Finance Committee: April 24, 2023

Transcript captured from MHTV’s Vimeo auto-captioning. No speaker labels; proper names and dollar figures occasionally misheard. Click any timecode to jump to that moment in the source video.

0:00 All right. Are we unmuted? Yes. You are great. Welcome to Warrant here in night. Number two, we usually Keep this night open to review any leftover of follow-up items from the last warrantiering and there are a few on the agenda tonight. I think it’ll be a relatively quick meeting. But the first we’re gonna review I know I said, we’re gonna re-review number 22, but that number apparently is still moving. So we’re gonna revisit that right on town meeting floor, but it should be a very immaterial change to the town clerk’s salary that we have to revisit so that looking at our agenda which is shared on screen. We’re going to move to article number 46 and let me just scroll there quick.

0:50 Pardon me Mr. Chair. Wasn’t item two to review the minutes. Oh, yeah, you’re right. Before we begin with the Articles, let’s vote prior meeting minutes. So I believe there’s three nights that we have to vote March 27th. April what was the second one path third April third April 3rd and April 10th, which we’ve shared all through email to anybody have any questions or discussion about the minutes. I did have one very small observation on the April 3rd minutes on page two. Yes, select board. In the third sentence the financed committee. Okay, so just to type up a type of yeah, no worries. Yeah. Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t have that. Yeah, like okay.

1:38 I did a track changes. Version that caught that in a couple of other really minor things. Okay. So I if for for emotion, I suggest we want to make a motion. Yeah. I’d like to move that. We’ve both the the track changes version of the minutes unless there’s any changes that people want to make to that. Second. Did you want to say what dates March 27th? Oh, no this on the April 3rd and eventually the April 24th. I mean the April 10th as well, but I didn’t know if you wanted to let’s just vote them all so is about the anybody have any questions on

2:23 either the 10th either. Well, okay great. Great. What’s Worth to approve but it was only March 27th, April 3rd and April 10th second all in favor. Great great back to where I started off. So article 46. I’m just scrolling through for those following online. Make sure we’re looking at.

2:52 46 so last week or the week before we did not make a recommendation on this article. I’ve remembered that. It’s actually not being brought forward. So when that’s the case whether it has financial implications or not, we generally vote indefinite postponement. So since it’s not being brought forward, so any public comment on 46 like to make emotion to vote indefinite postponement of article 46 since it’s no longer being brought forward second. You do a role. approve Yes, yes.

3:31 Yes.

3:34 Thank you. Next on the agenda is article 50.

3:43 Okay, so I think this is Dan’s I see Dan is on the line.

3:51 And yeah.

3:56 There I am.

3:59 Hey, how are you? Good. Thanks for taking another what?

4:04 Oh, no worries.

4:09 So I guess my first question is is this article being brought forward to be voted on a town meeting? Yes. It is okay. Maybe you could provide some. Taller just to revisit this similar to what you did last year, maybe a follow-up about your meeting. I think. You are following up with the planning board the following week. Yeah. Yeah, I was like this. I’m gonna I really appreciate everybody’s time and so I am very mind may take people longer than I’d like a book as possible shouldn’t be five minutes. So and the reason I need to do this is you were given a lot of misinformation during our last

4:56 meeting. I really had thought this would go straight forward but a lot of misinformation same thing happened a bit at the planning meeting. So here’s my spiel. So when a real estate developer wants to build a subdivision a large subdivision multiple homes in town. They have to read this chapter 258 Article 5 Section 17 called design standards. So about a quarter of a century ago the community put forth its goals and desires and one of the things that said was quote all subdivision shall adhere to the principle and principles is key principles of compatible land use sound planning and good engineering doesn’t there’s no laws there. So developers must concern themselves with among other things and this is section

