Brent's Town Meeting Votes - Article 1

Report of the Board of Selectmen
November Town Meeting
November 15, 2010

Slide 1: Introduction
Thank you Mr. Moderator. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. As chairman of the Board of Selectmen, it is my honor and pleasure to present to you this report from the Board.

We will review three major topics: Actions the Board has taken since the April town meeting, our budget policy statement and the major courses of action the Board is recommending at this town meeting.

Slide 2: Actions of the Board – Concerns
Just six months ago, there were concerns throughout town about the Board's ability to work together and to get things done. We recognized this, and we addressed it. This is perhaps a simplistic equation, but it highlights the major steps we took.

On the recommendation of then-chair Mary Pat Flynn, the Board, in June, attended a Leadership Conference sponsored by the Massachusetts' Selectmen's Association.

At our annual retreat in July, we put our time and energy into the Leadership and Public Trust section of the five-year strategic plan.

In August, we established the Board's first ever Code of Conduct.

We have actively worked to resolve our differences, and to work together, better. This is not to say that we agree on everything. We discuss and debate issues – sometimes vehemently – but the Board has moved past the strife that marked prior years. We may not always agree – indeed, many of things the Board is supporting at this town meeting were not unanimous decisions – but we now agree to disagree, and to support the decision of the Board, whatever that decision may be.

And for that, I would like to thank the members of the Board for their efforts. It has been a pleasure working with you.

Finally, as you all know, our now-former town manager Robert Whritenour tendered his resignation this past week, and the Board accepted it. We thank Mr. Whritenour for his years of service to our community, and we wish him well in his future endeavors.

As per Section C5-13.B. of the town charter, the Board has confirmed the appointment of Assistant Town Manager Heather Harper as Acting Town Manager, and we thank her for stepping up into this role.

Slide 3: Actions of the Board – Results
The result of these changes has been most visible in the way the Board conducts its business. We no longer meet for the sake of meeting. We devote one meeting per month to a discussion – a workshop – of a major issue. The budget, waste – both solid waste and wastewater – and coastal resources have been addressed thus far. Joint meetings and policy discussions have become regular items on our agendas, and we have even gone so far as to review, update, and – where needed – retire old policies.

In short, we are putting our time and attention on the big picture items, and moving away from the minutia.

Slide 4: §C8-3.C. - FY12 Budget Policy
At one of the recent precinct meetings, a town meeting representative asked, “What's the plan?”

How is the town going to continue to provide services – police and fire, snow plowing and water, inspections and education – in the face of a slow economy, continued cuts in state aid, and rising expenses?

Well, there is no white knight.

We will manage this by addressing the shortfalls, improving the financial stability of the town, and becoming more efficient in the delivery of services.

You'll notice as we go through the next several slides that there are common, overlapping themes in our policy.

Slide 5: FY12 Budget Policy – Shortfalls
The state has reduced Chapter 70 school funding. They've slashed the PILOT payments for the 2400 acres of state-owned land in Falmouth. They've eliminated regional library funding. As you can see from this graph – which shows our state revenues over the past six years – we can't count on the state.

At the local level, receipts of local taxes such as excise taxes have also fallen.

Although Falmouth has not suffered such drastic cuts as some communities in the Commonwealth, these cuts have, nevertheless, created budget shortfalls. The budget policy addresses these shortfalls in three ways:

The first is to limit growth. There is no plan to ask for a Proposition 2 ½ override. In fact, budget growth for Fiscal Year 2012 is limited to 1.5 percent over Fiscal Year 2011. Although it might seem like an increase, 1.5 percent is hardly enough to keep up with our expenses. For example, this year, we must provide $250k to meet the state-mandated contributions to the town's retirement fund, and – if nothing changes - $800k for health insurance premium increases.

The second piece is to begin costing of services. This policy requires program budgeting, which is the first step in that process. Program budgeting looks at the cost of individual programs, providing us with a yardstick by which we can determine if any program is receiving too much, or too little, funding.

Finally, we seek to add additional sources of local revenue. Very simply, the less dependent we are on the whims of the state, the better.

Slide 6: FY12 Budget Policy – Stability
Earlier this year, our outside auditor presented the Board with some rather sobering facts. In 2003, Falmouth had more free cash than 95 percent of the communities in Massachusetts. At the end of Fiscal Year 2010, we had just $32k. At around the same time, one of the major bond rating agencies reduced Falmouth's bond rating. It wasn't much, but it was enough to get our attention.

A strong bond rating and an adequate safety net are not optional. We must maintain our ability to borrow at reasonable rates, and have rainy day funds available for emergencies.

In order to improve Falmouth's fiscal stability, we recommend new local options taxes. However, our policy requires that any new revenues will NOT be immediately factored into the operating budget. A minimum of 25 percent of new revenues shall be allocated each to the Stabilization Fund, and for Capital Expenses.

Slide 7: FY12 Budget Policy – Efficiency
It is not enough to ask for new taxes. We must also develop more efficient ways of doing business, and our policy seeks to improve efficiency in number of ways.

The first is health insurance. There are new, less expensive health insurance plans available to our employees, but these plans must be adopted by the unions. The Board encourages this. These plans would save town employees hundreds of dollars in premiums annually, and give them more control over how they spend their health care dollars. If adopted by every union, the aforementioned $800k increase in premiums would be unnecessary.

As previously noted, this policy requires program budgeting so that we can fully understand the cost of town services. Only when we know the cost can we determine if there is waste, or a cheaper alternative.

Which brings us to the last bullet. The Board is encouraging the ongoing exploration of regionalization, consolidation, outsourcing, and/or privatization of town services. For example, the town and the schools both have human resources, finance, library and janitorial services. Towns such as Plymouth and Barnstable have saved hundreds of thousands of dollars by merging these duplicate departments. Falmouth could too.

Slide 8: Major Courses of Action
Finally, I would like to draw your attention to the warrant.

Each of these articles mentioned is recommended by the Board as part of a larger plan. For example, the affordable housing fund dovetails into the town's housing production plan. It will help facilitate the production of affordable housing so that we may meet the state-mandated 10 percent.

There is direction here.

Slide 9: Report of the Board of Selectmen
Just a few weeks ago, one town meeting representative told me, “I feel like this Board is listening to us.” It was a wonderful compliment.

There is perhaps no better example of this than Articles 25 and 26. In years past, petitioner's articles were the red-headed step child of the warrant. Prior Boards would place them at the end, and recommend only Indefinite Postponement based on an unwritten policy.

This time, the Board specifically placed these articles in the middle, listened carefully to the petitioner's arguments, and made recommendations based on the facts, not unwritten policy.

In summary, we are working together, on major issues, and are listening to you. We hear your concerns, and we are making every effort to address them.

That should give you something to smile about.

Mr. Moderator that concludes my presentation. I would be happy to take questions.

Brent's Town Meeting votes - Monday, April 5

My apologies...I am a little tardy with this post.

One of the reasons why this wasn't done sooner is because there is so much to cover. With that in mind, I'm going to break it down into bite-sized pieces.

As in the past, we'll cover only those articles which involved any discussion. Those articles which passed on a voice vote - in this case, 3-7, 19, 20, 22 and 24 - won't be discussed. I voted "aye" for these; all passed.

ARTICLE 1 was to elect Town Officers, i.e., members of the Finance Committee. Nominated by the Moderator, I voted "aye" and the vote to appoint them was unanimous.

ARTICLE 2 was to hear reports from Committees and Town Officers. We heard several reports from several committees, including the newly formed Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Review Committee and the High School Building Committee. The former had just been created, so there wasn't much to report, and with the high school project under control, there wasn't much for the latter to report. I voted "aye" to accept the reports; the article passed unanimously.

ARTICLE 8 was to vote to authorize continued use of the following Revolving Funds previously established by Town Meeting votes:
a.Code of Falmouth Revolving Fund;
b.Falmouth Recreation Department Revolving Fund;
c.Emerald House Revolving Fund;
d.Shellfish Propagation Revolving Fund;
e.Falmouth Historical Commission Revolving Fund;
This one also passed without discussion, requiring only some changes to the language (exchanging the word "may" for the word "shall" in several lines). Again, I voted "aye" and it passed unanimously.

ARTICLE 9 was another crack at what had been Article 10 during the fall town meeting. At issue are a number of properties in Falmouth which have multiple dwellings on one lot. They are "pre-existing, non-conforming" and until last year any such dwellings which had been inhabited since 1959 were legal. However, because of a recent lawsuit, a court ruled that such dwellings were illegal - period. More than 200 such properties in Falmouth became illegal overnight, with a whole host of other issues with mortgages, titles, taxes and such.

