thank you very much so I urge I urge a rapid affirmative response is basically the only thing we should do under this article thank you Mr. Sweeney thank you Mr. moderator John Sweeney precinct 13 I had a couple questions about the planning entry in the supplemental report the first question is are these new positions or just a continuation of old positions these are the continuation of existing positions every year it's funded from the CDB CDBG yes I just like to point out it's about 12% of the total but that answers my question thank you thank you sir Mr. Kleinman and that's annoying thank you Mr. moderator Stuart Kleinman please send one as somebody who has written many federal grants and somebody who sometimes goes to Washington to review federal grant applications I must say it looks better if we endorse it if you submit it without our endorsement well the feds may say well why don't you town meeting one to your government endorse the application that's one point the other question I have is do we know will we receive all of this money last year and this year in terms of percentage Mr. Court it was a 16% reduction now the word on the street because I actually get some CDBG money now is that there's a 22% cut now because things are really weird in Washington do we know? no I believe it was a 16 or 16.5% cut there was some supplemental CDBG funds under the stimulus act I'm also not getting and perhaps that's where the 22% number comes from but that was like totally separate and spent separately and not to be repeated okay well thanks and to be honest I really wouldn't change anything we're in kind of very strange times here thank you for your work thank you Mr. Court you are next on the list if you still want to be yes I just wanted to respond to Ms. Fitzgerald's concerns we know that we have shorted the transportation program a little bit there's some flux in that account right now we're not really sure how the billing is working but the town manager has set aside $30,000 in reserve funds for us to tap if we need it to support those programs over the course of this fiscal year did I get that correct Mr. Sullivan? it's in the finance committee reserve fund so we will ensure that those funds are available to senior citizens who need them thank you Mr. Dunn pass Mr. Deist pass Mr. Warden thank you Mr. moderator John Warden a precinct page I had a question for I guess through you to Ms. McCourt I didn't see where the $35,000 was coming out of did I miss it? we had program income in the Arlington home improvement loan program and we are allowed to take 15% of that program income and move it into public services which is what we did so it's not out of this year's appropriation it's not out of this year's appropriation it's out of accumulated funds in that program thank you the other point and this is a somewhat ancient history but I remember an evening in this hall when Ms. Mahan when she was not in the exalted role she now holds but was just a Tom Beating member like the rest of us was very concerned that the selectman had chopped out of the appropriation a program for deletting some units one of the housing authority projects maybe Ms. Mahan will remember it better than I and she got up here and proposed an amendment that we take some money from somewhere in this program and put it into that deletting program and it was approved by this meeting so I just wonder if we perhaps we don't have a little leverage there thank you I'm not sure how that would have worked but okay thank you Ms. Fiori how's the Fiori precinct too in the early days when we got CDBG money if I have the order correct we used to meet with our former planning director Mr. McClennan and he would invite people to sit and go over the different departments and things that were going to be receiving money to make comments and so forth but it seems to me now that it sounds like there's only two people doing this and it's certainly a lot of work and I'm not one of those that would be able to sit that long I don't think so my question simply is if the public you know members of the town meeting for instance wanted to sit in on these discussions and offer any suggestions is that possible to advertise the hearing so I see those and I know that I see in the paper and it comes in but I would like to know if it would be published if people could sit in on it thank you I believe at the public hearing that we hold on the applications and also on during the discussion that we have about how the programs have worked over the course of a year that that's the appropriate point for input from the public because we are allotting these funds based on applications that we get okay so we first of all can only consider the applications we've received and those applications have to meet certain criteria with regards to the federal requirements and so if we deem that something meets those federal requirements and that their application is correct then that goes on a list for consideration and so that's we start by being limited by those applications but it's at the public hearing point that input would be what would be useful to us because that's when we have the full board to consider it I mean it's not like the subcommittee doesn't take direction from the rest of the board and doesn't listen to that public hearing as the starting point for our decision making process it's really just that then we're kind of dickering amongst all of those applications we've received to try to decide can a program survive if we don't give them their full