|
REPRESENTATIVE TOWN MEETING
TOWN OF GREENWICH
EXPLANATORY COMMENTS FOR
OCTOBER 2005 MEETING
ITEM NO.: 1- postponed from September 2005
DEPARTMENT: Selectmen
CONTACT: Ed Gomeau 622-7710
REFERRED TO: Appointments, Land Use Committees
VOTES: Board of Selectmen 3-0-0
RESOLVED, that the following named person, nominated by the Board of Selectmen, be appointed a member of the Inland Wetlands Agency for a term expiring 3/31/09.
MATTHEW J. POPP
Explanatory Comments
Matthew J. Popp. 54 Mead Avenue, Greenwich. Renomination as a member of the Inland Wetlands Agency for a term expiring 3/31/09.
Bachelor of Science in Horticulture, Master of Landscape Architecture. Principal Landscape Architect, Environmental Analyst, Environmental Land Solutions, LLC, Norwalk, CT.
ITEM NO.: 2 – postponed from September 2005
DEPARTMENT: Selectmen
CONTACT: James A. Lash 622-7710 First Selectman
REFERRED TO: Appointments, Health & Human Services Committees
VOTES: Board of Selectmen 3-0-0
RESOLVED, that the following named person, nominated by the Board of Selectmen, be appointed a member of the Commission on Aging for a term expiring 3/31/08.
PHYLLIS PRATT
Explanatory Comments
Phyllis Pratt. 16 Turner Drive, Greenwich. New nomination as a regular member of the Commission on Aging for a term expiring 3/31/08.
Long Island University, Master of Science Community Health Administration, Marymount College, Bachelor of Arts, St. Clare’s Hospital School of Nursing, R.N. Diploma.
Retired from Greenwich Hospital – Program Director of Surgery, Orthopedics and Neurosciences.
DEPARTMENT: Office of Community Development
REFERRED TO: Finance, Health & Human Services, Legislative & Rules
VOTES: Board or commission name vote (y/n/a)
WHEREAS, the Policy of the Town of Greenwich requires that the Board of Estimate and Taxation shall annually make and file in the Office of the Town Clerk a Detailed Statement of the Appropriations, with its reasons for said Appropriations which it deems necessary to meet the expenses and to conduct the affairs of the Community Development Block Grant Program of the Town of Greenwich for the ensuing Fiscal Year, that is to say, for the Year January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006 inclusive; and
WHEREAS, the said Board has so filed in the Office of Town Clerk a Detailed Statement of such Appropriations contained in a document designated as the Community Development Block Grant Proposed Action Plan, January 1, 2006 – December 31, 2006 pages B through 2, pages 14 through 29 and pages 66 through 67, will also forward a copy of this resolution indicating approval of the Community Development Block Grant Plan and Budget for the Fiscal Year January 1, 2006 – December 31, 2006 by the Board of Estimate and Taxation; and
WHEREAS, the said Policy provides that the Board of Estimate and Taxation shall submit proposed Appropriations and make such Appropriations as may appear advisable, except that no Appropriations shall be made exceeding an amount for the same purpose recommended by the said Board; and
WHEREAS, said Community Development Block Grant Proposed Budget and Expenditure History – 2006 was forwarded to the members of the Representative Town Meeting on or about September 8, 2005 for action by the Representative Town Meeting at it’s Meeting to be held October 24, 2005.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the recommendations of the Board of Estimate and Taxation as contained in the said Community Development Block Grant Proposed Budget and Expenditure History – 2006 filed, as stated, in the Office of the Town Clerk and submitted at the meeting of the Representative Town Meeting be and the same hereby are approved as the Appropriations for the ensuing Calendar Year 2006, except that the following items shall be decreased or omitted as follows:
Appropriations Recommended
Department Code Number By Board By Town Meeting Decrease (-) Reason for Decrease
Total Decrease (-) ……………………………………………….
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Appropriations of $938,718, set forth, are hereby approved, made and adopted for the Fiscal Year January 1, 2006 to December 2006, inclusive and conditioned on the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development approval of the projected entitlement of approximately $900,000 (+/-) and the receipt of an annual incremental loan repayment of $38,718,
FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the entitlement amount should be more than anticipated, the additional funds will be appropriated to a contingency line item, or if the entitlement is less than the projected $900,000 and the loan repayment is less than the $38,718, the priority for funding, after the staff salaries, will be based on an equal percentage reduction of the activities listed in the “CDBG Proposals – First Selectman’s Recommendation For Funding Year 2006”; and
FUTRTHER RESOLVED, that the First Selectman, under the provisions of Title 8 of the Connecticut General Statues, Chapter 130, Part VI, Community Development and Title 1 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. §5301); the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. §3531), be hereby authorized to accept grants for the purpose of carrying out an approved Community Development Block Grant Program for the Town of Greenwich; and
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Department of Community Development of the Town of Greenwich, for purposes set forth in this Budget is authorized to accept grants or funds made available through the Community Development Block Grant Fund.
