Back to Board of Selectmen Meeting Minutes
March 10, 2009
Regular Session 7:00 pm
Mr. Riley, Ms. Burns, Mr. Rabuffo
Memorandum of Agreement with Teamsters Local 25
Mr. Pace recommended that the town enter into an agreement with the dispatchers as represented by Teamsters Local 25. He explained that there are a couple of small economic terms granting stipends to two positions and the clothing allowance was changed but, in large part, this agreement mirrors the agreements reached with other collective bargaining units for the same period. Mr. Pace said there was some discussion as to what would happen when the regional dispatch came into place. It would be recommended to the regional dispatch entity that current dispatch employees be offered an opportunity for employment.
Voted - to sign an agreement between the Town of Hingham and Teamsters Local 25, as representatives of the Hingham Dispatchers’ bargaining unit, for the period July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2010.
School Budget
Dr. Galo reported that in the spirit of being decisive, prompt and cooperative the School Committee voted to reduce the proposed budget by approximately 1.5 million dollars. The budget was voted in the amount of $35,469,391. The School Committee also voted to recommend an override in the amount of $1,100,000.
Dr. Galo gave a brief summary of the budget including new initiatives and the proposed amount for the operation of the fourth elementary school. In order to get the budget to the current amount the full day kindergarten was eliminated. Other reductions included personnel, both professional and support staff, and the incremental amount for the opening of the fourth elementary school. After several weeks there were a few more savings realized through two more retirements, reduction of the bussing budget, etc. This still left a need for a 1.6 million dollar override. Since then, favorable oil and gasoline bid results and lower than anticipated health insurance costs resulted in an operating budget of $35,469,391.
Last year the debt exclusion vote was for construction of the new elementary school, the improvements to Foster and Plymouth River Schools and the modulars. Dr. Galo said that it was always understood that there would need to be an operating override to operate the new school. The estimated override amount was two to two and a half million dollars. This did not include the amount of money to other fund other related items, such as crossing guards and insurance - both health and property. The full day kindergarten was deferred and an assistant principal was eliminated. These changes brought the cost down to $1.6 million. In addition, there were three things that happened over the past week that also reduce the amount of the requested override: (1) savings on gasoline and fuel as a result of bid last week, (2) savings of 100,000 on health insurance and (3) federal stimulus money. Some of the stimulus money will come through the IDEA grant. The good news is that there is an existing mechanism for processing the money; the bad news is that there is still some lack of clarity about this and the current IDEA grant has strings attached. Money through this program is to supplement, not supplant existing educational services. The feeling is that the money is going to be used partially for supplement and partially to supplant. So the stimulus program funds in the amount of $260,000 will be used to lower the needed amount in the override.
Dr.Galo spoke about what would happen if the override did not pass. She said that short of some totally unexpected event there is no possibility of having four elementary schools. The impact would be the same regardless of which elementary school was closed. The schools were designed for four schools with four sections of each grade level. Although the new school is bigger, it is not really larger than the other schools as far as regular education classrooms. All the schools have been cited for poor conditions in small spaces and there is overcrowding of core spaces. With four schools, all four would be smaller than they are now.
In early November 2008 parents were notified as to the new school districts. If the school department were to have to go back to a three school model there are many families who will not know what school their children will attend until after the override vote. Increased class size will result in people saying they will need more resources. Those who have children with IEPs will expect more in the way of services due to the class size. The back up plan would be opening up three elementary schools with all of the impacts. Dr. Galo said that if one of the schools has to close, it should not be mothballed. The School Committee/Department is exploring ways of keeping a fourth building open without impacting the budget. Some of the options for keeping the building functioning would be to move Kids in Action or to have the South Shore Collaborative lease space the building. Until more information is available any choice as to which building would close in the event of the failure of the override will be put off until May.
