 Okay, let's close the voting here on the attendance check and again this is just a test vote and then we'll get started. Good evening everyone. I'm calling Arlington's annual town meeting session eight to order on Wednesday, May 18th. So let's get started with the Star Spangled Banner. Great, thank you. Okay, so just some brief opening remarks. I'm going to remind everyone that I along with committee chairs the town manager department heads and others are available to answer questions outside of the meeting. Some questions might be generally informative to the meeting while others like administrative corrections or procedural questions are often best answered outside of the meeting in the interest of time. I wanted to give a quick update on our progress. Thank you for the suggestion during the Q&A tonight. We've completed 49 articles, including the special town meeting with 34 articles remaining. That's a 59% completion rate, ignoring the first night when we went through the consent agenda which is pretty different from the other nights. But we're averaging four articles per night. That's pretty slow, especially compared to anecdotal comparisons with town meetings in other towns, which often complete in a single day, which I know it seems pretty unthinkable to us. The pace is picked up in the last two meetings, which is good. But if we finish out with only four articles tonight per night, which again is our average overall so far ignoring the first meeting. If we finish out with four articles per night, we'll finish on June 20, which is too late. I know I've said in the past that June 20 is like our hard deadline. After further review we probably cannot meet on June 20, because of the Juneteenth holiday. It's likely to be a holiday the following day on the Monday, which is June 20. So we really need to be finished prior to June 20, which is the last meeting day before that. Let me just pull that up is on the calendar and sec would be June 15, the Wednesday prior. Unless of course we meet on an additional day prior to the 20th. You can find the progress this information updated in real time about our progress at Arlington MA dot gov slash town meeting progress. Okay, that's all I have for tonight. So, let's move on to swearing in if any new town meeting members don't need to be sworn in please contact our town clerk, Julie Brazil about getting sworn in. Next, I recognize the chair of the select board, Mr. Diggins. Thank you, Miss moderator. It is moves that if all businesses meeting as set forth in the warrant for the annual meeting is not disposed of at this session, then when the meeting adjourns, it adjourns to Monday, May 23 2022 at 8pm. Second. So we have a Mr. Foskets seconds, Mr. Diggins motion. There any objections to if we do not finish tonight and we will almost certainly not finish tonight. But that when we adjourn tonight that we adjourn to Monday, May 23 at 8pm. Please enable raise hands and zoom and if there's any objections please raise your hand. And seeing none. The motion passes. I now call for any announcements or resolutions. Please use raised hands and zoom. If you have any announcements or resolutions. That's it, Mr. Oster. Please go ahead with your announcement. Thank you, Mr. moderator Adam, Oster precinct three. I held several budgets under article 50 to ask a question about the town's implementation of its climate change and sustainable transportation plans. The town manager has made a detailed reply in writing and tonight it's available to read under article 50 on the virtual warrant. In the interest of time, I did not ask my questions during Monday's meeting, but I would like to suggest that town meeting members might want to read the exchange. And I, Mr. moderator I also request that it be included in the official record of the meeting. I accept that request. Let's include that in the official record of the meeting and thank you and thank you, Mr. Oster for your thoughtfulness, respecting the time of the meeting. Now normally I just want to clarify normally. I would not allow materials to be added to the annotated warrant after an article has been closed. In this case, there was actually a technical issue that prevented us from attaching that document that letter to the annotated warrants for article 50. So we've corrected that now. Thank you. Any other announcements or resolutions to see Ms. Roe has her hand raised. My mistake, Mr. moderator. No worries. Here's we have we have no other hands raised for announcements or resolutions so now call for reports that are ready to be received. Charles Fawcett precinct 10 and chair of the finance committee. I moved that article three be laid upon the table. We have motion for Mr. Fawcett for article three to be removed from the table so we can bring it in front of us and a second by Ms. Brazil. Any objections please raise your hands and zoom. Seeing none I declare it a unanimous vote. Article three is now before us and we can now receive reports. Do we have any reports to be received you can use raise hands and zoom if you have a report from a committee or board to be received. Okay, seeing none. Mr. Fawcett. Mr. moderator I move that article three be laid upon the table. Second. Okay, so we have motion from Mr. Fawcett to lay article three on the table and a second from Ms. Brazil, please raise hands and zoom if you have any objections. And seeing none I declare it a unanimous vote and article three is now laid upon the table. So that brings article 60 for us right now, which is where we left off on Monday. And so where we left off we had just opened up the speaking queue, and we should be able to restore that momentarily. I believe Mr. Kepline had spoken, Mr. Kepline had removed article 60 from the consent agenda. And so now we should have a number of speakers before us so Yes, let's take Mr. Before we take that we have a point of order from Mr. Warden. Let's take that Mr. Warden name and precinct as soon as you're able to speak. Mr. Warden are you able to unmute your computer. Couldn't see the damn thing. There it is. We can hear you. Okay, you hear me now. Yes I can name and precinct at your point of order please. Sorry, yes, I have, I had an announcement. I pushed to raise hands several times, but apparently it didn't register on your computer or whatever. Is this something that we can take up at another time perhaps at Monday's meeting. Is that possible. Well it depends on I wanted to withdraw withdraw something on a consent agenda so we don't get to that like tonight. We can we can take it up when we get to that item on the consent agenda. Okay, okay well that's all right. And if I just wanted to say well I'm audible. We have eight nights left and I would like to say that in the 52 years that I've been in town meeting, we face the same deadline. We've often had longer warrants. We didn't even used to have speaking limits. And, including 19 years when I was moderator, and we always got done, typically with time to spare so let's not panic about it, we'll get it done. Thank you. Part of my job is to panic about that but thank you I appreciate that and I did make a comment in the letter that I released in recent days that if I know there's anecdotal experience about the rate at which we get through time meeting and that it tends to speed up over time. If anyone wants I haven't had the bandwidth to compile all historical information on that if anyone wants to go back through the records that'd be greatly appreciated to see if we can actually quantify that sort of kind of increase in rate of getting through the meeting. Okay, so let's get back to the speaker queue. And so let's take up Mr. Revlock. Good evening, Mr. moderator this is Steve Revlock from precinct one. I was wondering, according to the finance committee report, there were 10,000 trips taken from our blue bike stations, which wasn't enough to cover all of the associated costs. How many trips would we need in order to break even. Okay, so who can we ask about this. They've anyone that on the panel who would volunteer to answer this question. Ms. rate, can you can you feel that. Yes, I can. Mr. moderator, Jennifer rate director of planning and community development, our contract with motivate the third party operator of the system would require the town to make about double the trips we've been taking. The current total trip number includes time during the pandemic so we still have time to make up these trips. Thank you. All right, thank you Mr. moderator and Ms rate. Now if with our if our contract were renewed, would we be able to get additional docking stations. Ms rate. Thank you Mr. moderator Jennifer rate director of planning and community development. We conducted two surveys regarding the placement of additional docking stations and have hoped since the beginning of our participation in this regional bike share program that we would generate enough trips to extend stations to places like Arlington Heights. We conducted by the town indicated support for adding new stations. And with this appropriation. Yes, we can add two more stations. Thank you. Okay, that's good. And if with adding two more stations increase the number of trips that are required for us to break even misery. Thank you for your question but to clarify Mr. Revelleck. Are you saying the same proportionally in number of trips or the same total number. I was thinking same total number. Okay, it is my understanding that the same number of trips would be needed with an expansion of the docking stations. Okay, so the same number of trips per station effectively. Yes. Okay, thank you. So Mr. moderator in terms of the cost of the stations does Arlington have a different type of agreement than other communities like say Cambridge or Somerville and if so how is our agreement different misery. The cost of the stations and the equipment is the same in Arlington as it is in the other communities that are part of this regional bike share program. Okay, now in Arlington the sign areas on our docking station typically say blue bikes on one side, and they've got docking instructions on the other. Now, on this, the docking stations and say Cambridge Somerville or Boston. One of the signs typically has a map and the other typically has a sponsorship, sort of like the visual equivalent of a public radio underwriting spot. Now that we've sort of codified sign types for these stations is it likely we'll be able to offset some of the cost with the sponsorship revenue is right. Blue bikes has a sponsorship model which the town would follow any sponsorship revenue that we generate would support up to two years of installation of the docking stations and their operations and maintenance. Okay, and do we have any information on blue bike trips that started in Arlington and ended in another community is right. Blue bikes provides origin and destination data which show that like users are coming to Arlington from neighboring communities predominantly. There are many different types of blue bikes users and types of trips that have been taken some bikes are used for commuting to employment, while others seem to be used for local trips or activities. Our surveys that I mentioned earlier in my answers showed that many blue bikes riders took short trips up until this week actually this past week we didn't have these data available we just received them, and we will continue to review and analyze the details and then report it. Okay, so just to go back if I may you said there were no misrates said that there were a number of trips that were brought into Arlington so conceivably there are people using blue bikes to say visit our restaurants or our businesses. Miss rate do we know if that's the case. Again, due to recently receiving data and information, if thousands of trips taken will need to further analyze this data and report back. There are many short trips sorry. Thank you. All right, no, that's great. And last question I'm wondering through you Mr moderator if miss rate. I don't believe she had a chance to introduce the article and I'd like to understand the planning department's motivation for bringing this article to town meeting. Okay. Miss rate you have up to two minutes and six seconds of Mr reflects time to cover that. Thank you. Well, this is not simply a department motivation it is part of a townwide effort to improve transportation options for residents and improve the quality of life. In alliance with master plan recommendation number 70 to participate in a regional bike share program, and the goals of connect Arlington and the net zero action plan, as was referenced in the introduction to this article by the finance committee. And also about better connecting residents to a highly successful transportation program and system operating in the rest of the region. There is a strong demand in town for this program and this appropriation will allow the town to run in the program for your term, and a further build it out in Arlington as part of that system. Thank you. All right, I have nothing further thank you Mr moderator and miss rate. Great thank you and apologies to miss right that I didn't give you time earlier to cover that. Let's take. And just FYI we are given like the speaker that we had from Monday on this article we're actually we're actually just now at the 15 minute mark but we're obviously just getting started with debate so I'm going to go a bit longer. Thank you. So a lot of folks have a lot to say so let's let's continue taking speakers, despite being at 15 minute mark let's take Mr Holland next. Thank you Mr moderator, Rob Holland precinct seven. I just want to make a couple of, of fairly simple points framing what what this is. The principal value of the blue bike program is that it puts the Arlington bike share facility in a larger metropolitan network. It gives us last last mile transportation. And it basically allows the users of the blue bike program not to worry about locking up their bicycles to street furniture, and, you know, coming back and finding that the things have been vandalized or stolen. There's some real value here. It also provides a complimentary public transportation capability. During the pandemic that doesn't require sitting next to 30 or 40 of your closest friends wondering, you know, if you're going to catch something. The, you know, structure of, of the, you know, contractor