May Day

Didn't have 4 1/2 hours to watch the Greenfield Town Council meeting last night? Can't say I blame you. If you want to fast-forward to the good parts, you can find it online courtesy of the good folks at GCTV.

Regarding my "no" vote for a May 1 election--

Back in January/February, I heard the following reasons for holding a separate, special election on the high school project:

• The Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) recommended a special election because the question could otherwise be lost in a "regular" town election.
• The timing of the town election (June 12) was too late in the available window to facilitate going back to the public for a second vote if the first vote failed.
• June 12 was a period of school vacation and many interested/affected parties would not be around to weigh in on the issue.

From that initial discussion to yesterday, March 21, I observed the following:

• There would be no preliminary election, and modest turnout was expected for the June 12 election, due to no contested races beyond the 3 candidates for School Committee.
• Numerous individuals expressed concern about the expense ($13-$14000) related to opening the polls for a single ballot question.
• With less than 6 weeks to go before a May 1 election, many Greenfield residents did not feel that they had enough information about the project.

At the meeting, I asked for a recap of why the May 1 vote was important. Councilor Farrell, who has been the Council liaison to the School Building Committee, mentioned MSBA's recommendation, but did not indicate that May 1 was actually a requirement, and did not commit to undertaking a second vote if the first vote failed.

Much to my surprise, Mayor Martin and the project manager came forward to state that the project timeline was contingent on the May 1 favorable vote, and that it would cost delays and therefore dollars if the town waited 6 weeks to vote on June 12. For me, and at least 5 other councilors, this was new information, and it was unsupported by any documentation.

Why was this detail not made public prior to the Council meeting, and why was it not documented? It was an important factor that councilors and voters should have understood before committing to any election timeline.

It was an additional surprise that the School Building Committee had printed 10,000 brochures for mailing, prominently featuring a May 1 vote date. According to Councilor Farrell, the redress for any date change involved hand-stickering each brochure.

As a Councilor, I think it's my role to get information to constituents, to hear their feedback, and to gather and consider all relevant information before a vote. Particularly given the high-stakes nature of the high school project, and the number of concerns expressed by residents about the expense and timing of a special election, I did not feel that the Town and the School Building Committee provided sufficient information to Councilors or residents on this particular issue to justify voting in support.

Proposed Zoning Changes

Tomorrow night (Thursday), 7pm is a public hearing at the Police Department, run by the Planning Board, about the proposed zoning changes to the Lunt and Wisdom Way properties. 

Re Lunt, changing from General Industry (GI) to Limited Commercial (LC) enables the following new uses: single-family dwelling; two-family dwelling; crematory; municipal or commercial parking lot or garage; bus or railroad passenger terminal or taxi dispatch; car wash; funeral home; hotel, motel, inn; conference center; personal and consumer service establishment; retail establishment; restaurant, bar or lounge; take-out restaurant; drive-in or drive-through restaurant; sale or leasing of motor vehicles, boats, farm implements, campers or other vehicles or heavy equipment; new and used motor vehicles with Greenfield Class 1 MVL; theatre; garden center; private club or membership organization. 

Following new allowed by special permit: multifamily dwelling; bed-and-breakfast; assisted living facility; indoor recreation; gas station; medical center/clinic; R&D facilities; mixed residential/business. 

Following existing would be newly disallowed: power plant (special permit); radio/tv/cell towers; bulk storage/sale of fuel or fluid; office park; trucking firm; warehouse or freight transport terminal; assembly/bottling/packaging/finishing plant; contractor's yard; open storage of raw materials, finished goods, or equipment; light industry, manufacturing, or processing plant; salvage/junkyard (special permit); waste hauling establishment (special permit); processing of earth designated for removal by the town (special permit); incidental retail sales to a permitted use (special permit).

