Board of Selectmen/School Committee/Finance and Warrant Committee
Community Notes Thursday, April 26,, 2018 @ 7pm Lower Meeting Room, Town Hall Board of Selectmen members in attendance: Dennis Teehan, Dennis Guilfoyle, Jim MacDonald, Brendan Keogh, Mike Butler School Committee members in attendance: Mayanne MacDonald Briggs, Stephen M. Bilafer, Kevin R. Coughlin, Lisa Laprade, Tracey White, Joshua Donati, Melissa Pearrow Finance and Warrant Committee members in attendance: Kevin Preston, John Heffernan, Susan Fay, Susan Carney, Dave Roberts, Kevin Hughes, Marty Lindemann, Cecilia Emery Butler Board of Selectmen Agenda
School Committee Agenda
Finance Committee Agenda
The Finance Committee Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. The Finance Committee chair explained how the meetings would proceed for the evening:
The Finance Committee went into recess. The School Committee meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. The School Committee presented new wording for Article 19 that includes language about a traffic study and the specific area that would be covered by the traffic study and the timeframe for the conducting of the traffic study (1 full year). A motion was made to approve the proposed new Article 19 wording. It was unanimously approved. Georganna Wood asked if this motion would replace the original motion. It was explained that the Finance Committee will decide what language is included in the motion that will be on the warrant. A substitute motion can be made at Town Meeting. Susan Butler asked to review the new motion. Copies of the new motion were made and distributed to all in attendance. Ms. Butler explained that the proposed Collaborator will not bring the the two sides (pro and anti rail trail) together. The abutters are not willing to negotiate. Cecilia Butler (speaking as a resident, not a member of the Finance Committee) feels that the area of the circulation study is not adequate, and that it should be expanded to include more of Mt Vernon Street. A motion was made to adjourn the School Committee meeting at 6:40 p.m. It was unanimously approved. The Board of Selectmen’s meeting was called to order at 6:47 p.m. Discuss & Vote Recommendation for Article 19 (Proposed Study of Rail Trail Corridor) The School Committee Chairman updated the Board on the outcome of the School Committee meeting that just concluded. A motion was made to concur with the Article 19 language as approved by the School Committee. It was unanimously approved. Discussion & Vote Re: Ames Project Progress Review The Project Manager gave an update on what has happened since the last Board of Selectmen’s meeting. There has been no additional progress on the project since Monday. The primary issue is lack of manpower. There was a vote to terminate the contract with CTA on Monday. A letter is being sent to CTA notifying them of the termination on 4/27/18. The official contract termination will be 72 hours after receipt of the letter. Next steps will be to hire a completion contractor. The new Town Hall building may be empty for some time during this transition but it will be well protected. The Board thanked the Project Manager for his oversight and due diligence during this project. They also reminded the public that the Project Manager is not an employee of CTA. A motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 6:55 p.m. It was unanimously approved. The Finance Committee meeting was called back to order at 7:00 p.m. Reserve Fund Transfer (Town Manager/Insurance) Town Manager Jim Kern gave an update on the status of the CTA contract termination. He explained that there is not enough budget to cover the insurance on the new Town Hall project indefinitely. The town is requesting 3 additional months of insurance funding. This is the second time the insurance has needed to be extended. The “Actual Damages” coverage on the surety contract may cover this expense. A motion was made to transfer $30k to the insurance fund from the reserve fund. It was unanimously approved. Hearing, Deliberation, & Vote on Warrant Article 19 Georganna Woods (P6) is happy about the inclusion of a traffic study and Collaborator in the new warrant language. She asked if the $55k grant issued by the State for the Rail Trail design (expiring in 2018) can still be applied with this new warrant language. Dan Driscoll, Town Meeting Moderator, explained that the wording would have to indicate that the traffic study is directly tied to a rail bed study in order for the grant to apply. Additional wording would need to be added to the language approved by the School Committee and Board of Selectmen. The committee asked the Town Manager to propose additional language necessary for the grant to apply to the article. A question was asked regarding whether the article would need to be voted on at Town Meeting if all rail bed language was removed (e.g., limit the language to the traffic study for the schools). Mr. Driscoll explained that the article is about land usage (or non-usage) and that such a change would be a material