Almost Time To Go To Town Meeting

Editor’s Note: Annual Town Meeting is scheduled to begin Tuesday, May 18, and several observers expect it will conclude Wednesday, May 19.

Town Meeting is the equivalent of a legislative as­sembly, with the authority to appropriate funds for the town and make bylaw changes. Town Meeting is scheduled for 7 p.m. each night at King Philip Middle School at 18 King Street in Nor­folk.

Below is a look at some key items among the 35 ar­ticles on the Town Meeting warrant.

Article 4

4 Percent Raise for Non-Union Town Employ­ees at Town Hall and Norfolk Public Library

What it is: This warrant article would increase the steps for years of service in the salary schedule for about 16 non-union ton employees by 2.5 percent, plus a 1.5 percent across-the-board salary increase. Pro: This pay raise is in line with what other town em­ployees are getting. Many town employees took a wage freeze last year.

Con: No arguments were made before the Advisory Board against the salary increase for town employees.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Article 5

Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2011 for Town

What it is: Town officials are recommending a $989,000 Proposition 2 ½ operating budget override for fiscal year 2011 (which runs from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011) that would increase property taxes about 65 cents per $1,000 assessed, or about $260 on a house assessed at $400,000. Town officials say without the override they’ll have to eliminate one police officer’s job, reduce library hours from 48 hours a week to 41, reduce callback overtime pay for firefightersand elimi­nate

training for firefighters. The town’s elementary schools would get $297,000 of the override. Without it, elementary school officials say they’ll have to elimi­nate perhaps four teachers’ jobs and double the bus fee to $180 per student, among other things.

Pro: Supporters say the cuts in local services without an override would seriously hurt the town. Con: Opponents say Norfolk taxpayers can’t afford a property tax increase at a time when the economy is in tough shape and many have lost their jobs.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Article 6

Meals Tax What it is: This measure would add a local meals tax in Norfolk of 0.75 percent.

Pro: The tax would bring an estimated $40,000 or more per year in revenue to town government, which supporters say is needed. Con: The tax would increase the meals tax for custom­ers at restaurants in Norfolk from 6.25 percent now to 7 percent, whereas for years it stood at 5 percent. Opponents also predict that the state Legislature will allow further increases in the local-option meals tax in the future.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Article 7

Horse-Riding Bylaw Change What it is: This warrant article would allow horses to be ridden on public ways in Norfolk and town-owned land that isn’t primarily used for school purposes, ath­letic

fields, or the town common. The proposed bylaw would also decrease the fine schedule for violating this bylaw, from the current $50 for the first offense, $100 for the second offense, and $150 to $300 for the third and all subsequent offenses; to a warning for the first offense, a $50 finefor the second offense, and a $100 finefor the third and subsequent offenses. Pro: Supporters say a bylaw change in 2006 that was meant to protect town playing fields from being dam­aged by all-terrain vehicles inadvertently restricted horse riding more than was intended.

“Clearly, the idea behind the proposed amendment was to allow … people to ride down town-owned streets, walkways, trails dedicated for that type of thing, and to prohibit that use on athletic fields or the town com­mon,” town resident Tim Martin told the Advisory Board on April 22. Martin noted that horses are prominent in town. “There seems to be a culture here in Norfolk, at least what I’ve known about the town, that encouraged ap­propriate equestrian use,” Martin said. Con: Some members of the Advisory Board wondered whether horse riding on town streets might lead to ac­cidents, but Martin said he could find no evidence of accidents. The Advisory Board voted 5-0 on April 22 to recommend approval of the bylaw change.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Article 27

Zoning Bylaw Change To Allow Residential Space in a Mixed-Use Building

What it is: This warrant article would allow the owners of property currently zoned for mixed use to building dwellings. Pro: Allowing dwellings on property zoned for mixed use would increase the value of the property and en­courage development or redevelopment of properties in the town center business district, Zoning Board of Appeals chairman Mike Kulesza told the Advisory Board last month.

“What we’re trying to accomplish here is this: the change we’d like to make is residential in a mixed-use building. And a perfect example of that is the O’Loughlin building or the Bourque building. Right now, neither of those properties could be approved with a residential component to it. Our bylaws don’t allow that,” said Kulesza, who is also a member of the town’s Zoning Bylaw Study Committee, which is spon­soring the warrant article. “… If they wanted to add another floor to their building, they could put some residential on top. Right now they can’t do that. And the thinking behind that is, if we’ve got people living in our downtown, they’re going to support the businesses that are here.”

Con: No substantive arguments against the proposal were made during the Advisory Board meeting when this measure was discussed.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Article 29

Zoning Bylaw Change To Allow Dwellings on Main Street West of Old Town Hall

What it is: This warrant article would allow residential dwellings in the portion of the B-1 business district on the north side of Main Street that is between Old Town Hall and Dunkin’ Donuts “at a density of not less than 4 units per lot and not more than 1 unit per 5,000 Sq. Ft. of land.” Last year Town Meeting approved an ex­pansion of the B-1 district to include that area as zoned commercial. Pro: The town ought to allow dwellings near Old Town Hall so developers will be encouraged to build and residents will provide a ready customer base for new businesses in the town center, supporters say.

Mike Kulesza, a member of the Zoning Bylaw Study Committee, which is sponsoring the warrant article, told the Advisory Board last month that the land on the north side of Main Street west of Old Town Hall may be better suited for residences than businesses.

