Last night was the final night of Town Meeting. During a session that was more thinly attended, members dispatched the remaining 6 articles in the 2012 warrant. Four were approved and two were referred back for further study. All the votes followed the Warrant Committee’s recommendations. Following is a quick rundown of the articles.
Article 36 requested $25,000 to initiate the process of developing a new Master Plan for the town of Milton. Ms. Emily Innes, Chair of the Planning Board, gave a brief overview and history of town planning here in Milton. he first zoning took place in July of 1922. The first woman to be on that board (and also serve as chair) was Suzanne Collins. The first step is to develop a “visioning” plan. The Planning Board will contract with a consultant to work with residents to identify town “values, goals, and a vision for future development.” According to Innes, a full plan would cost about $129,000 based on what other towns in the area have recently done. She expects this first phase to be complete within the year and a report to be provided at next year’s annual town meeting. The article passed.
Article 37 sought to amend town flood plain bylaws to align them with new maps being used by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and ensure that the town could continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. The article passed.
Article 38 called for an addition to zoning bylaw subsection N, Section VI that would permit for residential development on property with significant historic buildings. It stemmed from proposed developement at St Elizabeth’s from which the developer has since withdrawn. The Warrant Committee recommended that the article be referred back to the Planning Board for further study. The Planning Board agreed with the recommendation. The vote supported referring the article back for further study.
Article 39 was passed by a unanimous vote. It raises the amount of qualifying gross receipts for a tax deferral program for seniors. The maximum is now $52,000.
Article 40 called for a land swap. A group of abutters raised issues with the swap. The Board of Cemetery Trustees listened and agreed to consider the matter further. The Warrant Committee revised their recommendation. Town Meeting abided by the recommendation and the issue was referred back for further study.
Article 41 resulted from a citizens petition and requested that the Town Moderator appoint a committee to advise and assist the Selectmen in making any changes to voting precincts as a result of census findings. Changes in population size as indicated by the census can require changes in the drawing of precincts to ensure they stay equivalent in size (within 5%). The census is done every ten years and changes are made as needed. To date in Milton changes made are recommended by the Town Clerk and approved by the Board of Selectmen. The article requests that going forward a committee be formed in advance of the next census to review and work with the clerk in determining any changes to be made. This is process other towns such as Brookline, follow. The recent census resulted in some significant changes in precincts. The number of precincts was reduced from 11 to 10.
James Mullen rose to speak in response to a question from TMM Virginia King (P3) regarding how redistricting had been managed to date. He noted that he had presided over the past 4. The most difficult being in 1981 when there was a precinct 5A and 5B. At that time incumbents lost seats. No incumbents lost seats in the most recent redistricting. The article passed.
No existing Master Plan. Another reason the CPA – Community Preservation Act Surtax – is a very bad idea. It is putting the old cart before the horse. We need to see what the Master Plan reveals our needs really are before we plunge headlong into a surtax on our real estate whose real purpose is completely undefined. We must not vote for a new tax with blinders over our eyes while there are hands grabbing for our wallets.
Yes to a Master Plan for the town. Yes to the Community Preservation Act. Let Milton residents do the planning before the planning takes over us. If you fail to plan, plan to fail.
Although the Master Plan process might add to projects that could be undertaken via the CPA, it is not a necessary prerequisite. We already know of projects that could be undertaken, such as the Fire Stations. The Master Plan visioning process will be complete and presented to the Town Meeting at the next Annual Town Meeting. Needless to say, I don’t think this is any better example of a “very bad idea? than we’ve heard to date.
Respectfully, logic requires that you “plan” first before you haphazardly move to preserve and acquire.
Beyond this, the question that proponents of the CPA duck at all costs is that CPA Regs do not allow one cent of the CPA tax money collected to be used for operating expenses.
Back to “planning” again. How do you expect to pay for operating expenses on acquisitions the Town could not afford to operate prior to a community preservation act? If you couldn’t afford it the day before a CPA was passed what makes you think you can afford it the day after it has passed?