The Zoning Board of Appeals had asked town meeting to correct this last fall, but that article failed in part because of too many unanswered questions. This time around, the ZBA had the support of the Planning Board, and specific language that should have addressed any concerns.

It did not, however, satifsy Ed DeWitt, the individual who had filed the suit in question. He again raised a number of concerns and suggested also that this article wasn't necessary, as homeowners were protected as long as they had documentation in the form of occupancy or building permits.

That resonated with me, so I stood up and spoke - in favor of the article.

Not long ago, I had asked for a copy of a town contract. This contract was several inches thick and less than a decade old, yet we managed to find only one copy. That copy was locked in a cabinet that was itself hidden in a corner of town hall and for which no key could be found. If it was this hard to find something so recent, I argued, how would a homeowner hope to find a one-page occupany permit that was 50 years old?

I voted "aye", and the article passed easily.

Afterwards I learned that there had been a fire in town hall many years ago, and many of the old records - occupancy permits, building permits, and the like - were destroyed. It was a good thing that the article passed.

ARTICLE 10 and 11 were attempts rezone a Residential B parcel at 28 Nathan Ellis Highway (Route 151) to either a B-2 or B-3 Business District (respectively). The owner has tried to get this zoning change through town meeting three times now. He has failed every time.

I feel for the current owner, but he made some fatal errors:

1) You should never buy a property without knowing the history of the area. You need to know why the land is zoned that way and what objections the town might have to changing the zoning.

2) You should never develop and market a property as commercial when it is not zoned as such. This was rather presumptuous, and it has upset many people who feel as though you are openly defying Falmouth.

3) You should never threaten to come back over and over again until you get your way. If this isn't the definition of childish behavior, I don't know what is.

I voted "no" on these two articles; they failed.

ARTICLE 12 was to amend the Classification Plan for the Human Services Department, combining two part-time positions into one full time. When the Board of Selectmen was discussing our recommendation for this article, I had asked about the cost of combining two part-time positions into one. Specifically, full-time employees are eligible for insurance and benefits, whereas part-timers are not. However, it so happens that - in Falmouth, at least - working for 20 hours qualifies as full-time and you get health insurance. So, there was no overall change in the cost.

I voted "aye"; it passed on a voice vote.

Stay tuned for the rest of my town meeting votes...

Brent's Fall Town Meeting Votes

Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 passed on the blanket vote, meaning that town meeting agrees with the recommendation in the warrant booklet.

Article 1 was to hear and accept reports. This time around, we had three reports from 1) the Historical Commission about Falmouth's designation as a Preserve America community, 2) the High School Building Committee about progress on the high school renovation and, 3) the Finance Committee about the financial outlook. I voted "aye" to accept the reports; the article passed.

Article 2 was last year's unpaid bills. The last minute addition of $48 for Falmouth Printing gave us a total of $25,797.87. I voted "aye"; it passed.

Article 6 would have added the definition of a boarder to our bylaws; there currently isn't any definition. During the precinct meetings there was some speculation that this article was about a home-based business in the Maravista neighborhood, but this was just a definition. By right, a homeowner can take in as many as four boarders. For any number over that, a permit is needed, but there is nothing in our bylaws which define a boarder.

Falmouth resident Craig Martin spoke against the article, raising questions about the consistency of our bylaws with respect to boarders. His concerns seemed more related to the existing bylaws than this definition, but it was apparently enough to convince town meeting to vote against the article. I voted "aye" but on a standing count of 84-114, it failed.

Article 10 generated a lot of discussion at some precinct meetings, which continued during town meeting.

Prior to 1959 it was possible to have two dwellings - two homes - on one piece of land. In 1959, the town voted to prohibit this, but existing properties were grandfathered. That is, until recently, when a land court decision declared Section 240-66D of our bylaws (which grandfathered these properties) null and void.

Article 10 would have made these properties prexisting, nonconforming, which is exactly what they are. However, in spite of an excellent presentation by ZBA Chair Matt McNamara, most town meeting representatives, myself included, were not satisfied with the lack of information. Many questions and concerns were raised, but there were few clear answers - if any - from the very town employees who should have had those answers.

Part of problem was the absence of specific language (currently in 240-66D) which expressly prohibits the conversion of seasonal units into year-round units. Precinct 2 representative Richard Latimer proposed a number changes - including the reintroduction of this particular language - via an amendment, but it was too complex to follow. I voted "no" on the amendment; it failed.

Given that the land court decision may have made between 100 and 200 properties illegal, we will undoubtedly be revisiting this decision in the spring. On a count of 90-110, this article failed. I voted "no".

An addendum...on Tuesday night, Precinct 2 representative Jim Fox asked for reconsideration of this article, noting that we did not get all of the answers. I voted "aye" for the reconsideration; we needed those answers. Unfortunately, reconsideration failed.

Article 12 was yet another proposal to rezone the 31+ acre CLSV parcel on Route 151. In prior years, town meeting had seen articles which attempted to rezone the entire parcel, or create a senior care retirement district bylaw - when we already had one. This year, CLSV received the blessing of the Planning Board by asking to rezone only seven acres, and providing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) which detailed an agreement with Salmon Health and Retirement, an operator of senior care centers.

Given that this dealt with Route 151, concerns were raised about traffic. It's a reasonable concern, but we must put this into context. The current zoning would allow for approximately 15 homes. If this facility generates no more traffic than 15 homes, traffic is a mute point. As my wife pointed out during the debate, during the past two years, my father has lived in two such facilities. It's only anecdotal evidence, but my own experience is that these kinds of facilities generate little traffic. Residents rarely have cars and the support staff required is either minimal, or comes and goes on regular shifts. My opinion? Traffic won't be an issue, and if it is, a stoplight could be required as a condition of the permit.

Another objection was the loss of agriculturally zoned land. However, Precinct 8 representative Jude Wilbur spoke in favor of this plan, noting that when he was a member of the Planning Board, they tried - and failed - to get the town to create agricultural-only zoning. Just because land is zoned for agriculture, doesn't mean that it can or will be used for agriculture.

Much of the rest of the debate centered around the need for this kind of facility, and (again) from experience I believe it is needed. However, I wanted some assurance that we were going to get a senior care retirement facility and not a restaurant. I asked why CLSV had not gone further in the permitting process before asking for the rezoning. Was the rezoning really necessary; could they not get a special permit? Our town planner answered that a special permit wasn't possible; it had to be zoned for this.

Some folks might have thought my choice of words offensive - I said that I was concerned about the sincerity of the request to rezone the parcel - and in hindsight I probably could have phrased it differenetly. I do apologize if anyone was offended, but I'm just looking out for my constituents.

I would like to have seen the MOU myself, but was willing to accept the word of the Planning Board. I voted "aye"; it passed, 163-37.

Article 15 was to lease the old North Falmouth Fire Station for a period of ten years or more. Since 1979 this building has been leased and maintained by the North Falmouth Village Association. One town meeting representative questioned why the town was in the real estate business and suggested that we should be selling the building instead of leasing it.

While I agree with the logic, this was not the time to develop such a policy. The selectmen should ask the town manager to do a thorough inventory of town properties and review what can be sold. Not only could this raise revenue, it would return these properties to the tax rolls (assuming they are not purchased by a non-profit) and eliminate any cost of maintaining them.

I voted "aye"; it passed.

An aside...At this point the moderator made an editorial comment about the need for board and committee members to be present at precinct meetings and prepared to answer questions. Apparently some felt that board and committee members were inadequately prepared to address the issues raised. Having been at several precinct meetings myself, I concur with this observation. We need to do a better job.

For that matter, the selectmen need to implement a policy prohibiting boards and committees from meeting one or two weeks before town meeting. This would ensure that board and committee members are available to attend the precinct meetings.

Articles 16 though 19 dealt with the town's new wind turbine. Before these articles, any revenue the town received (such as renewable energy credits) would go directly into the general fund. That created the potential for these funds to be used for something other than the debt, operations and/or maintenance of the turbine.

Article 16 created a stabilization account to hold these funds until we need them. Article 17 put the bulk of the money we've received to date ($953,623.00) into this fund, leaving $57,000 in the general fund to pay this year's debt. Article 18 asked the legislature to allow us to create a special account for the turbine revenues; once approved, this will replace the stabilization fund, which is just a temporary measure. Finally, Article 19 authorized the $57,000 payment from the general fund to the debt.

