 Welcome to this meeting of the Arlington Select Board on Wednesday, April 20th, 2022. This is the Select Board Chair, Len Diggins. Permit me to confirm that all members and persons anticipated on the agenda are present and can hear me. Members, when I call your name, please respond in the affirmative. This is Mohan. Yes. Mr. Corsi. Yes. Mr. Helmuth. Yes. And Mr. Hurt will not be joining us tonight. Staff, when I call your name, please respond in the affirmative. Adam Chapter Lane. Yes. Doug Heim. Yes. And Board Administrative Assistant Lauren Costa. Yes. Thank you. Tonight's hybrid meeting of the Arlington Select Board is being conducted in person and in the Select Board chambers and remotely consistent with the Act Signs of the Law on February 15th, 2022 that extends certain COVID-19 measures. The Act includes an extension until July 15th, 2022 of the remote meeting provisions of Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 executive orders to spending certain provisions of the open meeting law. The Governor's Order, which is referenced with agenda materials on the town's website for this meeting, allows public bodies to meet entirely remotely so long as reasonable public access is afforded so that the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting. Before we begin, permit me to offer a few notes. Again, as well as in person, this meeting is being conducted via Zoom. It is being recorded and is also being simultaneously broadcast on ACMI. Persons wishing to join the meeting by Zoom may find information on how to do so on the town's website. Persons participating by Zoom are reminded that they may be visible to others and that if you wish to participate, you are asked to provide your full name in the interest of developing a record of the meeting. All participants are advised that people may be listening who do not provide comment and these persons are not required to identify themselves. Both Zoom participants and persons watching on ACMI can follow the posted agenda materials also found on the town's website using the Novus agenda platform. And finally, each vote tonight will be taken by roll call. With our short agenda, I'm confident we will get all the town's business done tonight. I'll now turn to the next item on agenda, which is item two, land acknowledgement. I'd like to read the land acknowledgement that the board supported last spring and town meeting approved through a resolution which is also contained on the town's website. We acknowledge that the town of Orlington is located on the ancestral lands of the Massachusetts tribe, the tribe of indigenous people from whom the colony, province and commonwealth have taken their names. We pay our respects to the ancestral bloodline of the Massachusetts tribe and their descendants who still inhibit, I'm sorry, inhabit historic Massachusetts territories today. I will now turn to item three on tonight's agenda. And we're going to postpone most of the discussion on this one until I've had a more of a conversation with the town manager. It's on general safety issues, and this really came out of the horrible accident on the META about a couple of weeks ago where the guy's arm was caught in the training and it led to his demise. And I'm an META writer of this committee and we talked, we're not an official body that has done any investigation into this, so I'm not speaking for the META, but we talk to knowledgeable people. And I just want to say when you get on the train, take note of where the call box is and where the emergency break is. And if you see something, don't hesitate to call someone. And if you don't get a response right away, pull the emergency break. And so we'll talk more about how that relates to here at another meeting when I've had a chance to talk with the town manager. It's more a matter of just being aware of what's around and where to go and who to retell to for help if something emergency happens because it's easy to not think about these things until you need to and then if you haven't thought about it in advance mean then you don't know what to do. So it's just a little precaution that came out of that, which as a person who uses a T a lot, I don't think you need to use T a lot to just kind of identify with just how bad that is. So that's what that's about. So we'll move on now to item number four, the consent agenda, which is the meetings, the minute meetings from March 30th, 2022. I'd like to move approval, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Helmuth. Second. Thank you, Mr. Corsi. Any comments, questions? Seeing none, you know, so we'll take the vote, Mr. Heim. Thank you, Mr. Diggins. Mr. Corsi. Yes. Mr. Helmuth. Yes. Mrs. Mohan. Yes, thank you. Mr. Diggins. Yes, thanks. So 4-0 vote. Thank you very much. And so now we'll move to item five of the agenda request for parking reservation for Whittemore Park, phase two construction. Do we have Ms. Raidt with us? Mr. Diggins, Mr. Chair. So I see that we're joined by Assistant Director of Planning and Community Development, Kelly Lanema. If I could promote her, I think she can speak to this agenda item. All right, please do. Thank you. Hello, Ms. Lanema. Good evening, members of the board. This is a request for a staging area for phase two construction of Whittemore Park. This element of construction will complete the front and side gardens of the Jefferson Cutter House, and it will also lead to accessibility improvements, which will allow mobility impaired persons to get to the rear of the house. So it will help the house comply with ADA compliance. As part of the project, we need to have a staging area. We're requesting a staging area in the Russell Commonlot. And this is the same area that we used last year for phase one construction. The overall timeline of construction is anticipated. They'll be mobilizing on the site in the next week or two. And then construction is anticipated to be complete in early July. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have about the project. Thank you, Ms. Lanema. So any questions? Just a comment, Mr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No, I'll move approval. I think it's great that we'll be moving along. And I think that the front of the park looks fantastic. So I think we're all really excited to see this continue. So I'm happy to support this. Thank you. And I'd like to second that, Mr. Chair, and also add my appreciation to the planning department, particularly for their diligence and quality of work. And I think it does look great. I'm glad to see that this is almost done. It's really exciting. And I very much hope that we can have an event to celebrate the completion of both phases in the summer. Thank you, Mr. Helmuth. Yes, I'm all set too. So with a motion by Mr. Corsi and a second by Mr. Helmuth, Mr. Heim. Mr. Corsi. Yes. Mr. Helmuth. Yes. Mrs. Ma. Yes. Mr. Diggins. Yes. So 4-0 over. Thank you very much. And thanks again, Ms. Lanema. So moving on to item number 6, presentation and requested adoption of the Arlington Housing Production Plan, or Arlington Housing Plan, as it's written here. And also, once again, we have Ms. Rating and Ms. Lanema. I know that