Select Board - February 10, 2026

Good evening, I call the select board meeting of Tuesday, February 10th to order. All rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. We'll start the evening off with Dedham citizens open discussion. Tracy?

Good evening. I promise not to sing. I just wanted to take a moment to thank our building department. I'd like to thank Jimmy Sullivan for his almost 20 years of service to the town. We're not friends, but I have always been able to count on him for questions or concerns or anything else. He's been here for almost 20 years, and he will surely be missed. And I would just, I hope he's watching. Maybe he watches, Dimitria. but I'd just like to thank him for his many years of service to the town. It's important when we have members of our community that care so much to work for the community. So he will surely be missed. So if you're watching, Jim, thank you very much.

Thank you, Tracy. Anyone else for open discussion?

Thank you, and I apologize for my hat, but once you have a hat on all day, you cannot go out without a hat, especially as a lady. I also would like to start by saying I have not spoken to Dimitria since probably before Christmas right? And I just found out that Jimmy Sullivan is leaving. and I was so upset. I just cannot believe he's leaving. You know, as my friend Tracy said, after 20 years for the dedication, and by the way, I've not talked to Dimitria. She does not even know I was showing up tonight. So I want to make that clear. And it's actually devastating. It's a huge loss for Dedham after 20 years that most people in Dedham I spoke to really did think that Jimmy would go on. and become the building department head.

And it's really unfortunate as a town that we are letting him leave after 20 years. He has been an excellent resource for people putting in additions. I remember him walking into my kitchen and talking to us about what we wanted to do. And I really think it's a huge loss. I cannot believe he's leaving and it's a real disappointment personally that we did not do enough to keep him. to walk into Kenny's shoes. And now we have to hire someone else. And it's another disappointment that, again, we're hiring a consulting company to replace that position. I don't know why we couldn't hire from within. And I don't know why we had to hire a consulting company. It just seems that at times we're really hands off, hands up.

and I think personally it's a huge failure and I think it boosts morale for our employees when you don't even see an intern or person who's been here for 20 years be raised up to a management position. I think it's a huge loss, and I think it's a failure, whoever's responsible for that position. And also, You may have known that other people have also had problems, particularly two people who, and I won't get into it, I won't name names because I respect the personnel process, but a long-time employee who was at the library and whatever transpired. He's now working at the police department and another longtime employee who has been at at one branch of the library is now moving to another branch. That person has been, both of them have been there probably three decades.

Again, I want to ask you, what is going on on the personnel issue in Town Hall? and maybe you don't hear about it. I'm hearing about it. And I'm hearing about it for the past three days, which is why I am here tonight. it's a huge disappointment again. I don't know what's going on, but all I know is that when you have to take drastic steps like that after service to 20 and 30 years, that it's time that you look on the inside and find out what is your purpose of hiring people and how do we keep our employees happy, Content, thriving in their position, willing to deliver the best customer service five days a week when you're here. Because honestly, I wouldn't be able to do it at this point because of those three employees. and how many other employees were there? How many employees? I actually know of another person from Dedham who applied for a job in Dedham and didn't get the job.

and had excellent recommendations and a solid track record. So is it equitable? It doesn't appear to be. Is it favoritism? It appears to be. What I'm hearing is that people in Town Hall do not want to hire or maintain people who live in Dedham. for an extended period of time. That's what the optics are, and that's what people are saying. It's a huge disappointment, and personally, I think you have a problem. I don't know why you couldn't work things out with Mr. Sullivan. It's a huge loss. It's a huge disappointment and I can't help that it was actually intentional. because the track record has been, and the optics are, Dedham does not like to keep or keep Dedham people who work for the town and live in Dedham.

and you are looking to hire people from the outside to come into Dedham as well as to push along people who have been here for a number of years. So I ask you to look into that situation to the select board because what I'm hearing on the outside is not good. And people are really down and they're concerned. And I think losing Jimmy Sullivan, That was the tip. And now we're going forward to ask for more money for the schools and more money for this and more money for this. Well, I'll tell you, no money happens unless you have that trust. and right now the trust is disappearing day to day. At that closing, I can't stay for this meeting and I usually don't like to leave right after I make a public comment but I apologize for that. It's a birthday week in my house, so I need to go on. So in all seriousness, I think it's a human resource issue.