5:41 17 the design for Street. Okay, so that’s where article 50 comes in. It tells developers that Marvel had wants to put want them. This is article 50 wants them to put a pedestrians forgive the pawn on the same footing as Motor Vehicles. Okay, and I can take you through there’s only 14 words in the article. So that’s what it said. It wants us to think about pedestrians as well. But I have to tell you first that it does not. It does not it has nothing to do with despite what you’ve heard building code. Article 50 has absolutely nothing to do with zoning laws. Article 50 imposes no burdens on Town

6:27 departments and will cost no money. Now Town planner Becky current and I had a meeting back in mid-February mid to late February and I asked her about this and she said to me no the developers who want to sell the houses and make the money come to us. They pay for their designers. They pay for their Engineers. We look at the design and we send it out to Consultants peer review. The peer review is paid for by them. So the point of the article is after 25 years. We have to we really need to do it update especially as you guys know, there’s all kinds of

7:05 Stuck going on with all of this. So The question is what do we want our what is Marblehead want developers to design? Their streets like that. We wanted to design them the same way we did in 1968 like the neighborhood I live in or or do we want to update them? And so in in the chapter 258 Article 5 Section 17 labeled Street We’re adding that. We not only want developers to look at what’s called the ashto guide and these are very standard guides. They come down from the feds ashto is a has representatives from all 50 states. They’re officials in transportation. And it and and my article says we’re going to use ashtoe guide

7:53 a policy on geometric design of Highways and streets. So that’s one and that’s already in there. But we also want them to read ashto guide for the planning design and operation of pedestrian facility.

8:10 And so the latter The Pedestrian one is more up to date. It also supplements the former with just more design guidelines and ideas and it relates research finding right so they do research all the time. They said what kind of crosswalk how long should a red light be all that and all of those things are in it neither guy not the one we’re using now or the one I’m proposing. We add to the one we’re using that now neither guy contains required only recommendations and guide if all legislative requirements fall under things like the American Disabilities Act or something called the manual on uniform traffic control devices, which happens also to be in Marblehead by law. Now, here’s where I want to talk to you about again very quickly.

9:00 Um, you know, you ask what will what are we gonna do with this? Is this going to go to indefinite postpone? I think it’s already done a lot of what it was supposed to do which was to begin an urgent conversation about Street design goals for the new housing developments that the state regulations and also clearly the financial imperatives of Marblehead are bringing for so, um, I learned at my last at the planning board meeting that Maggie wheeler is a staff engineer for Town and and these are Becky’s words order to copy of The Pedestrian guy. So in a sense we’re done the engineers are looking at it. That’s great. And at that same meeting the board members expressed strong support for the the whole thing. We were

9:48 talking about and they even asked have we updated the subdivision stuff to bring all this stuff into play in the last 25 years and Becky said, well, you know, we have some notes and basically no Now that board felt that because they had only just learned about this on I think it was April 11th, you know right before telling meeting they were gonna vote for indefinite postponement. Okay, and that’s not a terrible idea. It’s gonna give Maggie wheeler time to read pedestrian guy and time to dispel these misplaced fears that I think Thatcher or I should be fair that sure seem to be relating from the engineer some fears, but they’re completely missed place. So what do I want to happen at town meeting?

10:36 I’m gonna move I going to move the article forward the article says again, and you can see it on the screen to amend the town. Bylaws Chapter 58 Article 5 Section 17 by inserting. And Asheville publication guide for the planning design operation of pedestrians facilities latest edition after the words ashto publication a policy on geometric design of highways. I want to tell you to what after one one last thing is. I am perfectly willing if the planning board. You know puts forth that let’s let indefinitely postpone it someone wants to step in the audience. They I think you agree with the planning board. Let’s indefinitely postpone

11:24 frankly. Although for them. All of that said there is no reason for this board. I believe Finance To recommend it so that’s okay. Yeah, so I guess my that answers and that’s very helpful because I I think a couple weeks ago I couldn’t remind you to I muted here I could hear okay. I got a notice on my screen. I was muted. Sorry. I couldn’t hear you as well two weeks ago, but I think this is pretty clear to me. Now that I’m understanding this this feels like what we refer to as advisory and there’s no financial implications of this and you’re confirming that you’re bringing it forward. So we’re not going to vote indefinite postponement. The reason I had said that in my email is if you weren’t bringing it Forward, even if it has no financial implications that

