LIVE BLOG: 2013 Annual Town Meeting Day 2

Good evening and welcome to Day 2 of Sudbury's 2013 Annual Town Meeting.

Last night was relatively quiet as the town approved the FY14 budget.

Resident Ralph Tyler made a few amendment requests to various articles, but none were approved.

Tonight we'll start with what might be the most anticipated topic, Article 16, which discusses the construction of a new police station on Hudson Road near the Fire Department Headquarters.

Numerous residents have pointed fingers at the Board of Selectmen regarding a possible by-law violation. Vice Chair Bob Haarde has been the lone voice to say it looks like a violation did occur.

The design of the station would cost roughly $650,000.

Despite a lack of support from the Permanent Building Committee, the Selectmen agreed to go forward with the design and engineering costs this year.

The wait on whether the town agrees will be a short one since this is the first item on the agenda.

And hopefully the WiFi connection here inside Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School is better than last night so we can provide quicker updates on the warrant articles.

-------

Getting word Article 16 may be taken off the table altogether. The PBC and BofS are in discussions and I'm hearing the entire PBC is none too happy with decision to just go with a design and not complete the full project.

-------

And here we go ...

--------

ARTICLE 16. CONSTRUCT POLICE HEADQUARTERS

To see what sum the Town will vote to raise and appropriate, or appropriate from available funds, to be expended under the direction of the Permanent Building Committee, for the purpose of constructing a new Police Department Headquarters and appurtenant structures on Town-owned land adjacent to the existing

Fire Headquarters, site development, purchasing additional equipment, technology, furniture, landscaping, and all expenses connected therewith, including professional, engineering, and architectural services and preparation of plans, specifications and bidding documents, supervision of work, and relocation, and to determine whether said sum shall be raised by borrowing or otherwise; or act on anything relative thereto.

Submitted by the Board of Selectmen. (Two-thirds vote required, if borrowed)

BOARD OF SELECTMEN REPORT: This article requests funds for the design and construction of a new Police Station on Town owned property at 77 Hudson Road, adjacent to the Fire Headquarters building. A prior proposal to construct an 18,500 sq. ft. facility on this site was approved by Town Meeting in April 2007, but the authorization to exempt the debt for the project was subsequently defeated in a special election on October 16th, 2007. The Board of Selectmen then created a 13-member Blue Ribbon Police Station Committee to examine the prior planning that went into the proposed $8.2 million project to determine what, if any, alternatives should be presented to Town voters.

Between November 2007 and February 2008, the Committee revisited the existing facility; toured and analyzed the features of recently constructed facilities in Hopkinton, Hansen and Acton; interviewed personnel using these facilities at length; reviewed research by individual members; and developed an iterative series of five design options to define Sudbury’s needs in a police facility and develop the best approach to address those needs.

The Committee confirmed the structural and functional deficits of the existing facility presented to the 2007 Annual Town Meeting. The building lacks adequate space for its present-day function, and is in need of major repairs, design upgrades and infrastructure revisions to meet current standards and demands, including handicapped accessibility.

The Committee reviewed the rationale for each element of space contained in the proposed design, and developed an iterative series of design options to incorporate the needed functional elements, spaces and flow patterns in a more cost effective configuration. Options explored included expanding and remodeling the existing facility, and new construction on both the existing site and the previously-proposed Hudson Road site.

The present proposal for a 14,540 sq. ft. new facility to be built on the previously-proposed site adjacent to the main fire station represents the unanimous recommendation of the Committee as the most costeffective approach to addressing the Town’s need for a functional police station that meets current codes and standards.

Important improvements the proposed facility affords over the existing police headquarters include proper facilities for community interface and separation of police and public traffic, provision for safe handling of detainees and detention facilities that meet code, adequate and secure space for evidence processing and storage, adequate workspaces and locker facilities for personnel, appropriate space for expanding technology, provision for combined police and fire dispatch, a combined public meeting, training and emergency command center, and ADA compliance.

The proposed building provides the elements of space and work flow patterns required in a present-day police headquarters at significantly reduced size and cost from the prior proposal.