And Dedham residents who work for Dedham are being pushed out. They're being replaced. that is the optics, and clearly there are multiple scenarios to support that belief. I can't even defend it when people tell me, because I'm like, because usually I like to look at both sides, and say, well, maybe this is happening. Maybe that's happening. But honestly, I can't do it, especially now after Jimmy Sullivan's leaving. It's a huge loss for Dedham. And I cannot even believe we may as well just open up that door and put out the red carpet and say, See you later, Jimmy. Bye, because that's what the optics look like. Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else for public comment? Okay, hearing none, town manager's report.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. So a couple of items this evening under Town Manager's report. First, the FY27 budget update. So we are continuing to work through the budget. We'll be presenting that on the 26th to the board, but obviously, We're getting very close to being able to make our recommendation. The school committee voted last week on their recommendation, which is a 6.33% increase over the FY26 budget. and their level of service budget would be 5.29%. So they're calling that level one half because they had several budget scenarios starting at zero, which was the level of service 1, 2, and 3, and so on and so forth. We've run some calculations, and I know that there are some questions about how that would impact our financial forecast.

at the 5.29% level service budget. We were proposing to use about $800,000 in our levy capacity. The town departments, by the way, the level service requests were about 5.9%. where we've been working on those to get it down to about 4.5% over FY26. So again, with the town departments at 4.5% and the school at 5.29, that would leave us with about 1.6 million in excess levy capacity that we would be looking to try to spread over the next couple of years. And obviously, we would still need to make other adjustments to the budget to reduce some of the structural deficit items that we've talked about in prior meetings. we would be able to spread that levy capacity over approximately three years under a level budget service scenario.

If we move forward with the 6.33%, that would decrease our excess levy capacity going into FY28 to $770,000 approximately. That would mean that we would will likely not be able to balance our budget with the excess levy capacity without either making reductions elsewhere going for a Prop 2.5 override. That's our projection right now because the increase in FY28 would eat up all of the new growth that we project, the other increases that we project, as well as the excess levy capacity. So again, that's sort of the... the high level review of those two options as we currently sit. I suspect that in the budget memo I will be detailing out both of those. I think it will be helpful for the Finance and Warrant Committee as well as the select board in the community to see those two very well detailed out.

and then there are some additional costs that come with the 6.33% on the town municipal side budget because of the shared costs because there's about, 18 FTEs, I believe, that are proposed in the 6.33% budget. And assuming that about 59% of them typically will enroll in town benefits, we would be looking at a cost between $170,000 to $380,000 new cost on our health insurance, which is not calculated into the 6.33 So again, that's an additional cost that would be born in the budget if the 6.33 goes forward. As I said, town departments came in at 5.9% with their level of service. were working to get those down to about 4.5% for the town manager recommended budget. We will...

have health insurance, I suspect, in the next couple of weeks, general liability insurance. Both of those, by the way, are still being projected. Health insurance, about 14%. General Liability Insurance, around 9%. We'll have the regional schools soon, and then we'll have debt service numbers as we get closer to the spring. I think that's what, and again, our, based on the governor's budget, we're looking at a net 1% increase in state aid, which is just not enough to keep up with the rising costs, unfortunately.

So Leon, just for a future meeting, and I ask this all the time, so the school department's 6.3% increase is increase on what they see as their budget. What I would like to see included is the retired municipal teachers assessment that hits our cherry sheet. Wanna see the healthcare cost that is a shared cost, that percentage that is on the town side. So they're not really, I'm gonna say they're soft costs, but they're not really soft, but they're costs that are not known to be added to the school budget. So I think it's important when we're looking at the increases that we specify. exactly the cost of education.

And I think we should also look at, let's pull the last report of net school spending. because when we hear about Chapter 70 coming in and Chapter 70 is only for the schools, there's a formula on net school spending that if it's X number of dollars, then yes, that's the case. but chapter 70 is general fund money along with the unrestricted. So it'd be helpful to see the net school spending the most recent report and it's probably for last year. I just think just to have a complete fiscal picture of what the town budget and The town budget, because the town budget includes schools. It's voted on one. It's not voted separately. So just to make sure that everybody is on the same page for the expenses. Thank you.

Thank you. Other questions?

The $800,000 you mentioned would be needed from the levy. That was which assumptions again for school and town side?

If we were using the 4.5% level service on the town side and the 5.29 on the school side, we would use approximately 800,000 of the existing a little over $2.4 million in excess levy, which would leave us with the 1.6. And using that in equal installments would get us out a couple of fiscal years. and again implementing some of the strategies from the deficit reduction plan. We're hoping that we would be able to create balanced budgets in those years without dramatically changing service levels. and if, again, if these scenarios came into focus a little bit better, we would then get close to having, again, the pension folks are here tonight, but when we reach our, when we paid our unfunded liability and we would return to our normal cost, which would

be able to take those additional funds and hopefully use that to, again, get us a couple more years without having to ask for an override, which would be ideal because, again, that would allow us to implement some of those structural changes over a longer time span, which is ultimately the best way to do it. But again, that's pretty high level forecasting at this point. But again, that would be the plan. things change, and health insurance going up at 14% per year. We'll throw a wrench in that, as will a number of these other things. So again, based on the long range financial forecast, deficit reduction plan, and other things. that would be our hope would be able to get us out a couple of years.