DEPARTMENT: Office of Community Development
REFERRED TO: Finance, Health & Human Services, Legislative & Rules
VOTES: Board or commission name vote (y/n/a)
RESOLVED, that the Representative Town Meeting does hereby approve and adopt The Community Development Block Grant Proposed CDBG Action Plan January 1st 2006–December 31st 2006, for the Town of Greenwich, Connecticut as on file in the Office of the Town Clerk, and as it may be modified by adoption of the Resolution of the Board of Estimate and Taxation; and that the Representative Town Meeting does hereby authorize the First Selectman to prepare the Final Action Plan, January 1st 2006–December 31st 2006, for the Town of Greenwich and to apply for and accept funds for the purpose of carrying out housing and community development programs, as approved for calendar and program year 2006 (January 1, 2006–December 31, 2006); and
RESOLVED, that in approving and adopting said Community Development Block Grant Proposed Action Plan, January 1st 2006 – December 31st 2006, to become the Final Plan, and the Representative Town Meeting finds and determines that the Community Development Block Grant program will be conducted and administered in compliance with Title 8 of the Connecticut General Statutes, Chapter 130, Part VI. Community Development and Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. §5301) the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act 42 (U.S.C. §3531); and
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the First Selectman, under the provisions of Title 8 of the Connecticut General Statutes, Chapter 130 Part VI, Community Development and Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. §5301) the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. §3531), be hereby authorized to accept grants for the purpose of carrying out an approved Community Development Block Grant program for the Town of Greenwich.
EXPLANATORY COMMENTS (by Nancy C. Brown, CDBG Director):
The Resolution on the Proposed Action Plan, January 1, 2006–December 31, 2006; authorizes the First Selectman to apply to HUD for funds for the purposes and amounts identified in the document. The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, and subsequent amendments, is an act of Congress to return tax revenues to local communities from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to address the needs established by the local communities, with an emphasis on neighborhoods, decent housing and suitable living environments; and expanding economic opportunities for persons of low- and moderate-incomes.
In order to apply for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement, eligible communities are required to prepare an Annual One Year Action Plan for Housing and Community Development Programs, which acts as the funding application and a Consolidated Plan (3 years or more) for all Community Development Programs. The previous five-year plan was acted by the RTM in October 2004.
At this time, Greenwich is eligible for funds under the CDBG program. The Town of Greenwich, from 1975 thru 2006 (if approved) will have received more than twenty-five million ($25,000,000) dollars in CDBG funds. Note: When a jurisdiction qualifies for one of the formula programs but not another, its submission need only satisfy the formula program for which it qualifies. If adopted by the RTM, the “Proposed Action Plan (January 1, 2006–December 31, 2006)” will be submitted to HUD for approval.
Under these Resolutions, the RTM is asked to hold a public hearing to consider and act on the Community Development Block Grant Proposed One Year Action Plan for the period from January 1, 2006–December 31, 2006.
The Board of Estimate and Taxation (BET) Resolution, adopted at its public hearing on September 12th 2005 requested action on the year 2006 CDBG budget as identified in the One Year Action Plan as the “Community Development Block Grant Proposed Budget and Expenditure History, Year 2006,” (pages 66-67). The RTM has historically combined the 2 Resolutions for action. The amount of the year 2006 CDBG entitlement for the Town of Greenwich from HUD is anticipated at $900,000 (+/-) plus $38,718 of a loan repayment for a total of $938,718. Statutorily, no more than 15% of the entitlement can be allocated for Public Service activities, and no more than 20% can be allocated for administrative and planning costs. The year 2006 proposed CDBG administrative budget is at 20% of the anticipated entitlement
and income. The Proposed Action Plan (January 1, 2006–December 31, 2006) was developed so that the Town of Greenwich may or may not choose to apply for future CDBG entitlements. Per HUD requirements, the “Plan” has been developed with maximum citizen participation, including submission to various Town agencies, non-profit housing and social service agencies, local libraries and media for review and comment. Copies of the Community Development Block Grant Proposed Action Plan (January 1, 2006–December 31, 2006) were mailed (under separate cover) to all RTM members on or about September 8th 2005, providing a 30+ day review period.
Attachments
Certifications
In accordance with the applicable statutes and the regulations governing the consolidated plan regulations, the jurisdiction certifies that:
Affirmatively Further Fair Housing – The jurisdiction will affirmatively further fair housing, which means it will conduct an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice within the jurisdiction, take appropriate actions to overcome the effects of any impediments identified through that analysis, and maintain records reflecting that analysis and actions in this regard.
Anti-displacement and Relocation Plan – It will comply with the acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and implementing regulations at 49 CFR 24; and it has in effect and is following a residential anti-displacement and relocation assistance plan required under section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act or 1974, as amended, in connection with any activity assisted with funding under the CDBG or HOME programs.
Drug Free Workplace – It will or will continue to provide a drug-free workplace by:
1. Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee’s workplace and specifying actions that will be taken against employees for violation of such prohibition.
2. Establishing an ongoing drug-free awareness program to inform employees about:
a. The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;
b. The grantee’s policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace;
c. Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs; and
d. The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace.
3. Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance of the grant be given a copy of the statement required by paragraph 1;
4. Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph 1 that, as a condition of employment under the grant, the employee will –
a. Abide by the terms of the statement; and
b. Notify the employer in writing of his or her conviction for a violation of a criminal drug statute occurring in the workplace no later than five calendar days after such conviction;
5. Notifying the agency in writing, within ten calendar days after receiving notice under subparagraph 4(b) from an employee or otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction. Employers of convicted employees must provide notice, including position title, to every grant officer or other designee on whose grant activity the convicted employee was working, unless the Federal agency has designated a central point for the receipt of such notices. Notice shall include the identification number(s) of each affected grant;
6. Taking one of the following actions, within 30 calendar days of receiving notice under subparagraph 4(b), with respect to any employee who is so convicted –
a. Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination, consistent with the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; or
b. Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency;
7. Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace through implementation of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Anti Lobbying -- To the best of the jurisdiction's knowledge and belief:
8. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of it, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement;
9. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, it will complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions; and
10. It will require that the language of paragraph 1 and 2 of this anti-lobbying certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.
Authority of Jurisdiction -- The consolidated plan is authorized under State and local law (as applicable) and the jurisdiction possesses the legal authority to carry out the programs for which it is seeking funding, in accordance with applicable HUD regulations.
Consistency with plan -- The housing activities to be undertaken with CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA funds are consistent with the strategic plan.
Section 3 -- It will comply with section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, and implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 135.
SPECIFIC CDBG CERTIFICATIONS
The Entitlement Community certifies that:
Citizen Participation -- It is in full compliance and following a detailed citizen participation plan that satisfies the requirements of 24 CFR 91.105.
Community Development Plan -- Its consolidated housing and community development plan identifies community development and housing needs and specifies both short-term and long-term community development objectives that provide decent housing, expand economic opportunities primarily for persons of low and moderate income. (See CFR 24 570.2 and CFR 24 part 570)
Following a Plan -- It is following a current consolidated plan (or Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy) that has been approved by HUD.
Use of Funds -- It has complied with the following criteria:
11. Maximum Feasible Priority - With respect to activities expected to be assisted with CDBG funds, it certifies that it has developed its Action Plan so as to give maximum feasible priority to activities which benefit low and moderate income families or aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight. The Action Plan may also include activities which the grantee certifies are designed to meet other community development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community, and other financial resources are not available);
12. Overall Benefit - The aggregate use of CDBG funds including section 108 guaranteed loans during program year(s) 2006, (a period specified by the grantee consisting of one program year), shall principally benefit persons of low and moderate income in a manner that ensures that at least 70 percent of the amount is expended for activities that benefit such persons during the designated period;
13. Special Assessments - It will not attempt to recover any capital costs of public improvements assisted with CDBG funds including Section 108 loan guaranteed funds by assessing any amount against properties owned and occupied by persons of low and moderate income, including any fee charged or assessment made as a condition of obtaining access to such public improvements.
However, if CDBG funds are used to pay the proportion of a fee or assessment that relates to the capital costs of public improvements (assisted in part with CDBG funds) financed from other revenue sources, an assessment or charge may be made against the property with respect to the public improvements financed by a source other than CDBG funds.
The jurisdiction will not attempt to recover any capital costs of public improvements assisted with CDBG funds, including Section 108, unless CDBG funds are used to pay the proportion of fee or assessment attributable to the capital costs of public improvements financed from other revenue sources. In this case, an assessment or charge may be made against the property with respect to the public improvements financed by a source other than CDBG funds. Also, in the case of properties owned and occupied by moderate-income (not low-income) families, an assessment or charge may be made against the property for public improvements financed by a source other than CDBG funds if the jurisdiction certifies that it lacks CDBG funds to cover the assessment.
Excessive Force -- It has adopted and is enforcing:
14. A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in non-violent civil rights demonstrations; and
15. A policy of enforcing applicable State and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such non-violent civil rights demonstrations within its jurisdiction;
Compliance With Anti-discrimination laws -- The grant will be conducted and administered in conformity with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC 2000d), the Fair Housing Act (42 USC 3601-3619), and implementing regulations.
Lead-Based Paint -- Its activities concerning lead-based paint will comply with the requirements of part~35, subparts A, B, J, K and R, of title 24;
Compliance with Laws -- It will comply with applicable laws.
APPENDIX TO CERTIFICATIONS
Instructions Concerning Lobbying and Drug-Free Workplace Requirements
Lobbying Certification
This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.
Drug-Free Workplace Certification
1. By signing and/or submitting this application or grant agreement, the grantee is providing the certification.
2. The certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance is placed when the agency awards the grant. If it is later determined that the grantee knowingly rendered a false certification, or otherwise violates the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act, HUD, in addition to any other remedies available to the Federal Government, may take action authorized under the Drug-Free Workplace Act.
3. Workplaces under grants, for grantees other than individuals, need not be identified on the certification. If known, they may be identified in the grant application. If the grantee does not identify the workplaces at the time of application, or upon award, if there is no application, the grantee must keep the identity of the workplace(s) on file in its office and make the information available for Federal inspection. Failure to identify all known workplaces constitutes a violation of the grantee's drug-free workplace requirements.