I voted "aye" on all; all passed.

Article 21 was this year's capital budget. As the town's reserves dwindle, more effort is being put towards funding capital expenses (tangible projects which have a useful life of 5 years or more and a cost of $25,000 or more) via overrides. For example, last year the town approved the purchase of new fire trucks as a capital exclusion (in this case, a 10-year tax override).

Town meeting saw a presentation from our town manager in which he proposed annual overrides to fund various projects. Planned for the spring is a $1.15 million capital exclusion to fund water quality, coastal drainage, facilities maintenance, coastal structures, public safety and communication and technology projects.

One such project is the replacement of police cruisers, a $110,021 expense which was cut from this budget. Police Chief Riello noted that they are downsizing the administrative fleet (i.e., smaller cars) to help reduce the operations expense, but the cruisers will need to be replaced as they accumulate 100,000 miles a year.

Also removed from this budget was $7,000 for monitoring the Bourne's Pond inlet. This was a condition the conservation commission had placed on the Menhaunant Beach nourishment project. It begs the question; Is the town exempt from adhering to these conditions? It's possible that this will be funded in the spring, but I'm looking into this.

This year's capital budget was pretty slim, just $191,227. I voted "aye"; it passed.

Article 22 would have approved $2.9 million for bulkhead repairs and a 50 percent expansion of the town marina. It was originally planned to use a 15-year bond to fund this construction, to be paid off using the additional revenue from the expanded marina. However, it was learned that state law limits bonds on marina projects to 10 years, which made this financially impossible.

The recommendation was now indefinite postponement, so "yes" meant "no". I voted "aye"; the article was indefinitely postponed.

Article 23 is an regular article which moves money from the general fund to the school department. These funds are reimbursements from the federal government for Medicaid-related expenses in the schools.

Some folks noted that the reimbursements (something around $250,000) were greater than the amount being moved (just $50,000); they questioned whether this was legal, whether the town was denying the schools mandated money. However, several indivdiuals, including members of the school board, noted that there was nothing illegal here. As I understood it, although this was a separate, specific article, the school department was still getting more than the reimbursed amount via the annual budget.

Some folks wanted to offer amendments to add to the $50,000, but with virtually no money left in the general fund, these didn't get off the ground.

I voted "aye"; the article passed.

Article 31 generated more discussion than some expected. A bylaw which would ban smoking on our beaches, some folks raised concerns about making this legal activity illegal, and thereby treating smokers like second-class citizens.

Few folks know that I enjoy a pipe from time to time. Growing up, my dad smoked a pipe regularly, and I'd always enjoyed the smell of pipe tobacco. There have been occasions when I've found myself lamenting the lack of a place to smoke, but I accept that what I might enjoy, others might not. For example, my wife can't tolerate the smoke, so I've never smoked in our house or cars. Like light or sound, smoke is difficult to contain. In crowded situations - such as a beach in the summer - we have to be respectful of others. Unfortunately, not every smoker is.

The other half of this equation are the cigarette butts. These are not biodegradable, and as one town meeting representative noted, some folks don't think twice about turning our beaches into ash trays.

Smoking is not illegal, so banning it seems oppressive, but when we cannot practice common courtesy and common sense, what else can we do? Suggestions included smoking sections (difficult to manage, given the wind) and identifying specific beaches were smoking would be allowed. This isn't a bad idea, given that some of our beaches are underutilitzed.

I voted "aye"; on a standing count of 128 to 60, it passed.

Article 32 reduced the membership of the Historical Commission from 7 to 5. Although some concerns were raised about concentrating authority in fewer appointed individuals, the hard, cold reality is that there simply are not enough volunteers for the job.

Between 1979 and 2002, the commission operated with five members. This number was raised to seven in 2002, but since 2006 the commission has been effectively a 5-member board. This creates a quorum problem, since you must have a majority to do business. Right now there are just four members of this 7-member board, so if somebody misses a meeting, there can be no meeting.

I voted "aye"; on a standing count of 125-60, it passed.

A few folks remarked to me that those 60 people who opposed the reduction in membership should stop by town hall and take out applications.

Article 33 was the housekeeping article. In total, town meeting voted to spend $3,298,149.87. I voted "aye"; it passed.

September Special Town Meeting - My Votes

Article 1 was to raise money for the Fiscal Year 2009 (FY'09) deficit. A total of $1,058,977.35 had to be transferred from the Stabilization Fund ($500,000), Free Cash ($300,000), and an assortment of unspent funds from other accounts (such as prior year capital budgets).

Kudos to Precinct 4 representative Linda Tobey, who questioned some of the cuts in light of the fact that there was still $14,000 in out of state travel in the budget.

Precinct 3 representative Robert Donahue expressed his frustration over the lack of information - a frustration felt by the entire body - to those of us on the stage, "You guys have all tied our hands behind our backs."

I voted "aye"; in spite of the frustration, the article passed unanimously. After all, we had no other choice.

Article 2 would have increased the local meals tax by 0.75 percent, from 6.25 percent to 7 percent. The motion on the floor was for indefinite postponement. I voted "aye"; indefinite postponement passed without discussion.

Article 3 would have increased the local room occupancy tax by 2 percent, from 9.7 percent to 11.7 percent. Although the selectmen recommended indefinite postponement, Precinct 8 representative Ed Schmitt put a positive motion on the floor. He made such an eloquent argument in favor of increasing the tax that many town meeting representatives - myself included - broke into applause.

However, the arguments against increasing this tax at this time were more persuasive than those in favor of it. Precinct 8 representative (and Falmouth Chamber of Commerce President) Jay Zavala noted that increasing any taxes should be the last resort. Precinct 4 representative Linda Davis reminded us that a tax increase is just a, "quick fix for fundamental problems." She individually challenged the selectmen to get started on those problems and report to town meeting in the spring.

I spoke up too, reminding town meeting that if we increase taxes now there will be no incentive to control our costs, "You don't go on a diet by eating more."

I voted "no"; it failed.

Article 4 was to address the anticipated shortfalls in the FY'10 budget. Cuts totaling $2,317,127.00 needed to be made. This article generated considerable discussion, including five proposed amendments.

Precinct 9 representative Joe Netto earns kudos for grabbing the torch I had lit back in the spring, proposing to cut the selectmen/administrator out of state travel line item, which had already been cut by $2,000. After some discussion, his amendment to cut it by another $3,600 passed, 114 to 74. I voted "aye" (of course).

While she offered no amendment, Precinct 6 representative Deborah Siegal gets kudos for questioning $14,000 given to the Falmouth Chamber of Commerce. Several years ago, I raised objections to giving the Chamber - a private, member-funded organization - public funds. There is no doubt that the Chamber benefits the town, something that was reinforced when Mr. Zavala was good enough to allow me to partipate in the Chamber's "Celebrity Sundays" event. The good the Chamber does for Falmouth is tempered by the fact that no other business or business organization gets a line item in our budget. The Devil's in the details, and this is one of the sacred cows that needs to go.

Precinct 9 representative Rebecca Putnam raised concerns about the $25,000 cut to the police department's drug investigation expenses. Police chief Anthony Riello allayed some of those concerns by noting that there is $60,000 in forfeiture money (money seized during drug raids) for this purpose, so Ms. Putnam's suggested amendment to restore $5,600 failed.

With budget in hand, Precinct 9 representative Carol Murphy questioned why the personnel office had $8,000 in advertising expenses if we had a hiring freeze in place. Unsatisfied with the explanations she received, her proposed amendment to cut $5,000 from the personnel office failed.

There is out of state travel under selectmen/administrator, police, fire and the DPW. As we got to each of these budgets, Mr. Netto stood up and asked for a justification of the expense. The police and fire chiefs noted that for their departments this travel is public safety training for officers and firefighters. Precinct 4 representative and Fire Chief Paul Brodeur added, "the chief stays in town where he belongs."

This resonated. Precinct 1 representative Richard Latimer noted that we need to focus the travel on what is necessary and will benefit the town, not just someone's resume. "No junkets," he said later.

Of course, Mr. Netto's persistent questioning did start to annoy some people. Precinct 6 representative Robert Antonucci noted, "If this was the April meeting we could discuss and debate every line item." However, Precinct 9 representative Richard Goulart seemed to reflect the opposite opinion when he said, "we need more detail than just 'other expenses'."