There will be a second public hearing at the Town Council's Economic Development Committee meeting, Tuesday, January 10 at 6:30 pm at the Police Department. I will be unable to attend this meeting, but I will be at tomorrow night's meeting, and I encourage interested residents to attend one or both meetings to offer your comments to town officials, or contact me with your questions and feedback.

An Open Forum

Last Friday’s Recorder column was another head-scratcher. The November 29 Greenfield Community Forum meeting, sponsored by Town Council’s Community Relations and Education Committee, was designed to give residents a chance to interact with their councilors and other town officials in an informal setting. As a member of the CRE, I can speak confidently that it was clearly marketed as a place for residents to ask questions and give feedback about town matters.

Unfortunately, turnout for precincts 4, 5, and 6 was not as robust as October’s meeting for precincts 1, 2, and 3, though we were pleased to have the opportunity to interact with the residents who did attend. There were probably an equal number of residents and town officials, and we sat around a big table while residents discussed their ideas and concerns.

Here are some of the topics raised by residents:

1)Status of the biomass plant.

2)Fuel/heat assistance, given that the federal aid to the state, which is then given to Greenfield, was cut by 50%.

3)Ways which small business startups could obtain seed money for funding.

4)Use of the Town Common and the process for obtaining licenses to assemble.

5)Parking fees, and whether free parking could be extended to 9am.

6)Leaf-blower noise.

7)Poet’s Seat gate – whether it could be opened to cars later in the morning to address safety concerns of early-morning pedestrians.

8)Obstructions high hedges and other plantings may cause to drivers, and enforcement if those plantings violate ordinances.

9)Healthy communities outreach, to encourage more walking. The concept of a “walking school bus” which would guide kids on safe routes to school.

10)How water bills are calculated.

11)Public smoking.

I’m not sure how an open, informal discussion forum translates to endorsement of “radically liberal” “proposed policy changes,” nor do I remember any councilor or town official endorsing use of town funds for item #3, or categorizing it as a way to “allow residents who can’t qualify for conventional bank loans to borrow money directly from the town.” Options such as the CDC’s involvement, and use of Kickstarter.com were discussed, as well as possible ways to communicate opportunities to entrepreneurs.

As this was an informal meeting, it was not televised, and to my recollection, no media was in attendance. Rest assured that “proposed policy changes” would continue to be raised to the public via the established protocol: through the office of the mayor, via a motion in a town council meeting, in special public hearings, via town boards, etc.

Meanwhile, I encourage residents, particularly those in precincts 7, 8, and 9, to attend January’s Greenfield Community Forum, scheduled for Tuesday, January 24 at 6:30pm at GCC’s Downtown Campus, on Main Street at Davis Street. And, as always, councilors welcome residents’ feedback, in meetings or otherwise. If you have any questions about the topics listed above, I am happy to try to answer them here.

Reliable Sources

The Recorder’s Friday columnist and I do agree on one thing: if you are truly interested in Town Council goings-on, watching meeting coverage on www.gctv.org is the best way to get accurate information. Additionally, councilors are happy to engage with their constituents directly, by email, phone, blogs, or in-person at meetings, including committee meetings and public forums.

Given the many state and local issues to choose from, it's surprising that a fellow councilor's laugh became a top priority for news commentary.

11/16/11 Town Council Meeting, Part I: Tax Rate Reduction

After the November 16 Town Council meeting, I feel it is important to clarify my positions regarding tax rate reduction and the possibility of a split tax. It is also important to note that The Recorder's reporting of that meeting has been inaccurate. Councilors Rasku and Renaud were misquoted/misattributed -- hopefully, their Letters to the Editor will be published to correct and clarify some of that coverage.

