🪙 Town Meeting 5-8-25 (Articles 14-18 & Instr Motions) AI Recap

Below is a summary of the Final Night of Town Meeting including timestamps, key speakers, and significant outcomes. The meeting primarily focused on discussions around Article 14 (pickleball courts funding amendment), Article 17 (discontinuance of a drainage easement), Article 18 (removal of town meeting members), and instructional motions under Article 3. The summary highlights the main points, debates, and decisions made during the meeting.

Opening and Procedural Setup

5:38 – Meeting Called to Order

• Speaker: Moderator (Alan Foulds)
• Action: The meeting begins with a quorum present, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance (5:44–5:55).

---

Article 14: Pickleball Courts (Amendment)

6:02 – Article 14: Pickleball Courts Funding Amendment

• Speaker: Moderator Alan Foulds, Ms. Wellman, Mr. Wise
• Discussion:
  • Motion to take Article 14 from the table (6:02–6:14, motion carries).
  • Ms. Wellman introduces the proposed amendment to Article 14, which directs the recreation division to collect user/program fees from all court users (residents and non-residents) to maintain and operate pickleball courts until the project cost ($1.5M, including debt service) is covered (6:23–7:56).
  • The amendment specifies that fees will be placed in a 53D recreation revolving fund, with excess funds (> $100,000) transferred to the general fund at fiscal year-end for any purpose, including debt payments (8:43–9:03).
  • Mr. Wise emphasizes the amendment’s instructional nature (non-binding but influential) and notes legal constraints under MGL rules for fee fairness (8:14–9:19).
• Key Speakers and Points:
  • Angela Binda (9:26–11:14, Precinct 5): Opposes the amendment, calling it “smoke and mirrors” due to its non-binding nature. Cites a past example where kiosks, approved with expected fee recoupment, were shut down, costing $110,000 with minimal return. Expresses concern over $1.3M in town funds and doubts fee collection will offset costs.
  • John Arena (11:39–12:55, Precinct 1): Supports the amendment, optimistic about its implementation. Argues that instructional motions are meaningful, citing elected officials’ commitment to follow through. Compares pickleball courts to reliable infrastructure (gravity and concrete) unlike kiosks.
  • Linda Snow Dockser (13:07–18:04): Questions if fees will cease after the $1.3M project cost is recovered. Mr. Wise clarifies fees are temporary to recover costs, not perpetual, unlike other public courts. Notes a successful tennis pass program as a model. Ms. Dockser suggests a nuanced fee structure for sustainability (e.g., peak times, family passes) without precluding accessibility.
  • Laura Noonan (18:12–38:32, Precinct 4, Recreation Committee): Supports the amendment, emphasizing pickleball’s popularity and potential to generate revenue, unlike kiosks. Believes the crafted language addresses monetization concerns from prior discussions.
  • Nancy Doctor (38:39–39:48, Precinct 1): Opposes the amendment, uncomfortable with drafting warrants during the meeting. Suggests delaying the project to next year for funding via the Community Preservation Act, avoiding fees.
  • Ed Ross (39:48–40:53, Precinct 5): Supports the amendment, swayed by the proposed fee language. Acknowledges budget concerns but believes the amendment balances funding sources.
  • Paula Perry (40:53–41:57, Precinct 1): Supports the amendment despite questioning why pickleball users must pay unlike other sports. Clarifies that non-residents can be charged higher fees.
  • Phil Pacino (41:57–44:27, Precinct 5): Questions long-term revenue if pickleball’s popularity wanes. Ms. Wellman responds that pickleball’s demand is strong, and fees can be adjusted to maintain participation.
  • Jonathan Barnes (44:27–49:01, Precinct 5): Questions why the amendment is instructional, not binding. Town Counsel (Ms. Reed) explains that under MGL Chapter 40, Section 22F, only boards/committees can set fees, limiting town meeting’s authority.
  • Joy Beaulieu (49:10–54:34, Precinct 7): Questions past fee programs (e.g., tennis pass). Ms. Wellman clarifies the tennis pass offset lighting costs, not court construction, and ended when demand dropped. Beaulieu seeks timeline: construction could start next spring if approved, with borrowing in FY26 (July 2025).
  • Steve Herrick (54:39–58:36, Precinct 8): Opposes the amendment, concerned it lacks structure to ensure fee revenue offsets debt. Fears the town remains liable for costs without guaranteed recoupment.
  • Jeffrey Dietz (58:47–1:00:40, Precinct 5): Opposes, arguing fees won’t fund critical services (e.g., fire trucks, roads). Suggests a smaller, less costly project.
  • Eileen Manning (1:01:47–1:02:28, Precinct 5, RPPA): Supports the amendment, trusts town staff to implement fees based on Monday’s discussions.
  • Joe Carnahan (1:02:39–1:03:09, Precinct 7): Clarifies debt schedule, noting borrowing starts in FY26 for $1.5M (or less with other funds).
  • Dave Snow (1:03:18–1:06:57, Precinct 6): Questions maintenance funding if fees fall short. Ms. Wellman explains the courts’ durable design (25–50 years) and that maintenance (e.g., nets, resurfacing) will be funded via the revolving fund, with major capital costs from general funds.
  • Sheila Mulroy (1:07:04–1:09:18): Moves to end debate on the amendment (requires 2/3 vote).
• Outcome:
  • Vote to End Debate (1:07:34–1:09:18): 131 in favor, 4 opposed (2/3 majority achieved).
  • Vote on Amendment (1:09:25–1:09:36): Majority vote in favor, amendment carries.

