We’re back in session here to finish up seven items left over from Monday evening’s Town Meeting. When we left off, 1) my laptop battery had run out and 2) there was an amendment proposed to item #10, an omnibus spending item covering a variety of town functions, from equipment for the fire department to sidewalks and pavement, etc. The amendment concerned expenditures on police details (always a contentious issue). New moderator Mike Widmer got into a dust-up about the amendment, which he said was not submitted with sufficient notice to be considered Monday (but would be OK to be considered tonight). We ultimately moved to postpone consideration of the item until this evening, to allow it to be voted on.
7:52: Pat Brusche is giving an update on the status of the Wellington project, following Monday’s discussion of the roads override and the operating override (likely a year from now). The Wellington debt exclusion is the other big override that’s floating out there — and may come up for a vote as early as this autumn, so Pat wants to make sure town meeting members know the history and status. Status is: we’re waiting to hear from the state. There seems to be some confusion about state vs. Belmont estimates of future enrollment.
8:04pm: Rosemary BUrke is now reading her amendment for Article 10 — which would apply to $1,051,000 allocated for Pavement Management, saying that not more than 1% of those funds should be spent on police details. Rosemary is noting that 7%-9% of the costs of spending on road construction goes toward police details. Rosemary is noting that there is no state, local or union law calling for this practice. Phil Curtis is saying that Rosemary’s right, but that because this is longstanding custom, it does bear on our union contract with the BPD, and may end up being expensive for the town, should it go to arbitration. Basically Phil is saying that the town’s hands are tied on this one, and that we’re likely to lose out on road construction and on legal terms with our policeman’s union. The mood here seems skeptical…
A TM member is now asking how we can be bound by something that we’re not contractually obligated to provide.
Another question: regarding costs of flag men vs. police. Phil is saying that police make around $34 an hour, compared to $12 to $20 for a flag person. “Flag men are cheaper,” Phil says.
Another TM member — a labor lawyer — concurs that “past practice” is a tricky legal matter for anyone tackling this issue, and that any fix probably needs to happen further up the tree than Belmont (as in: Beacon Hill), but that doesn’t mean the town should walk away from the fight (in her mind).
Another question: What recourse does the town have? Phil: Long process for town to work through this contractual issue with the police union, at the end of which is arbitration. This practice is widespread and ingrained in the state. Phil thinks we’d likely lose on the merits.
8:18: Dan LeClerc is saying he supports the objectives and ideals of the folks proposing this. But that, practically, this will bring road construction to a screeching halt. Pavement management committee is doing good work, etc. etc. This fight could cripple our roads construction program. May have to start over on pavement management. Suggest starting a special committee to study the matter (audible snorfling here in the audience).
Martin Cohen Precinct 3: Urges us to reject it. Percentage cap isn’t appropriate. Some jobs require more cops than others. Fixed percentage cap not appropriate in this case. We’re voting on the amendment now…amendment defeated solidly (but by no means unanimously).
Article 10: Now voting on the full article. Sue Bass is pointing out a rather grievous spelling error (“some” vs. “sum”). Article 10 now voted on and approved, almost unanimously.
On now to Article 4 — this is the big pineapple, the main budget article, which includes line items funding a wide range of town services — schools, public safety, government, human services, culture and recreation, you name it.
8:30: Phil Curtis is now running through the town budget from a high level. School and Town budgets — good news: we’ve got $459 in free cash left over for next year! Woo hoo! School budget increased by 3.9%, town by 3.8% in FY09. Total town expenditures: $68,453,273. Phil’s observing that the town’s surplus of free cash in recent years has allowed us to avoid operating overrides in recent years. Phil attributes this to better tax collection, better ROI on investments and leaner operations on the town side. BUT, we expect that FY10’s budget won’t have as much free cash available. We’re expecting revenue increases of around $523,000, due mostly to prop tax increases, excise tax increases and increases in state aid. FY10 expenses are expected to increase by around 3.8% ($2.6m). School Dept. was able to generate internal savings of around $400k in FY09 that aren’t expected to recur in FY10. So that’s about $3m, plus unknowables like retirement contributions, state aid, health insurance and energy costs. Phil’s noting that recent changes in union contracts have reduced the rate of growth of health insurance to around 3.7% from estimated 7%, says the town is doing well on planning. Phil’s going to ask for town accountant to come up with non-override budget and begin conversation with town depts on a possible non-override budget. Wants to make people aware of what non-override budget will look like.
We’re now voting on various budget appropriations — general govt. (unanimously approved), public safety (unanimously approved).
Now voting about Belmont Public Schools – TM member Ellen Cushman is asking about funding via state grants for Full Day K – whether programs covered by state grants would be considered “level funding” in subsequent years. The answer , in short, is “no.” Should state grants disappear, those programs would be considered supplemental programs.
Don Mercier, Precinct 8 is talking — he’s griping about lawn mowing or something…why can’t the town and schools share grounds crews. (Not a bad idea.) Phil’s hemming and hawing. We’re discussing it. Let’s set up a study group! Patty Brusche is now talking about the Warrant Committee’s efforts to consolidate operations: management, IT, finance, etc. We’ve studied it for over a decade, but not much has happened. Not much savings in consolidating buildings, equipment, etc. But greatest return is in IT: subcommittee recommends that two areas be merged: school and town IT.
8:55pm: Question: is the town budgeting for relocating students should the Wellington become uninhabitable again this Winter, as it did last. Short answer from Patty: “no…so vote for the debt exclusion.”
Gerry Missal — being asked about transparency in school budget — whether outside sources of funding (such as for FDK, school books) appear on the budget. Gerry says “no,” notes that school budget is decreased by over $2.0m through application of funds (such as LABBB money) elsewhere in the school budget.