4. Workplace identifications must include the actual address of buildings (or parts of buildings) or other sites where work under the grant takes place. Categorical descriptions may be used (e.g., all vehicles of a mass transit authority or State highway department while in operation, State employees in each local unemployment office, performers in concert halls or radio stations).
5. If the workplace identified to the agency changes during the performance of the grant, the grantee shall inform the agency of the change(s), if it previously identified the workplaces in question (see paragraph three).
6. The grantee may insert in the space provided below the site(s) for the performance of work done in connection with the specific grant: Place of Performance (Street address, city, county, state, zip code) Check if there are workplaces on file that are not identified here. The certification with regard to the drug-free workplace is required by 24 CFR part 21.
Place Name |
Street |
City |
County |
State |
Zip |
Greenwich Town Hall |
101 Field Point Rd |
Greenwich |
Fairfield |
CT |
06830 |
7. Definitions of terms in the Nonprocurement Suspension and Debarment common rule and Drug-Free Workplace common rule apply to this certification. Grantees' attention is called, in particular, to the following definitions from these rules: "Controlled substance" means a controlled substance in Schedules I through V of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and as further defined by regulation (21 CFR 1308.11 through 1308.15); "Conviction" means a finding of guilt (including a plea of nolo contendere) or imposition of sentence, or both, by any judicial body charged with the responsibility to determine violations of the Federal or State criminal drug statutes; "Criminal drug statute" means a Federal or non-Federal criminal statute involving the manufacture, distribution,
dispensing, use, or possession of any controlled substance; "Employee" means the employee of a grantee directly engaged in the performance of work under a grant, including:
a. All "direct charge" employees;
b. All "indirect charge" employees unless their impact or involvement is insignificant to the performance of the grant; and
c. Temporary personnel and consultants who are directly engaged in the performance of work under the grant and who are on the grantee's payroll. This definition does not include workers not on the payroll of the grantee (e.g., volunteers, even if used to meet a matching requirement; consultants or independent contractors not on the grantee's payroll; or employees of subrecipients or subcontractors in covered workplaces).
DEPARTMENT: RTM Appointments Committee
REFERRED TO: Appointments, Land Use, Legislative & Rules Committee
VOTES: 12-0-0
To consider and act upon the following resolution, requested by the Appointments Committee.
RESOLVED, that Section 2-125 of the Town of Greenwich Municipal Code be amended as follows:
Sec. 2-125. Local representation on population basis.
Pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 8-31a of the General Statutes, the town, having a population of 61,101 [59,755] according to the Federal Census of 2000 [1970], is entitled to three (3) representatives on SWRPA. These representatives shall be appointed and serve terms without compensation as follows:[.]
(a) The Planning and Zoning Commission shall appoint one (1) representative who shall serve without fixed term at the will and pleasure of the Planning and Zoning Commission. [from among its members whose term of office shall be one (1) year. Thereafter, the term of office for this representative shall be three (3) years.]
(b) The Representative Town Meeting shall appoint on nomination of the Selectmen two (2) representatives who shall be members of the Representative Town Meeting, thus creating a liaison between SWRPA and the Representative Town Meeting. The term of office of either representative shall cease when [shall] the representative [he] ceases to be a member of the Representative Town Meeting [member]. The term of office of one (1) of these two (2) representatives shall be two (2) years and thereafter shall be three (3) years. The term of office of the other representative shall be three (3) years upon [his] initial appointment and thereafter shall be three (3) years. All terms of office for these two representatives shall end on March 31st.
(RTM, 10/9/1973.)
(additions bold; deletions within [brackets])
EXPLANATORY COMMENTS
The Appointments Committee amends Town Code Sec. 2_125 on representation to SWRPA (Southwestern Regional Planning Agency) for the following reasons:
1) The census information is updated to the Federal Census of 2000.
2) Planning and Zoning Commission supports the idea of designating its representative rather than mandating that it be a P & Z Commissioner. For the past 25 – 30 years, the Town Planner or a staff planner has been authorized by P & Z to serve as its representative on SWRPA, and no objection has ever been raised. With this amendment to Section 2-125, the Code is brought into line with practice.
3) The pronoun “he” is replaced with the gender-inclusive noun “the representative.”
4) The amended termination date of March 31 for RTM SWRPA Representatives conforms with the standard date for most appointments to town boards, agencies and commissions, of which SWRPA falls in the category of “agency.”
DEPARTMENT: Police Department 0510PD01
CONTACT: James A. Walters 622-8010
REFERRED TO: Town Services Committee
VOTES: Board of Estimate and Taxation -
First Selectman Lash
RESOLVED, that the Greenwich Police Department accept a monetary gift in the amount of $15,000 to provide necessary funding to conduct the next two sessions of the Citizens Police Academy. This amount will be appropriated to Account F213-5110 for instructor compensation.
Explanation by the Chief of Police
The Greenwich Police Department requests permission to accept a monetary gift in the amount of $15,000 from a Greenwich resident for the purpose of funding the Citizens Police Academy. This donation will allow the Greenwich Police Department to conduct the next two sessions of the Academy. Based on overtime costs associated from prior Academy sessions, we anticipate an approximate amount of $7,500 necessary to compensate the instructors. An estimated cost breakdown is attached.
