At Fall Town Meeting, Saturday, Oct. 1, at the Bromfield School, voters will be asked to approve seven articles put forward by the Select Board and other town committees. The meeting is the second of two sessions, its agenda devoted primarily to considering changes to the town’s bylaws and making financial decisions that can’t wait until Spring Town Meeting.
On the following pages we explain each warrant article in everyday language, highlighting the amount of money involved, its source, who oversees its use, whether the article affects your taxes, and—when less than obvious—the consequences of voting yes or no.
You’ll find additional details in the official town warrant, which is not being mailed to households in town, but will instead be distributed to attendees when they register on Saturday. The warrant is also available on the town website at https://bit.ly/fall_2022_warrant. The official warrant booklet contains the town counsel-approved wording of each article, its cost, and whether it’s recommended by the Finance Committee and Select Board. Readers should be aware, however, that the language of an article and sometimes its exact cost and source of funds can be altered when the motion for its adoption is read on the floor of Town Meeting. As long as they don’t expand the scope of an article, motions can also be amended, so you’ll need to pay attention.
For help with specialized terms such as “General Fund” or “levy,” see our “Glossary of municipal lingo” in this issue of the Press. Finally, for details on how to speak and legislate at Town Meeting, you might consult the handy guide “Town Meeting Conduct and Procedures” prepared by the League of Women Voters of Harvard. You can find it at the League’s website lwvharvard.org/town-meeting-conduct-and-procedures.
Article 1 – Pay prior year bills
Amount: $979.70
Money source: Stabilization Fund
Vote required for passage: Four-fifths
Accountable for implementation: Finance Department
Three bills were left unpaid at the end of fiscal 2022. Rhode Island Analytical Laboratories is owed $462 for testing at the wastewater treatment plant; Trippi’s Uniforms is owed $479 for the purchase of Fire Department uniforms; and Amazon is owed $38.70 for an order of office cleaning supplies. All three bills will be paid with money transferred from the Stabilization Fund.
Requested by the Select Board. Recommended by both the Finance Committee and Select Board.
Article 2 – Police Department: Radar poles and electrical work
Amount: $3,200
Money source: Stabilization Fund
Vote required for passage: Two-thirds
Accountable for implementation: Police Department
The four mobile radar trailers the Police Department purchased several years ago proved to be semi-mobile at best; moving them requires help and equipment from the Department of Public Works. So two of those units have been permanently installed on poles along Still River and Bolton roads, where residents often complain of speeding. If approved, this $3,200 would pay for permanent pole installation of the two remaining older units. The department’s newer, lighter radar units will still be moved to various roads around town.
Requested by the Police Department. Recommended by both the Finance Committee and Select Board.
Article 3 – Fire chief contract and funding for the contract for fiscal 2023
Amount: $13,293
Money source: Stabilization Fund
Vote required for passage: Two-thirds
Accountable for implementation: Town administration
The Select Board and the fire chief agreed on a new contract to replace the one that expired at the end of June. But the cost of his new contract was not known when the fiscal 2023 budget was drawn up and approved at May Town Meeting. Passing this article allows the town to use money from the Stabilization Fund to cover the difference in cost between his old contract and the new one for this fiscal year.
Requested by Select Board. Recommended by Finance Committee and Select Board.
Article 4 – Recreation and beach director
Amount: To be determined.
Money source: FY23: fiscal 2023 omnibus budget beach director salary and Parks and Rec beach revolving fund; FY24 and beyond: full-time position in omnibus budget.
Vote required for passage: Majority
Accountable for implementation: Town administration
The Parks and Recreation Commission is asking the town to approve a new combined recreation and beach director position. The Personnel Board recently graded the full-time position at level 11, which commands a salary of between $81,000 and $110,000, plus benefits. Actual salary would depend on an applicant’s qualifications.
If approved, the position would not start until July 1, 2023. However, a beach director needs to begin hiring in the spring, so the commission proposes using money from its revolving fund and funds from last year’s unused beach director budget to pay for the first few months of a new beach director’s salary. The commission wants the position approved now in the hope that qualified candidates will be attracted by the higher salary. The current beach director salary is $17,000, and last year no candidates responded to the job posting. Commission members say that salary is too low, and if the new position is not approved until spring, the town will likely have no beach director again next summer.
For more information, see "Parks and Rec wants a full-time recreation and beach director."
Requested by the Parks and Recreation Commission. The Finance Committee did not recommend the article, but the Select Board voted 3-2 to recommend it.
