Nice summary of the CBA Candidates Forum Krista. I just posted this article on the Facebook Chelmsford Reps & Residents group page to try to get it seen by as many Chelmsfordians as possible. Thank you.

Marc - I am one of the 5% and unions are not the source of our problems. We have given a $1.4 million bonus to the town in the form of a health insurance giveback. Poor negotiations on our part, not the town's.

This actually is a question about whether you want a new fire station or not, it is simply also a two part question. Unlike how it was referred to by one of the candidates at the debate who clearly has not read the language carefully enough. It is asking if, as a resident, you want a fire station to be built at a certain location and in a certain funding manner. If you do not want a new fire station at all you can vote no and if you do not like how it is funded you can vote no. The question in no way states that a decision to build the fire station has been made and we are only asking how you want to fund it. That is simply incorrect.

That was added on to clarify what "within the existing tax levy" meant. This was to ensure that people understood if they chose to vote yes on this fire station proposal, the town would not be taking on more debt outside the budget. This was added because the previous station proposals were funded outside of the budget with additional debt.

Marc

If your premise is true, then "most voters" haven't taken the time to learn the truth. If their information is coming from a few vocal residence or a random email, then they haven't sone their homework. This issue has been studied for 5 years, not sure how much more we need. I hope these voters take the time to call their reps, research the studies and learn the facts. And not take the word of a few vocal residence or bloggers with an agenda

Pat Maloney has offered to sit with anyone who requests it to go through all of the options that were presented through the years. Take him up on his offer.

There is a huge difference between "renovating" existing buildings and tearing down a structurally compromised 60 year old building and building something new. Our fire station is so structurally deficient, according to the engineers who examine it every six months, that we could not "gut it" and use the shell to rebuild the interior. Here is a link that shows that what Arlington has done is NOT what we can do in Chelmsford. It cost them $3.7 to renovate the interior of an existing structure. If anyone tries to compare our situation with Arlington's, they have not done their homework!!

Two Arlington fire stations undergo renovations - - The Arlington Advocate

http://www.wickedlocal.com/arlington/news/x907383776/Two-Arlington-fire-stations-undergo-renovations#ixzz1noYeEjvq

Chelmsford NEEDS a new Fire Station...period. One day the structural engineers are going to come and put a red X on the outside because the building is failing. Even new it wasn't built to handle the size and weight of the firetrucks today compared to what they were back then. Maybe someone should post some pictures of what the basement looks like...

Marc -
Marc - Have you read the language? Despite what RVL stated at the debate, this is NOT what the ballot question says! We do NOT want to have a Proposition 2 1/2 debt exclusion vote on this and it is clear that the taxpayers don't either. We want to fund this completely within the levy limit budget. Many people do not know what the term "levy limit budget" means which is why we added this language to clarify what we are asking the voters to decide. We are asking voters if they want us to build a fire station adjacent to Town Hall and be funded within the constraints of our annual budget. We do NOT want to raise anyone's taxes. The Prop. 2 1/2 debt exclusion was voted down twice. Therefore, due to the new law allowing towns to get unions to have to enroll in health insurance programs comparable to the state GIC whch has resulted i considerable savings to the town and due to the fact that we no longer have to build up our Stabilization Fund which was at $1.7 million when Paul became TM in 2007 and is now exactly where we want it at nearly $7.9 million which is between the 5-7% of our annual budget we have the funds to py for this station within our normal annual budget. This is the way we funded the Center School, library and Police Station construction. The languauge is clearand we want the voters to understand that we are NOT asking for any funds other than that which falls within our annual budget.

Marc - For the last time, I cannot always address all of your statements in this forum becuse the matters are complex and it is clear that I possess inforation that you do not. I have invited you to meet with me and you have always declined. You are posting all of these comments during my office hours so why didn't you come to meet with me? I am still here meeting with people. Also, why do you always delete your posts after you have published them? I do not call you name as you have done with me.

Marc, please read my posts in reverse.

Marc,
Have you legitimately reviewed the new current proposal including the ppt. slides and also done the same for all of the past proposals and work of the Permanent Building Committee regarding the Fire Station as well as the studies the town has done about size and location? I don't mean the comments that others have made in the past about these things, which I have seen reiterated, but have you actually reviewed all of that material yourself? I wouldn't have expected you or anyone else too because that is a massive amount of information but when you make statements without all of the information it just sounds like conjecture. I only mention this because I have been involved and seen every presentation going back roughly five years and having that knowledge and listening to your responses it makes it sound like you have not done your homework. I applaud you for trying to understand the issue and be involved but quite frankly, on this issue, it sounds like you had your mind made up from the beginning. I also think it is inappropriate for you to start commenting on this process now after five years of study by tell anyone that certain things haven’t been studied enough unless you have reviewed all of the information available.

