Two weeks from tonight, Southborough will open up the Annual Town Meeting.
I haven’t been able to find the time to give ATM the coverage it deserves. But with school break in between now and then, I’ve decided I’d better at least start sharing the basics.
Voters will be asked to deal with 47 articles before the meeting is closed. As always, several are annual administrative business (so hopefully quick.) And many other articles are linked/related, so it’s not quite as bad as it sounds.
I hope to cover at least some of these articles more in depth in future posts. But for now, here is a high level overview with links:
- FY-18 Recommended Budget – This is the detailed outline and explanation for the budget recommended by Town and school officials. The bottom line is a projected tax rate increase of 2.4% for FY18.
- The Annual Town Warrant:
- Articles 1-11 – Town’s Administrative and Budget articles
- Articles 12-20 – Community Preservation Act articles including new project funding requests for:
- Flagg School Restoration Project
- Restoration/Preservation of Historical Permanent Records
- Breakneck Hill Conservation Land Management
- New basketball court at Harold Fay Memorial Playground
- Rehabilitation of Richardson Tennis Courts (lighting) – see related coverage
- Mooney Field lighting – see related coverage
- Article 21 – Amend Senior Tax Work-off: Would increase cap by $500, allowing seniors to reduce their property tax liability up to $1,500 through the work-off program.
- Article 22 – Accept Easement from Fay School: Allows Town to improve storm water drainage on Main Street
- Article 23 – Adopt standing committee for technology: The Town is looking to replace the temporary Ad Hoc committee with a standing committee to address technology improvements.
- Article 24 – Disposition of municipal properties: Authorizing selectmen to sell Fayville Hall and its abutting parking lot. (In a very close vote, a similar article was rejected last year after commenters on the floor asked voters for time to pursue preservation opportunities. A year later, selectmen are revisiting it.)
- Article 25 – Adopt Economic Development Committee: The Town is looking to replace the temporary Ad Hoc committee with a standing committee. (Last fall, voters rescinded a defunct commission that the EDC was looking to move under to get out of Ad Hoc status. Proponents of that article argued that the EDC should come back to Town Meeting voters if they want authority for a standing committee. Now it is.)
- Article 26-30 – Adaptive reuse of historic buildings and related zoning changes: Would allow specified additional zoning uses for some historic buildings with preserved facades to incentivize adaptive reuse. (The special permit would be entitled by right for buildings that meet defined historic criteria. It would not impose preservation restrictions on property owners who don’t pursue the additional zoning uses.) – see related coverage
- Article 31-33 – Prohibitions/restrictions on recreational marijuana: In response to new laws allowing sale of recreational marijuana in Massachusetts, the articles provide three ways that residents could choose to prohibit or restrict businesses related to marijuana (sales, cultivation, testing, etc.) in Southborough through zoning and/or regulations. – see related coverage
- Article 34 – Funding for National Historic District Preservation Planner: $20,500 to support the to complete the process of establishing a national register historic district.
- Article 35 – Amend Electioneering prohibited: Would extend the restrictions on campaigning within 150 feet from an election Polling Place to also cover Town Meetings and Early Voting places.
- Article 36 – Amend notice of meeting: Would change posting requirements for Town Meetings. Instead of posting notice at “the Town Hall, the Fayville Hall and in at least nine other such public places as the Selectmen shall determine” it would post “on the Town website, at the Town Hall, the Library, the Senior Center, and in at least 3 other public places in each precinct as the Town Clerk shall determine”.
- Article 37 – Amend Annual Debtors List: Would remove code (that the Town hasn’t been following for years), that requires including in the Annual Report “the names of all persons, firms or corporations indebted to the Town and the amounts owed by them”.
- Article 38 – Amend nomination papers: Allows candidates to pull nomination papers up to 48 hours prior to the filing deadline for elected Town seats
- Article 39 – Amend Town Meeting vote counting: Would remove requirement to always conduct a headcount for a 2/3 majority no matter how clearly it passes.
- Article 40 – (Citizen Petition) Alternatives for Public Safety Facility siting: It would have required that any request at town meeting for the acquiring the golf course include a presentation on alternative sites for the public safety facilities. (As originally written prior to the March Special Town Meeting, the article is moot. But petitioner Jack Barron informed me that he is amending his article to be relevant to the current situation. Stay tuned for more on that in a future post.)
- Article 43 – (Citizen Petition) Amend Town Code: Town Counsel: Would add requirements for advertising and publicly interviewing each time selectmen vote to appoint Town Counsel. Also adds performance review criteria (with public comment solicited and shared) for current Town Counsel to apply to retain the position. (Since, under Town Code, Selectmen may select Town Counsel for one year at a time, I believe these procedures would need to be followed on an annual basis.)