performing services for for a public facility which is what this is, is not remarkable. And the Arlington bicycle advisory committee urges the passage of this. I think it's, it's good common sense. Thank you Mr moderator. Thank you. Mr Holland. Let's take this lock check next. Beth Malok. precinct nine. Thank you Mr moderator. I'm concerned about this expenditure for blue bikes in the context of the declining funds from the override in 2019. I understand in 2024, we may face voting on an override three times the sum in 2019. So I would like to hear from the board's insight is in supporting this expenditure. I mean, many things are nice to have, but this one in particular I'm not sure we need my, my constituents I live in our for zone in the center of Arlington and my constituents at the 2019 override and the dead exclusion, particularly challenging. So I'd like to represent the voices of the taxpayers my precinct and ask for the select board's insight for expenditures that frankly are a luxury. Mr. Diggins, can you answer this law checks question. Sure. Thank you, Miss moderated well the select board didn't weigh in on this article, specifically me as a member of the select board, but also as a member of the transportation advisory committee. And I worked as a member of the sustainable transfer, excuse me sustainable transportation plan advisory committee. I am all in favor of this article and supporting it because I do think it helps us create a more sustainable net transportation network, which I think is vital me to, to helping us to fight climate change and make transportation safer and more accessible to, to more people in the community in the region. So, personally, I supported me and I'm not going to speak with my colleagues, you know, but I personally supported thank you. Okay. Okay. Let's take. Mr. moderator. I'm not finished. Thank you. I believe I still have time. The select board have a recommended vote for this. And I see that as support for it if there was a recommended vote. Mr. I don't have that right in front of me Mr. Diggins do you happen to know what the, do you mean like what what the vote number was out of the five members support it. Yes, yes supporting the expenditure. Mr. Diggins you know you haven't happened that. Your fingertips like what the vote count was. My recollection is that this did not come for the select board, you know that it went before. This is finance committee, right. Right. Mr. Thank you, Mr. moderator. Yes, this came before the finance committee and the finance committee supported it, but not unanimously it was a, I think a 97 and it's in the report it's a 97. And two to vote. 97 with two abstentions is all right. I can tell you in one second here. I'm sorry. It was 11 to five. Okay. Mr. Lopchuk do you have anything else. Well, I am, I am concerned I continue to be concerned about, as I said, an expenditure in light of the looming, looming future overrides. And I, I had my name up to query during the budgets to at least, and I wasn't called on so I had to put it in the context of this but again, I think there are things that are nice to have. And that things we can afford. And I don't think the town should be looking towards this expenditure without a clear idea of what the select board's plan is for cutting spending, being fiscally responsible. In the face of an override in 2024 that would be three times the one we had in 2019. Thank you, Mr. moderator. That's the loft check precinct nine. Great. Thank you. So we're at the 23 minute mark. Let's take Mr. Tosti and then I think we'll take a, I'll take a strong poll after that. To gauge interest in terminating bait Mr. Tosti. Yes, Mr. moderator Alan Tosti precinct 17. I'm glad the last speaker voice or concerns about the taxpayer, because that's my concern right now. The taxpayers taking quite a hit over the last three years and into the next couple of years between the debt exclusions in 2019 and 2020 and the overrides in 2020 and the override coming in 2024. Now, I supported these overrides and debt exclusions because they were necessary to provide the core services of the town of Arlington. They were there to provide public education for our students and safe buildings they were there to provide for public service, public safety, DPW libraries and all the other services that the town provides to the citizens. This blue, blue bike subsidy is not one of those services. Just to give a little history remember we used to have green bikes. And of course green bikes were deposited all over the town and any place people left. They went, they fell apart and were withdrawn from the system. And now we have the blue bike program. But blue bikes claim they needed start up money, they needed some help to get going. So they approached the town I think it was two or three years ago, and they wanted $100,000 to help from the town of Arlington. There was a great deal of hesitation about that. The town manager work with others to get a state grant for $80,000 and the town meeting appropriated 20 to get them started. Now that was several years ago. And now they want another $100,000. In which they want more years to try basically have to double the number of rides to even break even fellow town meeting members providing subsidies to private corporations is not a core mission of this town. It shouldn't even be on the radar screen. It's a direct hit to the taxpayer in the next override. I urge a no vote on article 60. Thank you very much, Mr. moderator. Thank you Mr. Tosti. So we're at the 25 minute mark into debate. So let's just take a quick straw poll just to see what the interest is in terminating debate so if again this is a non binding straw poll just to gauge interest. So if you're, I see raise hands is enabled another number of hands have gone up. If you are interested in if you would be interested in term in seeing debate terminated and getting to a vote on this article. I just asked that you participate in this straw poll by raising your hand in zoom so just give, just give another 20 seconds since folks have already gotten a number of hands up. Now look at the number and if it's over 75% then we'll do something something different 10 seconds. Five seconds. And so we have 117. So, we have to get my denominator right. Okay, so, so we would. So we're short of that mark to. Okay, let's go faster next time really about 54% that have raised hands so we'll continue to be. Okay, so let's take to based on the my historical speaking list information and a number of appearances from Mr. Trumbly last time spoke about 10 minutes total. So I will have a point of order from Mr Wagner. So let's take that first and then we'll get back to the speaking queue. Thank you Mr moderator can you hear me okay. Yes, I can. Thank you Carl Wagner precinct 15. I continue to be very concerned that although I trust you and trust the officials of town of Arlington. I really think that particularly if this were contentious 74% 76% or something like that. The town meeting members working for the residents of Ireland. I'm going to cut you off right there because this is the same point you made earlier. I believe I've addressed this and if there was a discrepancy, we would see that come out in the official vote after the straw poll. And if you're saying that you don't trust what I'm doing. I mean, there's not much I could do to help you with that. And it is it is by it is backed up by the official vote, which would be taken afterwards. This is out in the open and that's the same voting system that we're using every other time for every official vote. So I consider this matter closed. Thank you. Thank you. We have a point of order from Mr Foske. Thank you Mr moderate Charles Foske precinct 10. I was on the speaker list just behind the Mr Tossi and now there are two people ahead of me. After he spoke how did that happen. In my view of the speaker list I saw. I saw Mr trembling after Mr Tossi. So I suspect what happened is that perhaps your view of the portal had a stale view. Because I don't remember whether or not I saw Mr Palmer also in there but I did definitely see Mr trembling after Mr Tossi. Thank you Mr moderate. There's other reports that the speaker list changed substantially. And so there's kind of different reports will have folks look into that to see if there's something that might be going with the order of the speaking cube I do know in mind it does seem consistent from what I saw before from what I remember. Thank you. Yeah, leave it at that. And so, as I was saying, Mr trembling had a number of speaking appearances last time totaling about 10 minutes so I do want to take kind of spread that wealth to other folks to get some speaking time. So let's take Mr Palmer next. Max Palmer precinct to, I was going to make a motion to terminate debate but given the straw poll, we should weigh on that. Okay so you're going to pass on that. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you to Mr Foskett. Thank you Mr moderate Charles Foskett precinct 10. And for the record I'm speaking as a town meeting member, not as the chair of the finance committee. Several points that I would like to make this article provides money town money to a private corporation subsidiary of Lyft that can seem to generate it's required revenue on a commercial basis on its own. This article provides town money for the benefit of a few people who more than likely can afford or even now own their own bicycles in any event. Third, this is a discretionary spend it's $100,000 that's not needed to be spent. It asks, it adds to our cumulative deficit as was mentioned by an earlier speaker that's going to drive us to over $7 million deficit in fiscal 25 forcing an override vote in calendar. Four. This is an example of living beyond our means. In the interest of fiscal probity, our new superintendent schools and the, the finance directors of schools the CFO gave a presentation a few nights ago on how they rigorously reorganize strategize and reallocated their efforts in order to contain the size of their budget. And in other departments have done the same town meeting should not be spending $100,000 for bicycles in the current circumstances, I respectfully request that town meeting vote against this article. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Foske. Let's take Mr Quinn next. Good evening Michael Quinn precinct 10. I am a longtime bicyclist bicycle commuter, and I am very appreciative of the monies the town has spent on promoting bicycling in town through many of the safety improvements that have taken place in recent years. I think it's really really a substantially good thing that the town has done and an excellent use of resources. There is nothing about this proposal to spend $100,000 on these non pedal assisted blue bikes that will only be pretty much on Mass Avenue down in flat areas, benefiting at most a small number of people for a business that's seeking to make a profit. If the town is going to spend money on promoting bicycling, which I hope it does. I just don't think this is the right way to do it. Thank you. Thank you Mr plan. Let's take Mr. Oster next. Thank you, Mr. moderator Adam Oster precinct three. I'm a little puzzled by all of this sudden railing about, you know, giving money to a private corporation. I think that if you look in our budget, you will see that we buy a lot of goods and services from private corporations. It seems a little bit to me, you know, like waving the bloody shirt and not really appropriate. That said, I want to say that I consider this program to be an experiment. I think that the use case for it, although it's real, maybe weaker here in Arlington, where more people own their own bikes and use them. But the only way to find out is to give this thing a shot. If this were a proposal that we do this, you know, I guess it's 50,000 per year indefinitely, I'd be very skeptical about it. I'll also share with the meeting that on the other motion to include advertising. I voted against that because I don't think that this is important enough to do that, but that's just my opinion. The benefits of this program, if successful, accrue mostly to commuters, but not exclusively to cyclists because what it does is it takes them off the road and eases the commute for everybody. So I think that the bikes are proving to be a good solution to the last mile problem in a lot of locations. And I'm in favor of continuing this subsidy and it is a subsidy for another two years as requested. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Thank you, Mr. Oster, and just as a public service announcement, I just want to remind folks on the speaking queue that you can remove yourselves from the speaker queue. If you wish to, by clicking the same button that you pressed to request to speak, that would that could save us some time from coming up to say that you actually don't have anything to say anymore. And we have a point of order for Mr. Foskett, let's take that. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Lacking any other way to draw your attention. This is actually a point of what I consider a personal privilege. I present the fact that my argument was described as waving the bloody shirt. That's not a reference that I think is appropriate at town meeting. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I guess I have to agree with that Mr. Foskett I didn't interpret it as directly targeted at you but I see how it can certainly be interpreted that way. So I appreciate you pointing that out. Thank you that we don't have a button for raising a point of personal privilege. So in cases like that Mr. Foskett is within his rights to use the point of order button for that as a substitute. So just so everyone knows that they can use the point of order in cases like that if they feel that they've been disparaged personally. So let's now, let's take, we have a point of order or point of personal privilege by Mr. Quinn. Let's take that. Michael Quinn precinct 10. I share the same concern Mr. Foskett raised, and I don't understand how this is happening. We should be more civil. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So let's, let's take Mr. Tremblay next. And Mr. Tremblay thank you for your patience, hanging out in the pole position of the queue. Name it precinct. It's Mr. Tremblay able to connect someone on the panel tell me that he's not present in zoom. Okay, so well let's take another, we'll see if he comes back. We'll take next Pratser next. Okay, so I'm going to be the moderator, David pretzer precinct 17. I just want to say that as someone who does own a bicycle, I find that blue bikes enables me to bicycle, notably more by enabling one way and other trips to places that might not otherwise be convenient to bring my personal bicycle to without a car. So I do find that the blue bike system, it enables me to do more errands and replace more car travel with bicycle and I think, I think that's really important as we try to move to more sustainable forms of transportation. The city town spends lots of money supporting people who commute by car or travel by car. I think it's also a very valuable to spend some money to further support the ability to people of people to use bicycles for errands and commuting and I encourage supporting this article. Thank you. Thank you. So let's take this winner next. Laura wiener precinct eight. I'm in support of this article blue bikes provides a critical connection to a larger regional network. It connects the town and its residents to Somerville Cambridge Boston Watertown and Newton and soon Medford is going to be joining the system. It's an urban hospital and area universities and also provides access to the minimum bikeway and all the areas greenways it is also used for recreation as well as commuting. And I think Arlington is known for having a great bikeway that's that people want to use outside of Arlington. It's expensive to operate and yet affordable to its riders. There's an equity component that provides income eligible memberships. The system has not yet hit its stride and will continue to grow with more users. And I believe it is worth the investment for the next two years. Is there anything else miss we have. No, it seems like you're are you muted. Okay. No, I'm done. Okay, thank you. Let's take Mr more next. Christopher more precinct 14. Thank you, Mr. moderator. I have what I hope is a simple question of the $100,000 we're thinking about appropriating here what fraction of it goes to expanding our footprint. So new stations, versus support for the program because we don't have enough writers. Okay. Miss rate. Do you have an answer to that question. Jennifer rate director of planning and community development about 60% would be related to expansion and the remainder to the other activities. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. moderator. I think this is a really sensible thing to do and if the expansion of the footprint improves readership. It probably will be less than that going forward so I view this is a very sensible thing to do to kickstart this program which hopefully will become self sustaining in the future. Thank you, Mr. Thank you. Let's take Miss baby ours next. Thank you, Mr. moderator Josephine baby ours precinct 15. My concern about this. Apart from the very eloquent discussions by Mr to see and Mr Foskett is that we have insufficient data. I would actually analyze who can best use this program. It would not be workable for me to have used on a commute because as a teacher I have to carry too much stuff back and forth. And I think that the number of the, the number, the amount of money that would be spent does not reflect a broad swath of Arlington people of Arlington residents. I don't know of a lot of elders who would be using this and certainly elementary school children I live very close to Bishop. And one I who is riding a bike is usually accompanied by a parent. So I would urge that we not go down a zip car type road, but to vote against it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Let's take this garbour next. Hello Judith garbour precinct four. I'm in support of this article, I agree with one of the previous speakers that it's not so much to me that we're subsidizing corporation but we're paying for a service. It's very convenient and also very, very cheap compared to almost every other form of transportation. It's only $120 for an annual pass for unlimited trips. And that's like only a little bit more than just one month to take the tea. So I think it's incredibly convenient. But like Laura said, the more docs there are, the more convenient it becomes so right now that almost all the docs are just in East Arlington in the center. So if we can expand to the heights where there actually seems like there's less public transportation, that would make it so much more convenient for folks living in the heights. I've also heard that the MBT is closing some bus lines in Arlington. While I'm not a fan of that change this does create a need for other forms of transportation. So I really hope that we give this program an extended chance and let it pick up speed, so to speak, to close the program now I think would be a real shame. As a long time user of Blue Bikes, I really don't know what I do without them. It's, it's been really amazing to help get to other bus lines and t lines. So I do hope that we will fund this. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Right. Thank you, Ms. Garber. Thank you so much for your time next. Leigh behind precinct 15 I moved to terminate debate on the article and all matters before it. Thank you so we have a motion to terminate debate on article 60. And we have a second by Mr. Hamlin. So let's bring up voting on terminating debate. FYI we're at the 14 minute mark from when we took the straw poll just for anyone who's interested. We have the wave based voting by precincts enabled so like we've done in in the past several meetings. So if you see a message that your voting controls will be enabled in two more waves or in the next waves just sit tight and it'll open up in several seconds. And so if you are in favor of terminating debate on article 60. If you want to vote yes, and if you want to continue debate, then vote no. Coming up on 200 votes cast. So several more that we're waiting on, please get your votes in as soon as you can all the waves of voting are open now. So please get your votes in sooner. We get enough folks folks voting the sooner we can close voting. And again if you're interested in terminating debate on article 60. If you want to continue debate, please vote no. There's only about 10 votes left of folks who've been active in the portal recently starts to give another 15 seconds before we close voting. And this is for termination of debate on article 60 10 seconds, five seconds. That's close voting. This is the two thirds vote, and we are in debate is terminated with 189 votes in the affirmative 28 and negative and three abstentions, 87% debate is terminated so we're not going to wait for the screens for termination of debate votes, we're just going to go straight to the voting on article 60 itself, the main motion. And this is a majority vote for article 60 once voting is enabled, and your wave has come up and you're able to vote. Vote yes, if you're in favor of a two year subsidy for the blue bikes program totaling $100,000 with the program to be reevaluated after two years. Vote no if you don't want to appropriate $100,000 for this program. The waves are still kind of rolling out so if you see a message about your voting controls will be enabled in the next wave or in two more waves just please sit tight, and they will open up shortly. And so we're voting again on the main motion for article 60 for the appropriation for blue bikes. If you're in favor of two year subsidy for the program totaling $100,000 with the program to be reevaluated after two years and vote yes. If you are, if you're not in favor of this appropriation, then vote no. And now have over 200 votes cast. We have 15 folks 12 folks now who've been recently active in the portal but have not yet voted if you have not voted yet. So if you're having trouble voting through the portal for any reason, you can cast your vote, you can type your vote into the q amp a, and we'll take it from there. That's just a handful of folks let's just wait another 20 seconds until we close voting on the main motion for article 60 15 seconds, 10 seconds. So we'll close voting and motion passes. This is a majority vote, and we have 144 and in the affirmative 76 and negative and four extensions 65.5% of the vote, and so article 60 passes. So we will just wait for the precinct screens to cycle through. We will not wait for any motions and subsidy or emotions we will not, we will not wait for these screens, when we're simply terminating debate. Okay, so let's now go to article. Article 62 is the appropriation for the Community Preservation Fund. Let's bring up. Let's bring up miss row. Chair of the Community Preservation Act committee to speak on this. Thank you Mr moderator Clarissa row precinct for the committee would like to share some information. If you could put up the screen please. Thanks so much. I'm going to try to be as brief as possible. Alexander helped me put this presentation together and I want to thank him for that. Next slide please. This is for fiscal year 2023 next slide please. The Community Preservation Act for new 10 meeting members is deals with historic preservation open space and recreation and community or affordable housing. Next slide please. We have to every year spend at least 10% on open space, 10% on historic and 10% on housing. The other 65% is flexible. Next slide please. I'm now going to talk about 14 projects. They total about $3.4 million total. And we've had a banner year for CPA funding from the state and we're very pleased. This is a very necessary project in monotony manner it's window replacement for $600,000. This is the first of two years and it's a tremendously important project for the residents next slide please. This is a $16,290 homelessness prevention program done by the Somerville Homeless Coalition. The money is spent for Arlington people and they have done a wonderful job and we're very grateful for their being part of the town. Next slide please. The Affordable Housing Trust Fund. We have put in $250,000 to get it started. We've been working very, there are two committee members, Dave Swanson and Sue Dockrow have been working with the affordable housing trust trustees, and we are delighted to be doing this. Next slide please. This is the second phase of Herdfield renovations for $664 and $244. It's the, not very glamorous next slide please, but important things like lighting, and some of the work that didn't get done in the first phase. This will in fact be a third phase that deals with the, the brook that goes underneath the field but we don't know that yet. Next slide please. This is more of what it looks like now. Next slide please. This is a farm playground for $997,993 is as everybody knows a regional draw. It's a wonderful playground and although the slides have been replaced a number of times. This is a very important community asset. Next slide please. A couple of projects this year that deal with some of the sort of forgotten areas in town, Mount Galboa, a feasibility study for the Conservation Commission for $57,000 to figure out how the house on the land that we preserve should be used. There are many different ideas. I think this is a very good expenditure of money. Next slide please. And again, here's another sort of hidden away treasure of Arlington the Cooks Hollow, and we're doing a restoration feasibility study for $70,000 with the preservation lands towards it's a place right near senior housing and I think it's a well worth the project cost. Next slide please. The Jarvis House preservation and restoration, where the town of Arlington legal department is house is for $190,000. And as you can see, from the chimney, it's, it's necessary will be some exterior painting, and some chimney preservation and also some mechanical systems to make the house livable in the summer. Next slide please. The Allen Museum came to us wanting to preserve their collections, and they would get a $31,000, whoops, $785 grant. You can see the current conditions and there are an awful lot of wonderful things in that museum and we will like to honor that request. Next slide please. The Covenant Church accessibility improvements is for a church in the Heights and you can see on the picture on the left. It's in a very steep area. The front door is very hard to get to if you're handicapped. I happen to be handicapped myself. So I know how hard it is to get there. And they want to work on that and also on making two of the grounds or bathrooms accessible. Next slide please. Again, more preservation record records being taken care of the historic planning records and they will be digitized and this is a wonderful use of money. We hope that the planning department's preservation project will be used by other departments in the town and it's small money to start preserving some of the wonderful records that we have. Next slide please. We have about the six minute marches. Otswa Mill, North and West sides, $20,000, Jason Russell House, another grant for 150, 8116, and that's for two other sides of the building. Next slide please. A last minute request from the Houser building electrical panel upgrade for 2203, 280. This is a result of what happened at Chestnut Manor where the electrical panels failed and this is some proactive work. Next slide please. And this is the total, it's $3,444,904. And we have a very small $68,000 appropriation for the administrative expenses. So thank you very much for your patience. I've tried to go quickly through the slides, and I'm here to help the moderator answer any questions. Thank you so much. Thank you for just a hair over seven minutes. Thank you. Thank you. So let's now go to the speaking queue. Let's take Ms. Bloom first. Ms. Bloom, name and precinct. Question regarding the Houser. Sorry, not name and precinct first. Nancy Bloom precinct 18. Can you hear me? Yes, I can go ahead. I had a question regarding the, the upgrades on the electrical panels for the Houser building. I got the impression that that's an emergency. Is that, is that going to be, cannot wait until July or is it something that has to be done sooner. Again, can it be done sooner? Ms. Rose, an emergency or is that something that could be. It's not an emergency because the housing authority has been very proactive about replacing the panels in the Chestnut Hill, Chestnut Manor building and they're also being proactive. This is a way of helping them out. This is the, that building, the Houser building runs completely on electricity and the, so the elevators, all the kitchen work. Everything runs on electricity. So in that way, it is, I see what you're saying about emergency, but this was an emergency application that came at the last minute. We can't, we can't give them money before it's authorized. Thank you for your question. Thank you. Great. Let's take Mr. Ruderman next. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Michael Ruderman, Precinct 9. I'd like to ask through you, if someone has the information on, well, 20 years ago, the Community Preservation Act was inaugurated and the promise was that the state would match 100% of the monies raised by the participating cities and towns. Can I ask you to ask someone, do we have the information, what is the current rate of match that the state provides? Sure, based on Ms. Rose Chalkal, I think she might want to fill this question. Ms. Rose? Yes. Actually, Mr. Ruderman, the, it was never anticipated that the state would need it 100%. It was hoped to meet it 27% were the original projections. I happen to know that because I was on the group of people that started it. I understand we're now, I believe at 37% match, but I will defer to my mathematicians, Julie Wayman and Jim Feeney, if I'm wrong. Okay. Ms. Wayman? 44%. Great. Okay. Thank you, Jim. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Additionally, is the state planning any actions as it did in 2019 by an across-the-board increase in all fees levied at registries of deeds to increase the match rate, which was promised 20 years ago to be 100%. We were both in the town meeting when it happened. Are there any plans at the state level to increase that match rate? Ms. Rose, do you have any answer to Mr. Ruderman's detail? Yes, I do. I also, besides being the chair of this Arlington one, I used to be the chair of the statewide group. No, there are no plans to. Thank you. Final question, Mr. Moderator. How does retrofitting the internal facilities of a church fall into one of these buckets of historic preservation, open space, or housing? Ms. Ra. Thank you, Mr. Ruderman. We were expecting this. I'm not asking for myself. I am asking for the meeting. Of course you are. Of course you are. And I believe Doug Hyme, our town council, will answer that question. It is a question about, you know, why are we spending public funds on a private entity that it's a historic preservation project as well as an accessibility project? We have done a lot of accessibility projects, but I will now defer to Doug Hyme. Mr. Hyme. Good evening, Doug Hyme, town council. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Thank you, Ms. Rowe. Thank you, Mr. Ruderman. The short version of this is that a good analogy might be the Old North church. The historic significance of these buildings sometimes provides a resource to the town, but oftentimes these types of projects pose an actual challenge for offering the public use that things like the Community Preservation Act require. So in order to receive certain types of grants and funds, these types of buildings need to be accessible so that folks within the public can appreciate them and use them, not just as a house of worship but as a historic resource. Yes, that's a big part of the answer. Ms. Rowe, I think you're suggesting that I could talk at length about the Kaplan decision or the. No, I don't think we need to. One of the things that the committee does for them for the meeting is we require that any kind of project that we're dealing with is open to the public at all times. And for instance, the Jason Russell House, or the old Schwab Mill, there are community programs that are run all the time in both those places, as there are in the church. And those photographs of the church, the church were taken during the opening of the Housing Corporation of Arlington's opening of their units across the street. It's a very welcoming place and if Mr. Ruderman would like I could introduce the pastors act Williams, or the architect on Mills, who are both here to talk about the programs of the church. Mr Ruderman it's your coffee when he yields your time to those speakers. I don't think the, the property in this case rises anywhere near the level of the two properties that were previously cited both on the national register of historic places and inventory by Arlington's historical commission. I think this is this one's a mistake. And we're not being asked to do, please. We're not being asked to vote on anything but the bottom, but the bottom number of the budget but I think the inclusion of Covenant Church is a mistake and that concludes my remarks. Thank you, Mr. Ruderman. Let's take Ms. Leahy next. Leahy, Precinct 21. I agree with Michael, Mr. Ruderman, that this does seem, I guess I could say out of scope. As a person who doesn't practice religion, and often I am at odds with beliefs of certain religions. I, and I do know that this particular church is like, I wouldn't say a chain but it's in other places. They also run a daycare. So they are making money if they are a nonprofit. And so I'm just curious as to why they couldn't raise their own funds. If someone could address that. Is this a question you'd like to direct to like the members of that church or the folks? Well, probably Ms. Roe could answer that I would. I think I can. This is the first church in Arlington that has been has applied for community preservation act funding. The other communities all over the Commonwealth have applied. Boston has done a number of churches and Cambridge has and it's well used it's a, it's, and one of the things it's it is part of historic district. We understand about the religious purpose. That's why we looked very carefully at how this met all the criteria, and we consulted, not only with Mr. Hyam but also with the community presentation coalition to make sure that we were crossing all the eyes and dotting the T's. But we're just, I don't think you're answering the question of why raise their own money. Okay, well, I'm not privy to that I think we should ask the pastor or, or Don Mills, they're both here to talk if it's your call if you want to give your time to the pastor of the church. I'm sure a little bit of my time is fine. Yes, I'd like to hear. I don't know if it's Mr Mills or Reverend Mills I apologize for not knowing your title. No, it's it's pastor Zach Phillips, a pastor Phillips. Okay. Yeah, if I can just ask first and pastor Phillips are a resident of Arlington. I am yes. Sorry, I hope you can understand my voice I've been having vocal problems lately but yes, my name is Zach Phillips and I am a resident of Arlington just name and address place and then feel free to speak. Sure, my personal address is 11 Eustace Street in in the Heights, and the church's address is nine Westminster Street. Okay, so there were a couple of questions there is that is the basic question. I think, Miss, Miss row, address the first part is the basic question why we can't pay with our own funds for the renovation. I believe this question is like hey is that the question. That is. I'll just say a couple of things. First of all, this church is is not part of a chain where non denominational church. I mean we are affiliated with a group of churches but not in any sort of chain or denominational type way, and we also don't don't run a day care. This is a school that used to be run by the church that has been split off as an independent entity and runs itself in rent space from us in the building. So, you know, in terms of church we applied for the funds because for all of the reasons that Miss Rose stated. It was a very small church, and it would, you know, be difficult to engage in that sort of project and our hope is just to be able to use funds, again, not for the purpose of evangelizing or religious purposes or anything but for the understanding of the application, as was already mentioned, is to upkeep this historic building and to serve the public in a great way in doing so. Okay, thank you. Part of our hope sure. We'll just finish by saying that I happen to be the lucky winner of a, and I'm actually very grateful to have it a historic house in a historic district. And so anything I do in my house I need to do according to the rules. I have to pay for it myself so I, I do feel I, I realized that we can't just take a piece out of the budget and vote on it so, but I do appreciate the answers to some of the questions. And I guess that's about it thank you very much. Mr moderator, I want to clarify a couple of things first of all, this is part of his time. Excuse me. I'm sorry. But if other folks do have questions for you, I'm happy to bring it back. Let's take Mr Quinn next. Sure, and I will have a question from Israel I don't know if it speaks to what she's asking about though. Michael Quinn precinct 10 I was looking at this year's community pressure preservation act report. And last year we approved 249,625 dollars to put in ground source heat pumps at the Jason Russell house. And I have been trying to find an update on how this project is coming along. It's one that I think is could be of interest to a lot of people frankly. I don't know where to go to get that and I'm hoping this row, either is able to provide that or at least point me in the right direction. Mr. Absolutely, it is very successful. I watched them drill the drill of the whales it's now hooked up, and I will. Michael, if you put your Q&A in the Q&A you put your email, I will get you in touch with the right people. I'm sure they would love to give you a tour of it. Thank you. And from a personal perspective I teach of course and environmental economics and probably use it for that as well. Thank you. Wonderful. That's all I need for my time. Okay, let's take a miss him next. Mr. Sincs 15, I moved to terminate debate and move the question. Okay, so the motion to terminate debate by miss Heim do we have a second. We have a second from Mr. Seanna. So let's bring up a vote to terminate debate on article 62. Just FYI that happened to be at the 22 minute mark. Okay, so voting is now opening up for termination of debate on Article 62 for community preservation funding. This is just the vote to terminate debate, not the main motion. So if you are interested in terminating debate, please vote yes. If you want to continue debate on Article 62, the Community Preservation Act funding vote no. And if you're having trouble voting in the portal, you can type your vote into the Q&A. And while we're waiting for votes to come in, there was a question in the Q&A about whether we could have, like, whether the main motion, I'll translate it into kind of, I think the proper language, can the main motion be amended? And as is always the case, speakers from the speaker queue are free to move to amend or to substitute the main motion at any time, and it's ultimately my discretion as moderator to determine, or my determination, as you'd say, as moderator, whether such a motion is within scope, depending on the specifics and the nature of that motion. Okay, so we have 215 votes in, and let's say about 12 votes outstanding from folks who have been recently active in the portal. Let's just give another 15 seconds until we close voting on termination of debate, Article 62, 10 seconds, five seconds. Okay, let's close voting on termination of debate for Article 62. And debate is terminated, 164 votes in the affirmative 55 and a negative three abstentions at 74.9%. We're not going to wait for the screens, but we do have, we briefly had a point of order, but that has disappeared. So let's move now to voting on the main motion of Article 62. This is a majority vote. Actually, we do have a point of order from Ms. Mosina, so let's take that while voting is open. So when Ms. Mosina comes up, name and precinct, and please state your point of order. While we're waiting for that point of order, if you are interested in voting in favor of the Community Preservation Act funding, which this year covers a total of roughly $3.4 million in appropriations, then vote yes. If you are opposed to this, this appropriation, you can vote no. Ms. Mosina, name and precinct. Can you state your point of order? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Angel Mosina, precinct 15. I suppose it's mooted. This point, my question was going to be if we could make a substitute motion prior to the vote being taken, I guess beyond the point now. Thank you. Thank you. So it may be relevant if if I'm sorry, we've already terminated debate. So yeah, that is a moot point. You're correct. So again, if you are in favor of the Community Preservation Act funding, which this year cover the totals about $3.4 million in appropriations, vote yes. If you are opposed to this funding, you can vote no. And we have a point of order from Ms. Benedict. Let's take that. Oh, I withdrew my point of order. Sorry. That's OK. OK, we have a point of order from Ms. Hyam. This is a very popular article for points of order. Leigh behind precinct 15. I just wanted to remind our body that we do have the 48-hour rule on amendments that are substantial to the article. Thanks. Thank you. Yeah, so I can clarify that there is a quite a point of order. It's a point of information, which isn't technically a thing procedurally. But there is a 48-hour rule in place, which means that I ask that you put any motions to amend or to substitute a main motion in writing and give it to me, town council, town clerk, at least 48 hours in advance so we can kind of vet it and process it and share it with folks so town meeting members can be prepared when they come to the meeting to vote on it and discuss it. But that's just a practice that I follow as moderator, as my predecessor did. But the actual rules are that motions can be made from the floor. And I can rule them out of scope. And so it is also my call on the different layers of rules in place. OK, so let's see where are we at with voting. Almost all the votes are in at this point. Let's just take another 15 seconds before we close voting. 