On to funding for Minuteman Regional School — TM member Anne Mahon is asking the TM to reject this item, sending a message that Minuteman costs are too high ($25,000 + per student). Phil is saying that turning down the Minuteman won’t accomplish anything this year. Another TM member is saying that Minuteman students are by a largely SPED students — which are more expensive. Minuteman: all leasehold improvements are on budget. Also — town took this up last year. Their teachers making less than our teachers.
Tom Younger, Town Administrators — you need 2/3 of the 16 Minuteman towns to reject the budget. Tom estimates that no more than four will do so.
TM member: BPD Chief is a Minuteman grad and that increase from last year is small — 1.5%. Minuteman superintendent Culcis now addressing TM and saying that he agrees: MM is too expensive. Most expensive/student in the state. Reason: too many teachers, not enough students. Enrollment being addressed. Three factors determine what assessment is: Belmont assessment is up 33% — student enrollment and percentage of enrollment your students represent. Belmont: 29% increase in Belmont student enrollment. Have 16 diff towns and 31 others send students on tuition basis.
TM question: how many Belmont students attend the school? Answer: 31.
TM member saying that vocational ed is more expensive than traditional ed — equipment costs, etc. etc. Also, you can take adult ed classes there at night. Paul Wolf: Precinct 1: saying that the idea is to send a message. TM votes almost unanimously to approve Minuteman budget.
ON now to funding for Public Services…
[There’s a long debate about trees, during which I skip out to Target in Watertown to pick up a cowboy hat ($12.99) for my daughter to wear at the Winn Brook kindergarten hoe-down tomorrow AM. It’s a bit large for her, but we’ll stuff some socks in it and make it work.]
10:00pm: I come back and we’re still on item 4 — a recap: public services, human services, culture and recreation all passed. We’re now talking about appropriating $5.2m for debt and interest on the debt. Folks are wondering about the town’s definition of “level service budget.” Selectman Firenze is suggesting that folks concerned about items (like Minuteman) earlier in the budget process, rather than…say…Wed night at 10:05 pm as we’re about to approve (or not) the budget. Mr. Widmer asks for a vote on the debt. It passes unanimously and, amazingly, we’re on to item 3: a poo-poo platter of balance transfers from various town funds to various programs (i.e. $1,048,000 from the Abatement and Exemption Surplus Account to Program 080,Assessors Services and Program 099, Insurance). You get the idea.
TM member Joel Samuels is asking what the town’s unfunded liability for employee healthcare is. Answer: $121m. Joel is noting that the $150,000 transfer to fund those liabilities isn’t gonna do much. We all groan. The article passes unanimously.
On to Article 22: Clarifying Amendment on lot setbacks — an “accessory structure” must be set back a minimum of 5 feet from lot lines and the principal structure. Wording in existing zoning language is built “to within five feet of the lot line,” which has caused some confusion, apparently. The article passes almost unanimously after some back and forth about the wording.
Now for Article 24: A change to town bylaws governing window signs. It appears some merchants are hanging big ‘ol signs a few inches behind their storefront windows, but claiming they’re not window signs (which are limited to 20% of the window surface). The town wants to change its bylaws to clarify that signs propped behind the glass are signs too.
TM member Nancy Marsh says that this is anti business and that the town has no business going 3’ into a store to regulate signage. Political signs in windows don’t count — it passes by a 2/3rd majority.
On to Article 23 — on a change to town bylaws to limit the number of banks in town, by requiring new banks to get a permit to set up shop in town. Warrant Committee is opposed by 11-1 with 1 abstaining. The planning board voted unanimously in favor of the article. Mr. Firenze said the Board of Selectment voted 2-1 unfavorably for this. Sammy Baghdadi from the Planning Board is detailing the new changes. In short: this affects deposit banking institutions, not other financial services companies. Existing banks and bank locations aren’t affected. ATMS or drive thrus aren’t prohibited, though that feature would be part of the special permit application. Currently, banks more than 5,000 sq ft. require special permit and residential neighborhoods are also off limits. So this is commercially zoned districts and banks < 5,000 sf. Sammy points out that we already have permitting laws like this for fast food restaurants!
UPDATE: Once again, my laptop ran out of juice. I’ll bring a power cord to future gatherings. Frankly, my failure to last night was really wishful thinking: that we’d be able to get through the remaining six or so items before the 2+ hours of battery life I had ran out. It wasn’t to be. In the end, TM voted to reject the bylaw change requiring new banks to get special permits. The change would have required a 2/3rds majority to pass. In the end, the vote (which was challenged and manually counted) had opponents beating out supporters of the change by a handful of votes.
I voted against this bylaw change. I did so not because I wouldn’t like to see more diversity of shops in our commercial districts — I would. Rather, I just think this is the kind of thing that you’ve got to let the market take care of. As Mr. Firenze pointed out, we’ve already had one bank leave Belmont Center in the last year and, presumably, others will follow if there are more banks than demand warrants. Creating a new zoning law with a 6 month review period (as the Planning Board suggested last night) just so a bank can open in town just seems wrong-headed.
As we moved on to the final item of the night, regarding a move to give the Board of Selectmen the right to negotiate various matters concerning a proposed redevelopment of Cushing Square, including the possible lease or sale of the public parking lot on Trapelo Rd. and the closing off of Horne Rd, things bogged down. While the neighborhood group that was opposed to elements of the development signaled they were ready to support the motion, the hour was getting late and preliminary debate showed all signs of becoming rather contested and — given the hour — nasty. Moderator Widmer suggested postponing discussion to Monday evening (Town Meeting Part III). It was so moved and a slim majority of the assembled voted to adjourn till the Monday meeting to take up the Cushing Square development issue and the proposed changes in more detail.