Finance and Warrant Committee
Community Notes Thursday, March 29, 2018 6:30 pm - 10:00 pm TOWN HALL, Lower Conference Room Board members present: Kevin Preston, Chair John Heffernan Cecilia Butler Susan Faye Dave Roberts Marty Linderman Susan Carney Kevin Hughes Agenda:
Prior to starting the meeting, the Chair made an announcement. He informed the large crowd that there would be no deliberation tonight on Article 19 (the proposed Rail Trail article) and that a decision would be voted on later. Instead, the Committee would hear from 3 speakers/presenters on each side of the issue, who were invited in advance. Chairman Preston said the committee has also received lots of input in writing from the public. The meeting was called to order at 6:43 pm Article 19 Margaret Matthews, representative for the proponents of Article 19 walked through a presentation about the proposed project/article. She said:
Ms. Matthews explained the warrant article also asks for an 11 member committee to be formed to guide the project through next steps. The committee would include representatives from various other boards/committees. The risk of approving the article is that the money being spent now will not end up in a materialized project. Ms. Matthews said this not a unique situation. Examples were provided for other studies that have been funded with a larger budget that have not yet resulting in materialized projects. The Chair pointed out that this is a very different proposal than the original Article 19. Ms. Matthews reiterated that the new request is $95k to do traffic study and analysis of routes and enough design to get a good cost estimate for the remaining design as well as creation of the 11 person committee. Assistant Town Administrator Nancy Baker clarified an additional change in language within article. Eminent domain language was added to the original article by Town Council in the event that it was necessary (standard practice for many articles). Since the new request is just for design funding this language is not needed and will be taken out. Dave Roberts asked how the proponents and the town arrived about the $95k figure. Ms. Matthews responded that it was from a firm named GPI that designed another trail. The estimate includes some padding for a weekday and weekend traffic study. John Heffernan asked about meeting with school committee leaders and clarified that no vote has been taken by school committee. Susan Fay asked if it will be mandated that abutters be on the proposed committee. Margaret said that the advice given was to leave language as broad as possible, but the expectation is that 2 members of the committee will be direct abutters. Susan Carney asked whether care and custody of the rail corridor falls under the Board of Selectmen. Town Manager Jim Kern responded that the rail corridor is owned by the town. Care and custody is shared by school (for the section around the schools) and the Board of Selectmen (non-school portions). Neither the Board of Selectmen nor the School Committee have taken a stance on the project. Cecilia Butler asked what the parameters of the traffic study are. Margaret Matthews responded that the study currently includes High St, East St., Whiting Ave, and Walnut St. She thinks that side streets (Abbott, etc.) are not included. Lindsay Barich and Susan Butler spoke on behalf of the opponents of the proposed rail trail. Susan Butler is an abutter, Lindsay Barich is a concerned neighbor. They said:
The opponents said Yard 5 contained contaminated soil that has been removed and it’s unclear if it could be approved for rail trail usage. Currently it is approved for light industrial use. There is still a question of who owns rail corridor. Easements have been identified. The opponents asked why abutters haven’t heard from the Board of Selectmen or School Committee. There were no questions from the committee for the Mrs. Fay and Mr. Barich. Ms. Matthews responded regarding Yard 5 that the Town of Dedham is pursuing a recreational easement that would go alongside Yard 5. That easement is in process and would be the connection to Readville. Cynthia Duart and Antonio Duart spoke as proponent abutters on Clark St. They have lived in Dedham for 5 years and love it. They said they see the project as a great way to convert to something that can be enjoyed by entire community and opening up the trail and lighting it will make it safer for abutters. Buffers have been proposed for properties close to the trail. Alternate path to school could be something useful. The Duarts feel that this is a good use of tax dollars that can directly positively impact taxpayers. Mrs. Butler said that there has been a lack of communication from Town Hall regarding this project. Mr. Barich asked whether the cost estimate range includes lighting. Johna Bird of Clark St spoke as a proponent abutter. She was asked by her neighbors (Tara and Amy of 39 Clark Street) to read a letter that they wrote. The letter says they have windows 24 inches from the fence. They are excited about the trail and direct access to recreational space. Robert Falvey spoke as a precinct 6 opponent abutter and said he was speaking on behalf of the majority of abutters opposed to trail. He has been a taxpayer in Dedham for 55 years. There are 190 houses abutting the trail. By looking at signs on abutting streets he estimates 90% of abutters are opposed to the trail. He is in favor of clean and safe areas for residents