The size and cost of the proposed facility also compare favorably with other recently constructed police stations in Massachusetts towns with features similar to Sudbury. The problems with the existing police headquarters must be addressed, solutions will not become less expensive, and construction of a new police headquarters has been included in the Town’s financial planning for the upcoming reduced debt service now that debt service for other projects is being paid off.

BOARD OF SELECTMEN POSITION: The Board of Selectmen unanimously supports this article.

FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT: The Finance Committee recommends approval of this article.

Jim Kelly making the motion

move to appropriate $627K for professional and engineering services for design of a new police station

motion seconded

changes from warrant ... design funds only

more time for public review

another way of doing biz

better constuction estimates

numerous boards/committees that supported moving forward

why a new one? 50 yrs old, needs major repairs, improper separation of prisoners/public

safety issues

Blue Ribbon Comm studied options

agreement to procees with 14,540 sq ft building on Hudson Road

favoragle debt opportunity

current site not large enough to expand station

plan for current station undeterminted at this time

could sell or lease for commercial use

average sq ft cost is $6 more compared to the average

Bob Haarde speaking

tax impact five years, $21 on average tax bill

if design funds approved, select designer by rfp to complete plans

public process

constuction estimates

2014 Town Meeting/ballot for construction funds

$7.5 m estimated

may be subjec tto escalation increase

bonded over 20 years

 $90 per year on average home in highest year, decreasing afterward

PD second highest in cost estimate of major projects waiting to be completed

debt goes up but not as bad as 2002

Scott Nix speaking

why the size we're asking for?

comparative to other departments similar in size

original station not built for current day functions

(one resident was deemed out of order and told to sit by Myron)

new station will be safer

some design issues: combined dispatch, interview rooms, detention, regional lock-up, tech infrastructure, evidence storage/ventilation, meeting/training/emergency op room

FINCOM no opinion unless can caucus now ... Myron says OK to caucus

BofS supports article

same person who was out of order now given time to speak

Stuart Lovell (sp?)

warrant has been issued, now this is a completely different proposal

Myron says this is for design only, a much smaller number

Lovell

proposal ill conceived

Myron telling him only speak to motion in front of hall

He says still ill conceived, great deal of misinformation

town population is declining

PD workload, caseload declining

bad news I have massive stats on topic

no plans to increase size of police force

asking for building 3 times the current size

complaining on plan for a gym in the PD

complaining for meeting room to fit 40 people

dirty secret, facility includes large storage facility in back

proposal has lacked due diligence and honesty

Bob Stein speaking

current pd deplorable

my concern is, every meeting I intended, former Chief Glavin had tremendous input on design

I think we should postpone until new permanent chief in place, here his input on design, then go forward

doesn't make sense to have new permanent chief to give his ideas on a new pd?

Nix speaking

we worked side by side, our ideas parallel

his ideas same as mine and will be carried forward

Lt. Grady was also involved

If push forward looking at escalation of costs

FINCOM supports article by 5-4 vote

Rick Johnson speaking

asks for those on FINCOM who voted against to explain

Jim Rao speaking

such a change, need more time, would benefit from more time

Bob Jacobson says he also didn't feel he had enough time

Mark Minassian says the same

all supported original article

Doug Zingale (sp?) speaking

my feeling is that 14 sq ft building very large for this police force

28 people filling that facility strikes me as overkill

Carmine Gentile speaking (BofS hopeful)

we three groups of volunteers who have created a base for this article (FINCOM, BofS and Blue Ribbon Comm)

final report from Blue Ribbon comprehensive but precise

gave out copies before tonight's meeting, about 100

report answers important questions taxpayers and residents would have

I support article, we value the word of our police force, I value opinions of Blue Ribbon, FINCOM and BofS

We need to move forward, it's an accident waiting to happen

Ralph Tyler speaking

(everyone grumbling as he gets ready)

proposed amendment to article 16

wants two options added

Myron says one or the other is OK

I think Ralph just declined if he can't have both

Discussing the 2007 votes

voters should decide whether to vote, not the hall

put a couple of proposals if made case we need this facility

we can put that forward and (try to) convince the voters

extremely risky to decide now

the question is, is this the right size, the right size project?