Mr. Netto made one last pitch, this time arguing to put the $3,600 cut from out of state travel toward the shellfish propagation. He argued that this put food on the table for many Falmouth residents. Precinct 4 representative Grace O'Gorman disagreed, noting that "we're robbing Peter to pay Paul." The amendment failed.

Precinct 8 representative Leslie Lichtenstein gets kudos for her amendment to put the $3,600 cut from out of state travel into the stabilitzation (i.e., rainy day) fund. I voted "aye"; it earned the required 2/3rds and passed.

For the article, I voted "aye"; it passed unanimously.

Article 5 was a petitioner's article by Marc Finneran (and others) requesting an independent audit of the Department of Public Works.

Taking aim at his detractors, Mr. Finneran pointed out that getting his article on the warrant for this town meeting was not easy. He had to collect 100 signatures in less than 48 hours; he got 138 (137 were verified). He went on to remind us that audits are common practice in the private sector; that an audit of a $30 million division is good business practice.

Unfortunately, some of those detractors repeatedly raised points of order where none existed. While trying to draw an analogy with the high school, Mr. Finneran was unfairly interrupted. Unfortunately, the tactic worked, and he moved on to his next slide.

Reminding us of the Ballymeade water problems heard at the Monday night selectmen's meeting, Mr. Finneran noted that our 5-year old, $5 million water tower is 35 feet too short. If we cannot properly manage a $5 million project, he said, how will this department manage a $500 million sewer project?

Audits are always a good idea, and even the DPW - speaking through acting Town Engineer Peter McConarty - said it had no objections. However, there was no money in the budget for this request. I voted "no"; it failed.

Article 6 was the housekeeping article. I voted "aye"; it passed.

Brent's Town Meeting votes - Tuesday & Summary

This post wraps up my town meeting votes. So that you have a handy reference, here are the prior links to my votes:

Many of the articles were covered under a blanket vote; you'll find these and articles 1-17 here.

Article 18 came in two parts. Here, and here.

Special Articles 1-17

Special Article 9 - Waquoit Congregational Church

Special Article 16 - Penalties for consuming marijuana in public

Article 20 appropriated $530,534 in CPA funds for continued historic restoration of the School Administration Building. My notes don't say anything about who held this or why, but I voted "aye"; it passed.

Article 30 amended the home rule charter to allow Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) members to serve a maximum of two, 5-year terms. When the ZBA was changed from a three member board to a five member board, the terms changed from three to five years. This didn't fit neatly into the three, 3-year term limit (nine years total) for appointees - a member of the ZBA could only serve one 5-year term. Hence the change.

Precinct 6 representative Dan Shearer proposed an amendment to allow retiring incumbents to be reappointed if there were no other applicants for a position. This generated a lot of discussion - mostly opposition. Several folks suggested that it be suggested to the Charter Review Committee first, and I noted that Selectman Mary Pat Flynn and I were reviewing the selectmen's oversight of appointees and that this will be part of that discussion. I voted "no" on the amendment; it failed.

I voted "aye" on the article; it passed.

Article 31 amended Chapter 654 of the Acts of 1975 which created the Historic Districts Commission (HDC). In the past, the only recourse the HDC had if a property owner violated the bylaws was to take that person to court. This change allows the HDC to require that a bond be posted to ensure that the project is completed as permitted, and makes the building commissioner the enforcement agent.

I voted "aye"; it passed.

Article 32 was already discussed.

Article 34 was a petitioner's article (by Precinct 8 representative Margo Finnell) to add a table to the warrant showing all current overrides, debt exclusions and capital exclusions. The recommendation was indefinite postponement. Assessor David Bailey had previously briefed the selectmen that he could do this, but there is more information than can be printed on one page. Margo held the article so that Mr. Bailey could share the progress thus far, which includes an online tax tool.

Although Margo put a positive motion on the floor, this proposal is still brewing and a final product is expected at the fall town meeting. The recommendation was to vote "no"; I did so with the rest of town meeting and it failed as expected.

Article 35 was the housekeeping article. This time around, I just voted "aye"; it passed.

So, how did your other selectmen and town meeting representatives vote?

Brent's Special Town Meeting votes

Because the Special warrant was short (17 articles), Moderator David Vieira didn't do a blanket vote, but went over each article individually.

Article 1 was to adjust our Fiscal Year 2009 operating budget to accommodate the $168,139 reduction in state aid. I voted "aye"; it passed.

Article 2 transferred $127,600 from various accounts to fund expenses at the sewer plant. Between overtime, chemicals to treat the water, and electricity, the expenses exceeded the original budget. I voted "aye"; it passed.

An aside, I hope that we (i.e., the Board of Selectmen) will vote to increase sewer rates in the fall so that we can keep pace with expenses when the New Silver Beach plant comes online.

Article 3 was to transfer $30,000 to Veterans Ordinary Benefits. More vets have become eligible for benefits, hence the increased expenses. I voted "aye"; it passed.

Article 4 was for funding group health insurance benefits. I voted "aye"; it passed.

Article 5 transferred $30,000 from various line items to cover increased unemployment insurance expenses. I voted "aye"; it passed.

Article 6 transferred $55,000 to cover medical expenses (for the fire and police departments) which are not already covered by insurance. These folks put their lives on the line for us, so I voted "aye"; it passed.

Article 7 moved $535 from the FY2007 Overlay Reserve Account to the FY1998 Overlay Reserve Account. These funds cover tax abatements. I voted "aye"; it passed.

Article 8 was to fund property valuation, but the bids to do the work haven't been completed yet. I voted with the rest of town meeting to indefinitely postpone this.

We've already discussed Article 9.

Article 10 appropriated $20,000 from the Community Preservation Fund Community Housing Reserve to begin funding the Housing Production Plan. I voted "aye"; it passed.

Article 11 approved the purchase of a 6.832 acre parcel that fronts Pond 14 on the Coonamessett River. The grand total was $935,000, but $135,000 will come from the 300 Committee, $100,000 will come from the Community Preservation Fund Open Space Reserve, $284,000 from the Community Preservation Fund Undesignated Fund Balance, $16,000 from open space mitigation funds, and $400,000 from a state LAND (Self-Help) grant.

I like these kinds of purchases - where everyone chips in - so I voted "aye"; it passed.

Article 12 created a revolving fund account for the Historical Commission, funded by proceeds from the sale of the "Book of Falmouth." I voted "aye"; it passed.

Article 13 asked town meeting to accept MGL Ch 32B, S 18 which requires that all retirees who are enrolled in Medicare Part A also enroll in a Medicate supplemental plan. This helps limit the town's expenses for retirees. I voted "aye"; it passed.

Article 14 would have extended the room tax to timeshares and house rentals.

I'm happy to say that I was the lone dissenting vote when the board initially decided to put this article on the warrant.

This article generated enough controversy to lead everyone to believe that it would be a rather heated debate. Instead, shortly before town meeting, I was told that we (the selectmen) would be voting for a new recommendation: indefinite postponement.

From what I could tell, there were so many questions and so much opposition that the article was defeated even before town meeting began. Selectman Mary Pat Flynn announced - to a round of applause from town meeting - that the board had reconsidered its positive recommendation. After her short presentation, I voted with the rest of town meeting to indefinitely postpone this.

Article 15 authorized the town to join the Cape & Vineyard Electric Cooperative.

Cape Cod is considered a rural county, the Cape & Vineyard Electric Cooperative is a rural electric cooperative, and rural electric cooperatives have their roots back 100+ years, when the federal government was trying to encourage the electrification of sparsely populated rural areas.

A rural electric cooperative allows local municipalities to work together to build electrical generation facilities. Way back when, it might have been a coal-fired plant. These days, we're looking to wind, solar and other zero-emission technologies in order to reduce, if not eliminate, the cost of the electricity used to run our town.

I voted "aye"; it passed.

We've already discussed Article 16.

Article 17 was the housekeeping article. I voted "aye"; it passed.

And then I voted "no"; I think I was the lone dissenting vote.

Don't ask me why I did this. The only explanation I can officer is that it was late, and I was tired and on autopilot. "No" was an automatic response, and I was as surprised as everyone else that I said it.

It was good for a few laughs, if nothing else.

Brent's Town Meeting votes - Monday

We've already reviewed my votes for a few articles; we'll cover a big chunk of Monday's votes here in this post.

Articles 3 through 10, 13 through 15, 19, 21 through 29, and 33 passed on the blanket vote. We'll note here that we had to reconsider Article 6. In a moment of comic levity, Town Clerk Mike Palmer was the lone vote against reconsideration; we soon learned why...it had a typo. The Town Clerk's salary was listed in the warrant as $71,899, but it was supposed to be $69,735.