request will they still be able to make use of those funds you know is there some new request do we think it has merit is it worth funding some other program we've been supporting for years a little bit less those kinds of decisions we tend to do on the subcommittee so does that help you're welcome Mr. Wagner thank you Mr. moderator Carl Wagner precinct 11 I move the previous question and all associate matters thank you Mr. Wagner motion to terminate debate all in favor please say yes opposed that's two-third vote we have before so we have recommended vote of the board of select for endorsement of the CDBG application all in favor please say yes opposed say no unanimous vote and I so declare it that exposes of the article we have now before us article 54 collective bargaining income will report Mr. Tosti I guess I lied before when I said I'd go to the central mic as chair of the Fincom from now on we're pretty much into the finance committee report and at this point I would usually get up and give a long spiel taking a few pieces from the chairman's report and a few of the charts in the back but I don't think I'll do that I think you've read my chairman's report hopefully you see the things that are are going on you've looked at the five-year plan in the back the cuts that are listed at least on the town side and again you've seen the listing of all the members of the finance committee you've worked very hard over the last several months and are still working hard to get the rest of the information for you so if you have questions see me at the break or give me a call numbers in the book on article 54 what I would like to do in some of these I'll get up and just say a couple words and others if you don't have any questions I won't bother a few of the articles I will table or move to postpone because they're either small things we can get them out of the way they're not going to change whether there's an override or non override and I think we can get a large percentage of the rest of these articles done and adjourn until June 8 after the override of course the final decision is up to you on article 54 I would like to move to table this article the managers and the process of negotiations you've heard of the breakthrough contract that we've gotten with the teachers which of course won't come before you and the manager is now working with the other unions so I think with a little luck hopefully by the time we come back on the 8th he will have some collective bargaining contracts for you to review so I move to table article 54 it's been seconded all in favor of tabling article 54 please say yes opposed it is tabled that brings us to article 55 position reclassification we have a force recommend a vote of the FINCOM any questions anyone like to speak to position reclassifications seeing none all in favor please say yes yes opposed say no unanimous vote and I sort of clear it that brings us to article 56 budgets why don't I just say tabled a couple weeks ago I put forth to get opinions from various town officials the moderators manager, superintendent various other people and I put forth three proposals I got back about eight different responses so what I would like to do is move to postpone the town budgets until June 8 after the override more and more I become convinced that if we vote this now we're going to basically do the same debate twice so therefore I move to postpone until June 8 okay all in favor of postponing until June 8 please say yes opposed say no it is postponed to June 8 6 postpone to 6 8 okay that brings us to article 57 we already voted on that brings us to article 58 um article 58 is a no action because we have already taken action on the same article at the special town meeting all in favor recommend a vote on the action please say yes opposed say no it's unanimous vote for no action if you can have such a thing that closes the article we're on to number 59 appropriations, financing construction or reconstruction of SOAR and SOAR rich facilities we have before us to recommend a vote of the finance committee anyone wish to discuss this article okay this requires two thirds because we're borrowing money all in favor please say yes opposed say no it's unanimous vote and I so declare it look really at 85 town meeting members presence and voting yes thank you that brings us to article 60 appropriation finance of construction or reconstruction of water mains and water facilities anyone wish to discuss this article no one okay again borrowing all in favor of the article recommend a vote of the FINCOM please say yes yes opposed say no I declare Miss look really at 85 town meeting members presence and voting yes okay thank you that brings us to article 62 we already did 60,000 we have a force recommend a vote of the FINCOM appropriation for committees and commissions they want to give 14,760 dollars to all these various folks anyone wish to discuss this seeing none all in favor please say yes opposed say no okay that's the majority vote we have a force article 63 recommend a vote for celebrations 10,167 dollars to the various parades and celebrations anyone wish to discuss this seeing none all in favor please say yes yes opposed say no majority vote we have a force article 64 appropriation miscellaneous some 11,040 dollars appropriated for legal offense out of state travel indemnification of medical costs anyone wish to discuss this article seeing none all in favor please say yes opposed say no majority vote and I so declare it that closes the article article 65 we