Ms. Lanema is here. And so I guess at this point, I mean, I think it's up to us to start the conversation because there was a presentation and a hearing last time, and we were at a point where we wanted to find out how the ARB, the new development board, was going to vote on one of the articles. I think it was article 38. And so we have the redevelopment board's report, and so I guess the question now is, is how do we feel about that? And do we want to move forward? And so I think it's probably appropriate for me to ask my colleague, Mrs. Corsi, to start off the conversation. Thank you, Mr. Diggins. Mr. Chairman. Yeah, so I had asked, I believe, Mr. Helmuth that also made the request that they, a couple meetings ago, wanting to receive more information in terms of what the redevelopment board did with article 38. And as you said, they have voted. It was a three-to-two vote with the chair, Chair Zembury and the Tinto Callas voting in the negative. And the thing I had said at the last meeting what I was struggling with with the housing production plan was the first goal, which was calling for allowing two family homes in the R0 and R1 district. And really, as a near-term goal, is what I was concerned about. And I think having heard the discussion, watching the video of that meeting, I tend to agree with the comments that were made by Ms. Zembury and Ms. Tinto Callas in terms of the need for a more comprehensive plan if we are to have a lot of two families as of right in the R0 and the R1. However, after looking at that discussion more, if you look at the housing production plan, the lead responsibility for goal one is the redevelopment board. And the redevelopment board at their meeting basically said, we're voting for this three-to-two. We want to have a discussion about it before town meeting. It's an important discussion to have in the town. And I certainly agree with that, but they're not going to be leading the discussion. Ms. LaCourts is going to be leading the discussion at the request of the chair. So while I'm concerned with item one overall, I'm pleased with the housing production plan, the other strategies that are in there. I certainly can support. I will say one thing, Mr. Chairman, and I hope this can be done administratively without having a vote. We had talked in the individual meetings with Ms. Rait, Mr. Chapter Lane about certain language at the beginning of the report and concerns about tone. And there was a reference there to the housing authority that I think should be stricken from the report. And specifically, it's on page three of the report where it says that they lack the resources to manage the properties, their properties. And it's in the middle of page three. Frankly, I don't think that statement's necessary to report for the housing production plan. I do have no problem with the issue. And I'm looking at page three of the housing production plan where it basically states the properties that they administer and it also states that they have not actively pursued new housing development in a long time. And then it says and lacks the resources to manage the properties that I have a little problem with my printer today. Lacks the resource to manage its properties. I'd like to see that stricken because I don't think for something that's going to be around for five years, we need to have a statement in there about what the housing authority can do. Mr. Nagel wasn't consulted on this, didn't have a chance to respond to it. So if that can be done administratively, I have separate concerns about Article 38, but I can separate those concerns from what's in the housing production plan. So those are my comments. All right. Thank you, Mr. DeCorsi. And so any other comments? Mr. DeCorsi basically stated more eloquently than I would my issues with Article 38, but I do want to have discussion at town meeting and I was wondering if either through the chair to Ms. Linnema or Ms. Raid, when we discussed this, I think at our last regular meeting, I also had raised those two particular points and we had one of our colleagues from the housing authority, Ms. Preston here. And it was my understanding that there could be a misunderstanding that it was agreed that those would be stricken. Could I just get some clarity on that? Sure. I think I see Ms. Raid here. Yeah. So Ms. Raid or Ms. Linnema either want to address that? I'd be happy to address that. Good evening. I'm more than happy to amend, you know, make any of the amendments that have been suggested. We did address a number of the issues that were brought to us by Ms. Preston. And, you know, maybe we have not addressed as many of them as would have been desired, but if we need to address those issues, we can go back and make those edits if that would make the plan more desirable at all. Thank you, Ms. Raid. Yeah, it's not so much making the plan more desirable. I just think that we don't need to make a reference that the exact languages and lack of resources to manage the property it already owns. I just think on a report that we're approving, we don't need to say that about the housing authority. And the housing authority has limited resources and they're certainly, you know, doing the best they can with it. It's not a matter of whether it makes the plan better. For me, it's a matter of this is another department while it's not under our jurisdiction. I just think coming out, it sets a better tone on page three of the report. All right. Thank you. Ms. Mohan? And I have one other question. I'm not sure if it can be answered tonight by the planning director or through the chair, town council. Just my perusing through this several times. What I've gotten from, I believe what Ms. LaCorte and others will present. Oh, I hear somebody's kids in the background. They're not mine. Am I correct in my interpretation of article 38, which is sort of encompassed in the housing plan that there is a statement that if it does go from a single family home, not rebuilt to a larger single family home, but to a two family. I think I saw language in there that said the sale of the two families will not or cannot be more than the sale of the maximum maximum use of a single family home. So I'm wondering if did I read that correctly? Number one and number two. Is that something we can through town meeting or whomever of redevelopment board enforce legally? So that would be a question once again to this raid or Ms. Lanema. It sounds like that is a question for town meeting as a potential amendment to the zoning bylaw of, you know, as it's drafted. I need to see that, you know, more specifically in writing to judge whether or not that would be allowable and how it would be also enforceable. I think that would be potentially the biggest dilemma particularly around that type of housing. But I also see that attorney Heim has his hands raised. May want to provide that perspective. Thank you, Ms. Rae. So Mr. Heim. I can't counsel. I have to apologize for the post. Those are my kids. My fault. Not theirs. I'm sorry, Mrs. I forgot to mute my microphone. I think that the real question here is, you know, when something becomes as of right and when it's