---

Article 14: Pickleball Courts (Main)

1:09:42 – Main Motion on Article 14

• Speaker: Moderator, Mark Dockser, Town Counsel (Ms. Fried), Mary Ellen O’Neil
• Discussion:
  • Mark Docker (1:09:50–1:11:28, Precinct 1): Questions wording, noting the motion authorizes borrowing $1.5M, but intent is to borrow $1M with other funds (e.g., RPPA donations, Burbank Ice Arena Fund). Ms. Reed clarifies the motion allows up to $1.5M borrowing, but other funds (e.g., donations) don’t require town meeting approval.
  • Mary Ellen O’Neil (1:12:32–1:15:17, Precinct 6): Opposes the project, against charging residents for town-funded courts. Questions RPPA’s funding (pledges may be revoked) and Burbank Ice Arena Fund use, noting its $400,000 balance was redirected from operating budget to an off-books account without clear policy.
  • Taylor Gregory (1:15:25) argues the project lacks sufficient data on the number of pickleball players and suggests delaying until November for more study, emphasizing other priorities like Killam and ReCAL.
  • Miss Wellman and Miss Wood (1:17:25, 1:18:14) defend the project, noting it was rigorously studied during the ReCAL feasibility study, with ~400 documented players and a long-standing need since 2012.
  • John Sasso (1:21:56) confirms the project is independent of ReCAL, with potential cost savings if both projects proceed (e.g., shared electrical transformer, parking lot paving).
  • Angela Binda (1:26:53) opposes, questioning the use of Burbank funds (rent, not donation) and the influence of the Burbank Ice Arena Authority, calling the project rushed and costly.
  • Response (1:31:44) clarifies Burbank funds were proposed by the select board, not directed by the Burbank Arena board, despite Binda’s claims of prior conversations.

• Motion to End Debate (1:34:44, James Bonazoli): Passes with 98 in favor, 38 opposed (1:36:16).

Vote Outcome (1:36:23–1:50:06):

• Roll Call Vote: 102 in favor, 43 opposed (1:50:06).
• Result: Motion carries, authorizing borrowing up to $1.5M for pickleball courts.

---

Article 15: Lead Service Replacement

Article 15: Lead Service Replacement Program (Phase Two)

Discussion Summary:

• Purpose: Authorize $1.5M for phase two of the lead service replacement program to remove ~100 lead or galvanized water services, with a potential 25% grant reducing the loan to $1.125M.
• Key Points:
  • Chris Cole, DPW Director (1:51:26), outlines the program: ~250 remaining lead/galvanized/unknown services; phase two targets 100 services; funded by a 10-year no-interest MWRA loan with a possible $375,000 grant.
  • John Arena (1:54:26) questions the $15,000 per service cost (confirmed as an average), whether DPW or contractors perform the work (outsourced to contractors), and the grant’s conditions (unclear if full replacement is required).
  • John Sasso (1:56:45) confirms residents were notified in November about lead/unknown services and can replace services privately but the program aims to cover all.
  • Steve Herrick (1:57:52) asks about prioritization of the 100 services (unclear) and whether loan payments will impact water rates (likely, but no specific impact study provided).
  • Dave Talbot (2:00:30) questions the number of “unknown” services and whether borrowing could be reduced if some services are already replaced; response confirms thorough checks before borrowing.

Vote Outcome (2:03:37–2:04:46):

• Standing Vote: 142 in favor, 0 opposed (2:04:46).
• Result: Motion carries, authorizing $1.5M for phase two of the lead service replacement program.

