I know of no other town meeting member who has publicly volunteered how they voted and why, so I do hope you folks appreciate the effort I put into sharing this information. I've said before that full disclosure should be the rule, not the exception, but I continue to be the exception.
As with the Spring Town Meeting, we'll start with the blanket vote. For those of you unfamiliar with the term, town meeting simply agrees with the printed recommendation in the warrant booklet. I won't review these articles since we could spend a lot of time going over them. Besides, the controversial issues - the ones worth discussing - are the ones that get held and voted individually. Articles 2, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24, 27, 29, 30, 34, 35, 37, 39, 40 passed on the blanket vote.
Now onto the good stuff...
Article 1 was a report from the High School Building Committee. This was a report; nothing that required a vote. It was, however, disappointing. We were basically told that the project had cost overruns in the millions and the town will be seeing a Prop 2-1/2 override in the spring to cover it.
Dan Shearer, town meeting's perennial budget hawk, asked about the regular reports town meeting was supposed to receive from the High School Building Committee. Their response? There have been updates in the Falmouth Enterprise. This is unacceptable. Congress doesn't get its reports from the Washington Post, so why should town meeting be getting its reports from the local paper?
Town meeting should have been advised about this cost overrun long ago so we could tell them to either make cuts (i.e., stick to the budget) or go ahead and we'd approve another override. Now the whole town is going to be put in the uncomfortable position of having to either approve an override, or watch the school budget go into a tailspin.
Article 3 created a Search and Rescue Corridor Overlay district. This bylaw prohibits structures taller than 100 feet within two areas of town so that the Coast Guard, whose aircraft use landmarks like roads and rivers to find their way during inclement weather, can fly along these corridors without worrying about colliding with towers or buildings. One town meeting member raised concerns that windmills wouldn't be allowed along Route 28 because of this, but the Coast Guard is already using these corridors (to which anyone in those areas - myself included - can attest). I voted "Aye"; it passed.
Article 4 would have modified the zoning for a Senior Care Retirement District. This bylaw already exists; the Planning Board was simply asking for changes that would allow for higher density.
In addition to the higher density, the developer could get an additional density "bonus" (at the discretion of the Planning Board), provided they a) include 15 percent of the units as affordable, b) include wastewater treatment to reduce nitrogen contributions to 9mg/l or less, or c) tie the development into a municipal wastewater system.
However, some town meeting members wanted a bit more for the density. An amendment was offered that would have required two of the three. This would have required the affordable units, since you're not going to have wastewater treatment if you're tied into the sewer system. I voted "aye" on this amendment; it failed.
Another amendment was offered, changing option "a" from 15 percent affordable units to 25 percent. I voted "aye"; it failed.
In both cases, I voted for the amendments because we need the affordable units. However, the Planning Board argued that it should be given discretion; that town meeting shouldn't tie its hands by including these amendments. Fair enough.
So, in the end, I voted "Aye". However, the article failed to get the required 2/3rd's vote to pass.
All that said; I'm glad it didn't pass.
Have you ever read something again and suddenly seen a part that you'd never really noticed before? I did that with this article. Item A(8) says, "The Planning Board shall not approve a SCRC unless tertiary treatment of wastewater is provided." Essentially, the density bonus was a given, so there could have been no affordable units. This will need to be addressed before the article comes back to town meeting.
I get a V8 bop for missing this.
Article 5 would have rezoned the Woodbriar Golf Course from Agricultural B to a Senior Care Retirement District. This was dependent upon the passage of Article 4, so when that failed, the proponents asked for indefinite postponement.
I voted "Aye"; it was indefinitely postponed.
Lest you get the wrong idea, I do believe that Atria should be allowed to expand. However, we need to tie up the loose ends first.
Article 6 rezoned the Nautilus Motel from Residential C to Business Redevelopment. The owner of this parcel was originally going to build a 40B here, but some folks convinced him to alter his plans, hence this article. The zoning change reduces the density of the development, includes 8-12 affordable housing units at another location in Woods Hole, and preserves the dome, an historic landmark. I voted "Aye"; it passed.
Article 7 amended the zoning to expand the North Falmouth Business District. Basically, a parcel adjacent to the North Falmouth Business District was rezoned, but with conditions to restrict its use to professional offices and medical clinics. I voted "Aye"; it passed.
Article 8 expanded the Zoning Board of Appeals to five (5) voting members. I've previously opined about this, so there's not much new to say. It also changes the term of the members from 3 to 5 years - something that is required by state law, but information that was not shared during the meetings running up to town meeting. I was a little perturbed by that.
However, that information didn't adversely affect the reasons for this article, so I voted "Aye"; it passed.