essentially by special permit, even if it's by a different name. So if you have some sort of restriction that's not a special permit, that's always going to involve an atypical layer of enforcement than what we're used to. I'd have to see the proposal as well to be sure. It wouldn't, it would be an interesting approach to try to create something that's as of right but restricted in other ways. You could, in theory, do anything that, in theory, you could design a lot of things that could have different deed restrictions. But how you would go about doing that on something that's as of right is likely a little bit unorthodox. Thank you. Okay. And thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the leeway on that. I know we're discussing the housing plan. Article 38 is separate from that, but it's sort of inherent in it. And I do understand this is something we do as a matter of course, and we need to submit something to the state for our housing plan. And along with my colleague and Mr. D'Corsi and others, I'm happy to support this with those two caveats that have been pointed out. I know Ms. Preston raised, I think it was six points, but the two that really I felt shouldn't be there. Mr. D'Corsi has already spoken to, and I feel confident those won't be submitted to the state or appear as a reprint in any future publication that the town does for this. So thank you, Mr. Chair. You're welcome, man. The nice thing is we have the time tonight so we can discuss to our hearts content as long as we're within the boundaries. OML, Mr. Hurt. I can't believe he's not even here. That's all right, Mr. Greeley. God forgive me, no. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Oh, boy. Nice email. Here we go. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to my colleagues for I think covering the basis really well. I don't want to lose sight of this, but I think this is a really well researched, well thought of and really useful plan. I know I speak in some part as my role as the Select Board's designated member to the Affordable Housing, Farmington Affordable Housing Trust Fund, and my colleagues there, I think, were grateful for the Select Board's careful consideration of this and that we wanted to take a little time to really think about some of these issues. And I know they're really excited and one of the reasons that this plan will be so useful is that we'll enable this new body as we are about to embark on a really significant action plan under the leadership of our able chair Karen Kelleher and our staff, Ms. Raimz-Linema, that this plan will be an important guide to that action and to how we might use the funds that come into the Housing Trust. So I'm really pleased with that and happy with that. I also have reservations about Article 38 and the first strategy in the table. I think Mr., my colleagues have expressed that pretty well and I'll just say, I think we're seeing the process play out with the leadership from the ARB in town meeting and I think I'm also comfortable with that in there. My understanding and my read of this plan is that, you know, these are 42 strategies. I'm in agreement with all the major goals and higher up in the document. These are strategies that I look at as a menu. I think, you know, if we were earlier in the process and had more time, you know, I might want to, I might have suggested that with respect to single vein zoning that we consider a slower process, a study process, maybe a zoning overlay to be incremental in that and that might be what happens anyway. I think there's room in that strategy, which is a menu, you know, item that it could go that way. I think and I want, you know, people who've contacted me and public to understand that you can't, you adopt a plan, you can't by necessity, you're not saying that every one of these things where we should do or are going to do in five years, that's not what this is kind of documented. So I'm also comfortable with that with my personal reservations about 38, not withstanding. I think that, you know, we'll all consider that as a town meeting member, frankly. And I agree about the housing authority too. I think that I looked, I have this in front of me. I think the intent of that paragraph is to make the case for why we need to invest more in more housing. And I appreciate that intent. I think that it's one of the things I've learned just as a new member of the housing plan trust is one of the reasons the housing authority, and the main reason that they haven't invested in new housing is that because of state priorities in state direction, they are working more, looking more at growing housing, affordable housing through vouchers, Section 8 and other vouchers. So that's just an administrative path that they're on that is not fully under their control. So these are state priorities. And so I think it's, I agree with removing that language because I think to really address why the housing authority hasn't pursued more development requires more context, you know, requires that, that a forward discussion. And I agree, I think that we, I think that it should be mentioned as an important partner and important provider of housing but those elements, you know, we can remove and still have a strong plan. So I, Mr. Chair, do we, is a motion still needed? I'd be happy to make one if there hasn't been one. So Mr. Corsi, did you, you indicated you were happy to adopt it? I said I could support it. Yeah, and please Mr. Corsi. Did you make, I didn't make a motion. So go right ahead, Mr. Hanlon. So I would like to, sorry, Mr. Chair, your direction. I'm pretty late. Don't you mean Mr. Hard? Come on, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm, I'm fine, I'm fine. I mean, so I know we have the decorum and protocol, but I mean, it's the spirit of the whole, I mean, and so we're all within bounds. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to move adoption of the plan subject to the amendments, the administrative amendments that have been discussed by Mr. Herd. Oh, here I go again. Mr. Corsi and Mrs. Mahan. So it's going to be that kind of night. Can I get a second? A second. Thank you. So, so I guess my only question at this point is can the edits be done administratively and we don't have to go back to the redevelopment board. That I guess would be a question to Mrs. Wright. Right, we can make those administrative amendments without going back to the redevelopment board. I will inform the redevelopment board of the amendments that occurred as a result of the select board's discussion on the adoption. But I do not believe it needs to go back to them for further discussion on another vote. Great. So I think we're where we want to be on this. I mean, I have a lot of comments and thoughts about housing in general. And I'm going to save those for another time because I'm hoping that we'll be able to do some joint meetings with the redevelopment board, I mean, as I've hinted and even said to people it's like I would love for us to have me more meetings and shorter meetings. I mean, I know that's asking us to do more, but there's more work for us to do. I mean, I think if we can do shorter meetings where we're all like fresh and we can have like maybe single focus meetings on topics, it might do us to meet in the town a lot of good. And I had good advice about me not addressing some other articles that came up before the redevelopment board for us to comment on before town meeting because we didn't have a chance to do a joint meeting with the redevelopment board. So let's try and do more of those. I mean, maybe something to some of us, certainly some of this fall made and we can talk about housing more and maybe more comprehensive things that we can do with respect to the current housing plan, the fair housing action plan and whatever else comes to mind because I think a lot of the community, not all of it, but you're not going to get everyone in the community of 40,000 people. I mean, I'm supporting the notion of doing something more for housing, you know, and let's try and figure out me how to move forward with more of a consensus rather than less. So with Mr. Duterte. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, if I could, and you bringing up the fair housing action plan actually spurred something that I wanted to bring up as well. So if I could, and that was done as we knew that was completed last July. And there are a number of strategies or recommendations there that overlap with the housing production plan. And I hope as we move forward with this in the air, be moves forward with this and the town moves forward with this that we take a look at those recommendations because I think that strategy C within the fair housing action plan regarding reforming zoning, looking into conversion of single family homes to two and three family homes. I think that was really laid out in a nice manner last July and really could be a roadmap for some of, even for item one in terms of looking at things. And I know the fair housing action plan is referenced four or five times in the housing production plan. But I think it lays out those strategies in a nice manner and just adds a little bit more detail to what's in the implementation plan. So I hope there's a way to cross reference that and refer to it as we go forward. Yeah. I think we will be able to do that. You know, and so on a motion by Mr. Helmuth and a second by Mrs. behind Mr. Heim. Can we take a vote? Mr. Dacourson. Yes. Mr. Helmuth. Yes. Mrs. Mahan. Yes. Thank you. Mr. Dickens. Yes. It's a 4-0 vote. Excellent. And so I think we'll move on to thank everybody. And we'll move on to item number seven in discussion and endorsement of the revised ARPA framework and return to Tom manager, Mr. Chapter Lane. Thank you, Mr. Dickens. Is it okay if I share my screen and walk through walk through the revised plan? Please do. Let's bring up the right screen here. Okay. Are you all seeing a document that says proposed vote for select board consideration dash ARPA framework April 20th, 2022? I see nodding heads. Okay. Good. So thank you members of the board for hearing this matter tonight. I think there's really two main aspects of what we'll talk about tonight. One, we have discussed several times before the board and that is after the board's October endorsement of a framework, the final regulations were issued by the federal government in regards to ARPA. And that allowed us to use up to $10 million to benefit the general fund in accounting for revenue loss that the town experienced over the course of the pandemic. So in the prior plan that the board has endorsed, we had only set aside $3 million for the potential to be able to claim revenue loss. Obviously, I've said this and I believe all five board members have agreed that maximizing the benefits of the general fund was something that we all wanted to try to achieve with this ARPA framework. So to make that change, and I'll talk about this as I go through, you'll see we did have to somewhat significantly reduce investments that we made or proposed to make in other areas. The biggest two areas where we had to make reductions were water and sewer and affordable housing as previously those were the largest areas and will remain the largest areas other than revenue loss. The other reason to talk about this tonight is we have finalized numbers in a lot of key areas and we wanna ask the board's endorsement of those revised figures in public health, behavioral health, providing food security and investments under affordable housing for the housing authority. So if it pleases the board, what I'll do is just walk down this sheet and give a brief description of what's included and what has changed in terms of the figure since the last discussion. And what I've tried to do, and you can see this on the sheet in parentheses is either listed as revised, same as the prior endorsement or something that's new and wasn't here the last time the board saw these materials. So starting at the top, you can see the revenue loss general fund category. As I mentioned that previously had been in the plan that the board had seen at $3 million. I've raised that in what's before the board tonight to the maximum $10 million amount. That same $10 million amount has already been carried in town's long range financial planning documents and will be incredibly helpful in addressing the override that would be expected to start being discussed for next year. Moving on from that, the next category is public health. This is a somewhat significant increase. Christine Barggiorno and her team really dug in to build out their plan a little more robustly than what had been presented previously and there is backup material available on Novus regarding this. But the previous amount had been $511,000. You can see here, it has been increased to $920,000, $920,069. Moving on from that, you see equity and outreach. A prior amount for equity and outreach was $600,000. Once again, Christine Barggiorno working with Jill Harvey have revised those numbers really still proposing to meet the same goals and same plan and program that had been proposed but tightening up those numbers based on what the actual expected costs would be. So again, previously that had been $600,000. You can see the revised figure here is 393,000. Below that, you can see premium pay for town and school essential workers. The prior figure had been $4 million. We are now estimating to come in just above $4 million at that $4,059,562 amount. That is inclusive of premium pay payments that have been made to town and school workers as well as inclusive of part of that premium pay package of vaccine incentive pay to employees that have demonstrated successful vaccination status. The, there may be one more tweak to that number when final payments are made to school department employees but as of the filing of the agenda that was the most up to date figure. Below that, you see premium pay for private sector essential workers. In the prior version of the plan that had been budgeted at $500,000. As I've continued to look, I still haven't seen any other communities that were providing premium pay to private sector workers. The state via Governor Baker's ARPA bill did provide premium pay to some private low-income private sector workers, which to some degree I do