have a force a recommended vote of no action all in favor all in favor no action please say yes opposed no action on article 65 article 66 recommended water bodies I want to do 20,000 dollars for the water bodies anyone wish to discuss this treating maintaining an oversight of our ponds and rivers okay no one wants to discuss it all in favor of the recommended vote of the fincom please say yes all opposed say no unanimous vote and I so declare it article 67 appropriations for adjustment of former 25 year accidental disability employees we have a force a recommended vote of the fincom for some of zero dollars okay anyone wish to discuss this no one all in favor please say yes opposed say no that's unanimous vote we have a force article 68 yes sir I would like to make a motion to postpone this article until June 8th if the override is successful or other sums of money might become available we might want to amend this we'll have a better idea over the next couple of weeks therefore I move to postpone until June 8th second okay we have we're going to post we have a motion to postpone article 58 to June 8th and it's been seconded 68 68 article 68 68268 cool all in favor postpone it please say yes all opposed it is postponed postponed 69 we have a recommended vote on no action all in favor no action Mr. moderator I would like to move to postpone this until June 8th as you could as the town meeting could see part of the our deliberations was based on the fact that you know there was no coal races being given to town employees and so the finance committee would like the opportunity to revisit this we might keep it the same because even with the contracts there could be in place there would still be no coal as for fiscal 2010 and fiscal 2011 but we want the opportunity to revisit in light of the contracts that have been negotiated and could be negotiated so therefore I move to postpone until 68 emotional postpone article 69 to June 8th all in favor please say yes all opposed say no that's postponed article 70 acceptance legislation to increase or increase of survivor's benefits we have a force of recommended vote of the FinCOM anyone wish to discuss this article Seeing none all in favor please say yes Opposed say no unanimous vote as opposed to the article we have now force article 71 local option taxes we have a recommended vote of no action Anyone wish to discuss it none all in favor no action please say yes we have a force now article 72 No one wants to vote against it, it's no action. All right, who doesn't want to take no action? No one, it's unanimous vote, no action. Article 72, we have a forced appropriation for tip fee stabilization. Recommend to vote a 450,000 being here by is appropriated from the tip fee stabilization fund. Anyone wish to discuss tips fee stabilization? Seeing none, all in favor please say yes. Yes. Opposed to no. She's unanimous vote, and I so declare it. Ms. Rainville is Ms. Rainville. I'm sorry, Ms. Luccarelli, 85 members present in voting. Yes. 73, transfer some cemetery funds. Anyone wish to discuss cemetery fund transfer? Seeing none, all in favor please say yes. Yes. Opposed to no. It's unanimous vote, and I so declare it. Ms. Luccarelli, 85 members present in voting. Thank you. Said yes. Number 74, appropriation overlay reserve fund. Some 200,000 being here by appropriated to the overlay reserve surplus account. Anyone wish to discuss overlay funds? Seeing none, all in favor recommend to vote. Please say yes. Yes. All opposed? It's unanimous vote, and I so declare it. Ms. Luccarelli, 85 members present in voting. Yes. She answers in the affirmative. That's opposed to the article 74, article 75. Appropriation to stabilize. Ms. Moderator? Yes, sir. I move to postpone this till June 8th. Obviously, if the override is successful and passes, we will need this article to put money from that override into the stabilization fund as we did with the 2005 override, and then they'll be built up and then drawn down. So I move to postpone till June 8th. All in favor postpone it until June 8th. Please say yes. Yes. Opposed? No. Okay, it's postponed to June 8th. That brings us to free cash, my favorite. The sum of $385,249 be used to determine the tax rate. Do you want to change this one, Mr. Tosti? We are good. Anyone wish to discuss free cash? No one. All in favor, please of the recommended finance committee, please say yes. Yes. Opposed, say no. It is a majority vote. And my calculations are right, hold on. Everything else has been postponed or tabled. Yep, thank you, Mr. Warden. Sir. My name is the moderator, John Ward, appreciate your date. It strikes me that we're about done as far as we can go. Correct. But we moved, we voted earlier in the evening to adjourn until next Wednesday. Wednesday, we're gonna have to change that. We need to reconsider that vote unless we don't want to come back next Wednesday for nothing, I guess. Correct. Thank you. So, Ms. Rowe, can you get up and make a motion to reconsider our vote on the lines of Mr. Warden's recommendations? Yes, Mr. Monterey, it is moved that if all the business of the meeting is set forth in the warrant for the annual town meeting is not disposed of at this session when the meeting adjourns and adjourns to Wednesday, June 8th, 2011 at 8 p.m. Okay, I'm gonna treat that as a motion for reconsideration of our earlier vote and put that in there. So, all in favor of adjourning to June 8th, please say yes. Yes. Opposed, say no. We are adjourned to June 8th. Are there any notices of reconsideration? Mr. Schlickman.