to walk and bike, but his opposition is because this trail has disadvantages that outweigh the benefits. Dedham has other priorities that are more important than building a rail trail and the town should address needs before wants. The town has historically supported neighborhoods. Abutters have a need to preserve the quality/serenity of life that they now have. The project is complicated. There is little room to add more traffic to the area. The town might have to pay for wetlands mitigation. He said Fin Com has responsibility to make important decision. For 4 years this issue has divided the town and we need to put an end to the rail trail to go back to being a united town. Paul Pott(??) from Greenlodge spoke as a commercial abutter on Whiting Ave opposed to the trail. He said that all commercial abutters are against the trail. Shari King from Precinct 1 spoke in favor of the rail trail and pointed out that community is engaged and that Dedham is behind when it comes to rail trails. Sarah Santos, Library Trustee, spoke and noted that she is the only elected official to come out with position on rail trail. She is in favor of it. Town Manager Jim Kern spoke to address issues with respect to engagement. This has been a difficult conversation between people in the community. He said it is not fair to say no effort has been made to communicate on this issue; response from abutters has been that they don’t want to have a conversation until there is an actual project. The 11 person committee has been suggested to involve more people in the process. The committee and study would help get more data before the town spends more money. The $10k for the rail yard study was not related to rail trail, but is to figure out what our options are for that parcel of land. Kern said there is no intent to buy land from the MBTA or develop land for parking for the rail trail. Only selectman can engage in a discussion about easements at Yard 5 and t question of connecting to Boston is a complicated one. Kern said rail trail projects are complex, but they’re getting done and they are getting funding. Boston Mayor Marty Walsh and Governor Charlie Baker are very supportive of rail trail initiatives. Kevin Hughes said there is confusion about where the trail is beginning and ending. Mr. Kern responded that this is the kind of thing that will be determined by more substantive study. A question was raised regarding whether we will get answers we need from the $95K? Jim Kern deferred this question to sponsors of the article. Susan Fay asked whether care, custody, and control equals ownership. Jim Kern responded that the transfer of corridor from the MBTA to Dedham is the reason the title is 400 pages. The title results do show the town owns the property. Readville Yard is a different story. A follow-up question was asked about why eminent domain was included in the article. Mr. Kern explained because Town Meeting rules don’t allow an article to be expanded on the floor, the original had to be broad. Eminent domain was included as standard language in many articles regarding property development. Town Council will be asked to confirm that he/she has 100% confidence that town owns the land. Mr. Kern confirmed the Board of Selectmen has taken no stance and the School Committee has not taken a vote but has entered into meetings. Mr. Kern said Parks and Recs might become involved down the line but he did not know if they had taken a stance or vote to this point. Kevin Preston asked if care and custody can be changed by Town Meeting. Mr. Kern responded yes, with some qualifications. The current custodians would have to relinquish care/custody/control. Mayanne MacDonald Briggs, School Committee chair, spoke about School Committees involvement in the project. The project was presented 6 years ago. The School Committee supported it as long as it didn’t complicate traffic problems at the schools. However, Ms. Briggs said the current driveway is used pretty much all the time and there are lots of parking nightmares. She said School Committee can support traffic study, but nothing else until the traffic study is done. Ms. Briggs quoted an email from Margaret Matthews received on Tuesday and said she was surprised that design is being included in current request. Susan Carney said that if the Board of Selectmen and School Committee have care, custody, and control over the property then the Finance Committee shouldn’t take a vote until they know what their position is. Mike Butler, member of the Board of Selectmen, stated that because it is the recommendation of Finance Committee that is voted on Town Meeting floor, votes such as this should first be voted on by the Finance Committee and then they go to the Board of Selectmen for vote, because until then they don’t know exactly what they are taking a position on. Susan Carney said this is different because the Board has care, custody, and control in this particular case. She clarified that the Selectmen vote would be on whether they support the article as presented tonight. Questions were asked about when will the new/clean warrant be available and who will oversee the RFP for the proposed study, as there is currently no Town Planner. It was explained the Committee would oversee RFP, supported by town RFP staff. The article itself will not be changed from what has been advertised. Instead, there will be an amendment put forward on Town Meeting floor. John Heffernan asked if the