feel like may have alleviated the need for us to do this. And then finally, maybe the most compelling reason, I was concerned about how we would determine who to make payments to when we first proposed this. And I still, even after discussing it internally, I'm not very clear on exactly how we would have administratively managed making such payments. So to the goal of getting to the $10 million amount, my recommendation was to revise that to zero. Below that is behavioral health support. The prior number for behavioral health had been $650,000, inclusive of a behavioral health reserve. That figure, again, after Christine and her team really ironed out a more detailed plan, comes out to a total, a revised total of $610,000. Below that low-income broadband support previously had been budgeted at $269,000 after, excuse me, continuing to review the regs. I became clear that we wouldn't really have an ability to use those funds for this use in Arlington. So again, towards the goal of meeting the $10 million figure, revise that down to zero. Next, small business nonprofit assistance, 1.5 million. That figure remains the same as the prior endorsements, so no change has been recommended there. And the first round of that has gone out and checks have been issued to the businesses and nonprofits that have applied. So the ARPA money's already been put to good use there. Below that, I've added in the first new thing that you're seeing here, the Chamber of Commerce support. I believe the chamber did come before the board a number of months ago asking for support for their ongoing activities and due to the good work of the chamber, chamber executive director, Beth Locke, their board and Ray Santilli, who's been helping us hammer out these ARPA agreements. We do have this proposal here for your consideration tonight in the amount of $120,000. Below that, we have tenant assistance, also the same as the prior endorsement. That program I believe is underway right now. So in the coming weeks and months, we'll get a better sense of what the actual expenditure is under that category. Below that, we have food security. So you see here a revised total of $832,500. The prior amount had been $1,075,000. But again, due to the good work of the management and staff at FoodLink in Arlington Eats, working with Mr. Santilli, we have final revised amount for FoodLink recommended for funding of the amount, excuse me, of $450,000 and for Arlington Eats in the amount of $232,500. And then I've maintained a food security reserve in the amount of $150,000 to try to hold aside some potential funding for the idea of a community kitchen, which has been suggested by a board member in the past. Moving on from there, investments in parks in open spaces. The prior number that this board had already endorsed was $4 million, but to make this plan work, we're recommending bringing that down to 3.25. No one really wanted to see a reduction in the investment in parks and open spaces. But again, with that being one of the larger numbers, kept that, decided that bringing down that number in a responsible and reasonable manner was appropriate. Below that, we have water and sewer spending at 3,219,000. That prior number had been 6.6 million. So now you can see where a significant reduction has been made to be able to get up to that $10 million amount for revenue loss. That 1.6 of that 3.2 is still going towards the water meter replacement that has been previously discussed. So there's only a small amount left there for DPW and the water division to be able to make investments, much needed investments in the water sewer system. Below that, affordable housing for the Arlington Housing Authority, for a revised total, only slightly revised total of 2.654 million. And you can see on the screen what these are going towards. 2,505,000 going to the AHA for capital, and that will all go towards monotony manner for a window replacement. And I actually learned today in a conversation with the executive director, Jack Nagel, there's potential, I don't wanna hold him to it because it's definitely, he was very clear it was potential for these monies to seed an even more exciting project with windows and even broader weatherization to be possible for the units, excuse me, monotony manner. Below that, Arlington Housing Authority transportation to buy a van to help bring tenants around town for various appointments and grocery store visits. And that's the same as the prior endorsement. And then finally, the Arlington Housing Authority residents support services in the amount of 114,000 that's been revised down since the prior iteration, and that will help them actually hire a staff person to work with residents in providing support for their various needs. Below that, the next new category that's been added in the amount of $300,000 for remote slash hybrid meeting infrastructure. As the remote meeting or remote hybrid meeting study committee has been meeting and has made their recommendations. One thing that was clear is that we would need to contemplate significant investments, not only in the select board chambers but in other meeting rooms across town. So this is a figure that I don't know that we fully know how far this will go, but I think we'll go quite a long way in getting a number of rooms outfitted for the type of remote and hybrid meetings that we'd like to see going forward. And finally, administration oversight and communications and revised amount of $570,198. That prior amount had been 522,893. And you can see I added the word communications there. And that's because in combination with outside auditors that we will need to pay year over year for auditing our expenditures under ARPA paying right now in just a contractual basis, Mr. Santilli for his work to execute the detailed funding agreements with the outside agencies that are receiving ARPA but also to be able to spend some of these resources on communicating with the public and engaging with the public about these ARPA investments. And that's why I've added just a very modest amount of money to that line item. So that's the last that I'm actually asking for a vote of endorsement to begin or continue expenditure on. And then finally, I'll just describe underneath here, HVAC improvements. We've kept the figure the same, 2.25 million. And that is actually the figure itself is being carried as it was endorsed previously in the town's capital plan. However, the exact usage of those funds is still being developed. And once we know that I'll bring that back for the board for endorsement. Affordable housing, those funds that would be not be going to the Arlington Housing Authority at least not yet. You can see we have 3 million for affordable housing unit production, which is a revised figure. It had been previously, I believe, $4 million, just checking my notes. And deepening the affordability of units in the pipeline, we have moved that down to zero for a total of $3 million for affordable housing unit production. And then finally, for the category of homelessness, a figure of $569,564 revised down from a previous figure of $939,000. And just a reminder, it's a sort of revised total, but there was also $50,000 already endorsed by the board by a vote in August to go to the housing corporation of Arlington for their homelessness prevention work. So with that, I think I've covered everything that I wanted to share with the board tonight. I'm happy to answer any questions, but I would ask the board's consideration of adopting the motion as is presented to the board here on this document. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chapter Lane. So I now open it up to comments, questions, motions. I have questions, but I wanna wait. I don't know, I'll defer to my colleagues and or if you have any questions, and then if mine get answered, I'll wait. Yeah, and I think like I'm dominating the conversation. No, no, not at all, not at all. So why don't you go ahead? Okay, first like a motion, excuse me, I'd like to make a motion to adopt the revised opera framework as proposed by the town manager. I have three questions, one sort of a global question. I understand that these monies need to be dispersed by the end of, I think it's 2024. Anybody correct me if I'm wrong? So starting in 22, 23, and then 24. So my first question is a global one that I know there are incremental amounts. Some get all the money up front in year one, some are spread out over one and two, and a minimum of them are spread out over all three allocations. I'm wondering what happens for each of these allocations in each fiscal year, say it's $500,000, behavioral health, I'm just making this number up. They only spend 400 in fiscal 22. What happens to that 100,000? Does it carry over? Does it go to a reserve fund? And then my end question on that would be, what happens when we get to, what I assume is the end December of 24, if everyone hasn't spent to the penny, which I don't anticipate, is that something stays with that particular account or does it go to a reserve or something else? So that's my first question. Mr. Chairman. Sure, that's a great question. I would anticipate that what we should all think about doing is doing some type of reconciliation period at some interval that we can discuss, because in that hypothetical you described, if either an internal or external agency said they were gonna spend 400,000, but only spent 300,000, that it is not contractually just their money to spend. It has to be spent in accordance with what has been laid out and endorsed by this board. So I think, let's hypothetically say, we get another 12 months from now and we realize there's 500, 700, some of money. I think we should plan to do a reconciliation and allow town management and the board to decide where those funds should be invested. And then my second global question and then I'll have two specific and stop is that my reading of the federal opera funding talks about an auditing process that's laid out by federal guidelines. I also know at the audit meeting with Powers and Sullivan, this was sort of briefly touched upon where they indicated Powers and Sullivan, our outside auditing company. If I heard correctly, they would have some oversight or partnership in that, but I'm just wondering in terms of the federal guidelines for the auditing requirements, is that something that totally falls under the Powers and Sullivan umbrella or is there a third fourth party or something that will do that? So as I, Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, and I can verify this, the auditing will be performed by Powers and Sullivan and we have been already closely cooperating with them. Sandy and I will speak if we're really unsure of what an investment could or should be in terms of it's qualifying, we'll talk to Ida and almost every time we call Ida, Ida will say, Ida will have her sense of it but say, you know what, I'm gonna verify with Powers and Sullivan. So rather than us recommending spending something and then having the auditors come back and say that it was not an allowable expenditure where we're front loading those conversations with them, but my understanding is we'll be continuously engaged with them for the auditing function of the expenditure of these funds. Okay, and then my two specific questions under public health, the way I'm reading the documentation, the town is contracting one of the positions, a nursing position with the town of Belmont. So if I'm correct in that, my first would be, is this sort of a 50-50 split or 75-25? And then the more outward question is, what happens at the end of fiscal year 25 when the funding goes away? What happens to that person position? I guess there's an obligatory as well, and or legal faction to it, so. So this position was a shared position between Belmont and Lexington, but through the work of Christine working with her colleague in Belmont, ended up shifting that to be a shared position between Belmont and Arlington. So I believe it is 50-50, though I could verify that as well. I mean, I could know. And could you also verify if it's 50-50 in terms of compensatory longevity, retirement, health, dental, stuff like that? Thank you. But you were continuing to answer. So in terms of what happens at the end, I'll give the answer I'm giving for that question across the board for staff positions that I've told every department and every outside agency who's asked for staff-based positions that after December 31st, 2024, there can be no guarantee of funding. So the money will be gone. Whether or not there can be a discussion for this particular position about continued need, that may occur, but I've made it clear to everybody again from the outside non-profits that have been discussed on the table tonight to the internal that none of these positions can be expected to continue after the end of the Arlington period. Okay, and then the last I just wanna point out because we really won't get into it till fiscal year 23. And I anticipate we'll have a different town manager, but I noticed the allocation for the community comfort dog. Definitely want more information on that, just having gone through the canine process with Officer Hogan and then Chief Ryan. If everything is just $20,000 at one time cost, I'd be thrilled, but I don't see that. So I don't necessarily need an answer to that tonight, but my question would be what is that $20,000 getting for us? I'm assuming since it's under behavioral health that it's going to come through Christine Bonjerno and or perhaps on the school side. Sort of like when I ask questions about the canine, the answers would be, well, that's through the Arlington Police Department, that's through Chief Flaherty or whoever the police chief is for that particular year. I definitely like some more structural information on that. Do not need that tonight because that's not for a year out and I know lots of things can change, but that's the kind of thing that I definitely want all the information on it because I'm gonna sort of fly in the face of what the manager just said in terms of funding and nothing's a guarantee if we do have a community support resource, that's something I think when you commit to it, we're gonna have to commit to it beyond 2024 and we need to have that discussion and I think it's a great idea. I'm not saying anything negative about it. So thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. So anyone else? Mr. Corker? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll second Mrs. Mahan's motion and my question was related to powers in Sullivan as well because at the annual audit meeting, they did stress the need to, if there's any doubt, check the expense with them because it is subject to audit and once the money goes out the door, it's at risk. So from what I heard the manager say and what we have talked about since then is anything that has been spent, there has been a check either internally or with powers in Sullivan and that would be the continued recommendation. I see the town manager nodding his head so that gives me comfort on that and then just a comment on the water and sewer spending did reduce dramatically but my recollection and I'll ask the town manager maybe for further clarification on this too is when we first received these funds, there was some real doubt in terms of what the revenue loss amount was going to be when the final rule came out, basically a presumption that you get 10 million, well soon you have $10 million in lost revenue, you don't have to go behind that and originally that number was at three or four million and the water and sewer spending while there was a great need, that was almost put in there because it was a separate category and there was a little difficulty finding the lost revenue category and some other categories so it was more a perhaps a placeholder early on Mr. Chapter Lane in terms of putting the money there and now moving it because we have the ability to use this lost revenue account. Mr. Chairman, so with that very well stated, Mr. DeCorsi, I'd say a few things, one your recollection is right, we put aside three million for revenue loss and I think we were pretty clear that we didn't even think we would be able to claim that three million in revenue loss based on the way the draft rules had been written so we had put it there with a little hope that we would get it and we put a lot of money and water and sewer for the very reason you said that it was our best way to try to help ratepayers or tax payers, ie ratepayers in this example. So now that we're able to provide such benefit by claiming the 10 million as a revenue loss, there's less of a compelling need to protect the rate payer on the other side and the 3.2 is still a significant amount that wasn't expected so we'll still be able to make a decent investment in water sewer infrastructure while providing that very significant general fund benefit. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay, thank you, Mr. DeCorsi. Mr. Hollis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't have a whole lot of comments. I think my colleagues have covered a lot of good territory. Ms. Mohan, I'm glad you did go first because you covered a lot of things. I was glad to just in a comment, I was glad to see looking at some of the supporting materials that ended in the Health and Human Services budget under DEI particularly that there's still the equity audit plan and implementation is still in place. Really glad that that remains a priority for this current fiscal year and then implementation of that in following years. And I think the increases in public health category are entirely appropriate given the origins of ARPA funding and most of our public health infrastructure is a critical need and I think a really good investment in the future. You know, I understand that we have to make adjustments and I completely support the prioritization of revenue loss and general fund. That's, we owe the taxpayers so absolutely. And you know, for some of the reductions, I think including the town manager, we would all agree a little bit painful. Particularly think about the reduction for affordable housing production. That's, you know, that's never has enough funds but I think that on balance, this is a thoughtful approach to having to balance those priorities. So I'm very happy to support it and I appreciate the town manager and his team's work in iterating on this and you know, coming up being responsive to the changing requirements, to the changing needs, coming up with a program that I think will bring some real benefits to the town. Thank you, Salmouth. So my request on Mr. Chaplain is for on the list of that has to motion for the revised lines. If we could just get the actual amount that was revised either up or down, it'll just help in terms of the calling. And I took some notes and then even the process of taking some notes to kind of miss some data. So I just make that request, you know, it's not going to affect my vote at all. I mean, as Mr. Helmings said, I mean the changes are thoughtful and we know that you and the staff, we share our values with respect to what we want to see happen in the town. And I think if we had been, any of us had been in your position, some of them might have been different, but ultimately we're all going for the same goal. And so I appreciate that. My question though, with respect to the hybrid funding, the 300K, are we going to wait until we find out what the state decides with respect to the type of meetings we're allowed to have before setting out to spend those funds? I would think that would be appropriate. Yeah, I mean, it's right around the corner. So I think we've already made some investments in this, the hearing room. I think we need to make some better investments in the hearing room for some of the switching equipment, or I'm probably using the wrong term, but some of the equipment that's been utilized. But I think before we would more significantly build out any other rooms, we should see how the state legislation plays out. Yes. Okay, sure. Yeah, I mean, I hope they make a decision in July, but we'll see. And so that's best of my only suggestion. And yeah, if I can get those numbers, that's great, because I may have some just follow-up conversation being in private with you, nothing hidden just more a matter of understanding things in some of the few last half hour, Monday morning meetings that we'll have. So that's it. Oh, actually one of the questions, and this is, yeah, I guess I'll go ahead down this road. The vaccine incentive pay for the unions. I mean, what did that entail? I understand, for me, it's two things. It's like one is that, yes, we wanted to get people to get vaccines as quickly as possible, and we'd do almost anything for me to make that happen. At the same time, I kind of feel, well, gosh, I mean, given COVID, I would stand in a long line to get the vaccine, no one would have to give me incentive. I mean, and so I'm trying to understand, I mean, what was the motivation of the incentive? I kind of see the numbers, but I just want to understand a little bit more about how that came about. It was an attempt to get more people vaccinated, Mr. Chairman. And I can say anecdotally that when offered, prompted some yet to be vaccinated employees to immediately go schedule their vaccination. So I'm not a behavioral psychologist, so I don't know what the broader societal numbers or studies will suggest about