Furthermore, we purposely left the fire station ballot question short and to the point, as always, to ensure that there is as little confusion as possible. We did not rig the question in any manner. It says would you like a fire station funded within the tax levy to be placed in x location. Then we decided at our meeting it would be nice to add one sentence to explain what within the tax levy meant just in case anyone was unsure. It was that simple and straightforward. It is two sentences long. If more people will vote for a project because the town would fund it within the budget that is their prerogative as voters but that does not mean that we have tricked them with the wording of the question. The town is proposing to fund it within the levy, without a debt exclusion like the previous proposals. Quite frankly I don’t know how anyone could read that and think a decision has already been made and they have no voice. Especially since the BOS has never said anything of the sort.

To say that others have made up their mind from the beginning when you haven't even been involved in the process until now seems like an unfounded judgment statement. Also, I currently work, am not in a union, and do pay taxes (property, income, capital gains, excise etc.), not that any of that has anything to do with what we were talking about. I will ask once again, have you seen the full presentation that Pat gave at our BOS meeting the other night? 5 years ago the studies showed that our fire headquarters should be 27k square feet on 40-80k square feet of land. To save money we scaled the proposals down to 19k square feet. The current station is 8,900 square feet on 10,000 square feet of land. Even if we took the parcel next to it that would only equal 20,000 square feet. There would still not be adequate frontage even if we took, by eminent domain, the parcel next to the current station. Renovating the current 8,900 square foot station does not meet the needs of the town.

In no way could demolishing the current station, taking an adjacent property by eminent domain, and relocating the current fire operations to another site while constructing a new station at the same location ever be cheaper than building on another piece of land in the center that the town already owns. It doesn’t even take a study to comprehend that. They did study this and tried to see what fitting a new station on that property, including the adjacent lot, would look like and it was a poor plan. That is why it, along with many other options looked at, was never voted on. It was not some premature decision based on poor facts or anything like that. They considered the current site as seriously as they have all other options; everyone wants to do what’s in the best interest of the town. If that option was feasible, why would the permanent building committee and the BOS not be perusing it?

I agree, it is easy to get caught up on other issues. To your question, I believe by the time of our next meeting it will be too late to remove the language, which is why we finalized it at our last meeting. Regardless, I think the question is very straightforward and easy to understand. No one reading the question will think that the proposal is already decided on. The rumor may have started that it is hard to understand or the answer is decided or a number of other things but there is nothing wrong with the question. It asks very simply, do you support x fire station proposal funded through x means. This is how both of the previous questions were worded and there was no confusion. The fact that is says it would not be funded through a prop 2.5 debt exemption should not be confusing to anyone who has voted in the past. The previous questions said they would be funded through a prop 2.5 debt exemption and this question says it would not be funded through a prop 2.5 debt exemption. This is still just as straightforward as either of the last questions.

Why would anyone assume that?

The other proposals were for debt exclusions, this proposal is for funding within the levy limit. We wrote, not with a debt exclusion this time because that is what we changed. How does that also convert the project to being a done deal? It's just a funding change. That has nothing to do with the project being a go or not. There are multiple ways to fund things. I do not see where this idea that the Fire Station is already a done deal is coming from.

I think by the time the April election comes around we can spread the word that people have a choice and they can vote yes on the fire station or they can vote no.

I am sure all of the local media outlets will run stories on the fire station proposal and I will work to make sure stories are written in such a manner that residents know they have a choice. They can vote yes or no. The entire reason of this question was to gauge the feelings of residents over funding a new proposal within the budget vs the other proposals with a debt exemption.

The BOS already officially voted on and signed the current language. I apologize for it causing confusion. I am hopeful that we can spread the word over the next month that everyone should still come out and vote. They still get their choice yes or no. It is not binding but I do not believe that TM will vote for a project that the residents reject.

I understand Marc. The majority of the BOS is in favor of a new fire station but ultimately Town Meeting will pass or reject it. The word I received from residents was that they wanted to vote on the project, and many Town Meeting Reps said that they would not vote for a project unless the whole town was able to vote for it. This is why it is going to the ballot. Every TMR I spoke to said they would not even vote on a proposal unless it had gone to the residents first. The BOS may already be in favor but even myself as a TMR, I know I would not vote for a proposal if the residents rejected it, that is why I wanted it to go to the ballot too.

Marc, trying to respond to a comment you made to me about a peanut butter sandwich which I received in my email and can't find it here.

Marc - Why is it that only you, Roland Van Liew, his former lawyer and one of Roland's neighbors object to this language? The past two votes were Prop. 2 1/2 debt exclusions that were rejected by the voters. We want voters to know that this will be paid within the levy limit budget. Most people don't know what that languauge means. Nearly every other person I have discussed this with (and there have been many!) did not understand that term and appreciate the clarification so there is no confusion as to what they are voting on and how it will be funded if it passes. It seems as though you want to confuse the voters. The purpose of language is not to be understood but to be incapable of being misunderstood. I do support this project because we do need a new station but this proposal will pass or fail on its own merits and not on this language. It is too late to change the language due to the timing requirements of the law. Even if we could change it, I would not comply with your demand. I represent all of the citizens of Chelmsford, not just you. The entire BOS wants voters to understand exactly what their votes mean, this languauge accomplishes this objective. Did you notice that you are the only one in this forum objecting to the language?