Attachments
Cost Analysis for Hosting the Citizens Police Academy
Cost Analysis for Hosting the Citizens Police Academy
The Citizens Police Academy is a program that invites community residents to learn about the Greenwich Police Department. The program consists of eleven instructional blocks, each 3 hours in duration. Because of the high demand for this class, the class size should be increased to 25 students. Sergeant Olencki would coordinate and manage the program during Training Division office hours. With advanced scheduling arrangements, the program could be held at Greenwich Town Hall. The expenses estimated below represent the following:
$65.00 estimated overtime rate for each instructor/assistant
Three-hour student instructional session per evening
One hour equipment set up and preparation time per instructor/class
One hour after-class student question/answer session and equipment break down per instructor/class
Class |
Instructional Hours * |
|
|
Introduction |
5 |
Introduction to Law |
5 |
Criminal Patrol |
5 |
Use of Force |
20 |
Collision Investigation |
5 |
Criminal Investigations |
5 |
Motor Vehicle Stops |
20 |
Special Response Unit |
25 |
Identification Division |
5 |
Police Canine |
10 |
Graduation |
5 |
|
|
Total Instructional Hours |
110 |
110 hrs. @ $65/hr. = $7,150 per session x 2 sessions = $ 14,250
* Approximate
The Department provides light refreshments during the Introduction and Graduation evenings, and commemorative T-shirts for students. These items are provided for by the Greenwich Police Department at an approximate cost of $625 per session.
DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation 0510PR01
CONTACT: Joseph A. Siciliano (203) 622-6472
REFERRED TO: Finance, Parks & Recreation Committees
VOTES:
To consider and act upon the following resolution requested by the Director of Parks and Recreation.
RESOLVED, that the RTM accept a gift in an amount equal to the actual cost, not to exceed $275,000, from the Greenwich Point Conservancy, to remove and replace the roof, windows, exterior trim and dormer shingles on the Innis Arden Cottage (Queen Anne building) at Greenwich Point.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the aforementioned gift become an appropriation in Department of Public Works capital account Z345-59560-26133 upon approval by the Board of Estimate and Taxation.
Explanation:
The Greenwich Point Conservancy is committed to working for the restoration and preservation of the historic structures and other elements of Greenwich Point for the enjoyment of current and future generations.
The goal of the Greenwich Point Conservancy is to work closely with the Town of Greenwich, and in particular with the Department and Board of Parks and Recreation, coordinating efforts with the groups and constituencies that share an interest in Greenwich Point, with the main focus of researching and fully understanding the history of the buildings and other historic features of Greenwich Point and raising funds needed to assist the town in accomplishing the restoration and preservation of these buildings and features.
Mr. and Mrs. J. Kennedy Tod built the Innis Arden Cottage, more recently called the Queen Anne building, around 1903. In its early years, it was used as a summer retreat for one of the most important figures in American nursing history, Anna C. Maxell and her students at the New York Presbyterian Hospital School of Nursing. The western end of the first floor and the entire second floor comprised suites of rooms used by the nurses as sleeping quarters. Anna Maxwell was largely responsible for the use of trained nurses during the Spanish-American War, as well as the establishment of the Army Nurse Corps during World War I. She was one of the first women buried at Arlington National Cemetery.
The First Selectman has asked the Director of Parks and Recreation to form a Committee to develop a plan for the future use of the Queen Anne Building. The Committee will be made up of representatives from interested groups, including the Greenwich Point Conservancy.
The scope of work includes the removal and replacement of the existing roofing materials, removal and replacement of all exterior trim from the soffit to the peak, and the replacement of all dormer shingles and windows.
Replacing the roofing, windows, trim and dormer shingles will protect the integrity of the structure against further deterioration due to climatic conditions while simultaneously solidifying its preservation, until such time as an agreement is reached with respect to its future use.
Attachments:
None
DEPARTMENT: Selectmen
CONTACT: Ed Gomeau 622-7710
REFERRED TO: Land Use Committee
VOTES: Board of Selectmen 3-0-0
Planning and Zoning Commission
To consider and act upon the following resolution requested by the Board of Selectmen:
RESOLVED, that upon the recommendation of the Board of Selectmen and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the name of Hooker Lane be changed to Stonebrook Lane.
Explanatory Comments:
The attached list of property owners abutting upon a portion of Hooker Lane, a public street, which commences at Cognewaugh Road and which ends at a cul-de sac, for a length of 1580 feet, are desirous of changing the name to Stonebrook Lane. Said road meets all the standards, and has been approved by the Department of Public Works. The Office of First Selectman has verified the abutting property owners.
Attachments:
Petition of property owners.
DEPARTMENT: Selectmen/ Conservation
CONTACT: Denise Savegeau 622-6461 Conservation Director
REFERRED TO: Finance, Land Use, Parks & Recreation Committees
VOTES: Board of Selectmen 3-0-0
Planning and Commission
RESOLVED, that the RTM accept a gift of land valued at approximately $350,000 abutting the Pomerance property park, also known as 215 Orchard Street, Cos Cob.