12:11 definitely yeah, no, no, I completely got that and that I think okay. So great. That’s helpful. Yes. Chair, I would. Pause it that there are Financial. Oh there are yeah. I’m sorry who’s speaking? I apologize. I’m having trouble seeing you. Michael Janko. Oh, thank you very much. Thank you. Yeah, I think you know when you talk about adding new rules regulations that’s going to require people’s time. Maybe it’s not a cost that we see but it’s hours time me and hours that are going to be invested by people that have to read these rules, you know, put these rules into effect and

12:56 then review the rules, you know to make sure that people aren’t compliance with them. So I think there is but is it requiring them to be in compliance or is it just advisory that they should review the guide? Well, even if they review it that’s time spent right? So whether they have to do it whether they’re required to look at it. It’s still going to imply time spent doing that. And so that’s time. That for that any anytime you want me to reply I’m sitting here. I will quietly. I’m happy to reply to that.

13:30 Anyways III that’s my only point is I think there is definitely costs to this maybe not, you know, really a parent costs but there are costs down the road anytime you add any kind of regulations or new guidelines or whatever to any entity. Okay. Is it is it the cost to the town that would make it relevant for us the cost to the developers right the cost to the town would be relevant right? Not the developers, right? So I’m talking about the people that were Marvel had it for the planning board in the town committees and the engineers and everybody that has to review this stuff. Okay. I’m not talking about. Yeah outside.

14:09 I would suggest although I generally agree with Michael but I would suggest that the the cost is De Minimus and effectively would have no impact on the town budgets. So I think as far as the finance committees concerned to be my opinion that it would have no impact or no measurable impact on the town budget. Would you agree with that Patrick? Yeah.

14:39 Dan did you want to speak to to that? I I certainly agree with that. I would say.

14:48 Yeah, these are again I said it already. These are not regulations. They’re no regulations in them. These are things these are books that are basically on Engineers shelves all interim America and it’s again the developers you do it so I I have to agree. So if this were to pass in a developer was just to say thanks for the advice, but I don’t feel like reading that book. That’s totally by the law allowed from your perspective. Yes, and I should say too. Nobody knows whether they read the book basically the town looks at subdivisions. And makes decisions. I don’t want to go through what’s all in in section 17 but section 17 gives the town an enormous amount of leeway.

15:35 The there are set of

15:41 goals desires call them where it says things like it would we would like the subdivisions to do more of the following. That’s one whole section from the second section. We like them. Subdivisions to do less of the phone. So very quickly an example. We’d like subdivisions to Protect questions they protect I mean, let me give a simple example. Um To orient housing basically for solar game, right? So this test is sustainability. We would like you to make it so houses can have solar panels basically. well that’s already in there. We can look at

16:28 it at the town and say and you know through our planning people and say yeah, but in this case, that’s not important. right, so there’s nothing um in this That is that adds to those goals desires and so forth. There’s nothing in this that says we would like our streets to be like this. Basically the town will look at a street plan and

16:53 say we like it. We don’t like it. That’s not you.

16:59 No short answer short answer is no regulation. There’s no regulation.

17:07 Here’s my assessment of it. These These are adding sort of more guidelines to you know, that planning boards would use to look at development projects what matters what really makes it happen and not happen are the conditions set by the planning board for development. And so it sounds like what would happen is they could choose to grab some kind of conditions out of the Asheville guidelines or any other guidelines and make it a condition upon the development. So the real enforcement mechanism is what the planning board decides to place his conditions and they can use you know, whatever manuals guides or whatever to to draw from to set the conditions. So does it provide the planning board

17:53 more flexibility to reference additional books is that I think again this would be advisory right so it can’t be mandatory. So it’d be informative for them to okay to to use it. So they it it’s totally planning boards option to draw from these guidelines and make them a requirement. Okay. so I just said one question if I could so Dan I didn’t I just Pat Franklin the What what was the basis for the planning board choosing indefinite postponement relative to this issue? Yeah, and I will complain just a little bit what they said. Well, let me I actually you

18:41 great from the well, you know, let me let me let me just let me just change the question a little bit. Okay, do you expect the planning board at town meeting? to Speak against this article.