impact to the scope of the motion and therefore would not be allowed. It was explained that the traffic study/article will not result in answers to questions about where the trail would start and end, ownership of the land, environmental impacts, etc. The traffic study would be a precursor to answering those questions. It would also include safety considerations. Mr. Kern explained that the objective of the Collaborator would be to determine how best to proceed with various stakeholders, and formulate a process for getting questions answered and a framework for communication. There was discussion about if/why additional subcommittees might be necessary for the project. Mr. Kern explained that often times temporary committees are necessary to take on work specific to a project that the standing committees do not have the capacity to handle. There was further discussion about how a “Collaborator” is different than a “Mediator.” Mediators work to determine a compromise between two opposing parties. A Collaborator removes barriers, gathers facts, and interacts with Stakeholders. A successful outcome of collaboration would be if participants agree it was useful, listening to all sides was facilitated, and a summary of the different points of view was provided as well as a recommendation for how to proceed was made. Robert Falvey (P6, Abutter) is glad to see the traffic study will be supervised by the School Committee. He was impressed by the strong feelings of the School Committee that the traffic study is needed now, before the trail design. He stated that the traffic study would need to be re-done after the trail design was finalized. He also explained that the initial feasibility study resulted in a stalemate between the anti and pro trail trail groups. He suspects that the Collaborator will not side with the abutters to leave the area alone. He also reminded everyone that a substitute motion could be made at Town Meeting that asked to vote for or against the rail trail. Whatever side loses that vote could then get the necessary 5% of voters to sign a petition to get the issue added to a Town-wide election ballot. Susan Butler (P6) stated that the town is divided and asked the committee to consider whether a rail trail is worth it. She is not in favor of the Collaborator. She asked that the committee indefinitely postpone the article. Mr. Kern proposed additional language for the Article that would qualify it for the state’s grant funding. A question was asked about how many traffic studies the School Committee has overseen. The School Committee and SBRC have overseen many studies related to the recently built school buildings. The School Committee Chairman confirmed that the School Committee feels comfortable overseeing the traffic study. Mr. Kern stated that he believes enough is known about the potential rail trail routes that an effective study can be done now and would not have to be redone after the design was finalized. A question was asked regarding what would happen if the Collaborator says an impasse has been reached. Mr. Kern explained that the Board of Selectmen would have to decide on next steps in the event of that outcome. Mr. Lindermann read a letter from Sharna Borsellino (P6) requesting that Barrow Street be included in the traffic study. It was confirmed that Barrows Street is within the area specified in the new article language. Clarissa Robyn (P6, Abutter) said that she is happy that the traffic study is being included in the article. She said that a traffic study was proposed last year, but it was indefinitely postponed, which surprised and disappointed her. She is surprised it’s being questioned now and feels that the current proposal is a 2 for 1 deal and good for the town. Cynthia Barich (P6) asked the committee to consider that this article is tied to a feasibility study that could end up costing $4M, and consider the project in conjunction with the overages on other projects that will need to be paid for. Mr. Kern responded that no funding would be approved without additional design specifics, and that the new Town Hall project is not running over budget. A motion was made to close the public hearing. It was unanimously approved. A motion was made to approve $135k for Article 19 inclusive of the new language submitted tonight by the School Committee and Jim Kern. Ms. Carney stated that she opposes the article. She is concerned about the proposed rail trail impacting the safety of the children in the abutting schools. Mr. Heffernan pointed out that the traffic study could show that the project cannot move forward. Ms. Butler explained that she is not in favor of the Collaborator, as she feels it is too late for that process to be effective. She is supportive of the traffic study. Mr. Roberts supports the article as proposed. He feels the town needs to decide how to use this property that it owns. Ms. Fay said that there have been many meetings about this project over the past few years as well as a feasibility study. She would rather have seen the Traffic Study come