I think selectmen took step backward, rather see go with $7.5M

I believe we can put in front of voters two proposals

asks for 3 more minutes but declined by the hall

Michael Fee speaking

Planning board followed this closely

took a vote last night, planning board supports article, main motion

Dick Williamson speaking

I've looked at schematics, took a tour, boy current station is a mess

no debate we need a new one, question is the size

we don't have all answers on design, if put off design, we'll never get there

it's right thing to do at this point

expansion of storage space is right on

urge you to support this article

Kirsten Roopenian speaking

asking for your support of police station

there's no reason for boards/committees to not do their due diligence

it's time to get the building built

police station put off for  a long time, issue not going away

let's not wait until we have to do something

we're talking about people who work there, it's the human side of the article

we know bad things can happen

we know public safety officials have acted heroically on several occassions

they do this on our behalf, they keep our streets safe

they are the ones asking for your consideration tonight

we are here to help them

they are here for us, for that they deserve our support

if we can spend 40m on a school don't they deserve an adequate place to work

urge your support on original article

Bryan Semple speaking

process getting here sloppy, CIPC by-laws ignored

sounds like FINCOM supports larger station

as a hall we have to defer to those who have looked at it in great detail

I will support this, makes sense

Is approving a design services only amendent something other communities have done?

Kelly speaking

Others do go through this process

Call to question ending, supported

2/3 vote needed

Article 16 motion passes by way more than 2/3

------------

ARTICLE 17. FAIRBANK COMMUNITY CENTER COMPLEX – MASTER PLAN

To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate, or appropriate from available funds, $75,000, or any other sum, to be expended under the direction of the Permanent Building Committee, for the purpose of obtaining a master plan with needs assessment/marketing analysis, including identification of current conditions, for the entirety of the Fairbank building complex with the goal of producing a conceptual/schematic design for a renovated, including demolition where necessary, potentially expanded facility accommodating desired program changes with a construction budget.

Submitted by the Board of Selectmen. (Majority Vote required)

BOARD OF SELECTMEN REPORT: In the fall of 2012, the Facilities Director requested $608,000 to replace 20,600 square feet of deteriorated 22-year-old roofing at the Fairbank Community Center as it is experiencing leakage which is constantly under repair. A Town Meeting vote rejected the request for funds to replace the roof due to concerns as to whether the 20,600 square foot portion in question would be viable for future use in an expanded, redesigned community center if such was desired by the voters.

In response to that concern, the Board of Selectmen created the Fairbank Center Roof Task Force to advise the Town as to the best options for dealing with the facility roof on the non-pool section of the building located over the kitchen and the lobby, both adjacent to the Sr. Center, and over the old school “wing” comprising the boiler room, Park and Recreation administration offices, Atkinson Pool locker rooms and restrooms, and nine classrooms currently occupied by the Sudbury Public Schools Administration and Park and Recreation. The Task Force concluded that a Feasibility Study/Master Plan addressing both the needs of the community and the user/occupants and the future structural options for the Fairbanks Community Center should be conducted before a capital investment is made to the existing building.

This request is to raise and/or appropriate $75,000 for the purpose of completing an Architectural Master Plan for the Fairbank Community Center. The study funded by this article will identify needed repairs to the building and make recommendations for a vision for a true community center that includes expanded recreation and fitness opportunities, health facilities, meeting rooms, senior services and programs for all ages.

BOARD OF SELECTMEN POSITION: The Board will report at Town Meeting.

FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT: The Finance Committee will report at Town Meeting.

Asking for town to pay only $10K, with user groups paying the rest

transfer of $10K from article 18 of the 2012 ATM

FINCOM/BofS support

CIPC supports article

Main motion of Article 17 passes, one person against

----------

ARTICLE 18. FAIRBANK CENTER ROOF PROJECT

To see what sum the Town will vote to raise and appropriate, or appropriate from available funds, to be expended under the direction of the Permanent Building Committee for the purpose of constructing, reconstructing, or making extraordinary repairs to the roofs or portions thereof at the Fairbank Community Center and all expenses therewith including professional and engineering, the preparation of plans, specifications and bidding documents, supervision of work and borrowing costs; and to determine whether said sum shall be raised by borrowing or otherwise; or act on anything relative thereto.