Article 5 – Adopt bylaw allowing noncriminal disposition for certain town code violations
Amount: None
Vote required for passage: Majority
Accountable for implementation: Boards and departments as listed
This article asks voters to change the way some town bylaws are enforced, as well as adding a new bylaw on parking for zero-emission (electrical) vehicles and changing the fines associated with some bylaws.
Currently, the only way to enforce many bylaws is for the town to charge a person who breaks one with a criminal misdemeanor in district court. If Article 5 passes, town officials could handle a bylaw violation by issuing a ticket instead of filing a criminal charge. That system is called “noncriminal disposition.” The offender would still face a fine but would have no criminal court record.
Town Counsel Mark Lanza has determined that 28 of Harvard’s bylaws qualify for noncriminal disposition. A vote for Article 5 is a vote to allow noncriminal disposition of the 28 bylaws listed in Section 1-3 of the article and in the table at "Article 5 bylaws designated for noncriminal disposition, with fines to be charged for their violation." The table also shows the town authorities responsible for enforcing each bylaw as well as the current and proposed fines for violations.
You’ll find all but one of these bylaws in the official bylaws of the Town of Harvard (see https://ecode360.com/HA1931). However, Chapter 140 Article III, which would restrict parking in spaces reserved for zero-emission vehicles, does not exist in Harvard’s bylaws. According to Town Administrator Tim Bragan, a vote for Article 5 adds Chapter 140 Article III to the bylaws and sets fines for its violation, though the nature of those violations is not spelled out.
Requested by the Board of Health and Select Board. The Finance Committee had no comment on the article, while the Select Board recommended it.
Article 6 – Adopt bylaw regulating outdoor water use
Amount: None
Vote required to pass: Majority
Accountable for implementation: Board of Health or Water Commission or their designees
This article would authorize the Water Commission or the Board of Health to restrict nonessential water use for everyone, including private well owners, during droughts or other water emergencies. The bylaw language comes directly from a model bylaw created by the state.
Board of Health Chair Chris Mitchell told the Press that most of the wells in Harvard are bedrock wells, which get water from fractures in the rock, many of which are interconnected. “We’re all drawing from the same source,” he said. The Water Commission currently has the authority to restrict water use only in the water district, which includes about 100 homes as well as a few businesses and municipal buildings, including the schools.
Nonessential outdoor water use includes irrigating lawns with sprinklers or automatic irrigation systems, washing vehicles, and washing buildings, parking lots, driveways, or sidewalks. There are a few exceptions, some involving review and approval by the Water Commission or its designee. Filling outdoor pools would also require Water Commission approval if restrictions were in place. The bylaw does not affect essential outdoor water use, which includes agricultural and other business uses.
Restrictions could be triggered by a state-declared drought (including a low-level drought), a state-declared water emergency, or a declaration by the Water Commission of a need to conserve water to ensure an adequate supply for drinking, fire protection, or local aquatic habitat protection.
Restrictions would range from banning all nonessential outdoor use to defining days or hours when it would be allowed. Penalties would start with a written warning for the first violation to $300 for the fourth violation. Subsequent violations would be fined at a rate of $300 per day. Enforcing authorities include the water commissioners, Board of Health members, the Department of Public Works director, the building commissioner, and the police.
The bylaw also includes new regulations for in-ground irrigation systems. Such systems would need to be registered with the Water Commission, and all would be required to have timing devices and an accessible shut-off valve that enforcing agents could use if a property owner was in violation of the bylaw. New systems would also be required to have a soil moisture sensor device, and existing systems would need that device installed as well when serviced or repaired.
The Board of Health supports the article, but it did not have a chance to review the language before it went into the warrant. Members believe it would be difficult to enforce, and that it would be even more difficult to enforce equitably since many Harvard homes are set back far from the road. The Select Board voted 4-1 against supporting the article. They were concerned about equitable enforcement and what member Don Ludwig called “overreach” in the bylaw’s in-ground irrigation systems regulations.
Requested by the Select Board, but the board subsequently voted not to recommend it.
Article 7 – Expand Harvard Common Historic District to include the Bromfield House property
Amount: None
Vote required for passage: Two-thirds
Accountable for implementation: Historical Commission
Passage of this article would make Bromfield House part of the Harvard Common Historic District. Any future changes to the outside of the house, if visible from the street, would require approval from the Historical Commission. See "Historical Commission, Select Board take opposing stands on Bromfield House."
Requested by the Historical Commission. The Finance Committee had no comment. The Select Board did not not recommend the article.
.