directly from the School Committee, but if this article can result in the School Committee having enough information to formulate an informed stance on the proposed rail trail project then it will be a good thing. She is not in favor of the Collaborator at this time. Mr. Hughes sees a need for Town Meeting to take a stance on this issue. He is not in favor of the Collaborator. Mr. Preston is in favor of the article as proposed. He has used many rail trails and has never seen one that degraded surrounding properties. He said that abandoned rail beds are much more attractive to crime than developed rail trails. He feels the trail is needed to meet the recreation needs of older and disabled residents. Wilson Mountain is not an option for that population. He also feels that with the State paying for all of the construction cost, the trail is a good bargain for the town, and that the town should take one step at a time and evaluate next steps based on merit. Mr. Lindermann pointed out that a Collaborator won’t be effective if the opposition is not willing to work with him/her. A motion was made to approve the proposed language, with the exception of the section that references the Collaborator, and adjust the total dollar amount approved to $110k ($135k minus the cost of the Collaborator). The motion failed by a vote of 4 to 4 (Carney, Fay, Lindermann, Butler voted yes. Roberts, Hughes, Preston, Heffernan voted no.) A motion was made to approve the language as proposed by the School Committee and Mr. Kern. The motion passed by a vote of 5 to 3 (Hughes, Butler, Carney voted no. Preston, Roberts, Lindermann, Fay, and Heffernan voted yes.) Selectman Butler thanked the Finance Committee and stated that this progress is due to the Finance Committee asking the Board of Selectmen to help them take a position on the article. Ms. Carney responded that the issue has been around for 5 years and the Board of Selectmen and School Committee haven’t taken a position and this has led to division in the town. Hearing, Deliberation, & Vote on Warrant Article 23 This article is no longer necessary. A motion to indefinitely postpone it was made and unanimously approved. Hearing, Deliberation, & Vote on Warrant Article 2 This article is to approve the implementation of the Patrolmen’s collective bargaining agreement. It is necessary for Fiscal Year 2018 through Fiscal Year 2020. The contract has already been approved. Mr. Kern explained that Dedham is ranked below comparable towns when it comes to the total compensation package for it’s police officers. There were a few options for how to rectify this situation and the solution that has been ratified in the new contract is a change to the higher education incentive. Other changes to the contract include changes to the assessment process to become a Sergeant, changes to requirements for excused consecutive sick days, and changes to maximum sick time buy back amounts. Ms. Carney expressed concern about the amount of the increase to the higher education incentive. She feels that it would set a precedent that will result in other collective bargaining organizations to request similarly generous increases to their compensation. Mr. Kern does not believe there is a high risk of that happening, as the other groups of town employees have a total compensation package that is already in line with comparable communities, so they would not have the leverage to get such an increase during contract mediation. Clarification was made that the contract has already been approved, so if the implementation (this article) is not approved it could result in reductions in force. A motion was made to approve the article. It was passed by a vote of 6 to 2 (Carney and Butler voted no). MEETING ADJOURNED at 9:55 p.m. Notes taken by Heather Springer Notes reviewed by Allison Staton Keywords: Rail Trail, Article 19, Traffic Study, Collaborator, Substitute Motion, New Town Hall, CTA, Contract Termination Community Notes are not official minutes or transcriptions of a meeting. They are intended to provide summaries of discussion and actions taken at meetings. For official meeting minutes, visit the Town of Dedham’s website or contact the Town Clerk. THANK YOU for helping with Transparent Dedham Community Notes Project! Please submit your notes to editorialteam@transparentdedham.org Comments are closed.
|
Editorial GuidelinesOur goal is to provide Notes that report on events and meetings as objectively as possible. To this end, Correspondents are given guidelines and a template, and are asked to identify potential conflicts of interests they may have. In addition, each set of Notes is reviewed by at least one member of our Editorial Team. You can read our guidelines here.
DISCLAIMERCommunity Notes are not official minutes or transcriptions of a meeting. They are intended to provide summaries of discussion and actions taken at meetings. For official meeting minutes, visit the Town of Dedham’s website or contact the Town Clerk.
Archives
November 2018
Categories
All
|
||
RSS Feed
Proudly powered by Weebly