10 seconds. Five seconds. OK, let's close voting. And someone did mention in the Q&A that you can divide a question. If you're interested in that, you could read town meeting time for the details or have a conversation with me offline. And the motion passes 194 in the affirmative, 25 in the negative, and eight abstentions, article 60. The main motion for article 62, appropriation of community preservation funding passes. So we will wait through these screens so that everyone can view the votes. And when that is done, we will move on to article 65. But before we take up that article, we will take a 10-minute break since we're just about out the halfway mark tonight. So let's just finish these screens, OK? And so let's come back at 9.40. We'll reconvene. And at that point, we'll have article 62 up, and we'll introduce it and jump into debate. See everyone in about 10 minutes. Thanks. With article 65, let's get that up. OK, and while we're bringing that up, this is from the Finance Committee report. Mr. Foskett, did you want to speak to the vote? Yes, Mr. Moderator. Charles Foskett, precinct 10, chair of the Finance Committee. Make a couple of comments. The Finance Committee voted for these design standards because the guidelines that are proposed will be helpful for architects and developers to understand the appropriate way to develop new projects along Mass Avenue and Broadway. With the guidelines in place, development costs should be lower and development time shorter because of the implied simplification of the special permitting process required by the town. In other words, if the developer and the architects know what the town is interested in, the process should be more streamlined. And finally, the guidelines also enhance the town's execution and implementation of the Arlington master plan. I think if people have more interest in more detailed questions, I'm sure representative of the Arlington Redevelopment Board or the Planning Department can provide a more detailed description. And so this was initially on the consent agenda. It was removed from the consent agenda by Ms. Friedman. So I mean, that courtesy I've been giving folks, if they removed an article from the consent agenda, I wanted to give them an opportunity to speak to why they removed it. So if we can bring up Ms. Friedman next, name and precinct please. Bethanne Friedman, precinct 15. We've had a number of consultants talk about how to bring business to Mass Ave and Broadway. And I was wondering what this additional sum of 50,000 was what the purpose of that, whether it was really going to add to the information we already had. If somebody could address that. Mr. Posca? Yes, I believe that the guidelines are a set of documents or suggestions as to what the facade, what the buildings should look like along the Mass Ave and Broadway. And as opposed to somebody coming in and building a 20-story building with red brick as opposed to a consistent design that the master plan would like to see. Ms. Friedman? All right, thank you very much. OK, thank you. We'll take Ms. Evans next. Name and precinct please. While we're waiting to bring Ms. Evans up. Oh, I do see that. Can you hear me now? Yes, OK, just hold on one second. One thing I skipped here is I did want to Ms. Rate does have a video and usually part of the introduction, I would show this and I apologize that I skipped over that. Ms. Could we play Ms. Rate's video? Or it might have been from Ms. Zemberry from the ARB. Can we bring up the video recording? For Article 65. Apologies for not playing this first. And then we'll take Ms. Evans. Rachel Zemberry, Chair of the Wellington Redevelopment Board, also known as the ARB. And I will be taking you through one Article 65 requested appropriation for the design standards for the 2022 Arlington Town Meeting. The purpose of this appropriation is to update the existing design standards for commercial and industrial uses for applicability and usability by the Redevelopment Board. Prior design standards were created and approved in 2015 with the adoption of the master plan. Unfortunately, the ARB has found that the existing design standards provide limited applicability due to their focus on new development, larger lots and without specific guidance related to existing neighborhood conditions. This update would provide specific design guidance for redevelopment in all areas of the ARB's purview. For example, the current design standards do not cover business districts along Broadway or Summer Street. As you can see from these illustrations, the current standards lack the flexibility to address a range of parcel sizes, parking requirements, uses, and our existing range of zoning districts. We are fortunate in our town to have two recent models for updated design standards, including the 2020 residential design guidelines, which are limited to single and two family properties in the R0, R1, and R2 districts, and the site design standards for the industrial districts that were codified at 2021 Town Meeting. The organizing principles of our current design standards are varied by quarter with limited guidance provided for an applicant with regard to building setbacks, building height, facade treatments, and building materials. The model of the residential design guidelines provide a framework to address these types of elements. That model is contextually driven and organized by scale, which leads to improved design solutions. An example of this more comprehensive context and design guidelines that the ARB would like to have created for the business districts can be found in this example from the residential design guidelines. It proposes a specific design principle followed by annotated diagrams and imagery illustrating multiple types of applications across a variety of lot sizes and configurations. It is further supported by definitions and recommendations for types of design solutions that are both encouraged and discouraged. The updated design standards would apply to review of the Developmental Long Mass Ave, Broadway, Summer Street, and the development along the bikeway. This includes small to large scale mixed use development. This appropriation would allow for the creation of a necessary and worthwhile document that the Department of Planning and Community Development and the ARB would be able to use with owners and developers to improve the quality of design applications and solutions proposed for large scale projects under the ARB's purview. The creation of these design standards were identified as a 2022 goal by the ARB in our annual goal-studying meeting. The Department of Planning and Community Development would forward this application on behalf of the ARB. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Let's go back to Ms. Evans. Apologies for cutting away from your speaking time, but let's go back to that now. Ms. Evans, name and precinct, please. Thank you. Winnell Evans, precinct 14. I have one very quick question. Would this, would the work that this grant, that this appropriation cover rather, would this constitute an update of the existing 2015 design guidelines or would it in fact replace those design guidelines? So I think basically what I'm asking is, excuse me, how extensive would the, would this new set be? Thank you. Great, thank you. Ms. Ray, do you have an answer for Ms. Evans's question? Yes, Mr. Moderator. Jennifer Ray, Director of Planning and Community Development. This would not be an update to the 2015 design standards. This would be brand new design standards and it would be a whole new process similar to the process that we use for the residential design guidelines. Thank you. Great, thank you. Let's say, let's take Mr. Revlock next. Steve Revlock, precinct one. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. I was just wondering in the formulation of, in the process of hiring the consultant and formulating these new design documents, will there be a working group and possibly a public process behind it? Ms. Ray. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Jennifer Ray, Director of Planning and Community Development. We would have the same type of process again as the residential design guidelines where we would have a working group who would help to develop the scope of work and interview potential consultants who would help with the design process and then also participate in the entire design process. There would also be public meetings as part of that. So it would be a full community process in order to ultimately develop the final design standards, including of course working very closely with the Arlington Redevelopment Board and other groups that have a role in review of design. I mean, it is about the Redevelopment Board but these are buildings that relate to other boards and commissions that have purview over development as well. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Ms. Ray. So I was a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals for about a year and a half, speaking as myself rather than for the ZBA. But I felt during that time that the residential design guidelines were extremely helpful. I felt that they gave the ZBA a better context for evaluating special permit submissions and they were also helpful in sort of conveying desired aesthetics to architects. So we could sit down with an architect during a special permit hearing and we might refer to the residential design guidelines and could you try something like this? And they'd come back and they kind of got it. It made projects better. You know, as an ARB member and again, speaking as myself and not for the ARB, I think this would also help our environmental design review process. And since there will be a community process behind the formulation of these standards, I think it's also an opportunity for the public at large to weigh in on what they would like to see. So I hope we support this. Thank you. Great, thank you. Let's take Mr. Palmer next. Maxwell Palmer, precinct two, motion to terminate debate on this article and all matters before it. Okay, so Mr. Palmer has moved to terminate debate. Do we have a second? We have a second from Mr. McCabe. So let's bring up a vote. Let's open voting for termination of debate of article 65. Okay, so voting will be open. Like the first wave should already be open. The second wave of voting should be opening up shortly and then be a third wave of voting as usual by precinct. And so we're voting here on whether to terminate debate on article 65. So if you are in favor of terminating debate, vote yes. If you want to continue debate, vote no. Again, this is a vote on whether to terminate debate on article 65. Yes, vote. If you wish to terminate debate, a no vote if you wish to continue debate. We're nearing 200 votes cast. Still several outstanding. When your wave opens up, please be ready to vote. Okay, we're down to about 13 time meeting members who have 12 now who have been recently active in the portal but have not yet voted. So let's give folks, now it's down to 11. Let's just give another 15 seconds until we close voting on terminated debate. 10 seconds, five seconds. Okay, let's close voting. And debate is terminated. Again, this is a two thirds vote, 189 in the affirmative, 29 in negative two abstentions. We're not gonna wait for the screens. We'll just go straight to voting on the main motion for article 65. So let's go straight into that. And the main motion is a majority vote. If you are in favor of the developing design standards for enhancing the massive Broadway business for vitality for $50,000 vote yes. If you are against that, you would vote no. And again, voting is opening up by wave. So your wave might not be open yet. You might see a message in your portal, your voting portal saying that you'll be able to vote in the next wave or in two waves. So just please be patient and wait for that to open up. And while you're waiting, I'll just read out the vote language. This is for article 65, appropriation for design standards of the vote yes. If you're in favor of the vote language, which is that the sum of $50,000 be and hereby is appropriated for the purpose of funding development of design standards to enhance the economic vitality of Mass Ave and Broadway through attractive and consistent design in alignment with the Arlington master plan, including payment of consultant fees and furtherance of the process said some to be raised by general tax and expended under the direction of the town manager. And that was a nine to seven to one vote of the finance committee. Nine in favor, seven opposed and one abstention. So if you're in favor of appropriating the sum of $50,000 for funding development of design standards for the economic to enhance the economic vitality of Mass Ave and Broadway, vote yes. If you are opposed to that appropriation of $50,000, who would vote no. And this is a vote on the main motion of article 65. Okay, if most votes in, just a few left. So let's just wait another 15 seconds until we close voting on article 65, 10 seconds, five seconds, last chance to get your votes in. And let's close voting. Now this is a majority vote and the vote passes, 199 in the affirmative, 27 in the negative and one abstention. And because this is a main motion, we will wait for the screens for showing the votes of all precincts. And then after we're done viewing these voting screens, we will move on to, so we're done with the finance articles, the FINCOM articles that we're gonna cover tonight. There are a couple more, articles 71 and 72, but we're gonna leave those for a later time. And we are going to, when Mr. Foskett, after we're done looking at these screens, which we're now, I would entertain a motion from Mr. Foskett to remove some articles from the table to go back to article 17, for instance. Mr. Moderator, we could handle articles 71 and 72 this evening, if I may take a moment, Charles Foskett, President and Chair of the Finance Committee, from a procedural basis, article 49 has been tabled. We will have to introduce a substantial amendment to that when certain collective bargaining issues are resolved. However, the total amount of money in article 49 will not change. So we are in a position then to go ahead and vote article 71 and article 72. And then we can take article 49 off the table when the collective bargaining issues are resolved, which I hope will be by Monday night next week, or, and we could then address it by Wednesday, giving you the 48-hour notice. Understood. So let's leave those articles on the table for now and let's proceed to article 71. Thank you. Yep, thank you. So let's bring up voting on article, I'm not voting, let's open up article 71 is before us. So let's, let's introduce that now. Okay, so Mr. Foskett, do you want to introduce article 71? Yes, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Charles Foskett, Precinct 10 and Chair of the Finance Committee. So article 71 is to ask the meeting to appropriate use of free cash to our revenue stream for fiscal 23. Let's, let me refresh the memory of meeting members, what the free cash actually is. This comes from, this is the money that was left over and was unspent at the end of fiscal 21. And that would be June 30th of 21. And the reason why this hangs over for a year is that when we, it has to be certified and so by the state, so there's a delay. So we are now, we're looking at money that was left over the fiscal year prior to the last fiscal year. So the amount of money that was certified by the state was 11,078,430 dollars. It's been the practice of the town to use 50% of that and apply it to the revenue in the upcoming fiscal year and to leave 50% in free cash, in the free cash account as a reserve. So the town meeting is being asked to vote 5,539,215 dollars towards the use of revenue in fiscal 23. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Foskett. Let's now move to our speaking queue. And so let's take Mr. McCabe who's our sole speaker and I'll remind Mr. McCabe and everyone else if there are no other speakers in the speaker queue we can proceed directly to voting, Mr. McCabe. Whereas if there is a motion to terminate debate we have to take that vote. If there's a second, Mr. McCabe, name and precinct to Mr. McCabe, are you able to unmute? I think I can hear you. I think your microphone's active. Name and precinct. Mark McCabe, precinct two, terminate debate on article 71 and all matters before it. Okay. Do we have a second? We do have a second speaker in the queue. So we do have a second from Ms. Hyam. So let's open voting on termination of debate. We have a motion by Mr. McCabe to terminate debate and a second by Ms. Hyam. And there are waves of voting. If you're able to vote in the first wave please go ahead and vote. Otherwise you'll see a message on your screen saying that voting will be enabled for you in the next wave or in two waves. And so you just have to sit tight and in several seconds you will be able to vote. So if you're in the first wave please vote. And this is we're voting on whether to terminate debate on article 71, use of free cash. If you're in favor of terminating debate vote yes. If you want to continue debate vote no. Okay. We're just over 200 votes cast. Still several more that we're waiting for. If your wave of precinct has voting enabled please vote. They should be all open by now. Okay. We're still waiting for votes from 17 folks who've been 15 folks now who have been recently active in the portal. So please get your votes. And if you're having trouble voting through the portal you can always vote through the, you can enter your vote and you type your vote into the Q and A. And so that's just another 15 seconds. 10 seconds till we close voting on terminating debate on article 71. Five seconds. And let's close voting. There's a two thirds vote on whether to terminate debate. And debate is terminated. We're not going to wait for the screens. It's 204 in the affirmative which is well over the two thirds threshold. So let's open voting now on article 71, use of free cash. This is a majority vote. If you are in favor of use of free cash and I will use Mr. Jamison's description from email that he sent out, I think to everybody. This is for use of free cash. Appropriates one half of the state certified FY 21 fiscal year 21, 2021 general funds year-end balance to the fiscal year 2023 budget. The remainder is held in reserve. If you are in favor of that, vote yes. If you are opposed, vote no. And this is a majority vote. So the waves of voting are probably still opening up. So if you're seeing a message that voting will be enabled for you in the next wave or the next two waves, just sit tight and that will auto refresh and you will be able to vote shortly. This is voting on the main motion of article 71, use of free cash. So we now have over 200 votes cast. All the waves of precincts should be open for voting now. We're still waiting for about 20 folks who've been recently active in the portal, but have not voted yet. So let's just wait a little bit longer. People, it's not worth it. I think someone's on a hot mic, might wanna mute whoever that was. And so let's just wait another 15 seconds until we close voting. You can always enter it into the chat, or I'm sorry, into the Q and A, 10 seconds, five seconds. Okay, let's go ahead and close voting on article 71. Passes 219 in the affirmative, one in the negative. We will wait for all the screens for this because it's the main motion. Article 71 passes. After we were done with the screens and we're just about halfway there. After this, we will take up article 72. Okay, so let's open up article 72 now, which is now before us. This is also from the Finance Committee report. So Mr. Foskett, why don't you kick us off introducing article 72. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Charles Foskett, precinct 10, and chair of the Finance Committee. At first, we'd like to note to the membership that we administratively changed the number on page 30 of the Finance Committee report to $3,046,000 and $37 of some nights ago. So that's the number that we are voting on. Secondly, I'd like to... Mr. Foskett, where was that in the Finance Committee report just so folks can find out? It was on page 30, article 72. We made administrative change, maybe the first or second night of town meeting. And did we show that on screen? Because if we did, I don't think we need to show it again here. I don't think so. I think it's been changed. I think it's been changed on the agenda too. Okay, it's already been updated on the annotated form online. Okay. So I also wanted to reemphasize what I just mentioned, which is that while article 49 is still on the table, the number of $1,323,572, which is in the article on the Finance Committee report on page 14 will not change. However, when we take article 49 off the table, there will be some language distributing some of those funds to specific bargaining units, contracts, and also asking the meeting to endorse those contracts. So that'll be a substantial amendment that will be coming up in the next week or so. And the final comment I would make is that this money that we're voting here is a two-thirds vote appropriating money from the Override Stabilization Fund. And if the members look at appendix D in the Finance Committee report on line F in revenues, you see the 3,046,037 in fiscal year 23 column. When the balances in this fund are depleted, that's when we go into a deficit situation. Right now is anticipated to occur in fiscal 25, in which means that in calendar 24, the town is gonna be facing the need for a substantial override, which I have mentioned before. So that really completes my comments. This requires a two-thirds vote and thank you for your time on this. And Mr. Foske, just to be clear, so I pulled up Finance Committee report page 30. This is the sum of 2,946,037, is that correct? No, that we changed that number. Okay, that was changed. Can you give me that number just so, yeah. Yes, 3,046,037. Okay, so let's go to our speaking queue and we have Mr. Jamison, name and precinct. Yes, Gordon Jamison, precinct 12. Perhaps Mr. Foske could elaborate on the reason for the increase. Thank you. Mr. Foske? Yes, I can, thank you. It was basically an oversight on the part of the Finance Committee. The Board of Assessors allocated 750,000 from the Overlay Reserve surplus this year. And we used 100,000 of it in a special town meeting and only 650,000 was available for the budget. As a general revenue source. And that meant that the, and we were originally considering using the entire 750,000 in the annual town meeting. But having used 100,000 of that in a special town meeting, we needed to increase the withdrawal from the Override Stabilization Fund or well, officially called the Fiscal Stability Stabilization Fund. We had to increase that amount by $100,000. And while that correct number showed up in the appendix D in the back of the Finance Committee report, it was not corrected in Article 72 on page 30. So as I understand it, the differences, I didn't do the math in my head. The difference is $100,000. It's $100,000, yes. And I just wanna take two seconds, Mr. Moderator, to make the members and the public at large realize that I count no less than 14 reports that have presented town meeting. They represent the hard work of many resident volunteers and the staff of the town and schools to present these detailed budgets and other items before us. And they should be applauded for that because it's just we would not run without that work. Thank you very much, Mr. Moderator. And Mr. Jemison. Thank you. Let's take Ms. Malofchik next. Ms. Malofchik, name and precinct, please. Ms. Malofchik, it seems like you're not muted, but maybe there's an issue with your computer. I'm not hearing anything. Why don't we, let's go ahead and take Mr. Moore next. Apologies, Ms. Malofchik. Hopefully we can resolve your issue going forward. Mr. Moore, name and precinct, please. Chris, for Moore, precinct 14, I move to terminate debate on article 72. Okay, we have motion to terminate debate on article 72. Do we have a second? Okay, we have a second from Mr. Siano. So let's go ahead and vote on terminating debate on article 72. Okay, if you are in favor of terminating debate on article 72, the appropriation for the Fiscal Stability Stabilization Fund, vote yes. If you want to continue debate on article 72, vote no. And if you have trouble voting through the portal, you can enter, you can type your vote into the chat, into the Q and A, sorry. And if you see a message about that voting will be enabled in the next wave or in two waves, just please be patient, that'll open up shortly. The first two waves should already be open, the third wave should be opening up in just a few seconds at this point. This is a two-thirds vote for terminating debate. Requires two-thirds vote. Nearing 200 votes cast, all the waves of precincts should be enabled for voting. So please get your votes in as quickly as you can. So we could either move on to voting on the main motion or getting back to debate. We have a point of order from Ms. Crowder. Let's take that while we're waiting for more votes to roll in. Again, if you have trouble voting in the portal, you could always type your vote into the Q and A. Ms. Crowder, name and precinct and your point of order. Yes, Elaine Crowder, precinct 19. I'm wondering what the proper procedure is given that Beth Milovchuk attempted to speak before the motion to terminate debate but was unable to. Is there a question? Yeah, I'll clarify that. So given that the speaking order is at the discretion of the moderator, it's my discretion. And so it's not fundamentally different than if I had taken Mr. Moore ahead of Ms. Milovchuk. The reasons are different, but in this case, I didn't want the meeting waiting indefinitely while we're resolving potentially computer issues for Ms. Milovchuk. Can I ask one more question? About procedure. Yes, procedure. Is there a way to change? Since we're waiting for voting, I will entertain it, but we do need to keep points of order for points of order, which this is technically not. But go ahead. Is there a way to take her point in some other way if she couldn't speak? Not at this point once we're voting to terminate debate. No. Thank you. Thank you. And apologies to Ms. Milovchuk for the technical difficulties. So just waiting for a handful more votes. So let's just, let's go close voting in 15 seconds. This is voting on terminating debate on article 72. 10 seconds. 71 is too long. Is it not 72? No, it's 72, correct. Mr. Frosgut. You're correct, 72. 72, okay. Let's close voting. Okay, debate is terminated. So we have 196 in the affirmative, 24 and negative three abstentions. Let's go straight to voting on the main motion. Since we're not gonna wait for screens for termination of debate votes. And the vote quantum for the main motion is two thirds. Requires two thirds to pass. Vote yes. If you want to appropriate roughly $3 million from the fiscal stability stabilization fund and for the Board of Assessors to use that amount on determining the tax rate. Vote no if you disapprove of that appropriation. And this requires a two thirds vote. So we have our guy waiting for the T screen, unfortunately. Hopefully this resolves itself shortly. And while we're waiting for votes to come in, let's take the point of order from Ms. Kepka. Name and precinct, please, in your point of order. Ms. Kepka, are you able to unmute? The votes are rolling in. So hopefully it is kind of slowly resolving itself. Ms. Kepka, are you able to unmute your computer? Your Zoom? And someone on the IT side maybe speak to, are we having a more widespread issue of folks not being able to unmute? IT is not aware of any widespread issues. Nothing's been reported via tech support. Hello, Mr. Speaker. Can you hear me? Yes, Ms. Kepka. Go ahead, name and precinct, in point of order. Hi, I don't know what's happening. Asha Kepka, precinct one. Bit concerned that people who wanted to terminate debates to get to speak before people who don't have a chance to speak, we have a number of speakers who are frequent. And I would like to hear from people like Beth Malofczyk to hear what she has to say. I'm just concerned that we're not having a full debate amongst our town meeting members. Thank you. Right, thank you. I would say that, well, we do not have a full debate in the sense that we do not wait for all speakers on the speaker queue to get an opportunity to speak. We do at some point have termination of debate. That was not a point of order. And as I said, there was discretion by the moderator by opening things up and making the speaking queue more transparent, it makes it more clear if we're skipping speakers, but it is ultimately at the moderator's discretion. And I do skip around sometimes. And sometimes I have to skip a speaker if we have a technical difficulty so that the meeting is not waiting indefinitely. We have a point of order from Ms. Preston. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Name and precinct, please. Yes, Joanne Preston, precinct five. One of the things that you said before in terms of procedure because I'm also concerned that I'm not hearing all points of view that if several people speak for it before you terminate debate, they will least get a sense of someone who may be favoring a no vote or a yes vote rather than just have several people which haven't last time talking favor. Okay, so Ms. Preston, I'm sorry, let me cut you off because we are just about ready to close voting on Article 72, voting on Article 72. And I'll just say in response to your statement that that is not a point of order, that there are several individual, several time meeting members who did not get an opportunity to speak because more than two thirds and significantly more than two thirds of time meeting members voted to terminate debate. Now, whether someone was earlier in the speaking queue or later in the speaking queue and in either case if they did not get to speak, that is the right of two thirds of the time meeting members voting to terminate debate so they can proceed to voting on the main motion. And so that is the decision of the meeting and the moderator, I have discretion on choosing the speaking order and I'm trying to be as fair as I can under the circumstances, thank you. So with voting, we have 215 votes in, there's still a number outstanding, 16 of recently active members in the portal who have not voted yet. There were some issues with some timeouts on the server, some server errors that were delaying voting. So I'm inclined to give a little bit more time. Let's give another 30 seconds on this before we close voting. So if you're having trouble voting through the portal, please make use of the Q and A to type your vote in or let's say 20 seconds left, 15 seconds, 10 seconds until we close voting on article 72, five seconds. And let's close voting, okay? And so the motion passes, main motion for article 72 passes the appropriation for the Fiscal Stability Stabilization Fund, we will wait for all the screens to go through so you can see the votes for all the precincts. So there's a question in the Q and A whether I can clarify if anyone else can see the vote if you vote on the Q and A. I believe that only the folks who are on the panel at the time can see the votes in the Q and A, maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but someone who's connected as an attendee, which most town meeting members are unless they're on the panel for some other reason, that town meeting members at large would not be able to see those votes cast through the Q and A. Again, if that's not correct, someone can correct me. Okay, I believe we got through the screens. Yeah, someone says that we clear the votes privately so they are not visible to the public. Okay, so article 72 has been disposed of. So that brings us back to Suits, we're now at 10.30. Mr. Foskett, I would entertain a motion at this point to remove some articles from the table, presumably beginning- Yes, Mr. Moderator, Charles Foskett precinct and chair of the finance committee. And I propose that we remove from the table articles 17 through 49, through 48. 17 through 48, obviously this would only, this implicitly would only include articles that we have not yet disposed of. And what was the first article you mentioned, Mr. Foskett? Article 17. Correct, yeah, okay. And do we have a second? These are all old seconds from- Second. It was a second from Ms. Brazil for Mr. Foskett's motion to remove articles from 17 forward from the table. And any objections, please raise your hands and zoom. Let's enable raise hands and zoom, if it's not enabled already. Say Mr. Foskett, that was 17 through I believe 45, correct? Yes. Yeah, and so we're leaving 49 collective bargaining on the table. Yes. Okay, so seeing no objections, article 17 is now before us. So let's bring up article 17. And before we get started, we have a point of order for Mr. Revolak. Yeah, perhaps a point of order. Steve Revolak precinct one, perhaps a point of order or a point of personal privilege. We, the meeting had previously agreed to table article 17 and because of a medical emergency with one of the proponents. I will, with your, Mr. Moderator, I will endeavor to get in touch with the parties involved and get a proposed date when they can reappear by tomorrow. Okay, so there was communication, maybe that you were maybe not privy to that they've actually, it's been arranged for them to be present tonight. Well, I was not aware, but okay. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Thank you. But thank you for the concern. The, yeah, they are here. So let's start with, this is from the select board report. So let's bring up Mr. Diggins, chair of the select board to kind of introduce this article and the vote from the select board. Mr. Moderator, I had introduced this already. And I will have to dig up the file again. I need to do it. I hate to delay meeting, but I did introduce this, you know. Oh, okay. My apologies. No problem. Thanks, so great. Thank you. Okay. I think we can do it again, but, but. No, no, you're right. Thank you. Okay. And so let's bring up Mr. Revolak. Because I believe you wanted to introduce the proponent. So let's bring up Mr. Revolak. Steve Revolak precinct one. Yes, Mr. Moderator. So Mr. Moderator, I would like to use my time to introduce two individuals who wish to speak on article 17. Richie L. Kahuli, who is an Arlington business owner, but resides in another community. And Robert Anessi, who is an Arlington resident. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Okay. Very good. So are we introducing one or both? And let's see. And Mr. Revolak is, is Mr. Kahuli and Mr. Anisi Arlington residents? Mr. Anisi is, Mr. Kahuli is not. That is my understanding, Mr. Moderator. Okay. And is Mr. Kahuli intending to speak tonight? Yes, I am, Mr. Moderator. But I am going to have Mr. Anisi speak on my behalf first. Okay. So before we get into that, let's just, do we have a, do we have a, so Mr. Revolak, can you keep? Let's get, well, actually, let's give a straw poll in the Q and A. I'm sorry, let's back up. In, with raise hands and zoom, we need, are there any objections to Mr. Kahuli speaking tonight, since he is a non-resident, not a resident of Arlington. So typically we require a majority vote to allow non-residents to speak at the meeting if they don't have a right otherwise. So we have, I see some hands raised. Give folks a little bit more time to raise hands. Let's just give another 15 seconds to raise hands. Still nowhere near 50%, 10 seconds, five seconds, if you object to Mr. Kahuli speaking. Okay. So we have 13 hands raised, 12 hands raised. We're nowhere near half. So I consider that a majority vote to allow Mr. Kahuli to speak tonight. And Mr. Anisi is a resident of Arlington. So he has a right to speak being introduced by Mr. Revolak, a time meeting member. So the time is, can we start the timer please? Okay. And this will be a part of Mr. Revolak's seven minute speaking time. So either speaker is free to speak. We'll start with Mr. Kahuli and you said you wanted to introduce Mr. Anisi. Go ahead, please. And then please state your, and for each of you, when you first speak, if you can state your full name and your address and then continue to your remarks. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Moderator, Richie L. Kahuli, 6th Jaffer Street in Saugus, Massachusetts. I am going to introduce the attorney Anisi to speak on my behalf. And if I have to jump in at the moment, then I will raise my hand or unmute myself. Thank you. Mr. Anisi, do you wanna introduce yourself, your name and address please? For the record. Mr. Anisi, can you unmute? Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Name, name. Mr. Moderator, I need to correct the record. I am not a resident of the town. I grew up here, I lived here for many years. I own property here now, but I am not a resident of the town. I want that to be clear. Okay, so before we proceed, we can pause the timer because we have to do something procedural. Let's enable raise hands and zoom again. And anyone who objects to Mr. Anisi being able to speak tonight, you can raise your hand and zoom if you object. And I'll give about 15 seconds for folks to raise hands. And if it's nowhere near half, then I will declare it a majority vote to allow Mr. Anisi to speak. Five seconds. Okay, so I see 27 hands raised. That's nowhere near half. So I declare that a majority vote to allow Mr. Anisi to speak. So Mr. Anisi, please continue. And let's resume the timer please. Thank you. I'm an attorney in town, office at 1171 Mass Ave. I represent Eli's service station. That's a small gas station at 125 Broadway in Arlington. One of the problems that Eli has had over the years is he has to have an attendant on site to pump gasoline. He has to pay that attendant as well. But the real problem is retaining people to in fact pump gasoline. It's not the most attractive job in the world. And he has a lot of difficulty retaining people to pump gasoline. Now I need to point out that Arlington is one of the last communities in the Commonwealth that essentially does not allow one to pump their own gasoline. And I was amazed when I saw that this prohibition goes all the way back to 1975. I don't see that there's any real reason why individuals ought to be able to pump their own gasoline. I'm not suggesting in this article by the way, that the full service gas stations not continue to operate. They certainly can continue to operate. But by the same token, folks like Eli who have small gas stations want to be able to compete with surrounding gas stations and surrounding communities where they don't have to pay a gas station attendant. So we're asking that town meeting essentially allow an individual to pump their own gasoline. Now we understand that there would be a fire suppression system that has to be adhered to locally and with the state. We understand that there are other conditions that would have to be applicable as well. One of the things that Eli has in his gas station and has had for some years is he's got a button and the button is in the gas station and the button is out by the pumps. So if there's an individual out by the pumps who needs assistance, that individual remaining in their car can push the button and the attendant will come out of the building and attend that individual. Now there'll always be an attendant at the gas station despite the fact that people can pump their own gas. One of the issues that came up many years ago I think at town meeting was, well, if we allow this who knows what's going to happen with gas stations? They could expand on site, they could do this, they could do that. Well, I wanna suggest to you that that is not the case. Gas stations in this town are located on the main thoroughfares, Mass Av, Summer, et cetera. Those main thoroughfares are within the jurisdiction of the ARB and the ARB would have any jurisdiction with respect to changes to the gas station use, changes to the building of the gas station and the life. So you've got an area of supervision here that you'd have that would be overlooking what happens with respect to any conversion to allowing people to pump their own gasoline. One more very important point that came out during COVID. Okay, just right briefly, we have about a minute and a half left until we run out of time. Very quickly, very quickly. Eli had comments from customers who said, look, we'd rather not have people-to-people contact. We'd rather not have to give a credit card to someone with respect to the potential for catching COVID. So that's another reason why I believe it's in the best interest of not only my client, but in the best interest of the town to allow people to pump their own gas. It's time. Thank you. Thank you. And Mr. Rebelock, did you have anything else? No, I, Mr. Moderator, I would just like to offer an apology for getting Mr. Inessie's place of residence wrong. That was an error in my part. And beyond that, I have nothing further. Thank you. I guess that's why we asked for address. And so before we move on, we do have a substitute motion also pending. But before that, let's take Mr. Jamison's point of order. Yes, Mr. Moderator. According to Jamison, precinct 12, I just wanted to exactly where you're going is that Mr. Benson has, Mr. Benson has, I believe, a well thought out substitute motion. I wanted to make sure that was brought before the body, before we discuss any more. Thank you very much, Mr. Moderator. So let's bring up, I see Mr. Benson is in the speaker queue. So let's just bring him right up to introduce his substitute motion. And that should include an actual motion to substitute. So Mr. Benson, name and precinct, please. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Eugene Benson, precinct 10. And as the moderator pointed out, I have filed a substitute motion. I hope everyone at town meeting has had the opportunity to read it. I'll discuss it briefly. As with the select board recommended vote, this substitute motion would allow self-service gas stations in town. However, however, the substitute motion makes explicit that the self-service filling stations must meet the fire code for such stations and accommodate persons with disabilities as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. It also requires attendant pumping of fuel for customers who do not wish or unable to use self-service. Not all customers can or want to pump their own fuel. And this substitute motion will ensure that no one will have to leave Arlington to have an attendant fill their car's fuel tank. So briefly, where did I come up with these alternatives? I took a look at the Cambridge city ordinance on self-service gas stations. And they had the requirement that the installations comply with regulations for self-service gas stations, fire code regulations. So I included that the Americans for Disabilities Act has requirements for assistance at self-service gas stations. I thought it was wise to put that in our town by-law because that would allow the town to enforce it rather than a disabled person having to file a complaint somewhere they could just call the town and have somebody from the town come up and take a look. And the third one to have either separate and clearly marked pumps for self-service and attendant service or a buzzer call button or some other system to get an attendant. I actually thought of that when I was thinking of my mom who drove until she was about 90 years old and the older she got, the less likely she was to want to get out of her car to pump her own gas. She didn't live in Arlington, but she would drive a long way to find a self-service gas station. She didn't meet the disability requirements, but she was getting a little old and her bones were getting a little creaky and she would just prefer to stay in her car. And I wanted to make sure everyone in Arlington would have an opportunity. So that's it in a nutshell, allow self-service, but requires compliance with the fire code, compliance with the Americans with Disability Act requirements, and even if you're not disabled, you can have the gas pumped if you'd like. Thank you. Okay. And in case Mr. Jamison's point of order is about required in a second and also a motion, I'll do that right now, Mr. Benson. Yes, I so move. You so move the substitute motion. And just so folks are clear here, I mean, this has been posted online for several days now. So no surprises here. The main difference with the main motion, the main motion strikes or it removes title five, article five from the bylaws and this actual, the substitute motion by Mr. Benson replaces the title five, article five with new text, which we're showing here. If that is not what Mr. Jamison was going to suggest and do we have a second for Mr. Benson's, we already have several before he even made the motion. Mr. Siano has seconded it, has the record for the most seconds in an evening tonight. Mr. Jamison, your point of order, please. Yes, Mr. moderator, Gordon Jamison, PCI 12. If I understand correctly, looking at the, I looked at the warrant and what we've been disclosed to, I'm in favor of this article, but the, I would like- The point of order is not a place to talk about what you're in favor of or disagree with that. Sorry, Mr. moderator. Aside from that, I'm worried about the scope of the article because what we've learned tonight is both the proponents who have spoken to us tonight are not residents of the town. And the warrant suggests that one of those gentlemen was the proponent on, it was that person plus 10 registered article, 10 registered voters who presented this to us. And I would like Attorney Heim's discussion of whether this is actually a valid article for us to concede, to take before the body, given the fact that the person who is no longer, might have been, but is no longer a member of the president. You understand, Mr. moderator? I do, Mr. Jamison. And so just to be clear, Mr. Heim, these are actually different individuals with the same last name, but you've raised the question about residency. Yes, residency for submitting the article to the warrant. And if they aren't residents, then they can't speak to the warrant. The speaker that we heard briefly tonight, I believe was Richie L. Cavulli and the resident with 10 registered voters was Elias Alcoholy. Mr. Heim, can you confirm whether or do you know if Mr. Elias Alcoholy is a resident of Arlington or maybe the town clerk could verify residency or voter registration? I'm happy to try, Julie Brazil, town clerk. I mean, I'm gonna give the benefit of the doubt to my staff. We check every name and signature for residency. On the petitions that become warrant articles. Yep. Okay, so if you're satisfied, Ms. Brazil, that Elias Alcoholy is a registered voter of Arlington. Since we have- Mr. Moderator? Yeah, Mr. Jamison. You understand my concern because one gentleman was suggested that he was a resident and suddenly he wasn't. Right, so- So as long as the clerk is fine, I'm fine. Okay, and it sounds like Madam Clerk is fine with this, having checked this at the time that the petition was submitted, correct, Ms. Brazil? That is correct. Thank you very much, Mr. Moderator. Great, thank you. So we have a motion to substitute for the main motion in Article 17. We have a second. And so we now have the main motion and a substitute motion before us. And so let us now head to the speaker queue. It is getting late in the evening, it's 10.52. We can get some speakers in. There's a lot of significant interest in speaking, so let's see how far we get tonight. Let's take Ms. Pretzer. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. This is David Pretzer from FreeSync 17. We've heard why a gas station owner might be in favor of this article. I just wanna ask the meeting to consider the people who work at gas stations. People who work at gas stations these are job opportunities for people that might have trouble getting other jobs due to lack of credentials, lack of English fluency or other challenges that might give them very limited job options. These people can get jobs at gas stations by removing full service. We are reducing the number of these jobs that will be available. In Arlington, from my point of view, we are taking away these much needed jobs and not getting anything of comparable value in return. So on that basis, I would ask the meeting to vote against this article. Thank you. Thank you. And we have a point of order from Mr. Quinn. Let's take that. Michael Quinn, FreeSync 10. I didn't catch the full name of the person, but when I tried to search the database I have on the registered voters, I didn't find it. So I'm hoping to get clarification on that. So Ms. Brazil already confirmed that she had looked this up at the time that this petition was submitted. I'm satisfied by that. If someone's going to double check that, we can do that while we continue debate. Thank you. So, sir, can we get the full spelling of the person's name, please? I believe this is in the... Can we bring up the Article 17 page from the annotated bar? Is it listed in there? Yes, it's listed in there requested by section, right there, inserted at the request of Elias Alcajole and 10 registered voters. So there's the spelling. Thank you. So again, I don't see that in the list. Right, so I defer to Ms. Brazil. And so if she... I would ask her to double check. Thank you. If she wishes to double check that, we'll do that asynchronously from taking the next speaker. Thank you. Let's take Ms. Penneran next. Name and FreeSync, please. My unmute option just appeared. Kristin Penneran, precinct 20. Thank you for taking my question. Firstly, well, actually statement, I'm in favor of Mr. Benson's substitute motion as a viable option. My personal preference doesn't really matter here, but for the record, I actually love having help with pumping acid at the gas station. I would like to be convinced to vote in favor, but I have two questions that I think are quite important. They're about economic competition related to the previous comment and about environmental impacts. Mr. Moderator, you can direct these to the proponents or to anyone else who might have a suitable answer. First question, is there any type of association of gas station owners and operators in town, or has there been any kind of collective community feedback from the other owner operators in town about this proposed bylaw change? I would like to know whether anybody else in town is for or against this bylaw change. And if anyone else among the gas station owner. Gas station owners and operators in town because I'm concerned about the impacts that it will have on operators who would prefer to keep the full service model. That's my question. Okay, so let's direct that to Mr. Nisi. Mr. Nisi, are you aware of any kind of coordination, communication, feedback from other gas station owners or operators in town about this article? Mr. Nisi, if you're able to unmute. I'm not aware of any objection. Mr. Nisi, your name and address please. Yeah, Robert Nisi again. I'm not aware of any objections from any of the existing gas station owners to what is being proposed. I did speak with a few myself and I know my client has done that as well. We have not talked with any members of an association with respect to that issue, but just again, conversations with individual gas station owners. So clarifying question, can you cite any other gas station owners or operators in town who share your enthusiasm for this change? Can you name any by name? Mr. Nisi? Well, when you say share my enthusiasm, my client's enthusiasm, I do know that some of the gas station operators want to continue full service. The whole point of this article is that they can continue to do that, but the minority fellow, my gas station owner, can in fact do something different. He can in fact have people pump their own gas. We're not asking that there will be a mandate throughout the town that people pump their own gasoline. Of course, that's why Mr. Benson's substitute motion is so strong. May I ask my second question, please? I go ahead, Ms. Benaron. Thank you. So I'm a little concerned about where this change could go if it goes to its potentially logical conclusion of having every gas station in town turn into a location where customer operated pumps are present. If some gas station owners who prefer full serve feel that they need to offer the self-serve option, there will have to be some kind of conversion. So what I wanted to ask is, how much construction and retrofitting actually needs to take place in order to convert full serve pumps to customer operated pumps? And if there does have to be construction and retrofitting, what can we understand the potential environmental impacts of that to be? Construction of any type might not be cost-neutral from an environmental perspective. So that's my second question. Thank you. I'm not an expert, can you see? Yeah, I'm not an expert on that, but I can say this, that we're not talking about construction. We're not talking about building. We're not talking about things of that nature, okay? We may be talking about adding a pump. And with respect to adding a pump, I would suggest to you that the environmental impact upon the neighborhood would not be any different than what it is now if you have one or two pumps at the site. So I think that that's the best answer I can give you on that. Okay, thank you very much. My concern is about removal of functional pumps and replacement of those pumps with new pumps for the sake of changing who is pumping the gas. I'm done, thank you very much. Thank you. So we're just about at 11 p.m. and we have had kind of sufficient questioning of kind of residency concerns, road registration that came up in the Q&A that I saw. And so I think this is a good time for us to consider adjourning, but before we, and we can get some questions answered about residency and contingencies and so on. And so before we do that, I want to have Mr. Heim, do you have a hand raised about? Mr. Moderator, if I may, just to try to limit the scope of this. An article can be submitted as long as it's signed by 12 residents. I'm looking at the petition itself. It appears to be signed, I'm sorry, 10 residents. It appears to be signed by 12 residents. Folks can submit articles without necessarily being a person that speaks on it primarily at town meeting. And from what I can tell, there appear to be 12 signatures of folks with Arlington addresses on this particular petition. So just in the interest of trying to limit the scope of what remains to be done on this article, there appear to be 12 folks with listed Arlington addresses on the specific petition. It's required to have 10, thank you. Understood, and so just to be clear, Mr. Heim, you're saying that the author of the petition does not need to be a resident or registered voter in Arlington, correct? What I'm saying, Mr. Moderator, thank you. Doug Heim, town council. What I'm saying is that it's a little bit of a semantic difference. It's a little bit of a semantic game in the sense that there are 12 people who signed this petition. I wouldn't ordinarily consider somebody who's not a resident to be the quote unquote petitioner. The petitioner are the people who signed the petition. I understand. If that makes sense. Thank you. It does, and I apologize for any confusion. I added to this by kind of setting a higher bar, and that was my misunderstanding. I apologize for that confusion. We are past 11 p.m., so we will have to resume this another time if we adjourn. But before we do that, do we have any notices of reconsideration that anyone wishes to give? Mr. Moderator. Yeah. Mr. Toskett, yes. Yes, thank you. I serve notice of reconsideration of articles 65, 71, and 72. Okay. I trust Ms. Brazil can note that. Do we have any other notices of reconsideration? There's a question to you and I, how do we submit them? You raise your hand and zoom, and I will call on you. And so Ms. Pennerin, you have a notice of reconsideration? Yes, Kristin Pennerin, precinct 20. Thank you. I'd like to file a notice of reconsideration on article 60 and 65. Thank you. Okay. And we have Mr. Gast. Peter Gast, precinct two. I'd like to file a notice of reconsideration on article 62. 62? Okay. Mr. Ruderman. Mr. Moderator, Michael Ruderman, precinct nine, notice of reconsideration on article 62. Okay. Let's see the windows coming off then. I believe it's Ms. Carlton Geeson. Yes, Betsy Carlton Geeson, precinct nine. And I would like to give notice of reconsideration for article 62. 62, it's a popular one. Mr. Rosenthal. Mr. Rosenthal, Mark Rosenthal, precinct 14. I would like to serve notice of reconsideration on article 72. 72? Okay. Mr. Fisher. As your Fisher, precinct four, notice of reconsideration on article 62. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? Any notices of reconsideration? Seeing no more, I would now entertain a motion to adjourn. Mr. Moderator. Yes, Mr. Foskett. Charles Foskett, precinct 10, chair of the finance committee and move that we adjourn. Do we have a second? Okay. We have a second for Ms. Brazil for Mr. Foskett's motion to adjourn. Any objections, raise your hand in Zoom. We have one objection. I don't know how late folks want to go, but we have two, three, wait a little bit. Okay. I see two hands. I declare that a majority vote to adjourn. So we are adjourned until, let's see, Monday, the, I don't have to look it up now. May 23rd, Mr. Moderator. I'm sorry? The 23rd. The 23rd, Monday, May 23rd. Thank you, Mr. Diggins. You're welcome. See you at 8 p.m. Monday, May 23rd.