Submitted by the Facilities Director. (Two-thirds vote required, if borrowed)

FACILITIES DIRECTOR REPORT: In 2010, the Town and the Sudbury Public Schools, through the Permanent Building Committee, jointly commissioned Russo Barr Associates to conduct a comprehensive survey which included detailed on-site investigation of the roofing systems for all nineteen Sudbury public buildings. The survey is intended to serve as a basis for a planned and systematic approach to roof repair and replacement as necessary over a 10 year period. The report set forth a recommended repair and replacement schedule based on the age and condition of each roof.

Last fall, this same article was submitted at the September 24, 2012 Special Town Meeting. At that meeting, the request of $608,000 to replace the failing roof at the Fairbank Center was rejected. The concern arose that the facility may not be adequate for future use. Until such determination is made, there was an apprehension to invest a substantial amount to repair the roof. In response to that concern, the Selectmen created the Fairbank Center Roof Task Force to advise the Town as to the best option for dealing with the facility. The Task Force concluded that a feasibility study addressing the needs of the Community Center should be conducted before a capital roof investment is made to the existing building.

At a minimum $50,000 should be appropriated to fund the cost of repairing selected portions of the approximately 20,600 square feet of roofing at the Fairbank Community Center. These roof sections (labeled 3, 4, and 6, on the Roof Plan) are the flat roof areas that cover the kitchen, school administrative offices, the park and recreation offices and the Atkinson Pool locker rooms.

The roof areas to be repaired or replaced were installed as a “go-over” application (installed over the original Tar and Gravel Roofing System) in 1990 (23 years old). The roofing system that exists is in very poor condition and leaks are common, especially during the winter months, requiring continuing repairs.

For more information visit the Sudbury Facilities Department Website at www.sudbury.ma.us

BOARD OF SELECTMEN POSITION: The Board will report at Town Meeting.

FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT: The Finance Committee will report at Town Meeting.

Jim Kelly

move to appropriate the sum of $50K to be expended for the purpose of making repairs to selected portions of the flat roof areas

seconded

roof is 99 percent complete

FINCOM supports; BofS supports; CIPC supports

Rick Johnson questioning process, says wasn't brought to CPIC before Oct. 1

MaryAnn Bilodeau says smaller portion was not, unless looking at is as part of other project

Johnson -- did it follow by-law

Town Counsel says by-law followed

Article 18 passes unanimously

------

ARTICLE 19 . TOWN CENTER TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS

To see what sum the Town will vote to raise and appropriate, or appropriate from available funds, to be expended under the direction of the Town Manager for construction of traffic improvements to the Town Center and all expenses therewith including professional and engineering, the preparation of plans, specifications and bidding documents, supervision of work and borrowing costs; and to determine whether said sum shall be raised by borrowing or otherwise; or act on anything relative thereto.

Submitted by the Board of Selectmen. (Two-thirds vote required, if borrowed)

BOARD OF SELECTMEN REPORT: This article requests funds for the final engineering, contract document preparation and construction of traffic improvements to the Town Center. Noting the misalignment of the intersection and high number of accidents, as well as the need to install drainage and curbing in the area, the Selectmen appointed the Sudbury Center Improvement Advisory Committee in 2005 to assess the condition of the town center, including all infrastructure, roadways, utilities, pedestrian improvements, historical components, landscaping and other physical features found in the town center area, in order to increase the safety of the intersection of Concord Road and Old Sudbury/Hudson Road, and to enhance opportunities for recreational and cultural use as appropriate, while preserving the historical character of the area.

Funding in 2006 and 2007 from the Sudbury Foundation ($50,000) and the Town ($115,000) resulted in a lengthy public process to develop a context sensitive design for the road improvement project. Traffic studies were prepared and analyzed, the area surveyed and engineering plans drawn which propose a safer intersection, including a realignment of the roads both north/south and east/west, new traffic signals with dedicated left turn phases for each approach, curbing, and pedestrian walkways and crosswalks. The plans also propose relocation of utility boxes and above ground vaults, and drainage improvements.

