Voters pass $53.2 million budget at Town Meeting
Date: 5/29/2012
May 28, 2012By Chris Maza
chrism@thereminder.comEAST LONGMEADOW — Residents voted to approve a town budget of $53.2 million, which includes a $26 million school district budget at Town Meeting last week.
Appropriations Committee Chair Russell Denver explained that the budget was prepared with the local aid numbers in Gov. Deval Patrick's proposed state budget in mind in the interest of being conservative.
"The state House of Representatives comes up with an additional [budget], as does the State Senate," he said. "As we're sitting here today we do not know the true state aid numbers. We're trying to be as conservative as we can, so we are basing this year's budget on Gov. Patrick's state aid numbers."
Denver added that the town would also be reducing the amount of free cash reserves used in balancing the budget from $1 million to $500,000.
"Reserve funds, free cash, is set aside for when it's a rainy day," he said. "We all know it's been raining hard for a while and it's raining lightly now and now we thought it would be an appropriate time to reduce the free cash."
Residents also approved Article 3, which called for the spending of $1.7 million for the completion of capital projects.
The approved list of capital projects featured eight items, including an $871,000 expenditure to improve the Harkness Pump Station, a $350,000 appropriation to East Longmeadow Cable Access Television for its expansion and $150,000 for a facilities study for the school building.
The original list presented to the Capital Planning Committee, Chair Eric Madison explained, consisted of 35 items totaling more than $5.2 million.
"The Capital Planning Committee, along with the Appropriations Committee, both share in the opinion that we are not comfortable recommending any additional borrowing for capital projects until some of our existing debt has been paid down," he said.
Voters also approved the addition of language to the town's by-laws allowing family home day care providers with proper state licensing the opportunity to obtain a special permit to operate a Large Family Day Care and care for up to 10 children.
The by-law had stated that no home day care could have more than six children at one time.
Planning Board Chair George Kingston spoke against the move, calling the increase "excessive" and stating that the current level of service provided by home day cares was adequate for the town's needs.
Former Planning Board Chair Peter Punderson also suggested that the by-law change be voted against in the interest of the "preservation of our residential districts."
"Passing this amendment would make it possible for everybody sitting in this room who owns a house in East Longmeadow that wants to own and operate a business from their home to do so," he said. "That would be the beginning of the end of the wonderful neighborhoods that we have in East Longmeadow. To offer the possibility for other businesses to no only have an office, but do their business in a residential district would start the degradation of our neighborhoods."
Resident Janet Sessions was among the residents who spoke in favor of the expansion, stating that the two family home day cares on her street were a positive part of the neighborhood.
"They've been there for years. The run safe and professional day cares and service mostly people from East Longmeadow. It's nice to be able to have your children taken care of in the community," she said. "I have absolutely no problems with traffic. These are young mothers and fathers driving their children safely through my neighborhood. I feel fortunate to have them in my neighborhood."
Peter Cokotis' proposal in Article 28 to repeal the by-law regarding the maintenance of stormwater retention and detention basins in town in its entirety was also approved.
"We have a small window of opportunity to pull this by-law back," Cokotis said. "The town should not be imposing liens of residential neighborhoods and businesses. If this by-law takes effect, it will impact everyone's property value."
John Maybury, chair of the Board of Public Works spoke in opposition of the repeal, explaining that the purpose of the by-law is not to create a revenue stream, but rather to allow the town to aid residents in the upkeep of their detention basins, something that it could not legally do before. He also stated that the creation of a new by-law would be a lengthy procedure.
"Several years, probably 15, but at least for the last eight years, we've been working on getting this in place," he said. "With the by-law in place, the DPW [Department of Public Works] can now help you. If this is repealed, we will go back to the drawing board and try to bring something forward — because we will need to do that — and then we will be able to help again with detention and retention basins."
Article 23, which called for all massage therapy businesses in town to be required to obtain a special permit, was also approved.
In addition to the special permit, massage therapy establishments must also follow strict guidelines regarding everything from proof of licensure to hours of operation.
Responding to criticism of the article by some who stated that it punished legitimate establishments in an attempt to remove a criminal element, Selectman James Driscoll said the town has exhausted all other resources and it was the only way to push out the negative element and legitimize the services of other massage businesses.
He also stated that the Board of Selectmen and Planning Board were working on ways to lower the costs associated with obtaining the special permit.
Voters defeated Article 22, which would allow restaurants in possession of a special permit to make changes without an approved amendment of the special permit from the Planning Board, and passed Article 24, which restricted the construction of round-mounted photovoltaic installations to the industrial and industrial garden districts.