- Articles to be indefinitely postponed (The Warrant notes that sponsors will ask voters to indefinitely postpone these):
- Article 41 – (Citizen Petition) Amend Zoning of Elderly Housing units: Would increase allowed number of housing units under a special permit for over 55+ housing from 7% of defined housing stock to 10%.
- Article 42 – (Citizen Petition) Amend Town Code: Town Counsel: Would require selectmen to advertise for candidates for Town Counsel every 6 months and hold public interviews. Also adds performance review criteria (with public comment solicited) for current Town Counsel to apply to retain the position. (It appears this must have been an earlier version of Article 43 – submitted by the same citizen sponsor.)
- Special Town Meeting Warrant – These items were continued from the March Special Town Meeting, scheduled to be reopened during Annual Town Meeting:
- STM Article 5 – (Citizen Petition) Adopt standing committee for technology: The Town is looking to replace the temporary Ad Hoc committee with a standing committee to address technology improvements. (This covers the same subject matter as Article 23. The sponsor has been working with the Town and had already planned to amend the language. Depending on the order in which articles are handled, this article may be pulled.) – see related coverage
- STM Article 6 – (Citizen Petition) Removal Bylaw for Elected Officials: Would ask state legislature to approve language allowing process to recall elected officials.* – see related coverage
- STM Article 7 – (Citizen Petition) Removal of Appointed Board/Committee/Commission Members: Would outline process for removing appointed officials.* – see related coverage
- STM Article 8 – (Citizen Petition) Independent Counsel for Elected Boards and Officers: Would allow boards/committees authority to hire independent counsel when special counsel is conflicted out of representing the board. (Currently, boards/committees need to seek approval by the Board of Selectmen.)* – see related coverage
* The last I checked, STM articles 6-8 were still being updated based on feedback. I will share more up-to-date versions that are likely to be proposed on Town Meeting floor in a future post.
How does an outdoor basketball court cost 70K? Seriously. Paving and painting that much sq footage should be 10kish tops, double it even and call it 20k. Industrial hoops are 2K. Some land prep work, I’ll give ya another 10K, but that also seems high since there is already a court there. Thats 35K and that’s probably 2x generous itself. I’m all for a basketball court, but I just don’t get the cost. There are so many other places around town that could use some love, I’d just like to see our money spent wisely.
and then 153K to put in lights at the tennis courts… seriously, we must be crazy. Those lights will be lucky to see 50 hours of use per year (I’ll bet their on more like 10). Even at 50, over 20 years we’re still talking $153 an hour for their use. Seriously crazy. Even if they were on for their full potential every day, we’d top out at 500 hours per year being generous since they are pretty much only usable at most 6 months out of the year and those are the longest days of the year. That still comes out to 15 bucks an hour not including electricity. Even at that price, I bet most of the people who’ll be using them wouldn’t even pay the 15 themselves. Actually, that’s a good idea put one of those payment machines like they have for parking meters on the lights and charge the 15 (or 150) bucks an hour.
Adaptive reuse of historic buildings – Section B
Part (2), Sub-section (b): Apartments or Condominiums – do we really want to have our very limited number of commercial buildings in town be converted into more high density residential complexes?
Part (2), Sub-section (e): Research and Development – does this include any restrictions on animal testing, hazardous materials, transport of hazardous materials, or similar concerns?
Part (2), Sub-section (g): Educational facilities – do we really want to convert taxable commercial properties into non-taxable educational facilities?
Part (1), Sub-section (a): Separate Rental Units – have you ever driven through Woonsocket, RI? It was once a pretty nice place. Not so much anymore. Adding small, separate rental units to historic homes will tend to generate low income housing over time.
Adaptive reuse of historic buildings – Section D
Part (3): Submission Requirements – 17 copies! Are we, or are we not, a green community now? Why can applicants not simply submit a single electronic version that people can print as needed? This is wasteful.
Adaptive reuse of historic buildings – Section E
There should be firm language requiring that the Historical Commission take a vote to approve the application (i.e. that the building is historical and the initial application makes sense). As written now, the Planning Board does not require any input from the Historical Commission.
Adaptive reuse of historic buildings – Section F
Part (2): there should be an additional criteria for decision, namely that the proposed use must fit within the overall character of the neighborhood.
Conclusion: overall, this bylaw represents a tremendous amount of change to allowed uses in our zoning. I am a friend to historic causes, but the risk/reward here is badly skewed. My opinion is that this warrant article is not sufficiently mature to be presented to Town Meeting.