Dennis Friedman noted that this planning process started many years ago. The master plan, which was presented to and approved by the town, called for getting a school opened a year or two or ago but the timing was changed to take advantage of the opportunity to get some funding from the state. The school building project was approved last year and all concerned tried to make it very clear what it would cost to build the school and what it will cost to operate the school. In FY10 residents will see the impact of the override and the impact of the operating override. Mr. Friedman commended the School Committee and school administration for a tremendous job of cooperation and communication. He concluded his remarks by noting that it would be very difficult to spend 34 million dollars to build a new school and renovate existing schools not to operate four comparable schools. He said the Town needs to follow through on the plan and do it as cost effectively as possible.
Ms. Burns said there have been questions about the timing of the override in these difficult times. She noted that this issue needs to go before the voters in order to open four comparable schools next fall. Some in the community have suggested that the school needs are not needs, but wants. Ms. Burns disagreed saying that the School Building Authority has objective standards that must be met. Mr. Rabuffo noted that last year there was huge support for the school he hopes that that support continues this year for the override. He also remarked that what Mr. Tortora said last week was important and that we should heed the advice of the financial advisors.
Voted - to recommend a School Operating Budget of
Payroll $28,599,323
Expenses 6,890,068
Total $35,469,391
Voted - to recommend a school operating budget override of $1,100,000
Voted - to place the following vote on the ballot for the May 2, 2009 town election:
“Shall the Town of Hingham be allowed to assess an additional $1,100,000 in real estate and personal property taxes for the purpose of operation of the new elementary school for the fiscal year beginning July first, 2009?”
Warrant Articles
Ms. Thurston and Mr. Johnson advised the Board that the 375th Anniversary Committee is planning a yearlong celebration from September 2009 to September 2010 in honor of the Town’s 375th Anniversary. In 1935 the town was recovering from a depression; in 1985 times were better, and in both instances the Town recognized the importance of an anniversary event. There has been a lot of volunteer time invested in the planning of these events. The group meets on the third Thursday of the month and there are several subcommittees who meet more frequently. The proposed warrant article requests an appropriation to fund the celebration. It is anticipated that this amount will be repaid through fundraising.
Voted - to support the recommendation to appropriate $35,000 to the 375th anniversary committee.
Site specific liquor license
A petition article requesting special legislation to authorize an all alcoholic common victualler license for the former Settles Glass building was submitted. The owners are in the middle of an extensive permitting process. If town meeting approves this article the license would be subject to the Board of Selectmen granting a license and the ABCC approving the license.
Voted - to support the recommendation to authorize the Board of Selectmen to petition the commonwealth to issue one site specific all alcoholic beverages license.
By-law on docks and piers
Conservation Commission member Carolyn Nielsen said that the proposed by-law, if adopted, would provide protection of the harbor. Presently there is a two part process for permitting a dock or pier – one permit from the DEP (the state owns the water) and a second from the Conservation Commission (the town has jurisdiction over the beaches, land, clam flats, etc.).
There are no specific regulations on docks and piers themselves. The DEP has drafted guidelines for building small docks and piers. These are guidelines, not laws and are available on the DEP website. The Conservation Commission is told that they are to protect the salt marsh and shell fish habitat. Under Wetlands Protection the Conservation Commission is allowed to develop piers and docks regulations to protect resources. Ms. Nielsen said there is a question about the docks that are currently permitted and if they are grandfathered. The regulations would be established with a public meeting process. The Conservation Commission has been working on some draft regulations. The current draft reflects the DEP guidelines as well as public access and wetlands protection. If there is a local by-law and a property owner is unhappy with a decision, the town is in a better and stronger position to defend a ruling. The DEP tends to weaken rulings by Conservation Commissions. Local regulations for docks are challenged in courts – this is a more thorough and rigorous review. The Commission feels it is in the best interest of the town to amend the wetlands by-law by enacting regulations to protect the shellfish beds. Ms. Nielsen said that at this time it is the Commission’s intention to deal with the private homeowners’ docks and piers, commercial docks and piers would continue to be handled in the current manner.
Chris Daly said there have been a large number of dock and pier requests over the past year or two and the Harbor Development Committee is concerned about how the waterfront would look if littered by docks and piers. The Committee surveyed 10 towns and many have instituted what is being proposed here. Some towns have installed an immediate moratorium on docks and piers to give the town some time to create regulations.