Article 1 was to accept the nominations for Finance Committee. I voted "aye"; it passed.

Article 2 was to hear the reports of various committees, including, among others, the Finance Committee. The most notable was a question from Precinct 8 representative Mike Freeman to the High School Building Committee, "What guarantees do we have that there will be no more overrides needed?"

Precinct 6 representative and High School Building Committee member Robert Antonucci responded that, among other things, the constant questioning by people like Mr. Freeman will help keep the project on the straight and narrow.

I couldn't help but smile.

I voted "aye" to accept the reports.

Article 11 would have required registration for home based occupations. While I understand the reasons behind the ZBA's request for this amendment to the zoning bylaws, the more I heard the more concerned I became. A home occupation is a 'by right' use of a home - the town cannot prohibit it as long as it falls within the guidelines.

However, registration means records are kept, and no guarantees could be made that these records wouldn't be abused. For example, Mike Duffany raised questions about privacy. For my part, I was concerned about excise taxes. Businesses are taxed on their property, i.e., office equipment, furniture, etc. How would the town tax a home occupation? How could it distinguish between home furnishings and those meant for the business?

It was a little too much 'Big Brother' for me, and I think Precinct 8 representative Ron Smolowitz said it best when he said, "This is a slippery slope."

I voted "no"; it failed.

Article 12 was yet another proposal by the CLSV Associated Limited Partnership to rezone a 31-acre parcel which lies adjacent to Ballymeade, near the intersection of Route 28 and Route 151. CLSV has tried many times to rezone this parcel, which is currently zoned Agricultural A, to some other use. Previously it was some variation of business zoning, but this time it was for a Senior Care Retirement District (SCRD).

While we need senior care facilities, the proposal for a SCRD was absent any details. In the back of everyone's mind - mine included - was the very real possibility that CLSV would get the rezoning and then either sell the parcel or do something besides a SCRD.

You may be wondering...Why is this a problem?

The Town of Falmouth currently has right of first refusal. If CLSV wants to sell the parcel, we get first crack at it. As currently zoned, the parcel can support - at most - 18 house lots. If rezoned to a SCRD, it would allow a significant number of businesses (banks, restaurants, medical offices, etc.) in addition to a senior care retirement center, or one-acre zoning for houses, in which case CLSV could almost double the number of homesites. Either possibility would increase the value of the land, and, therefore, the cost Falmouth would have to pay should we want to exercise our right of first refusal.

Selectman Pat Flynn said it best with her example of Plymouth Rock Studios; the zoning change comes after the plans have been drawn and the community included in the process. CLSV would lose nothing if the zoning didn't change - they bought the parcel as Agricultural A - and Falmouth could lose a lot if it did, so I voted "no"; it failed.

Article 16 was to rescind Article 19 of the April 2003 Annual Town Meeting. That article approved expending $15,900 in Land Bank funds for a sliver of land along Great Pond. The 'owner' apparently didn't have authority to sell the property.

I voted "aye"; it passed.

Article 17 was to take by eminent domain temporary easements on either side of the Chapoquoit Bridge so it can be repaired.

I voted "aye"; it passed.

I previously discussed Article 18 in several posts. During the discussion of the library, Town Meeting decided to table 18 to pick it up again after the Special Town Meeting.

Article 18 - Upsetting the apple cart, Part II

It is a rare year when some part of the budget doesn't cause some sort of controversy. This year, it revolved around our libraries.

The Falmouth Public Library is in the uncomfortable position of having to cut hours. Between the reduction in state aid and increased expenses (more on this later), there just isn't enough money to keep the doors open.

Precinct 4 Representative and former librarian Cynthia Botelho was one of many people who contacted me about the reduction in hours at the library. Specifically, she was concerned about the drastic cut in hours at the East Falmouth branch. The March 27 edition of the Falmouth Enterprise featured a letter with couple of tables showing how drastic the cuts will be.

The Main branch will suffer a 15% cut in hours, with an 8% cut in "student hours" (the amount of time the branch will be available after school hours), the North Falmouth branch will suffer a 23% drop in hours, with no cut in student hours, but the East Falmouth branch will suffer a 37% cut in hours with - get this - an 80% cut in student hours.

Why such drastic cuts to the East Falmouth branch?

So far, I've heard no good reason other than the fact that the library as a whole has to cut expenses. Aside from a cut in state funding, town meeting learned that we don't know how to turn out the lights at the library. The electric bill has soared from $31,420 in 2007 to $95,664 in 2008 - more than a 200% increase!

Mrs. Botelho tried to stem the loss in hours by adding $55,000 to the library's budget for salary and wages. She proposed cutting a modest $4,100 from the $21,100 budgeted for out of state travel, $2,000 from the $20,330 in aid given to the Woods Hole Library, $20,000 from the $66,750 in "other expenses" from the DPW Snow and ice control and $29,420 in free cash.

Aside from the fact that the out of state travel budget was only being reduced by 20%, several folks again defended the expense of sending people out of state; they argued for cutting services to citizens before cutting unnecessary expenses. I just cannot fathom that.

Tuesday before town meeting, I spoke at length with a member of the Woods Hole Library board. There was concern over the suggestion that the the funds granted to the Woods Hole Library be transferred to the town library system.

I wasn't entirely opposed to this idea, since the Woods Hole Library is open 30 hours a week, the funding given to them this year is the same as the funding given for the past two years, and they aren't cutting back on their hours. In other words, there is no shared sacrifice. All three branches of the town library are suffering cutbacks to one degree or another, but not the Woods Hole Library. Is that fair?

I supported Mrs. Botelho's amendment, but it failed. Personally, I think most folks wanted to keep the library open longer, but were fearful of opening the proverbial flood gates to still more debate over what should and should not be funded.

An aside...I forgot to sum-up this article when first posted...While I would have liked to see a few tweaks here and there, I voted "aye" for the $107,569,142 Fiscal Year 2010 budget. Now that I've been through this process once, I'm going to try to make some changes for FY2011.

Brent's Town Meeting votes - Monday

My apologies for the fact that this is a little tardy. Here they are - my 2008 Fall Town Meeting votes.

Articles 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38 and 40 passed on the blanket vote. For those of you unfamiliar with the term, "blanket vote" means that town meeting agrees with the recommendation in the warrant booklet. I won't review these articles because the controversial issues - the ones worth discussing - are the ones that get held and voted individually.

Article 1 was to accept the nominations for the finance committee. There were three reports, from the Falmouth High School Building Committee, the Cable Advisory Committee and the Finance Committee.

The high school was pretty much routine stuff until Precinct 3 representative Chester Krajewski asked a question about showers. Committee Chairman Don Johnson acknowledged that there are showers for the high school renovation which are stored in the Lawrence School (sources tell me they are in the wood shop). For some reason, these showers will never be used, but we apparently paid for them.

It creates still more questions about the high school renovation project.

I voted "aye" (i.e., yes) to accept the reports; the article passed on a voice vote.

Article 2 was to adopt new presentation guidelines so we wouldn't be squinting to see the fine print. This was a no-brainer; I voted "aye"; it passed.

Article 3 was for $3,341.22 for unpaid bills from a prior fiscal year. Some might object to this, but it happens. For example, my employer reimburses me for certain expenses related to my job, but occasionally my reports get submitted after the deadlines. I voted "aye"; it passed.

Article 4 changed Article III of the zoning bylaw definitions to ensure that someone operating a home-based business actually lives in the home. Another no-brainer; I voted "aye"; it passed.

Article 5 generated a little bit of controversy. Part of the wording of this change to the zoning bylaw included two lines...

"The Building Commissioner may limit the time frame of said permit to specific times of the day or seasons or may issue a temporary permit subject to renewal."

...and...

"...or further restrict the activities subject to the permit as may be in the best interests of the neighborhood or town."

Precinct 1 representative Jay Kingwill raised concerns about the power provided in these lines. As an example, he suggested that someone with a home-based media company might be shut down - that their First Amendment rights could be infringed if someone disagreed with what they wrote - simply because the Building Commissioner thought it was "in the best interests of the town."

I agreed, and voted for Mr. Kingwill's amendment that would've stricken the language. Unfortunately, it failed.

Dan Shearer, a Precinct 5 representative, offered another amendment that would have prohibited the levying of any fees for home-based businesses. For me this was another no-brainer; I voted "aye" and it passed.