---

Article 16: Flood Plain Overlay District

Article 16: Flood Plain Overlay District Bylaw Update

Discussion Summary:

• Purpose: Update the town’s flood plain bylaw to comply with FEMA and state requirements, ensuring eligibility for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) by July 8, 2025.
• Key Points:
  • Heather Clish, Planning and Development Commission Chair (2:05:15), explains the bylaw update aligns with FEMA’s updated flood insurance rate maps (effective July 2025) and the state’s model bylaw. No changes to allowed/prohibited uses; includes new definitions, variance procedures, and a flood plain administrator (building commissioner).
  • Key changes: More areas shifted from Zone X (500-year flood) to Zone A (100-year flood); no impact on wetlands bylaw; includes drainage/stormwater review and RV storage rules.
  • Tony D’Arezzo (2:15:58) confirms the July 8, 2025, date refers to when the flood maps are finalized.
  • Nancy Docktor (2:16:25) asks if homeowners must recognize changes in flood zones; response confirms the town sent notices to affected properties, with support from the community development director.
• CPDC Report (2:15:24): Voted 4-0 (one absent) on April 14 to recommend the update.

Vote Outcome (2:17:32–2:18:34):

• Standing Vote: 124 in favor, 0 opposed (2:18:34).
• Result: Motion carries, approving the flood plain bylaw update.

---

Article 17: Discontinuance of Drainage Easement

2:18:25 – Article 17: Discontinuance of Drainage Easement

• Speaker: Moderator, Ms. Cooper, Karen Herrick, Eileen Litterio, Tony D’Arezzo, Dave Talbot
• Discussion:
  • Ms. Cooper (2:24:11–2:32:38): Presents concerns about removing the drainage easement, showing images of the area’s transformation (tree removal, leveling) from 2023–2024. Highlights flooding risks to 12+ downstream properties due to reduced water absorption.
  • Karen Herrick (2:33:07–2:34:28, Precinct 8, Select Board): Notes the Conservation Commission didn’t vote on recommending Article 17. Urges future committee votes for transparency and cautions about flooding risks post-tree removal.
  • Eileen Litterio (2:34:43–2:36:48, Precinct 8): Opposes, citing 1980s resident mobilization to prevent development in the area. Argues tree removal increases flooding risks, prioritizing one petitioner over residents.
  • Tony D’Arezzo (2:36:54–2:37:41, Precinct 2): Opposes, noting the easement acts as a retention pond. Recommends denial, suggesting the developer revisit the Conservation Commission.
  • Dave Talbot (2:37:41–2:38:51, Precinct 5): Questions why the article was brought forward. Moderator explains it was a developer’s request, vetted by legal counsel and engineering, but requires town meeting approval. Talbot opposes.
  • Phil Dardeno (2:38:58–2:39:06, Precinct 3): Moves to end debate.
• Outcome:
  • Vote to End Debate (2:39:06–2:40:39): 108 in favor, 4 opposed (2/3 majority).
  • Vote on Article 17 (2:40:45–2:41:18): Unanimous vote against, motion fails.

---

Article 18: Removal of Town Meeting Members

2:41:23 – Article 18: Removal of Town Meeting Members

• Speaker: Moderator, Doug Bruce, Mr. Pilyavsky
• Discussion:
  • Per the home rule charter, members attending less than half the meetings are subject to removal (2:41:23–2:41:38).
  • Precinct 3 (Doug Bruce, 2:42:17–2:42:28): Votes to keep two members on the removal list.
  • Precinct 7 (Mr. Pilyavsky, 2:42:40–2:42:47): Votes to remove Kerry Dunnell from the list, retaining her in town meeting.
  • Precinct 8 member resigned, no vote needed (2:42:52).
• Outcome:
  • Vote to Remove Kerry Dunnell from List (2:43:05–2:43:10): Motion carries, Dunnell retained.
  • Vote on Main Motion (2:43:16–2:43:27): Motion carries, removing two Precinct 3 members.

---

Motion to Adjourn Sine Die (Fails)

2:43:37 – Motion to Adjourn Sine Die

• Speaker: Moderator
• Action: Motion to adjourn sine die fails (2:43:37–2:44:04).