The Town has moved carefully and methodically through this project in order to balance competing needs and interests in the historic town center. The final plan reflects the community objectives determined during the public process, listed below:

· Preserve and protect historic, cultural and natural resources in the center.

· Improve safety and accessibility for all those that use Sudbury Center.

· Improve traffic flow, but not traffic speed, through the center.

· Protect the existing scale and visual character of the center.

· Establish a clear sense of the town center as a civic location.

This intersection is a regional crossroad, servicing approximately 17,000 vehicles per day. Continuing the operation of the intersection in its present configuration will negatively impact the safety of all users of the Town Center, will extend the Town’s non-compliance with state stormwater requirements, may create more difficult and expensive scenarios when the currently malfunctioning traffic signals fail, and will continue to create driver confusion and higher than average accident rates. The new plans as prepared represent a significant improvement to the safety of the intersection for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic, while respecting Sudbury’s historic context. The Board of Selectmen unanimously supports this article.

FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT: The Finance Committee will report at Town Meeting.

Bill Place speaking

sum of $700K appropriated, said sum to be raised by taxation

seconded

71 accidents in 3 -year period, higher than state average

historic town center is cherished

O’Brien

Final design plans are ready

Intention of BofS under guidance of strategic financial plan, break down into three phases of funding

Feel it can be done in one year

Average home tax bill $110

If don’t improve article due to decrease in debt, tax bill $128

Overall long overdue project

BofS FINCOM CIPC supports article

traffic islands separating roads, smart lights will be added, bicycles allowed on walkways

marked bicycle lanes not part of plans

First Parish supports the article

Conservation Commission supports article because of upgrade to drainage

plan is a one - year capital exclusion, then fall off tax ropes -- O'Brien

Ralph Tyler speaking

asking for amendment

move to amend by requiring the two-way road directly in fron of town hall be maintained

seconded

adding traffic will slow it down

Haynes and Pantry roads, when school buses make left turns always slowing because narrow and long

a not even 90 degree turn, diverting traffic out of center is something we should insist upon

part of motion is keeping same width

without amendment no assurance we go forward

O'Brien

width of road to be 24 feet, adequate for two-way traffic

not recommended do engineering at floor of town meeting

Leonard Simon speaking

presentation indicates one-way scheme be tried

recommend vote against amendment

Vote on amendment (majority) defeated

O'brien

Issue at hand town center owned by First Parish

Concord Road goes through their grass area

in numerous discussions and renditions, it would have cut into front lawn of First Parish significantly, they were against that

One resident asked why not take land by eminent domain

I think Myron said the town didn't want to stain the relationship with First Parish

Place

Construction would have to wait on vote on June 25, put out to bid in fall, probably start some time this time next year

Vote on main motion (majority) passes overwhelmingly

-----

ARTICLE 20. PILOT AGREEMENT – SOLAR PROJECT AT LANDFILL SITE

To see if the Town will vote to authorize and approve an agreement for payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT Agreement), as negotiated by the Town Manager and the Energy Committee with the selected solar project developer for the planned solar electric generating facilities to be located at the former Sanitary Landfill Site off Boston Post Road, and to authorize the Selectmen to submit a Special Act therefor to the Great and General Court if enabling legislation is necessary; or act on anything relative thereto.

Submitted by the Board of Selectmen. (Majority vote required)

BOARD OF SELECTMEN REPORT: A 1.5 MW solar generating facility is presently under construction on the landfill under a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with Ameresco, Inc., the Developer. Under this agreement the Developer installs, owns, operates, maintains, and decommissions the facility at its sole expense. Sudbury purchases electricity from the Developer at pre-set rates, and receives Net Metering Credits from N-Star (the local distribution company) for supplying the purchased electricity to the grid.

The difference between the purchase price of the electricity and the net metering credits earned results in a net benefit of about $120,000 per year to the Town and Sudbury Public Schools, and about $3.6 million over the life of the contract. There is no cost to the Town associated with the construction, operation, maintenance or removal of the facility.