Explanatory Comments
At the May, 10, 2005 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, a sub-division at 215 Orchard Street was approved. As part of this approval, a parcel of land was required to be kept as open space.
The property owners desire to gift this open space to the Town as it is adjacent to the open space of the Pomerance property park. Having the open space area owned by the Town of Greenwich will clearly benefit the neighborhood and is a natural and appropriate extension of the adjacent park. The Planning and Zoning Commission, the Inland Wetlands Agency and the Conservation Commission all endorse having the open space area owned by the Town. The Board of Selectmen at their held July 20, 2005, voted unanimously to accept this gift of land.
The open parcel of land consists of approximately 9000 square feet and has an estimated value of approximately $350,000.
Attachments
Map
DEPARTMENT: Board of Education 0510ED01
REFERRED TO: Education, Finance, Labor Contracts Committees
VOTES: Board of Education vote 8-0-0
RESOLVED, that the Representative Town Meeting of the Town of Greenwich hereby approves the agreement between the Board of Education and the Greenwich Education Association, representing school teachers, for the period July 1, 2006, to June 30, 2009.
EXPLANATORY COMMENTS
The Greenwich Public Schools Board of Education has successfully negotiated a collective bargaining agreement with the Greenwich Education Association (GEA) for a three (3) year period, 2006-09. The GEA has ratified the contract and the Board of Education approved it at its September 29th meeting. In addition to a 3.5% general wage increase for the first two years of the contract, there are significant increases in employee contributions as well as changes to the health insurance plans, and an agreement to re-open in the 3rd year to discuss modifying the traditional step system (based on educational degree and years of service) to include a knowledge and skills based compensation system.
In addition to the attachments provided, members of the Negotiating Committee, the Town’s Director of Labor Relations, and District administrators will be available to answer questions and provide supplemental materials.
Attachments
Memorandum from the Board of Education Negotiations Committee to the Representative Town Meeting (attached)
Preliminary Cost of Contract (attached)
Contract (on file in Town Clerk’s office)
Summary of Changes (attached)
October 4, 2005
TO: Members of the Representative Town Meeting
FROM: William G. Kelly, Chairman, Negotiating Committee
Greenwich Board of Education
SUBJECT: Proposed 2006-2009 Contract between GEA and Greenwich BOE
The Board of Education recommends approval of the agreement negotiated between the BOE and the GEA for the period July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2009. This agreement has been approved by the GEA and the BOE and awaits approval by the RTM.
Preliminary Steps: Prior to entering into negotiations with the GEA, a meeting was held with the financial authorities of the Town. The Negotiations Committee met with the First Selectman, representatives of the BET and representatives of the Labor Contracts Committee. The Negotiations Committee set forth their goal for the negotiations which was strongly endorsed by all present. Financial guidance was also provided by the BET.
Goal: The ultimate goals of the negotiations were to meet the BOE/Town financial targets and to obtain agreement on an alternative method of compensating teachers. At present teachers are paid based on a step system where their pay is increased for each year they teach. We believe teachers should be paid based on their knowledge and skills not necessarily on the number of years they have taught.
Success: As you will note, the teachers receive a GWI of 3.5% for each of the first two years of the contract. The third year of the contract is subject to the process discussed in Article 9 paragraph N. If the discussions do not lead to an agreement by May 2007, then negotiations will commence solely on the issue of salary compensation for the year July 1, 2008 - June 30, 2009. If negotiations fail, then the proposals will be submitted to an arbitration panel in August 2007. It is the hope and the belief of the BOE that the process will result in an agreement to replace the step system with a compensation system based on the knowledge and skills of the teachers.
Teamwork: The result would never have been obtained without the support of the First Selectman, Jim Lash; the BET and especially Larry Simon and Steve Walko who monitored the negotiations and provided invaluable insight and guidance. Al Cava also lent the committee his considerable expertise. Tom Mooney of Shipman & Goodwin, our new counsel, was invaluable for his statewide expertise on education issues and his leadership.
Members of the Representative October 4, 2005
Town Meeting
Key Components of the Contract:
1. Cost of Contract will be provided in a separate document.
2. GWI for 2006-2007 is 3.5% and for 2007-2008 is also 3.5%.
3. The cost of a step in year one is 1.9%. The cost of a step in year two would be approximately the same but since the composition of teachers changes each year, only the first year cost is certain.
4. The process as discussed above and in Article 9, paragraph N, has been agreed to by the GEA.
5. The teachers have agreed to increase their percentage of contribution for health insurance premiums (PPO) from 7% to 10% (7/1/06); 11% (7/1/07) and 12% (7/1/08). This will result in considerable savings to the Town.
6. Personal days increased from 1 to 3, however for two of those days the teacher must demonstrate pressing business or personal obligations which cannot be resolved outside regular working hours (Article 13). In exchange, the provision for discretionary leave contained in the Teachers’ Handbook was deleted. It was further agreed that the contract controls the relationship between the BOE and the GEA and the Teachers’ Handbook is for informational purposes only.