19:00 I think they will speak against it and I Forgive me. I’m not that up on the rules and regulations, but I don’t think even that they will uh make a motion for indefinite if I understand. No, yeah, they would have to stand up and my understanding is they would have to stand up and go against it. There’s no they don’t have a you know, a handbook that makes recommendations to the town about How to vote basically well, I I the way I understood the end of our meeting so though again there were just sort of gently the biggest concern if there was one wait a minute we’re fixing this little thing we wanted to fix the whole thing. And so they really had a desire for updating the subdivision goals the board members also felt that they

19:48 had had time to evaluate And so my feeling again, that’s not a terrible idea if they are willing to say yeah, we agree with you. Yeah, we really want to do this. But sorry we just came to us too late. And so we really feel indefinite postponents best way for it, you know, the idea is not to force anybody to do anything or make anybody uncomfortable or create some kind of antagon. so, um, but I should say also the garage Robert Schaffner about shafner who’s the chair that you know, I have my reservation, but he’s very clear and he said I believe in letting the voters I believe in letting town meeting speak to this. So again my feeling and I want to

20:34 express this publicly. And you know, I’d like Bob Chapman here. We can definitely indefinitely postpone article without harm. It’s gonna be a while before because of division. Well we can’t do is it definitely postpone this conversation about how we’re gonna make one. Let’s say we’re more accommodating for pedestrians all ages and sounds like to me that’s what the planning board is willing to do and that’s why I say I will motion for approval if Somebody wants to say yeah, that’s really indefinite postponement. I want to make clear that yes, I am willing to deal. Okay, so

21:14 I think I understand. This could be potentially a procedural issue with Town the way Town meetings run if the finance committee votes indefinite postponement to an article that the moderator that’s the first um question brought to the town meeting and if it’s approved then you don’t even get to speak. So I think I would think what you’re getting at is let give you the chance to speak and So in that case, I think vote I’m go ahead Eric. Thank you. Pat just to restate my point a little bit earlier. It’s my understanding that if there is no measurable

21:59 impact. on the town budget traditionally the finance committee would take no position. No recommendation. No recognition. That’s the that’s where I’m going to that’s my thought too. So I’m I’m not suggesting we vote indefinite postponement. I’m suggesting No recommend teams like advisory to me. Yeah, even you know, if it passes then it’s not changing a law requiring you to do something. It’s just advisory. It’s it’s providing additional guidance in their process and in the planning boards process, right and that allows as it were that allows the discussion to happen at town meeting. Yeah, and if the planning board chooses to speak speak that’s we’re using a lot of use you from here, right?

22:47 It’s not another tool into two box. It’s another regulation. It’s another law right now. It’s not by any it will be binding down the road. I promise you just like all this other stuff, right? And yeah, maybe this one has a very very modest. Like Pebble in but it’s this cumulation. It’s accumulation of the laws and regulations. If you’ve tried to do anything in this town around building renovating or you know a developer. it’s in having to go in front of the planning board or the multiple times and it costs money for the the homeowners to go and hire an attorney sit in front of and go through these Myriad laws because no one understands that except for a real estate attorney. So yeah, this is one little thing.