At present, solar generating facilities on municipal property that are owned and operated by a taxable entity are considered by DOR to be subject to personal property tax under M.G.L. c. 59, §2B, even if their operation is for municipal purposes. In this situation, the municipality is in effect taxing itself because any ongoing payments by the facility owner to the host municipality are typically recovered in the price of the electricity supplied. According to DOR guidance, a PILOT (Payment In Lieu of Taxes) can be negotiated by a municipality as an alternative to personal property tax with approval of its governing body. The benefits of a PILOT are:

1. A known and constant expense to the facility owner

2. Lower electricity prices for the host municipality

3. Simplified administration

The goal of this project was to generate electricity cost savings rather than tax revenue. To meet that end and comply with present Massachusetts General Laws on taxation, a PILOT of $7,000 per year was negotiated, subject to approval by Town Meeting. The financial value to the Town from the sale of the electricity produced to the grid far exceeds any prospective tax revenue. The PILOT does not add to the pre-tax electricity price, and so provides a small additional benefit the Town from this use of an otherwise non-producing property.

BOARD OF SELECTMEN POSITION: The Board of Selectmen unanimously supports this article.

FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT: The Finance Committee recommends approval of this article.

Bill Braun speaking

FINCOM and BofS support article

Vote on motion passes unanimously

 -------

ARTICLE 21. PILOT AGREEMENT – SOLAR PROJECT AT LINCOLN-SUDBURY REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL

To see if the Town will vote to approve an agreement for payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT Agreement), as negotiated by the Lincoln-Sudbury Regional School Committee and Superintendent /Principal with the selected solar project developer for proposed solar energy generating facilities to be located at 390 Lincoln Road in Sudbury at the Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School, if necessary approved by the Board of Assessors and to authorize the Selectmen to submit a Special Act therefor to the Great and General Court if enabling legislation is necessary; or act on anything relative thereto.

Submitted by the Lincoln-Sudbury Regional School Committee. (Majority vote required)

LINCOLN-SUDBURY REGIONAL SCHOOL COMMITTEE REPORT: In February 2013, the Lincoln-Sudbury Regional School Committee approved a contract with SunEdison LLC under which SunEdison would design, construct, operate and maintain a 1.27MW solar canopy over the main parking lot at the high school. Construction is slated to commence in Summer 2013. The contract includes a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with SunEdison under which LSRHS purchases the solar electricity produced by the system for the twenty (20) year contract period, at a cost that is $.05/kwh less than the current average cost for electricity to the District. It is estimated that the District will realize approximately $90,000 in energy savings in the first year of the contract, with a total projected minimum savings over the life of the contract of approximately $3 million.

Based upon current information and practice, the proposed solar array on LSRHS property, which is municipal land, will be owned and operated by an entity, SunEdison, which is subject to personal property taxes. The PPA contains a customary provision which provides that certain tax payments required to be made by SunEdison to the Town of Sudbury would be recovered through an upward adjustment in the price of the electricity supplied to LSRHS. This would, in turn, reduce LSRHS’s savings on electricity costs – savings that benefit the taxpayers of Sudbury.

The Massachusetts Department of Revenue has stated in a guidance document that a PILOT (Payment In Lieu of Taxes) agreement may be negotiated by a municipality with approval of its governing body (in the case of Sudbury, at Town Meeting) as an alternative to the assessment of local property tax. To meet the District’s goal of obtaining electricity cost savings and certainty in future energy prices, and in order to comply with current Massachusetts tax laws, approval will be required at Sudbury Town Meeting for a PILOT. A PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) by SunEdison, the owner of the array, would be accepted by Sudbury in lieu of personal property taxes that would otherwise be assessed to SunEdison for their solar array. The amount of the PILOT will be determined prior to Town Meeting and would be payable by SunEdison to the Town of Sudbury. The payment of the PILOT will hold the District harmless, i.e. not adversely affect its estimated savings on electricity costs.

BOARD OF SELECTMEN POSITION: The Board will report at Town Meeting.

FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT: The Finance Committee recommends approval of this article.