.
Mr. Riley commented that this article which is sponsored by the Conservation Commission and the Harbor Development Committee should have come to the Selectmen before it was submitted. The Harbor Development Committee and Selectmen should sit down to discuss the role of the committee and the selectmen. I think the process is flawed. If the reason for the by-law is that the appeal is to a court rather than the DEP, Mr. Riley said he would like to know what court this would go to and how long it would take an individual to go through the process. Mr. Riley said he is not sure that he wants to have and individual go through that process when there are other things in place. He said what brought things to this point for so much regulation.
Ms. Nielsen said the Commission is seeing large docks that have significant impact and have impact on navigation, particularly on smaller boats that are being pushed into the channel. Currently everything is left to the judgment of people sitting in regulatory chairs and there are 161 waterfront properties that could build piers or multiple piers.
Mr. Riley said he had some concerns that he would like to consider before taking any action on this article. These concerns include : does the harbormaster support this? who are the ten towns in the survey, how does the court procedure work, how long it does it takes and what is the usual outcome?
Zoning
Jim Costello of 494 Cushing Street, the closest abutters to the proposed zoning change, spoke of the need for a more comprehensive review of the area. The current process began in October 2008 and the hearings were constructive. Residents question the need for the proposed store. Traffic is really strained at present and the plan calls for a drive thru exit onto Cushing Street as well as tractor trailers exiting to Cushing Street. This would be a dramatic change from residential to commercial and that theme may carry forward. Mr. Costello said this would have a big impact on the family. He also noted that this is a gateway to Hingham. Ms. Burns said what is needed is to take a comprehensive look at what is going on in South Hingham. Mr. Rabuffo said he was under the impression that the applicant would withdraw the application. Mr. Riley said he would support a comprehensive plan for development in South Hingham.
Voted - not to support the article to rezone the parcels in the Derby Street Cushing Street area from residential to commercial.
Downtown Overlay Article
Ms. Sneath said the objectives of the proposed article go to ground floor uses and parking requirements. The proposed recommendation would encourage uses with regular interaction with the general public or walk in business on the ground floor. The Planning Board could opt to do nothing and let the usual ebb and flow of business happen, The HDIC and Planning board agree that something should be done by way of a review.
Change of use on ground floor would require a special permit to convert to professional office or agencies or banks and financial institutions. It is intent that Main, North and South Streets should remain retail/service in character. It is also felt that on North Street to the Harbor (east of Station Street) there should be some grandfathering of the current use so property owners could switch without being penalized.
The second part of the article would ease parking requirements for residences upstairs and tighten parking requirements for ground floor offices and banks. Ms. Murphy said that this is a Planning Board initiative and is meant to be proactive. Sue Sullivan explained that this is an attempt to manage the marketing mix. The study done three years ago showed that our downtown has significantly less retail than the typical successful downtown.
Mr. Riley said the important fact is that the Town controls both the on-street parking and the Station Street parking lot. The new parking model breaks downtown up into three zones – the water area, North Street to Ship Street, and finally the area called the Square.
Ms. Burns said the big concern is about empty storefronts. She said that she sees the problem and she is worried about this solution. Ms. Burns noted the comparison towns have larger downtowns and that she is concerned that landlords will have a hard time fitting into this.
Mr. Riley noted that there had been seven conversions to offices in the Downtown area – all real estate. Mr. Rabuffo noted that this is the continuation of a chapter that started long ago. The only question he had was the reaction of the property owners. Ms. Murphy said that of the five or six property owners involved, those that live in town are more receptive of the concerns about the moving from one use to another. The property owners who do not live in Hingham are less so.
Mr. Riley commended the Planning Board for their efforts. Bonnie Hobbs commented that these proposals are very prudent and encouraged the Planning Board to continue its work on the downtown. The Planning Board m embers said they would circulate the draft they are currently working on.
Meeting adjourned 10:45 pm.
Betty Foley, Clerk