---

Article 3: Instructional Motions

2:44:12 – Article 3: Instructional Motions

• Speaker: Moderator, Eric Gaffen, Angela Binda, Vanessa Alvarado, Karen Herrick, Linda Snow Dockser, Elizabeth Blumin, Nancy Doctor, Kevin Sexton, Melissa Murphy, Phil Pacino, John Arena, Christopher Feudo, Christopher Haley, Jonathan Barnes
• Discussion:
  • Motion to take Article 3 from the table (2:44:12–2:44:19, carries).
  • First Instructional Motion (Eric Gaffen, 2:44:41–2:58:34): Proposes exploring sustainable funding for adaptive programming (e.g., unified basketball, adaptive swim lessons) using existing town funds or Burbank Ice Arena payments.
    • Angela Binda (2:46:39–2:51:05): Supports the program but clarifies Burbank payments are rent, not donations, and opposes using them for ongoing programs due to uncertainty.
    • Vanessa Alvarado (2:52:44–2:53:38): Supports, explaining adaptive programming’s benefits for accessibility.
    • Karen Herrick (2:54:24–2:55:18): Opposes using Burbank funds, suggests fundraising by the Burbank Ice Arena Authority (501c3).
    • Linda Snow Dockser (2:55:23–2:56:08): Supports, emphasizes a revolving fund from various sources.
    • Elizabeth Blumin (2:56:14–2:57:14): Supports, highlights unified basketball’s benefits for all students.
    • Christopher Feudo (2:57:14): Moves to end debate.
  • Outcome:
    • Vote to End Debate (2:57:25–2:58:28): 99 in favor, 10 opposed (2/3 majority).
    • Vote on Motion (2:58:34–2:58:42): Motion carries.
  • Second Instructional Motion (Nancy Docktor, 2:58:52–3:16:45): Proposes a charter change to make Board of Health positions elected, not appointed, for accountability and independence.
    • Kevin Sexton (3:03:22–3:04:21, Precinct 8, Board of Health): Opposes, arguing politicization would harm the board’s functionality.
    • Vanessa Alvarado (3:04:28–3:05:44): Supports, citing past political interference in appointments.
    • Melissa Murphy (3:07:30–3:07:43): Notes the Charter Review Committee declined to change the charter.
    • Phil Pacino (3:07:43–3:08:09): Confirms Charter Review Committee’s decision to keep appointed positions.
    • John Arena (3:08:30–3:09:26): Opposes, arguing the current system works and elections aren’t suited for towns.
    • Christopher Feudo and Mr. Haley (3:09:33–3:13:25): Clarify Charter Review Committee’s informal unanimous decision against the change.
    • Jonathan Barnes (3:13:31–3:14:07): Confirms no specific vote on this issue, but discussion occurred.
    • Aditya Bengali (3:14:13–3:15:11): Questions why only the Board of Health is singled out for politicization concerns.
  • Outcome:
    • Vote on Motion (3:15:19–3:16:39): 48 in favor, 64 opposed, motion fails.
  • Third Instructional Motion (John Sasso, 3:16:45–3:20:23): Motion to adjourn sine die before discussing Sasso’s motions (e.g., selling Pleasant Street Center, allocating $500,000 annually for school projects, accounting for kiosk costs, reporting property seizures).
    • Sasso withdraws his second motion (3:18:50–3:19:00).
• Outcome:
  • Vote to Adjourn Sine Die (3:16:58–3:20:17): 67 in favor, 37 opposed, meeting adjourns sine die.

---

Key Outcomes

1. Article 14 Amendment (Pickleball Courts):
   • The amendment to collect user fees to offset $1.5M project costs passed by majority vote.
   • Debate highlighted concerns about the instructional nature, fee sustainability, and comparisons to past failed fee programs (kiosks).
   • A roll call vote was confirmed for the main motion, but the outcome isn’t detailed in the excerpt.
2. Article 15: Approved $1.5M for phase two of lead service replacement, with potential grant reduction, to address health risks from lead/galvanized pipes.
3. Article 16: Approved flood plain bylaw update to maintain NFIP eligibility, aligning with FEMA and state requirements.
4. Article 17 (Drainage Easement):
   • Unanimously rejected due to flooding concerns for downstream properties, exacerbated by recent tree removal and development.
5. Article 18 (Town Meeting Member Removal):
   • Two Precinct 3 members removed; Kerry Dunnell (Precinct 7) retained after her name was removed from the list.
6. Article 3 (Instructional Motions):
   • First Motion (Adaptive Programming): Passed, supporting exploration of sustainable funding for adaptive programs.
   • Second Motion (Board of Health Election): Failed (48–64), maintaining appointed positions.
   • Remaining Motions: Not discussed due to adjournment sine die (67–37).
7. Meeting Adjournment:
   • Adjourned sine die, leaving some instructional motions unaddressed.

---

Notes

• The meeting reflects significant community engagement, with debates balancing fiscal responsibility, recreational needs, environmental concerns, and governance transparency.
• The pickleball courts discussion dominated, revealing tensions between project support and financial skepticism.
• Article 17’s rejection underscores prioritization of environmental and resident concerns over development.
• Instructional motions highlight ongoing efforts to address adaptive programming and governance, though limited by their non-binding nature.