Nancy Marshal speaking

FINCOM and BofS support article

Adrian Sheldon (sp?) speaking

how soon operational

Nancy

impending assuring everything is aligned with staging -- 4 to 6 months up and running, real life savings first year $90K

Vote on main motion passes unanimously

----

ARTICLE 22. AMEND TOWN OF SUDBURY BYLAWS, ARTICLE XXV, CAPITAL PLANNING

To see if the Town will vote to amend the Town of Sudbury Bylaws, Article XXV, Capital Planning by deleting Article XXV in its entirety and substituting therefor the following:

Section 1. There shall be a committee known as the Capital Improvement Advisory Committee, (CIAC) composed of seven members: six members appointed by the Selectmen and one member appointed by the Finance Committee. The CIAC shall choose its officers annually. The term of office shall be three years not more than three of which shall expire within the same year. Members of standing boards and committees, as well as Town or school employees, shall be precluded from membership on the CIAC. CIAC members may serve on ad hoc committees created by the Board of Selectmen.

Section 2. The CIAC shall study proposals from the Sudbury Town Manager, Sudbury Public Schools and the Lincoln Sudbury Regional High School or their representatives which involve major tangible items with a total project cost of more than $50,000 in a single year or over $100,000 in multiple years and which would likely require an article at Town Meeting for the project’s authorization. The CIAC shall make a report with recommendations to the Finance Committee and the Board of Selectmen on these proposals.

Section 3. The Sudbury Town Manager shall develop an operating budget for proposed capital expenditures for the upcoming fiscal year containing those items whose costs do not meet this threshold and are to be included in the annual budget and financing plan submitted to Town Meeting. The Town Manager shall work with representatives of the Sudbury Public Schools and the Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School in developing this budget. This capital expenditures budget shall be submitted to the Sudbury Finance Committee at the same time as the budgets of other Sudbury cost centers.; or act on anything relative thereto.

Submitted by the Board of Selectmen. (Majority vote required.)

BOARD OF SELECTMEN REPORT: The Town’s current capital bylaw, established in 1998, is proposed to be replaced by an updated bylaw in order to address many shortcomings that have proved difficult for many parties since the time of its adoption. Among these shortcomings are: (1) members of the CIPC cannot serve on ad hoc boards and committees of the Town, when that is not true for other standing committees such as the Finance Committee; (2) a specific due date (October 1) is included for project submission for projects for a 6 year time horizon, but that date is not in synch with other budget activities and calendars, and does not make allowances for special challenges and opportunities that may arise in connection with a Special Town Meeting, for example; (3) much of the detailed work specified in the bylaw cannot be completed by a citizen committee, but rather has required staff to complete the work; (4) it does not include Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School in the process or responsibilities for capital planning. This revised bylaw focuses the efforts of the Capital Planning Committee on working with the newly created Combined Facilities Director position to better plan for the long term capital needs of the Town, SPS and Lincoln Sudbury Regional High School.

BOARD OF SELECTMEN POSITION: The Board of Selectmen unanimously supports this article.

FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT: The Finance Committee will report at Town Meeting.

Maureen Valente speaking

Doug Kohen from FINCOM speaking

amendments going back to orginal will (not work)

FINCOM and BofS support article

CiPC statement

unanimous supports it

believes operating under new by-law allow focus in greater depth on capital issues

Pat Brown speaking

a lot to like in this article

$50K limit makes perfect sense

6 member board makes sense

taking citizen volunteers is not a good use of time

town manager should be doing this

problem ... no real reporting by committee

doesn't require particular info

there should be a much stronger focusing using citizen input

Andrew MacEntee speaking

by-law is from Mass general law

both Maureen and Larry stated they don't intend to appoint two new members for three-year terms

CIPC voted to appoint the full seven members to the committee

we're out of compliance with the by-law

power belongs with committee, not town manager

Bryan Semple speaking

this article was not vetted in two BofS meetings

some of concerns raised we could have dealt with then

Mike Troiano speaking

it fixes a lot of practicle problems with current by-law

it does transfer some power to town manager, seems short-sighted

some of the debate from the police station, have to look at project A vs. project B

having committee to evaluate while practically challenging in some ways, it seems like an essential discipline

John Barowski (sp?) speaking

Why wasn't this vetted at BofS meetings?