23:34 But it’s the accumulation of these laws in these regulations. It really end up costing homeowners the taxpayers. Not not just this one little thing. But it would cost that taxpayers individually who are bringing the development to or the or the renovation right? It’s not we’re looking at town. So that doesn’t affect the town budget. No, it doesn’t affect the town budget in that perspective. But what I’m saying is the other part of it, which I describe before which is with the engineering folks all the planning board all the men always that go into interpreting and executing on all these Myriad by laws and guidelines and whatever you you from missing your call, but it’s it does take out an

24:22 inordinate on time of Marvel head. Employees, but if it’s not binding on the employees to follow these guides, I’m not following. It seems like it’s just advising them that there’s this book that exists that can help them. Yeah, I think to that because I think why why make it officially part of if it’s I don’t know. Yeah, so I think that’s my point. Actually then it becomes later on down the road or requirement, right? Okay, so The problem here is where and I appreciate you talking about you. The laws were let’s just say for the sake of argument. It was requirements. Again, it’s absolutely not this is not this is not about me.

25:09 Wanting to take my half acre lot make it into two quarter acre lots and build a second home. This is not about me wanting to put it into just uh Adu that’s dwelling unit. in Chapter 58 It makes very clear that. We’re talking about subdivisions of a certain song. So

25:37 it’s not as if somebody is gonna build a new Road in Marblehead a new Street. And turn their house into a duplex or even build two homes. It just that’s not the way this works and there is a provision within the bylaws that says. Smaller stuff you don’t have to do any of this and again, I more than happy to take everybody through the laws. But you know, this is the second meeting so But this does not this is where I think we get a little confused because subdivision of land means one, right it means taking it piece of a parcel in the tech, you know on the access information and splitting it up. That’s what sub dividing land is.

26:24 That’s not what this is about a subdivision. And a subdivision in this context is a large. Builder coming in and building a bunch of houses. I live on left the road and Marblehead number 58 is in a subdivision of seven houses all of the houses look that’s Old Salem Road a subdivision that is a road that was built by the development. Okay. So so when the subdivision on Old La Chester Road, or maybe Leicester you said was built if this Was to pass before that happened. What would be

27:10 the difference in the approach that they took? Versus what actually happened anything. Other than that they have this

27:19 bylaw that says that there’s this, you know book out there that that you should look at when you’re considering your your planning um

27:31 No, nothing would change nothing would change. I mean, it’s funny. This was 1968. I don’t know what’s going on. But 1997 was the last time we looked at it and no I there is nothing different. There’s nothing different. It’s a good question now, right? I know Lester Road there. They’re sidewalks there if the developer hadn’t put sidewalks in. The difference would be that there’s now there’s book out there that says hey and you’re thinking we recommend you think about adding pedestrian think about the pedestrians while you’re laying out your subdivision. Is that a correct? summary It is yes it yes. I mean, yes. Think about the better exactly now

28:16 that you said there were sidewalk. Obviously somebody thought about the pedestrians, but that’s because it was 1968. On Old Salem Road in the 1980s 1990s that yeah, we don’t need sidewalks. So yes. The good news is we’re providing on no recommendation. Yeah, right. So because for me I’d want to read the actual bylaw we’re amending because this doesn’t tell me anything. So, I mean, it’s hard it. I’ve not saying you’re not representing exactly what the bylaws but without reading the bylaw you’re amending. It’s hard to know if it’s mandatory advisory suggestive meaningless meaningful, but we’re just voting on no recommendation tonight, but by next week

29:02 We probably need to look at the bylaws to know what that does.

29:06 And talk to the planning. and okay. okay, I’m sorry, but very I understand so you’re thinking tonight no recommendation, but there’s still the possibility between now and night of down. You’ll vote. Differently, no, I don’t think so. I think we’re making no recommendation. I just think as taxpayers. We may need to review the buy lots of interesting. I I hope we are reading Of bylaws before we vote. Yeah. Yeah. I hope I’m reading less.

29:45 Just joking. All right, so any further discussion on article 50?

29:53 Any public comments on article 50?

30:01 All right. So I’d like well, we I guess no recommendation on article 50 we weren’t voting on that last week, right so we won’t vote on it this week. Yeah, we don’t want okay, so I appreciate your your time Dan. Thank you. Our our record our no recommendation in our book. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. I really you guys really are very thoughtful. I appreciate bye. Thanks. Have a good night. Okay.