“I think when we did the redistricting for the B-1, we said, ‘Oh, this looks like a great place to expand the B-1.’ With hindsight, now we’ve realized that there are major conservation issues there. There’s lots of water. That one 5-acre parcel of land could not be developed right now into commercial, because of the restrictions of the water,” Kulesza said. “And so that’s why you see Article [29] in here. We’re thinking that, you know, we goofed in making that lower B-1 into just business, and we’re rethinking that, if we can’t get it developed into commercial and business, the next best thing would be the multiple dwellings, so that we’ve got people liv­ing in the downtown. Again, very similar to what we’re trying to accomplish with [Article 27], is to get people living in our downtown to support the business in the core business district. We’ve got enough difficultyget­ting our core B-1 built out. This is my personal opin­ion, but to think that we’re ever going to get businesses built from the old Town Hall up to Dunkin’ Donuts, I think is a pipe dream, and then when you overlay the environmental issues, with all the water, the ponds, the complications, putting in septic, getting commer­cial

down there I think is not in any of our lifetimes, if ever. Perhaps it would change if we had a wastewater treatment plant.”

Advisory Board member Kathy Elder noted that ap­pears to be a change in policy, even from last year.

“That’s what I was just thinking. I mean, the irony is when we talked about the wastewater treatment plant and all those things, it was incorporating that whole area. They were the beneficiaries of this, that it was to attract businesses there. So it feels like we’ve got a change in philosophy that’s happened between now and last Town Meeting,” Elder said, with a laugh. “You’re absolutely right,” Kulesza said.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Article 30

Authorizing Up To $500,000 for Solar Electric­ity Generating Panels at Former Town Land­fill

What it is: This warrant article would authorize town officials to build a $500,000 105,000-watt facility with solar panels to generate electricity provided that the town receives state and federal grants to offset the costs. Pro: Supporters, including members of the town’s En­ergy Committee, say solar panels could save the town electricity costs every year if the town gets large enough grants to build them. But to benefit the town has to be ready to take advantage of grants when they become available.

“When these grants come up, and they come up fast and furious, like Commonwealth Solar, which was oversubscribed in two hours, you have to be quote ‘shovel-ready.’ This language gives us the ability to go to the state and say ‘We have a reasonable financial plan. We are ready to go if your money is part of the game.’ We can’t do that if we have to wait to go to Town Meeting …” Selectman Rob Garrity told the Advisory Board on April 22.

Garrity acknowledged that the costs associated with a solar-panels are too high to justify building it without outside funds. “The only way it works is if there’s a massive subsidy, you know, a 33 percent subsidy,” Garrity said. But with the massive subsidy, Garrity said the town can save electricity costs every year. “In year nine, when you’re debt-free, you are making at least $30,000 in the clear because of the avoided electricity costs,” Garrity said.

At some point after the solar panels are installed — perhaps 20 years — the town would have to replace an inverter on the solar panels, at a cost of $50,000 to $75,000, but even then the electricity costs saving would more than pay for the inverter, Garrity said. Garrity said the solar panels would help educate the public about alternative means of producing energy and also help the town reduce its so-called “carbon footprint,” which he predicted may become a federal requirement.

“… [A]s we move toward some sort of carbon contain­ment. … you’re going to have a price on carbon, so pro­grams like this will continue to attract investment,” Garrity said. “…

“I like it because it’s a self-sustainability thing: We’re generating our power. It’s coming from where we know. We know it’s not com­ing from burning coal or oil or nukes or whatever. This is going to be our power we generate,” Garrity said. Garrity said an existing hill that kids use for sledding during the winter would remain available for that purpose.

Advisory Board member Dave Benton argued that the solar pan­els are worth exploring since the risk to the town seems slight. “It’s a nice way to start the pro­cess, see how much eventually we could build up to. It doesn’t seem like it’s a huge risk here, and if we don’t get a grant, we’re probably never going to do it,” Benton said.

Advisory Board member Marc Waldman said he likes the idea of putting solar panels at the former town landfill because the town would be “converting a useless asset into possibly some­thing that can generate some value to the town.” Con: Even though the Advisory Board voted 4-1 to recommend approval of the article on April 22, several members appeared lukewarm at most about the pro­posal. CiCi Van Tine (who was elected town moderator this past Tues­day) wondered whether a fu­ture Board of Selectmen might pursue solar panels even if state and federal grants were slight, using $1,000 as a hypothetical example.

The cost of replacing an inverter also seemed daunting to her. “I could use a little more con­vincing, because right now it just seems like it could end up being a really, really expensive social experiment,” Van Tine said.

Van Tine was the lone Advisory Board member to vote against the solar panels warrant article. Advisory Board chairman Ar­lie Sterling, who supported the proposal, noted that it can’t even come close to standing on its own without a huge state sub­sidy funded largely by electricity ratepayers. “And it’s amazing that the un­derlying economics are so weak, but somebody, somewhere has considered this to have such great social value that they’ll subsidize it to this extent. It’s amazing. I mean, all alone it gen­erated $21,000 worth of savings per year. Right? On a $500,000 investment. It’s astonishing,” Sterling said. “Well it just kind of gives you the state of solar power. It’s really not that economically viable,” Benton said.