However, on a standing vote of 111 to 110, the article itself failed (it required 2/3rds to pass). I can't speak for anyone else, but I voted no because I shared Mr. Kingwill's concerns. We need to very strictly define what government can do. Give government an inch, and it will take a mile.

Article 6 was a change to the Senior Care Retirement District (Zoning Bylaw Article XIII.1, Section 240-65.1), which allows for the creation of Senior Care Retirement Communities (SCRC) - i.e., independent living, assisted living and skilled nursing facilities.

Discussion about this article largely revolved around the required open space. Topics included what qualified as open space (non-buildable land is excluded), and where it could be located (anywhere).

Mr. Shearer offered an amendment that would have required all of the open space to be in one location (as opposed to having an acre here and an acre there). I wasn't convinced that this was a good idea, as there may be small, desirable parcels we want to acquire, like the Haddad parcel which extended Menahaunt Beach. I voted "no"; the amendment failed.

Precinct 8 representative Ed Schmitt raised some concerns about the potential of the businesses allowed in a SCRC. Because the zoning could be anywhere, it would create some business zoning in locations where there currently is none. He proposed an amendment that would have restricted the use of such businesses to the residents of the SCRC only. The problem with such a restriction is that no business could survive if you limited its clientèle, and Precinct 1 representative Peter Clark observed that one wouldn't be able to have dinner with an elderly relative under this scenario.

Town meeting agreed that the restriction was too restrictive, and I voted "no" with the vast majority. The amendment failed.

There were a few other questions, but no serious objections. The article passed on a voice vote. I voted "aye."

Article 10 would have made a change to the zoning bylaw (Section 240-108.H.(4)) about curb cuts for drive-thru's. It would have allowed businesses like banks and pharmacies - but not fast food restaurants - within 300 feet of each other. Personally, I was OK with this change, since banks and pharmacies don't draw the kind of drive-thru traffic that fast food restaurants do.

Unfortunately, this article fell into the same trap as some prior zoning articles by being linked to a specific project.

That project is the redevelopment of the northeast corner of Palmer Avenue and Jones Road - the Cape Cod Bagel building at the hospital lights. The owners wanted the change to the zoning for a drive-thru pharmacy. Unfortunately, any development at this intersection gets microscopic scrutiny and any suggestion of any potential of any additional traffic sends folks into a frenzy.

There was an amendment offered that would have restricted the drive-thru lane to three vehicles, but neither I nor the majority of town meeting was convinced that it could be effectively enforced. I voted "no"; it failed on a voice vote.

Had this article been presented on its own and discussed on its merits, I think it would've passed. Unfortunately, it was associated with a specific location that is notorious for bad traffic, and that killed it.

I voted "aye", but on a counted vote of 90 to 124, it failed to pass.

Article 11 would have rezoned three parcels around Falmouth Harbor from Marine to Business 3 zoning. None of these parcels are on the water, so it doesn't make much sense to restrict them to Marine use only. However, this change would represent spot zoning, and the Planning Board is currently discussing the potential of a "Harborside District" to address these and other parcels.

I voted "no"; it failed to pass on a voice vote.

Articles 12 and 13 were petition articles by different people, held and moved by different town meeting representatives. However, they are similar in that they are changes to the zoning bylaw that would have made it easier to permit pre-existing, non-conforming apartments, or even to create new ones.

While there's no doubt that we could use the affordable housing that these articles would create, the unintended consequences are unknown. The Planning Board noted that no one knows how many dwellings would be covered by these changes.

I voted "no" on both articles; both failed on voice votes.

That was it for Monday night. Wednesday began with Article 16...

Brent's Town Meeting Votes - Wednesday

We started Wednesday evening with Article 29, but I've previously posted my vote - and thoughts - about that article.

After the break, we continued on to the last of the warrant.

Articles 28, 32, 33, 34, 40, 41, 42, 46, 47, 48, 49, 53 had passed on the blanket vote Monday night, so we moved on to Article 30...

Article 30, "Fund - Wastewater System Odor Control Facilities Design": There are odor problems with the sewer system at the Service Road vent and the Shivericks Pond lift station; this article funds the design work needed to address these issues.

I voted "Aye"; it passed.

Article 31, "Waterways - Engineering, Permitting, Minor Construction and Dredging": Take this one literally; it transferred $100,000 from the Waterways Fund for engineering, permitting, minor construction and dredging.

I voted "Aye"; it passed.

Article 35, "Community Preservation Fund - Historic Resources (VFW/Schoolhouse)": This follows through on - and funds - a plan developed last year that will put affordable housing behind the VFW building and renovate it for use as a public space.

I voted "Aye"; it passed.

Article 36, "Community Preservation Fund - Affordable Housing Retention Fund": There are 69 affordable homes in Falmouth that have an older type deed restriction which is tied to market value instead of median income. In order for these to continue to count as affordable, we literally need to buy and change those deeds; that is what these funds do.

I voted "Aye"; it passed.

Article 37, "Community Preservation Fund - Open Space (Grinnell)": This article funds the purchase of four parcels totaling 11 acres in Waquoit. It's a collaborative purchase, much like the Haddad parcel was, and I really like these arrangements. Purchasing open space is best done by private groups (which is why I support the efforts of the 300 Committee), but the next best thing is when different groups pitch in so the taxpayer isn't footing the entire bill.

However, I had held this article, because even though Falmouth would contribute $400,000 to the purchase, we won't own it. Nope, these parcels will be added to the Waquoit Bay Estuarine Research Reserve. The state will own them.

Given that the state has deeper pockets than we do, I cannot for the life of me understand why we would give the state $400,000 so they can buy land. If Falmouth is going to pay the bill, we should own it.

I had held this article to argue this point, but released the hold when it came to the floor. Frankly, there were controversial articles yet to be heard, and I needed to save my breath. I abstained from voting. It passed.

Article 38, "Community Preservation Fund - Historic Resources (Main Street Library)": This was for additional work needed for the historic section (the 1901 part) of the library.

I voted "Aye"; it passed.

Article 43, "Community Preservation Fund - Community Preservation Act General Budgeted Reserve Account": This is self-explanatory; it allocated $99,322 for the CPC reserve account.

I voted "Aye"; it passed.

Article 44, "Community Preservation Fund - Administrative Expense": Again, this is self-explanatory; these are the administrative expenses for the Community Preservation Committee; $90,000 which represents 2.7 percent of the revenues from the CPA.

I voted "Aye"; it passed.

Article 45, "Intermunicipal Agreement - Solid Waste Transfer Station": This gave the selectmen the authority to enter into an agreement with Mashpee, Bourne and/or Sandwich and the Massachusetts Military Reservation to operate the waste transfer station.

I voted "Aye"; it passed.

Article 50, "Petition - Amend Falmouth Code - Chapter 235 Section 8 Regulations (N. Curran)": This was another one of those articles that generated a lot of discussion.

Basically, Neil Curran, a former member of the conservation commission and the petitioner of the article, was asking town meeting to re-assume its role in approving changes to the conservation regulations, something that we learned it had done until 1984.

The highlight of the discussion was Pam Truesdale, the former conservation administrator, who did a fine job of educating us about the history of the regulations and urged town meeting to pass this article. Among other things, she raised concerns about over-regulation. As a former member of the commission, I must express some solidarity with her position.

I also spoke in favor of this article, making note of recent letters in the Falmouth Enterprise calling for the abolition of the conservation commission and the Falmouth Wetlands Regulations. These are, I argued, evidence that the commission needs to do more to educate the public, and this article would help do that.

I voted "Aye". The vote was close enough for Town Meeting Moderator David Vieira to call for a standing count, but on a count of 64-119, it failed.

Article 51, "Petition - Town Beaches and Parking Lots (D. Shearer)": Apparently this wasn't my town meeting, because this was yet another article I favored. I voted "Aye"; it failed.

I'm not sure why there was so much opposition. While I appreciate the concerns about policing and parking that were raised, the article only asked that town meeting "recommend" that the selectmen open the lots. A recommendation would not be binding on the selectmen, but apparently some believed that it would.

Article 52, "Petition - 419 Woods Hole Road (M. Finneran)": I've previously praised Chairman Kevin Murphy for the idea of transferring development rights, but the option that was presented Wednesday is not an apples to apples bargain.

According to Chairman Murphy, Chris Wise, who purchased the old Nautilus Hotel and will be converting it into senior housing, has purchased a bankrupt development at Oshman Way, right off the Woods Hole Road. Apparently Mr. Wise intends on giving the town this property in exchange for the development rights to Webster Woods, i.e., the woods would be spared.