The Master Plan is our road map and we should not leave home without it. AAA will not come to our aid if we breakdown financially on the road to preservation. Without it Milton may just find itself on the road to perdition instead.
So, “NO” to the CPA until we get a complete, accurate and cost based Master Plan.
Mr. Yovino, you apparently don’t understand that a Master Plan and the Community Preservation Act, depite overlap, do not address idential objectives. For example, the most immediate potential use of CPA funds for restoration of the Fire Stations has nothing to do with a Master Plan. Likewise, possible use for certain of our school buildings has nothing to do with the Master Plan. Consequently, claiming we cannot procede with the CPA until the Master Plan is completed makes no sense. Indeed, the Master Plan will likely identify additonal CPA projects in the area of Housing, Open Space, and Recreation.
Why you think people would “duck” the plain fact that CPA funds cannot be used for operating expenses is beyond me. That fact is a strong selling point. Why would we want a way to exceed Proposition 2 1/2 when we already have a mechanism for doing so? The purpose of the CPA is to fund important efforts that Massachusetts communities have been unable to for decades now.
As for your point about “acquisitions”, you have once again offered evidence that you do not understand what the CPA involves. Exactly what type of acquition are you talking about that would require operating expenses? The correct answer Mr. Yovino, is that there are none.
A Master Plan does not include a list of projects and does not include a list of costs.
I await your first persuasive reason for opposing the CPA.
Mr. Mathews, the fact that you do not know from where the funds would come for operating expenses is a strong selling point for the CPA surcharge Tax on our real estate bills? Are you sure you have thought that through?
If the town could not afford to “acquire” and maintain a piece of property or building the day before the CPA might be passed where do you think the money would come from the day after it might be passed? An Override? I do not think that would be appropriate.
As to “acquisitions” I refer you to John Cronin’s Commentary in the Milton Times several weeks ago. His “acquisition” wish list included the Milton Women’s Club and the old Saint Elizabeth Rectory. Both non-profits which could not be “acquired” at bargain prices unless Mr. Cronin was planning to claim eminent domain proceedings which I do not think could be justified. Not to belabor the point but from where would the money come to maintain their operating costs.
With regard to the Fire Stations, our dedicated firemen deserve more than second rate Fire Stations. Would you have been happy with a “preserved” old Milton High School as some wanted? Our students deserved better and now they have the state of the art facility to meet the needs of a 21st Century education. The firemen in Milton deserve no less even if it require a 2 1/2 Override to bring the Milton Fire Department into the 21st Century.
The supporters of the Community Preservation surcharge tax seem to live in a field of dreams – if the CPA passes the acquisitions will come. They come with a price and the supporters of the CPA Tax are required to tell the citizens of Milton what that price will be.
Mr. Yovino, your opening question simply illustrates that you do not know what the CPA is about. As I indicated to you in the last message, there are no operating costs.
What exactly makes you think that the CPA is about buying buildings? And exactly what makes you think that CPA funds wouldn’t serve to fund any operating expenses if they occured?
Mr. Cronin’s wish list is all well and good, but it is not clear that the CPA would permit such purchases unless they met the narrow restrictions of the law. If they did, exactly what operating expenses are you talking about?
As to the Fire Stations, your comments make assumptions that simply are not legitimate. Schools are different from Fire Stations. They are governed by changing regulations as to size, number of students per room, life support systems and a whole host of other specific issues. A Fire Station has to me large enough to accomodate fire apparatus and provide a reasonably pleasant environment for the people who staff them. That is why close to 20 CPA projects involving Fire Stations have been undertaken since the CPA passed.
It is quite apparent Mr. Yovino that you are unable to offer any knowledgeable opposition to the CPA — instead offering reasons based on a lack of understanding of the law, as your fixation with acquisitions demonstrates. I again recommend you do spend a little time at the website below to learn about the law and the kinds of projects it permits and has funded. There is no problem with operating expenses. And repairing old Fire Stations with the funding is a common project that doesn’t require any specialized study.
http://www.communitypreservation.org/