7. In order to demonstrate the BOE commitment to recruiting and retaining the best teachers the following agreements were also reached:
Mentors will now be compensated $750 for each teacher they mentor, up to a maximum of $1,500. The previous compensation was $500 per mentee up to $1,000.
Any teacher who holds National Board Certification will receive a stipend of $2,500 for each year they hold that designation. At present no teacher in Greenwich holds that designation.
Any teacher employed by Greenwich for more than one year may apply for tuition reimbursement at a rate of $300 per credit hour. In the past a teacher had to be in the district for four years and the reimbursement was $100 per credit hour. Last year only $37,000 was spent on tuition reimbursement. The limit on reimbursement per year is $120,000 in the first year of the contract.
Final Thoughts: It is strongly recommended that Article 9, section N, be carefully reviewed. These paragraphs were at the heart of the negotiations for three months. You will note that a safe harbor has been provided for tenured teachers. You will also note that the word may instead of the word shall has been inserted. Our proposal was carefully crafted in order to receive approval from an arbitration panel. We settled with the teachers the day before arbitration was to begin. In the end, the teachers understood that our proposal was in good faith in that we truly believe there is an alternative to the step system which will benefit not only the Town but the teachers and ultimately our key clients, the students.
Negotiations Committee
Bill Kelly
Ginny Gwynn
Steve LoParco
Greenwich Board of Education
October 3, 2005
SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN THE 2006-2009 CONTRACT
WITH THE GREENWICH EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
Prepared by Tom Mooney of Shipman & Goodwin
The successor agreement with the Greenwich Education Association will become effective July 1, 2006. Significant changes in the negotiated agreement are as follows:
Language changes:
Article 3: Provisions for administrative and Board action on revisions to the Teachers’ Handbook as may be proposed by the GEA are deleted. Also, the contract is clarified to provide that the Teachers’ Handbook is for informational purposes only and that the Board reserves the right to change the Handbook as appropriate, subject to negotiations if working conditions are affected.
Article 8: Rates for curriculum work and special projects are increased by $10 per hour in each year of the contract.
Article 13: Eligibility for personal leave is clarified, and the contract provision is consolidated with separate language from the Teachers’ Handbook providing for discretionary leave, which is now deleted.
Article 15: Tuition reimbursement is increased to $300 per credit, and eligibility is changed from four years to one year of service. The fund available for tuition reimbursement alone is increased to $120,000, and the total amount available for tuition reimbursement and educational development leaves is increased from $151,157 to $156,296 in 2006-2007 and to $161,610 in 2007-2008. Provision for long-term educational development leaves (similar to sabbatical leave) is deleted, and compensation for short-term educational development leaves is increased by $10 per hour in each year of the contract.
Article 26: Unpaid leave for the GEA President is increased from half-time to full-time.
Insurance changes (Article 11):
The premium contribution for teachers participating in the PPO plan is increased from 7% to 10% in 2006-2007, and further to 11% and 12% in 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 respectively. The premium contribution for teachers participating in the EPO plan is increased from 4% to 7% for the contract term.
The contribution for the dental plan is increased to the same rate as the medical plan in which the teacher participates.
Prescription coverage will now be provided through the Town formulary plan, which provides for co-pays of $5 (generic)/$15 (preferred brand)/$30 (non-preferred brand), with mail order available at two co-pays for a 90 day supply. Premium contribution for prescription coverage is the same as for the PPO plan.
The Board reserves the right to offer other options for health care. The teacher contribution must be negotiated with the GEA, but the Board reserves the right to reduce any such contribution to encourage migration to less expensive plans.
The new contract eliminates the practice of giving teachers married to other teachers a reduced premium contribution rate.
Provision for a payment to teachers waiving health insurance has been deleted.
Salary changes:
Article 9: The contract will be reopened for the third year for the purpose of negotiations over restructuring the salary schedule. Prior to such negotiations, the parties will engage in a good faith discussion over the advisability of revising the salary structure and/or phase out the current step structure. The parties agreed specifically to discuss the following:
whether any new compensation system will apply to all new teachers only and whether and how current teachers will be included;
whether step movement will be based on demonstration of proficiency in accordance with the Novice, Competent, Accomplished and Master teacher levels under the Common Core of Teaching;
whether new teachers who score 3 or 4 on their BEST portfolios will be placed in the Competent category for salary purposes;
what additional salary will be provided for advanced degrees.
After the committee reports, the parties may agree on revisions to the salary structure. Absent agreement the parties will negotiate over these issues.
Article 10: The extra duty schedules will be increased by the general wage increase of 3.5% in 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, with a reopener in 2008-2009.
Article 21: Salaries for summer school teachers are increased by 3.5% in 2006-2007 and by 3.5% in 2007-2008, with a reopener in 2008-2009.
Appendix B: Coaches salaries are increased by 3.5% in 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, with a reopener in 2008-2009. Through mutual agreement, the parties can agree on a restructuring of coaching salaries instead.
Appendix C: Extra-compensation positions are increased by 3.5% in 2006-2007 and by 3.5% in 2007-2008, with a reopener in 2008-2009.