financial incentives, leading people to get vaccinated or not, we'll say, but I'll say here, we did see, at least anecdotally, some of those yet to be vaccinated, go and get vaccinated when a financial incentive was offered. I see, okay. Thanks, I mean, and I'll just say, I'm very much a pro-union person, you know, and I would just, yeah, I guess I don't know what more to say at this point, so maybe I just didn't say any more, but good job overall. Thank you, Mr. Helmuth. Oh, thank you, Mr. Chair for indulging me. Yeah, I just wanted to comment with respect to the proposed funding for hybrid meaning infrastructure, and I was very glad to see that. I think, just offering my personal opinion, maybe even a contrasting view, I don't know that we need, I don't know that we know how much we need, first of all, I think the Remote Participation Study Committee, of which I'm the select board designee, is preparing our final report to tell a meeting and just kind of outlining a roadmap in a pilot program that doesn't need anywhere close to 300 grand to implement some technology to learn within small number of committees over the next few months. But one thing that we have concluded is that even if state law doesn't change, there are opportunities to make, in effect, particularly if state law doesn't change, there will be a need and I think an expectation on the part of the public that's been used to be able to log on and watch any community meeting online to be able to do that. So I think if we make an investment and we're smart with taking a pilot study approach, and I think you'll find that the pilot is strategic and that it cuts across all kinds of different kinds of committees with different kinds of public involvement that we can, that we may want to make some investments without respect to what the state does because I think the game has changed with respect to how people expect to participate in their government. So I don't think we're gonna need to, again, spend the 300 grand this year. In fact, I know we can't and we shouldn't, but I look at this a little more broadly to say, I hope that the state legislature does move and put me on record for that to allow permanent hybrid participation when needed, expanded participation. But that said, I think even, there's nothing that would stop us now after July 15th in the absence of state action from making more meetings available to the public to participate. So just a little nuance there maybe that I think could inform our thinking and that of the town manager. Yeah, well thank you very much and that's an important element. I appreciate that. So any other comments, questions? Okay, so on a motion by Mrs. Mahan and a second by Mrs. Corsi. Mr. Hine. Mr. Corsi. Yes. Mr. Helman. Yes. Mrs. Mahan. Yes. Mr. Diggins. Yes. It's up for zero vote. Thank you very much. And so next item eight, made on correspondence received, we have a letter on parking issues on Westminster Avenue by Doug Kraviston 151 Westminster Avenue. Oversee. Thank you, Mrs. Mahan. Second. Second, Mr. Corsi. And what do we do with this? I would say it kind of fits up the alley of being the overnight parking pilot that we are still gonna do. Hey, and so I guess we'll park this with the town manager for now. Hey, that's very good. And then we'll pick it up. I mean, as we develop some plans around the community, more community engagement for the parking pilot. So with a motion by Mrs. Mahan and a second by Mr. Corsi, Mr. Heim. Mr. Corsi. Yes. Mr. Helman. Yes. Mrs. Mahan. Yes, thank you. Mr. Diggins. Yes. For zero vote. Thank you. And so we're rounding the corner on this one. New business. We'll start with Miss Costa. No new business. Thank you. Mr. Corsi. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just briefly, there was a press release and I think a story last week about the Arlington newspapers being digitized at the Arlington libraries. And it was made possible by a very generous gift by Richard Duffy, our town's local historian. So prior to that gift, I believe, through Arlington Wicked Local, you could go back to 2005. But if you wanted to go prior to that, you had to go to the microfiche at the Robins. Now, as a result of that gift, the Arlington newspapers, even beyond the advocate, are available in digital form from 1871 to 2005. It's really remarkable. And that's available through the website. So I want to thank Mr. Duffy for that. But it's also very interesting and informative exercise if there's some research that you want to do or just take a look at things and it's available online at your fingertips. So it's really a generous donation and a real meaningful, useful gift to the town. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Corsi. Mr. Helmuth. No new business. Thank you. But thank you, Mr. Duffy. That's extraordinary. Yes. Yes, I agree. Mr. Mohan? Just to the chair and to the town manager, I mean, there's lots of great things going on in Arlington. So I'm not minimizing other things that aren't. But I know our Veterans Affair director, Mr. Chunglow, besides having the weekly coffee for veterans. It's usually Friday mornings, I believe at St. Agnes. I don't know if it's in the rectory. I'm not that familiar with St. Agnes. It was first Baptist, I could tell you where. But I know I've been posting and sharing that information. I don't know for you, know where it is in St. Agnes. Okay. But if the chair and or town manager, I know that Mr. Chunglow has, and I believe it may be around Memorial Day, but I also have April 30th in my head, that he has a female commander coming to the Otteson Middle School to speak. And usually in years past, the chair and or designee has gone to the event of the Otteson. So if you could look into that, find out the particulars on it and then either yourself or if you can't do it, if you can make sure somebody else is there. I'm blanking on the commander's name. I know it's a female. I'm pretty sure it's with the U.S. Navy. But I know Mr. Chunglow, like with every other veterans event, as well as one-on-one services, certainly it will be a momentous event to want to make sure that someone from the board is there. Well, I very much appreciate that. You know, I mean, I appreciate any more advice like that regarding other events because we don't assume that I know every event and how the chair or the board interacts me with those events means. So, yes, because that was not at all of my radar. So, I really appreciate knowing that. And I'll put it there and follow up with the town manager. Thank you. And that's it, Mr. Chair. Sure, thank you. And my only new business is to let you all know that at the next meeting you'll get an update on the town manager search process, Nina. So we'll spend a little bit of time on that in our short one-hour meeting. So with that, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Moved to adjourn. Thank you, Mrs. Mohan. Second? Second. Second, Mr. Corsi. So, with a motion by Mrs. Mohan and a second by Mr. Corsi, Mr. Heim. Mr. Corsi. Yes. Mr. Heim. Yes. Mrs. Mohan. Yes, thank you. Mr. Dickens. Yes. It's four-zero vote. All right. Good night. Thank you. See you all night. Thank you, everybody.