First, the tax rate reduction. Of the $1.2 million in surplus, or "free cash," Mayor Martin submitted the following for Council vote:

1. Increase the FY12 Operating Budget by $562,050 (including $228,000 to Greenfield Public Schools; $105,000 to Veterans Services; Police Department, $50,000, and others)
2. Decrease the FY12 Operating Budget by $54,550 (mostly transferring costs under one department/line item to another as outlined in #1 breakout)
3. Appropriate $330,000 from Free Cash to reduce the tax rate.
4. Appropriate $250,000 from Free Cash to the Stabilization Fund; $250,000 to the Capital Project Stabilization Fund; $250,000 to the Contractual Agreement Stabilization Fund.
5. Appropriate $50,000 from Free Cash for remediation of hazardous materials at Town Hall Annex prior to demolition.

Per the Town Charter, the Town Council cannot increase the budget. We can vote "aye" or "no" on these motions and we can amend motions to decrease amounts. I voted "aye" on #1, #2, the various motions in #4 (which are important to build up our town's reserves and to maintain good credit rating), and #5. I voted "no" on #3, for the following reasons:

• While $330,000 is a large sum in total, it becomes less significant when disbursed to all property tax-payers. Based on what we were told by the Mayor and Director Kelly, if your property has been assessed at $188,000 -- about the average for Greenfield -- you will receive a check for about $42. An average of $42 for property holders -- less if your property is worth less, and someone holding property assessed at $1.8 million, 10x more than the average, would get $420 back. Based on these proportions, a relatively small refund to individuals does not seem, to me, to have more merit than using the lump sum for a larger-scale project or series of projects that have been deferred due to cost.
• Times are tough. We have faced year-over-year service cuts. Could that $330,000 have been used to restore town services that could be valuable for all Greenfield residents -- property owners, renters, business owners, workers -- and Greenfield visitors? Councilor Wisnewski mentioned a list of examples of quality of life issues and concerns that some residents and business owners have articulated. Greenfield Schools asked for more budget dollars than they received. The town is about to begin a master planning process. Greenfield endured several unusual and expensive weather events in 2011 -- will there be more?
• After the initial Recorder article ran about the proposed reduction, I did not hear from a single constituent, neighbor, or friend urging me to vote for the reduction. However, I did receive feedback from several downtown business owners who requested that those funds be used to expand downtown foot and bicycle patrols to address what they have perceived as an increase in petty crimes and drug activity. I have heard people from all political perspectives address concern about this activity. Subsequently, I discussed this with President Singer and other councilors and emailed Mayor Martin with this feedback before the meeting. Given this feedback, I felt it was important to bring this perspective to the table in the form of both discussion at the meeting and my "no" vote.

If you disagree with my perspective and my vote, I encourage you to contact me -- our precinct's Greenfield Community Forum meeting will be held on Tuesday, November 29 at 6:30pm at the GCC Downtown Center on Main & Davis St. I will also attend January's meeting, and of course, you can always reach me via email, Facebook, or by commenting on this blog.

Next up: my second "no" vote and what a "split tax" means.

Muni Health Update

Yes, it's been too long, and I apologize. Re Muni Health -- since the Council tabled the motion to adopt the Muni Health guidelines, Director Lane Kelly has been meeting weekly with representatives from all 13 town unions to discuss options for reform. The plan is to meet until mid-December, when Director Kelly will present a proposal for the unions to vote on, within 30 days. I look forward to hearing next month's update and hope that all parties have been having constructive and ongoing dialogue about this issue.

Informational Meeting 9/14/11 -- Muni Health Care

An informational Town Council meeting is scheduled for tomorrow, 9/14, at 6:30 pm, GHS cafeteria. Core topic is the Municipal Health Reform Act. If you or someone you know has concerns, feedback, perspective -- please attend and share. I am interested in hearing more local voices about this issue as we continue to gather information. The Town Council will be voting on this issue in next week's meeting, 9/21 at 7pm, GCTV studios.

If you can't attend, please feel free to email me any feedback in advance of the meeting.

Also on the agenda for tomorrow night is emergency financing due to hurricane damage. A substantial portion may be eligible for reimbursement from federal and state disaster relief funds. The Recorder has coverage of this issue in today's paper.