O'Brien

article was discussed not at two meetings others attended, but meeting before those

this article was discussed, it was public, some attendance, overall support

Vote on main motion passes by majority vote

---------

ARTICLE 23. AMEND TOWN OF SUDBURY BYLAWS, ARTICLE XXV, CAPITAL PLANNING – LSRHS INCLUSION

postponed

----

ARTICLE 24. ENERGY SERVICES COMPANY ENERGY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

postponed 

----

ARTICLE 25. AMEND ZONING BYLAW, ART. IX, SEC. 5336(d) AND 5435(c) TO INCREASE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF ONE-BEDROOM UNITS IN SR. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS AND INCENTIVE SENIOR DEVELOPMENTS

To see if the Town will vote to amend Article IX (the Zoning Bylaw), as follows:

Section 5336(d) (Senior Residential Community – Building and Dwelling Unit Requirements/ Maximum Number of Bedrooms) and Section 5435(c) (Incentive Senior Development - Building and Dwelling Unit Requirements) by substituting the words “twenty-five percent (25%)” for the words “ten percent (10%)” in those sections, so those sections read: 5336(d): “No dwelling unit in a SRC shall contain more than three bedrooms. No more than twentyfive

percent (25%) of the total units in a SRC shall have fewer than two bedrooms.” 5435(c): “No dwelling unit in an Incentive Senior Development shall contain more than two (2) bedrooms. No more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the total units in an Incentive Senior Development shall have fewer than two bedrooms.”; or act on anything relative thereto.

Submitted by the Council on Aging. (Two-thirds vote required)

COUNCIL ON AGING REPORT: The Sudbury Council on Aging has submitted this article to encourage developers to build more affordable condos in Sudbury. Two-bedroom units are standard here; but by removing the guest bedroom, a builder can offer units at a lower price.

The growing number of over-55 condominiums confirms that Sudbury is a wonderful place to retire. Over 75% of the current units are owned by seniors who have moved here from other towns, primarily other towns in Metro West. However many of our neighbors have been priced out of this market. By offering units with a slightly smaller footprint, we hope that more Sudbury Seniors will be able to stay in Town.

PLANNING BOARD REPORT: The Planning Board will report at Town Meeting.

BOARD OF SELECTMEN POSITION: The Board of Selectmen unanimously supports this article.

FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT: The Finance Committee will report at Town Meeting.

Mr. Levington speaking

this will help seniors stay in town

FINCOM no position; BofS supports article

Planning Board supports article

Main motion passes unanimously

-----

ARTICLE 26. AMEND ZONING BYLAW, SECTION 6330, SITE PLAN PROCEDURES - CHANGE VOTING REQUIREMENT

To see if the Town will vote to amend Article IX (the Zoning Bylaw), as follows:

Amend Section 6330, Site Plan Procedures, to replace the word “unanimous” with the word “majority”; or act on anything relative thereto.

Submitted by the Planning Board. (Two-thirds vote required)

PLANNING BOARD REPORT: This article seeks to revise the voting requirement for Site Plan Review.

The current requirement to obtain a unanimous vote of the board is onerous and not warranted given the lack of legal standing of site plan review in the Massachusetts General Laws. Site plan review is a means of providing recommendations from the governing body on aspects of a development plan dealing items that can be adjusted to accommodate the concerns of the community, including pedestrian and vehicular safety, removal of vegetation and landscaping, drainage and aesthetic concerns related to the location of parking and architectural design. It is not meant to be a means of denying a plan which is allowed under the zoning bylaw. Requiring a unanimous vote is detrimental to business and the Planning Board recommends changing the requirement to a majority vote.

BOARD OF SELECTMEN POSITION: The Board of Selectmen unanimously supports this article.

FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT: The Finance Committee will report at Town Meeting.

Pat Brown speaking

 FINCOM no position; BofS support article

Bryan Semple speaking

some contentious 2-1 votes, will this take effect tomorrow?

every zoning article goes to AG, could take several months -- Myron

retroactively takes effect end of town meeting

Craig Blake speaking

if 5 person, and 1 recused, how do you get a majority?

2-2 vote would not pass -- Myron

Sid Bourn speaking

did BofS vote unanimous or 2-1?

Haarde says unanimous

Vote on main motion passes.

---

And that's all for day 2. See you again for the conclusion (I hope) of annual town meeting.