Technical changes:
The description of the bargaining unit was amended to reflect the recent statutory change that adds persons holding a durational shortage area permit to the bargaining unit.
The definition of “spouse” for leave purposes is clarified to include civil union partners in accordance with law.
Preliminary GEA Total Cost of Contract
2006-2009
The following assumptions were used for purposes of cost comparisons:
The current 840 certified teaching positions in the 2005-06 table of organization remains constant over the three years of the contract, even though the number is expected to change based on enrollment projections.
No migration to new less expensive benefit plans
Steps not included since they do not change from current to new and thus have no financial impact on the cost of contract.
DEPARTMENT: Historic District Commission
REFERRED TO: Legislative & Rules, Land Use Committees
VOTES: Board or commission name vote (y/n/a)
RESOLVED, that pursuant to section 7-147q (f) of the General Statutes, the RTM receives the report from the Historic District Commission acting as the Historic Property Study Committee submitted herewith, and
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the RTM, by majority vote, accepts the report of the Committee as to the proposed historic property and that the following ordinances are hereby enacted to designate the historic property and provide for its regulation in accordance with section 7-147q of the General Statutes:
Article 5. Historic Properties
Sec. Powers and duties.
This Historic District Commission, in its capacity as the Historic Properties Commission, shall administer the property established hereby, and shall have such powers and duties as are provided for in Sections 7-147p through 7-147y of the General Statutes. The Commission shall cause the preparation of a map depicting the boundaries of all Historic Properties as described herein. Said map shall be filed in the office of the Town Clerk, and a copy thereof shall be maintained by the Commission.
Sec. Property owned by Frank and Jessie Snyder
The following property is hereby designated as an historic property pursuant to the provisions of the General Statutes, Sections 7-147p through 7-147y:
All that certain piece or parcel of land, with the buildings thereon in the Town of Greenwich, County of Fairfield and more particularly bounded and described as follows:
Beginning at the point formed by the intersection of the division line between land herein described and land of Bettina B. Snyder with the westerly line of Round Hill Road and running thence southerly along the westerly line of Round Hill Road S. 29 29 W. 121.7 feet, S. 20 44 W. 60.3 feet, S. 3 12 W. 111.2 feet, S. 2 37 E. 131.0 feet and S. 7 02 E. 139.9 feet, thence westerly along the southerly line of Creamer Hill Road S. 55 50 W. 73.1 feet, N. 78 46 W. 77.1 feet, N. 58 08 W. 95.8 feet, N. 25 43 E. 24.7 feet, N. 79 06 W. 131.9 feet and N. 59 53 W. 115.07 feet, thence northerly though land of Frank V. and Jessie P.
Snyder N. 21 55 W. 27.45 feet, N. 15 00 W. 86.86 feet, N. 8 12 E. 104.16 feet, N. 34 43 E. 41.88 feet and N. 25 08 E. 43.1 feet, thence easterly along the southerly line of land of Bettina B. Snyder, S. 86 13 10 E. 209.37 feet and N. 62 04 30 E. 302.13 feet to the point of beginning and containing 4,006 acres. The general boundaries of the above described tract of land are northerly by land of Bettina B. Snyder, easterly by Round Hill Road, southerly by Creamer Hill Road, westerly by other land of Frank V. and Jessie P. Snyder.
Subject property is located on Round Hill Road in Greenwich, Connecticut and is owned by Frank and Jessie Snyder.
EXPLANATORY COMMENTS
Frank V. and Jessie P. Snyder petitioned the Historic District Commission to have their property designated a Historic Property pursuant to the Connecticut General Statutes.
On December 13, 2004, the RTM approved the Selectmens’ recommendation that the Historic District Commission serve as a Historic Property Study Committee for the purpose of making the investigation as required by the statute.
The Historic Property Study Committee submitted in due course its report to both the Historic Preservation Council in Hartford and the Town’s Planning and Zoning Commission. The Historic Preservation Council approved the Historic Property Study Committee’s report, without reservations, on May 4, 2005. The Town’s Planning and Zoning Commission approved the report on September 13, 2005.
The Historic Property Study Committee complied with the legal requirements regarding mail and newspaper notices, and held the required public hearing on September 19, 2005.
The Historic District Commission now asks the RTM to accept the report of the Historic Property Study Committee and enact the relevant ordinances.
DEPARTMENT: Board of Education 0510ED02
REFERRED TO: Education Committee
VOTES: Board of Education 8-0-0
Board of Estimate and Taxation pending
RESOLVED, that the Town of Greenwich accept a grant for $39,022 for the English as a Second Language Program. Said grant to become an appropriation that the Board of Education may add to the appropriate accounts.
EXPLANATORY COMMENTS
The State Department of Education manages the Immigrant and Youth Grant from the US Department of Education. The purpose of this grant is to assist local educational agencies that experience unexpectedly large increases in their student population to: 1) provide high-quality instruction to immigrant children and youth; and 2) help such children with their transition into American society and to meet the challenging state academic content and student academic achievement standards as all children are expected to meet. This program operates as an entitlement grant.
Attachments
None
| 