The problem is that the discussion about what would be built at Oshman Way centered on 1-2 bedroom units. Obviously, these are not 'family' units, although 2-3 bedroom family units were part of the plan for Webster Woods. Strike one.

Somewhere in here Precinct 1 representative Peter Clark, spoke. The most memorable thing about it was a remark about Woods Hole being the "victims of affordable housing issues." I'm not sure what Mr. Clark meant by this - he didn't elaborate - but I wasn't impressed by it. To suggest that there are "victims of affordable housing issues" is to suggest that there's something inherently negative about affordable housing.

Rebecca Putnam, another Precinct 9 representative and owner of her own real estate brokerage (and, yes, my wife) is familiar with the property and the conservation issues on this site, so she asked about it. Chairman Murphy fielded the question, but dropped the ball. He went on and on about something, but never answered the question about the conservation issues at this site. Strike two.

Another affordable housing development elsewhere in town - Little Pond Landing - has been tied up because of conservation issues. I don't see any benefit in the town tying itself up in such issues.

It was enough to sour me on the idea of exchanging Webster Woods for Oshman Way, and so I voted "Aye"; it failed.

I want answers - if not a better option - or I'll be supporting the Webster Woods plan come November. Chairman Murphy threw down the gauntlet almost a year ago; that should be enough time to develop an equivalent plan elsewhere.

Article 54, "Funding Article": This is the housekeeping article that gives town government permission to carry out the spending approved in this warrant.

I voted "Aye"; it passed.

And so ended the 2008 Spring Town Meeting.

Brent's Town Meeting Votes - Tuesday

The Special Town Meeting was Tuesday (April 8) evening. Because the warrant was short, the blanket vote was not used and we went through them one at a time.

Article 1, "Petition - Amend Zoning Bylaw West Falmouth Market (J. Parrish)": Some articles sneak up on you, and this was one of those, taking the better part of an hour.

Basically, this is a single lot which is in two different zones; Residential B and Business 3. The owner wanted to rezone the Residential section to Business. Seems simple, right?

Well, as a manager of mine once said, nothing is ever as easy as it seems.

At first, the article seemed reasonable and the owner of the West Falmouth Market (the petitioner) made a good case in favor of it. The first person to speak against it, a neighbor, rambled on about much that was of little relevance to the article.

Unfortunately for the petitioner, the Planning Board said something. I don't expect government bodies to be unified in every decision; while I served on the conservation commission we had our share of split votes. However, a coherent statement would be useful.

Indeed, in situations where a board is divided, our appellate courts (such as the Supreme Court) offer a reasonable option - to give both a majority and minority decision.

In this case, there was none of that. First we learn that the Planning Board voted to support this; we then learn that it was a 2-1 vote. Then we heard from Precinct 2 representative Richard Latimer, the acting chair when the vote had been taken; he had abstained from voting, but was opposed to this. Then we learned that several others had abstained, which begged the question, "How many people abstained and why?"

The more the Planning Board said, the more the issues became confused. I had been favorable to the article, but my head was spinning at the end.

In such confused cases, I vote "No," and I did here too. It is better to deny something that can come back than to approve something that can't be undone. Technically, it passed 98-89, but it required a 2/3rds majority, so it failed.

Article 2, "Petition - Amend Zoning Bylaw Chapter 39, Section 10 (J. Callahan)": There's a lot of history behind this article. CLSV has tried to rezone a 31-acre parcel on Route 151 (near the Route 28 intersection) from Agricultural AA to Business many times.

A few years back, they asked to put a shopping plaza on that parcel, with some affordable housing and a hockey rink and pool. I was initially in favor of that rezoning, but the article was brought to town meeting before they had resolved all of the issues. For example, they promised a signed agreement with the town, but it wasn't done.

This particular article isn't about rezoning (the next one is), but rather creating a new business zone, Business 4. The problem is that this zoning would create a Senior Care Retirement Community (SCRC); rather, it would create another SCRC.

Falmouth already has SCRC zoning, but the Planning Board is currently trying to revise that because it hasn't been used. This was - at least for me - the death knell for this article. Falmouth's regulations are confusing enough; to have two SCRC's on the books is a can of worms no one should have to deal with. And why a business would want to make them more confusing is beyond me.

I voted "No"; it (unanimously) failed.

That said; CLSV is going about this the wrong way. Aside from these attempts to change the zoning, they're working on doing a 40B at this site. Whether they're serious about the 40B or not, it is perceived as a threat because of the way it has been presented, and former Zoning Board of Appeals member Matt McNamara clearly stated what many people where thinking: Don't threaten us.

Moreover, if they are serious about the 40B, why go through the expense of trying to create new zoning, rezone the parcel and develop a plan for a SCRC?

Granted, the Planning Board needs to put more effort into getting the revisions to the SCRC done (and the failure of the Atria rezoning - something I favored - lies on their shoulders), but the message we got from CLSV here was as confusing and contradictory as the Planning Board's message on Article 1.

[an aside]

During the campaign last year, I stated that we (Falmouth) need to do a better job of making the rules "clear, consistent and fair", and in general, it's fair to say that Falmouth is not very business friendly. Indeed, it seems to favor those businesses with deep pockets (i.e. WalMart), which have the resources to jump through the hoops (sometimes of burning fire) that are placed in their way.

Smaller businesses, like the West Falmouth Market, too often have their hands tied and they can do little about it.

Someone recently observed that the Board of Selectmen is dysfunctional; that they cannot seem to work as one to accomplish things. After this town meeting, I think it's fair to say that the Planning Board is guilty of this too.

[end aside]

Article 3, "Petition - Rezone Nathan Ellis Highway (J. Callahan)": Absent the Business 4 zoning, this article was irrelevant. A motion of "indefinite postponement" was put on the floor.

I voted "Aye"; it passed (that means the article failed).

Article 4, "Amend Town's Classification Plan - Department of Public Works": This would've added a Business Systems Manager to the DPW, a recommendation of the reorganization study. The selectmen chose not to support it at this time, so a motion of indefinite postponement was put on the floor.

I voted "Aye"; it passed (that means the article failed).

Article 5, "Unpaid Bills": This was $7,006.92 in bills from the last fiscal year that weren't paid before it had ended.

I voted "Aye"; it passed.

Article 6, "Fund - American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employee Local 1636 (AFSCME) Contract": This article funds the first of the three-year cost of living increases (2 percent) under the AFSCME contract.

I voted "Aye"; it passed.

Article 7, "Fund - Citizen Survey": This would've funded a survey of how Falmouth's citizens perceive the town's services. But there is no money, so indefinite postponement was recommended.

I voted "Aye"; it passed (that means the article failed).

Article 8, "Fund - Wastewater Treatment Facility Expenses": This was to tie up lose ends at the West Falmouth sewer plant, but it did so by taking $31,800 from the school department. Precinct 9 representative Greg Pinto asked why, when the school is facing budget cuts, we were taking money from it.

The answer - a poor one at that - was that these funds were from vacant positions.

Vacant or not, I still don't see the logic. We're robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I voted "Aye" because it needed to be done; it passed.

Article 9, "Fund - Unemployment Benefits": This funds unemployment benefits for former town and school department employees. Every employer (public or private) has to pay these.

I voted "Aye"; it passed.

Article 10, "Fund - Veteran's Ordinary Benefits": This funds the town's share of veteran's benefits; the state funds 75 percent of these.

I voted "Aye"; it passed.

Article 11, "Fund - Property Valuation Expenses": This funds assessment projects that the Assessing Department is working on.

I voted "Aye"; it passed.

Article 12, "Community Preservation Fund - School Administration Building": Last spring, town meeting voted to appropriate some of the community preservation funds to replace the roof on the School Administration Building (it's an historic structure). This article simply allows us to include the replacement of the HVAC into the scope of work.

I voted "Aye"; it passed.

I'll be honest - this one got by me.

It didn't occur to me until afterwards that there was some money left over after doing the roof. That should've gone back into the kitty and reconsidered for other purposes. Instead, they expanded the scope of work to use up what was left.

This is not the way to do things. Unfortunately, it happens all too often.

Article 13, "Petition - Town of Barnstable "In From The Streets" Program":

I've previously posted my thoughts about this article.

Article 14, "Lease Cranberry Bogs": The town can lease property for up to ten years; beyond that requires special permission from the state. This lease is for 20 years, hence the article.