Article 9 would have amended the Coastal Pond Overlay District to tighten the allowable nitrogen discharges. During the Precinct 8/9 meeting, Sheryl Kozens, the proponent of the article, said she was going to ask for Indefinite Postponement because the specified concentration of 5mg/l can only be achieved by one technology. Basically, it was unenforceable.
However, the article was held. When got to the floor, an amendment was offered to change the 5mg/l limit to a more general guideline that the nitrogen concentrations be in accordance with the TMDL as set forth in the Massachusetts Estuaries Report. Once again, this was unenforceable.
I voted "No" on the amendment; it failed.
Frankly, I was disappointed with Ms. Kozens for saying one thing and doing another. After telling us that she was going to effectively withdraw the article, she put a town meeting member up to amend it. Yet in both its original and amended forms, it was unenforceable.
I voted "No" on the article; it failed.
Article 12 would have created an Affordable Housing Revolving Fund Account. Indefinite Postponement was recommended, but someone held it. When the article came to the floor, no one put a positive motion up, so Indefinite Postponement was the motion. I voted "Aye"; it was indefinitely postponed.
Article 13 was the capital budget. Falmouth has two town meetings every year. In the spring, we address the operating budget. In the fall, it's the capital budget. Both are the subject of much debate, but they usually pass just the same.
This time around, Joe Netto again raised the issue of how vehicles are purchased. Right now, the town looks in a book published by the state to get a rough estimate for the cost of a vehicle. Town meeting is asked to approve the funds; for example, $44,000 for a truck. If the funds are approved, bids are solicited for a truck.
However, as Joe pointed out, everyone knows that Falmouth has $44,000 for a truck, so what do you think the bids will be? Maybe $43,500 or $43,999?
Mr. Netto has repeatedly suggested that Falmouth use an alternative process called 30B (for the state law that details the process), which asks for bids first. When the town has a low bid, say $41,515.99 for a truck, town meeting approves the exact amount. Not only will we save a buck or two here or there, but it avoids the kind of leftovers that are created by the current process. When we buy a $44,000 truck for $43,500, there is $500 just lying around for a few years.
You see, in order to fund this year's capital budget, we took these leftovers - totalling almost $400,000 - from 18 different projects. Rather than leaving these scraps for the future - which creates confusion about where those funds came from and why they've been lying around - we should be budgeting only what we need when we need it.
So, I stood up and agreed with Mr. Netto, and asked what adverse effects would be felt if we didn't pass the budget. The town manager, Bob Whritenour, said Falmouth would suffer, but I took issue with his statement. The maintenance of roads might not get done, but suffer? Please. As an example, I noted that no one would suffer if we didn't get a new engine for a pump-out boat that isn't used all winter.
Two amendments were offered by other town meeting members. The first was to remove line 8, which would provide $22,000 for the design of a new door for the North Falmouth Fire station. I voted "No" on the amendment; it failed. This is a necessary expense, as the trucks and ambulances are bigger now than when this fire station was built 50 years ago; the mirrors are hitting the sides of the door opening. Because they are going to replace two single doors (which have a center post) with one double, there are structural issues that need to be reviewed. Hence the cost.
The other amendment would have reduced the number of police cruisers replaced from seven to five. Falmouth replaces all of its cruisers every three years on a rotating basis; seven every year. Most of these cars run 24 hours a day, so they get heavy use and need to be in good working order. During that close call with the storm that was originally Hurricane Noel, I watched a cruiser push a tree out of the road.
The idea behind the amendment was to extend the replacement period from three to four years. I voted "No" on the amendment; it failed. That said; we need to review this expense next year. I learned after the fact that the term "cruiser" includes the car used by the chief, which gets very little use compared to the patrol cars. Do we really need to replace this every three years? I don't think so.
My biggest beef with the budget is that they (the town administration) really don't give us much of an option. They aren't very forthcoming with the details, but if we don't pass the budget, things don't get done. We are between a rock and a hard place.
I was told that the Finance Committee holds public meetings, but just as with my Congressional example for Article 1, town meeting should be notified when the important meetings are held - like the meeting for the capital budget. We shouldn't have to rely on a local newspaper for our information; it should come directly from the horse's mouth.
In the end, I voted "Aye" on the budget; it passed.
Article 14 was to appropriate $4 million for a wind turbine. This is a project that has been a few years in the planning. The sewage treatment plant in West Falmouth uses huge amounts of electricity - I think the bill is almost $200,000 a year. The windmill would provide power for the plant, offsetting this electricity bill.
This is a revenue bond; the cost of the bond is paid for by the town's savings in its electricity bill. There will be no tax increase. In fact, there will be a monthly savings in Falmouth's electricity bill even after the bond payment is made. If a proposed state law passes (which would allow Falmouth to use any excess electricity to offset the bills for other town properties), the savings will be huge.
I voted "Aye"; it passed.
No comments:
Post a Comment