Marc - When have I ever said either that you were inferior or that I was a Messiah? I have asked you at least a dozen times to meet with me so we can exchange information and so I can better understand your position and where you get the information upon which you base your opinion. I would show you documents and studies that support my position. You have repeatedly refused and continue to do so. Please quote me where I called you inferior or the Messiah statement.

Marc, I disagree with you on the language of the ballot question. I think the voters should know that a fire station could be built without an increase in their taxes due to a debt exclusion especially since the last two major projects - the DPW and secondary schools - were financed with a debt exclusion. It would be wrong not to make that clear.

I am still confused as to why you won't take Jon up on his invitation to meet with him. That is one of the great things about local government, you have easy access to public officials to talk over your concerns about issues. I don't know how many times I wish I could have a conversation with some of our elected officials in Washington! I also think it is important to be able to sit across the table from someone you disagree with and engage in dialog. You might find out that you actually agree on some things and that you have more in common than you think.

Marc - I am not in "defense" mode. I know exactly what the article says and all the Selectman drafted this language in a televised open session. You have called me on nothing and any characterization by you as such is disingenuous. You don't like the language. I understand that. I disagree. When you become Selectman you can vote on issues and language that appear before the voters. The language is clear and unambiguous and, for some reason, that bothers you. Apparently you think that informing voters that this will NOT be funded by a Prop. 2 1/2 debt exclusion tax increase is not fair because you are opposed to the fire station. Voters DO have the right to understand what they are voting on and, in the case of this important and long-standing problem that requires a multimillion capital expenditure, how it will be funded. Anyone who questions the BOS's motives can watch the session on TV and decide for themselves. Anyone who wants to understand the funding, they can watch our meeting and see Paul Cohen's explanation. No matter how much you try to bait me or the rest of us, we will not change a decision that we are convinced is in the best interests of the voters. You do not read others agreeing with you on this issue. There is a reason for that.

Marc, I have read all of the posts on the Chelmsford Reps and Residents - not only Jon's but yours and others. Also, I check this site regularly and I have read all of your posts and Jon's posts over the last few months. From the very beginning, Jon attempted to answer your questions respectfully and offered to meet with you early on. You seem to think that isn't worthwhile - I disagree. You can not only gain a better understanding of Jon's perspective in person but also communicate your perspective to him more effectively.

I have tried to engage you in a respectful debate and you have chosen to ignore much of what I have written. You posted a sarcastic response about a peanut butter sandwich to a post a made which I felt was reasonable - however, you must have deleted that response. You also responded to me with language about REAL people and "animals" which I really don't understand. In no way did I show disrespect to voters by referring to them as "animals".

You contend that Jon is not treating you respectfully in his responses but I believe that you aren't always respectful yourself.

Marc, by law the Selectman can't change the language of the warrant. I used to be a Town Meeting Rep so I am not basing this on opinion but what I know to be fact.

And even if they could change the language, I would not want it changed. I would assert as well that the change you are requesting actually withholds valuable information that the voters should know - the new station would not be financed with a debt exclusion. If a voter truly does not want the new station even without the increase in taxes then they will vote no. If a voter wants the station but is apprehensive about a tax increase then at least they will know it isn't a factor. And if a voter absolutely wants the fire station regardless of the tax implications they will vote yes.

I don't know how much clearer that can be.

Seems pretty clear to me.
I would like nothing better than to block up the back of the existing building, cut a whole in the floor and fill it with concrete. It would still be a band-aid. When you have diagonal cracks, you have major problems. That doesn't mean I want to spend $14 million over the next twenty years. What about the site where the old Police Station is? If offices in the town hall are opening up, can those people move there?
No more insults to the unions - they did in fact give back millions to the town. Let's spend it wisely.

Interesting discussion, but you have to ask yourselves "why do we have a representative form of town government?" We decided to kill open town meetings because of special interests. With the fire station we now have a proposal that should be decided on its merits by the TMRs since it can be funded within the current tax levy. There's plenty of information available to make up your mind. If you support the new proposal, or not, simply let your precinct rep. know. What could be simpler? Of course, if the TMRs want to have a non-binding referendum to help them make the decision, then they should be free to do that. Either way, TMRs still ultimately have the responsibility to make the final decision. So I'm wondering why the intermediate step is even needed?

The proposed fire station will not be 1.5 times the size of the Town Hall. The architects have developed a plan that will fit into the character of the exisitng building. There will continue to be an access road to the rear of the property. There will be no taking of abutting property. This information was available before the town election vote, remains on the Town's website, and will be presented at next Tuesday night's information session.

All: although Patch prefers prefers both first and last names be used, this is something we are no longer strictly enforcing. That said, personal attacks will not be tolerated and will be removed. Please keep discussion on topic.