After a rather long, contentious battle over the future of the Coonamessett River cranberry bogs, we have a grower who wishes to farm the bogs organically and, as part of the deal, will install a modern irrigation system. The town won't get anything for the first ten years of the deal (to compensate for the investment the grower is going to make); while I would have liked to see us get something after five years, sometimes we have to make compromises.

I voted "Aye"; it passed unanimously.

Article 15, "Funding Article": This is the housekeeping article, giving permission to carry out the spending approved in this warrant.

I voted "Aye"; it passed.


And so ended the Spring Special Town Meeting. This was at about 9pm, so we went into the break and returned thereafter to the warrant for the Spring Town Meeting. Only two articles were reviewed - Aricle 26 for the DPW, and Article 27 for the FFRD. I've previously posted about these.

My votes for the last of the Spring Town Meeting articles - those cast on Wednesday, April 9 - will be coming soon.

Brent's Town Meeting Votes - Monday

I still don't know of another town meeting member who has publicly volunteered how they voted and why.

That said; as with the prior Town Meetings, 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 and the controversial issues - the ones worth discussing - are (almost always) the ones that get held and voted individually. Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 19, 20 and 22 passed on the blanket vote.

We didn't address the articles for the Special Town Meeting. That's for Tuesday, April 8.

Article 1, "Choose Town Officers": This was basically routine business; the appointment of the Finance Committee. New additions this year include Joseph Drolette and Precinct 6 Representative Dan Shearer. Both are fine men with good, solid fiscal and common sense.

I voted "Aye"; it passed.

Article 2, "Hear Report of Committees and Town Officers": Several reports were heard, the most memorable (and one we'll undoubtedly hear more about in the future) was by Jerry Potamis, Falmouth's new Wastewater Superintendent.

Last year, $500 million was tossed around as a possible cost for this project, but Potamis mentioned $100 million during his presentation. I'm still inclined to believe the former figure, given that recent estimates for sewering in Mashpee hover around $500 million - not to mention the cost overruns at the high school.

One thing that bothered me was his use of the word "wastewater" when referring to the nitrogen problem. There's a significant difference.

We also heard from Gary Anderson, chair of the Finance Committee. He offered some rather interesting statistics...

-- Falmouth's expenses (growing at about 5.7 percent) are outpacing it's revenues (growing at about 5.2 percent).

-- The biggest increases are coming from four categories:
1) Debt service at 19.2 percent;
2) Employee benefits at 9.9 percent;
3) Salaries at 3.6 percent;
4) "All other" categories at 2.5 percent.

-- Total town debt is currently about $127 million; to be about $133 million by year end.

The most troubling part of this is the debt service. To put it another way, the amount we pay to cover our debts has increased by 19.2 percent.

These were just reports, so there was nothing to approve; we simply accepted what was presented.

I voted "Aye"; it passed.

Article 9, "Amend Zoning Bylaw - Article V, Section 240-23, -28, -33 and -38": I've a neighbor - a bus driver - who had to get a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals to park the bus in her yard during lunch. There was no opposition, but it was one of those annoying technicalities. This article simply allows this by right.

Ed Marks, a Precinct 3 representative and our former selectman, requested an amendment specifying that buses not be parked in a public way (a town road).

I voted "Aye" on the amendment and the article; it passed.

Article 14, "Amend Zoning Bylaw - Article III Section 240-13 (Structure)": This simply alters the language in the zoning bylaw to cover fixed sports venues without having to list every possible configuration by name. The words, "but not limited to tennis or similar sports courts," were inserted.

I voted "Aye"; it passed.

Article 15, "Petition - Rezone Beagle Lane (F. Alfano)": This would have rezoned a lot on Beagle Lane from Agricultural B to Business B-2. Basically, it's spot zoning, so I wasn't inclined to support it from the start. However, the clincher for me was when Cheryl Williams, a Precinct 3 Representative and President of the Teaticket Civic Association, noted that the Cape Cod Commission had this area (the Teaticket Post Office/Beagle Lane area) on it's "Top 10" worst intersections. It is a messy area.

I voted "No"; it failed.

Article 17, "Petition - Amend Zoning Bylaw - Article Section 240-192 and 192 (P. Hartel)": This article would have clarified the intent of the bylaw by putting more emphasis on curb cuts related to fast-food (i.e., drive-thru) restaurants.

I voted "Aye"; it required a 2/3rds majority to pass, but on a counted vote of 96-91 it failed.

Article 18, "Petition - Amend Zoning Bylaw - Section 240-3 (M. Grozier)": There's a vacant lot across from McDougal's Boatyard on Scranton Avenue that has, apparently, been used for parking for over 50 years. This article would've allowed that use to continue as a grandfathered operation, but most of town meeting disagreed with it.

As I see it, if it's been going on for 50 years but only now has someone raised an issue (a neighbor apparently complained), it should be grandfathered. After all, what if a neighbor complains about a horse farm or gun club that's been here for decades? It reminds me of people who buy homes near airports and then complain about the noise.

I voted "Aye", but it failed.

Article 21, "Amend Zoning Bylaw - Article XXII Section 240-108.1B": This amended the town parking requirements - with respect to handicap spaces - to use the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board standards. Basically, it removes the overhead associated with maintaining parking standards. If the Architectural Access Board standards change, then the town bylaw changes automatically to match them.

I voted "Aye"; it passed.

Article 23, "Amend Town's Position Classification Plan - Town Counsel": This article generated a lot of discussion. The long range plan for the town was to have a permanent assistant town counsel (at a cost of about $100k/year), but it is something that - like many things this year - the Finance Committee didn't think we had the money to fund.

The Board of Selectmen and Frank Duffy, Falmouth's Town Counsel, argued in favor of the position. Their take was that the cost of contractual or hourly assistance would exceed the cost and value of having a paid town employee. Arguments made in favor of the additional position included the town's current legal caseload (43 cases) and the fact that Mr. Duffy is putting in overtime (nights and weekends, he said) to keep up.

Now, I know that between matching Social Security, Medicare, retirement and medical benefits, there's a cost beyond the salary to an employer, so I asked for that figure. I was told that this amounted to about $20k on top of the quoted hourly rate ($33-$44/hr). At $40/hr, we're looking at $80k/year, plus the $20k in benefits (honestly, I think this is a little low) = $100k.

I also asked whether there were other, similarly-sized towns which could be used as examples. Barnstable was mentioned (they have four in the town counsel's office), but it is considerably larger than Falmouth.

In the end, I was amongst a minority that wasn't convinced of the urgency of the need. While town counsel may need assistance, I wanted more evidence that a permanent, salaried position would be cheaper than contract help. After all, if there's no work for the contractor, they don't get paid, but paid staff gets paid no matter what. Moreover, once you have someone on staff, cutting that expense is next to impossible.

I voted "No"; it passed.

Article 24, "Amend Town's Position Classification Plan - Department of Public Works": This article would have been a step toward implementing the DPW reorganization.

A few years back, we paid a pretty penny for a consultant to offer some suggestions about how we could improve the efficiency of the DPW. I'd like to see those recommendations implemented, and this would've funded the recommended positions. However, we have to set priorities, and as with the town counsel's office, the money just isn't there.

I voted "No"; it failed.

Article 25, "Fund Fiscal Year 2009 Operating Budget": This is the town's annual budget, which this year came in at $103,462,827.

Just as with the Finance Committee report, there were some interesting things learned...

-- It used to be that money in the Waterways Fund (revenues from moorings, etc.) could only be used for capital projects (such as rebuilding boat ramps). Town Manager Robert Whritenour explained that the law was recently changed, which allows this to be used also for salaries. This is a welcome change, given that Falmouth has a lot of revenue from moorings and the like. With the tight budget, funding the harbormasters' salaries from the Waterways Fund is both good fiscal and common sense.

-- Falmouth spends about $9.5 million for employee health insurance.

-- Nick Lowell, a Precinct 5 representative, suggested a separate worksheet so we can get a better picture of the per-employee costs for benefits (such as health insurance); currently those expenses are broken-down by the expense category. I like this idea.

-- It costs the town about $3,000 every time we need to update the Charter/Code, but the money hasn't been there lately, so what's available online is outdated. To address this, former selectman and Precinct 5 representative Troy Clarkson offered an amendment to add $10,000 to the Town Clerk's budget.

I voted "Aye" on the amendment and the budget. Both passed.

We didn't get to the rest of the articles; 11pm rolled around far too quickly. If we can get through the Special Town Meeting warrant quickly enough, then we may see the high school issue Tuesday.

Brent's Fall Town Meeting Votes - Tuesday

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.