Finance Committee could get a better understanding of the scope/parameters of the traffic study. Ms. Matthews said she will get more definitive answer and respond to the Committee. Mr. Heffernan said the Committee also needs to better understand the parameters of the $50k grant. A question was asked regarding whether rail trail projects have been refused by the state and whether there other trails that are of a similar length. Ms. Matthews said yes, the Somerville path is less than 1 mile long and also built by Mass DOT. Jim Kern stated that these types of projects (funded through the state’s Transportation Improvement Projects (or TIP projects) budget) don’t always make the cut for funding, but that doesn’t mean they are “rejected”, as they could still be approved in a later year. He said rail trails are a priority from the current state administration, and Dedham’s approval will depend on when we’re ready and how many other rail projects are ready at the same time. The Committee took the matter under advisement and will take a position at a future meeting. [Also, see More Rail Trail Discussion below.] Reserve fund transfer request Transfer On behalf of the Purchasing Dept., there is a request for a $10K transfer to the overtime line item. The amount is to cover various departments who don’t have overtime appropriations. The administration is not seeing a trend that would warrant increasing the appropriation in future years. A motion to move $10k to central overtime passed unanimously. Fire Department Capital Budget Presentation Fire Chief William Spillane explained what is being requested for the department’s capital budget.
Kevin Preston asked to get research how other towns replace/rotate their vehicles. Chief Spillane said the Capital Expenditures Committee has approved everything being requested. There was discussion about whether all of the department heads will need to come in and present their requests to the Finance Committee, or whether a combination of the Town Manager and the Chair of Capital Expenditures Committee could come in to present a summarization of their requests. Facilities will need to come in because their request is extensive. Steve Heaslip precinct 3 for Article ? Steve Heaslip said he and his sons participate in Town Clean-up each year and are discouraged by the amount of litter that exists. Why is this still happening? Because $300 littering fine costs more to prosecute than you get from the penalty, he said. Mr. Heaslip would like to see a steep fine that would act as a deterrent and raise some money for the town. He said maybe a $5k fine would inspire police to take fingerprints off litter down the road. For now, he would like to raise the maximum fine to $5K. Dave Roberts asked about fees other communities charge. Mr. Heaslip said 0ther towns in other states have fines of that magnitude but he hasn’t researched surrounding communities. He explained the article petitions the State Legislature to change the State Statute, not to change the town by-law. If state approves, then we could change the town by-laws to raise the penalty for litter (up to approved amount). Steve doesn’t know of any other towns that are petitioning the state for this change. What do Dedham Police do now for litter? Nothing as Steve understands it. More Rail Trail Discussion Susan Fay asked if there’s a factual question about rail trails, what should the committee do? This is a unique situation because normally the town proposes something, but here we have a community group proposing with some town involvement and an opposition group. As an example, one group says bridges and supporting structures will be funded by the state. The other group says they won’t be covered. Jim Kern clarified that bridges/supporting structures are typically covered by the state funding, but the state could choose not to approve based on the proposed design (they can veto any aspect of the design). Through the state TIP process, the state gets a design proposal and they choose whether or not to fund it. Funding for bridges/supporting structures will be funded if they are included in the approved design. Mr. Kern clarified the amended article – article is for traffic study and enough information to move to next phase. It is only in the next phase, which would be funding design, which would then be used to get on the TIP list. Mr. Kern said that all past rail trail projects have gotten construction funding from the State. A request was made for Mr. Kern to contact the Department of Transportation to get their official statement on what they definitely won’t pay for in rail trail projects. The Committee doesn’t need this info for the vote on this warrant article. A committee member asked whether thIs new article is too different than what was published. Town Moderator Dan Driscoll said no, since the amount of funding being requested is less than what was published, it’s an allowed amendment. Mr. Kern reiterated that supporting structures are not categorically excluded. This doesn’t mean they’ll definitely get funded, but there is a good chance they will. There was discussion of upcoming meeting schedule and agenda items. Adjourned at 9:57 pm Notes taken by Heather Springer Notes reviewed by Sarah MacDonald Keywords: Dedham Rail Trail, Friends of the Dedham Heritage Rail Trail, Stop the Rail Trail, Article 19, Fire Department, FY18 Budget, Litter, Overtime 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