30:31 Lynn star of the night to make it easy on all of us. Oh, you did nice and I think you have in front of you that that gave you yeah, which is I I sent it by I sent it by Jack Jack sent back to me how I’m supposed to make the motion and all it does is urge. and urging is mere mere and I think that will work out fine and I did take out the end, but I said our town town meeting urges all boards and committees subject to the open meeting law to Make a recording one way or another. That was 51 and 52 make

31:18 hybrid or remote. Pass that had to go through the Selectmen select board according to the lawyer. So I threw the select board in to question 52. So we’ve got those now, but I’d like your support. So because everybody says it’s good. So a bit basically you can read very similar. This is very similar. So the new proposed article 51 and 52, which the text that Lynn sent us me slash us today is complete replacement of what was originally published as

32:05 51 and 52 and article 51 says now says and you’ll what you’ll do is Lynn, I think procedurally you say you’d like to amend your article as originally published in the warrant to Move to urge all Town boards and committees which are subject to the open meeting law to make their best efforts to produce a recording of their meeting available to the public and Link through the town website. The recording could be a video capture a transcript a sound recording or other. So that’s article 51. And article 52 similarly,

32:51 you’ll say I’m moving to amend my original article 52 to state that I moved to urge the select board to recommend that all Town boards and committees. Subject to open meeting law to make their best efforts to provide a hybrid or remote option for attendance. to both members members of the boards and committees and the public so I have the unique position of also being on the article 44 study committee, which has been looking into this for the past year relative to the

33:33 2022 town meeting article 44 and we’ve clearly just we determined as we expected during last year’s.

33:45 town meeting that there is potential significant costs associated with mandatory implementation of the of the Concept and of the of the intent. of of doing this so by and is over the course of the time the article 44 committee determined that you know, we’re the the town boards and and are really doing the best they can to do this already making it mandatory was where the costs came in taking them the the absolute requirement out of article 51

34:31 and 52. allows the town to make to continue making the progress without forcing a specific cost in this particular fiscal year. So to I my suggestion is that there that the way the articles are changed there is no Financial. Impact immediate financial impact and therefore as with the others where there’s no Financial impact we can make no recommendation. and should vote for no recommendation and then let the discussion occur at town meeting about

35:17 about Pro or Con on the merits of the articles Yeah, here’s to be I advisory to me. Yeah. Something that I think a lot of people can get behind for sure. I think the challenge was like Pat said the requirements and the unknowns as to what goes into that but I think if this gets discussed at town meeting and if it were to pass a town meeting that I would hope that people would take it seriously and make their best effort. So you think you could say it like that some friends too, but the recommendation for or stating that we make no recommendation is true. Significantly different than last year where when we didn’t have any information.

36:03 the the proper answer for the board is Earth for the committee Finance Community is to vote indefinite postponement. We’re clearly not. I don’t think that’s appropriate this year with articles 51 and 52. So

36:22 As I said at our last meeting, I think your goals are a lot of touring and I agree conceptually with them and I I applaud the the purpose behind you bringing you forward. My concern was about the Practical and the financial being a technology person myself and understanding a lot of the the hiccups that can can occur. I so I applaud the way you’ve read drafted these and I think it’s going to help move the conversation forward and I think the town should continue to move in this direction and when we can allocate the resources to implement it more fully. So thank you for your redraft. Thank you for your suggestions and and your

37:10 help. Thank you. Thank you very much. Also wanted to thank Pat and Katherine. I know you also were on the committee and that you work all year and spend a lot of time and even though you know the financial implications that still helpful to know what they are and be able to use that and I do think that being able to talk to this and have everyone voted on meeting. It’s going to push things forward, too. So, thank you. Nice work.

37:37 Is that wrap up our night? No, recommendation public comments. I guess you have no recommendation and Noble to require. Yes. Okay, everyone. Okay, we have comments. Yeah, yeah, that’s a different article being brought forward. Okay. All right. motion to adjourn you on favorite. Alright that thank you.