Everyone, sorry, one more. We haven't seen the expenditures for snow and ice removal yet. can we get that sooner rather than later of where we stand so far knowing that we're blown through the budget already and what has to be taken and then it's, You know, when we look at that free cash, the free cash number will be utilized for snow and ice. So we got another couple inches coming tonight. They'll be out again. So if we can get an update of where we are so far. Sure. I think it'd be helpful for people to know what it costs, especially to clear snow. Thank you. That's it.

Thank you. Other questions, comments?

So I know last year when we did like a three year projection, we had estimated that if we were in alignment with a level service budget for three years that at the end of that we might enter a phase where looking where making cuts will not be necessary to remain below the levy. Are we still looking at that kind of timeframe? Like, if we were to, you know, avoid an override by making whatever cuts are necessary for the next three years. Would we then reenter a phase where cutting is not

the necessary answer, but you know, looking at looking at, you know, it's hard to sustain for a long period of time cuts to level service, cuts to level service, cuts to level service. We're already seeing the impacts of that from discussions about or enacting and, you know, leaf pickup and yard waste pickup and having other conversations. Is it reasonable to think that if we could keep this the next three years under levy that we would then be in a place where we might have a little bit more breathing room and repetitive annual cuts would not be the only answer?

That's a tough question because I think under a best case scenario and perhaps like a the economic world as we saw pre-COVID, that was potentially a possibility that if you got into a position where you could keep your expenditures around 3.5%, perhaps. You could expect that your revenues would grow at 3.5%, 3.5% to 4%, a reasonable amount. I think with the inflationary pressures that we're seeing on so many things, the expenditures are just growing at a rate that it makes it almost impossible to raise revenues at that rate. almost always looking at cuts. And that's a tough position to be in from a service delivery standpoint, but it's also

trying to balance our ability to pay for these services with the taxpayers' ability to keep up with that. And I was talking with Brady, our finance director, about this earlier today. Our projection does show that, but it assumes that we return to normal on some of these costs. And again, as I said, with health insurance, with the double digit increases, with these other insurances, at almost double digit increases, and without making significant structural changes to those programs, I'm not sure that we will be able to actually get to a place where we're not talking about cuts. even three years out, unfortunately.

Okay, thank you. Obviously that was a difficult question to ask.

And I wish I had a clearer answer, but it really is dependent.

I think it's just important to know what the long-range forecasts could be, what the different options are. I know that that's what we've been working on, and I think that it's been helpful to look at it from this multi-year. But if we're... I think if we're looking at another decade of trying to pull from our services, I think we need to know that and really understand what the situation is. Yeah, there's no easy answer. It's hard to keep removing services. It's also hard to keep up with paying taxes. So I appreciate the... the dedication that you and others in the town have made to doing those types of forecasts.

I think we need to continue to keep this on the table and looking at are we looking at three years? Are we looking at five years? Are we looking at 10 years? Or is this just the new normal? And I think that having that longer range insight to the degree that's possible is helpful.

Well, and I think to sort of just respond to that, I think, you know, I give a lot of compliments to the town staff who have been working on these plans and to the boards and committees, the finance and work committee, the select board and others who we've been talking about this for years now, and it's put us in a good spot that we have been able to sort of nip around the edges, make adjustments, and put us in a spot where we can tried to make these adjustments over a period of years versus I read the newspaper and I see that communities are facing $6 million deficits here and $8 million deficits there. and the MMA put out their reporting series about the the fiscal climate for municipalities and how we are all facing this perfect storm of rising costs, flattening revenues, and it makes it impossible to do business as usual. And I think the South Coast Daily had another report on it that was actually quite good.

it's facing all communities. Dedham has done a good job of, I think, being forward-looking and trying to be planful, but it's still, I agree with your point, if we're nipping around the edges for the next five to 10 years, is that what our residents want or desire? And I think that's a question that we'll need to answer. Thank you.

Thanks for the update.

And I just asked one more thing as well, too, is utilities cost as well, too, right? Because we said insurance rising to the, that's been said twice. What about all our utilities cost as well, too, right? In an analysis on the school side and our side, where are we spending on that? I know that probably every resident in here would say that they've opened up their utility bills and could not believe what we're paying. Now, there may be some special program that the town is in, et cetera, but where are we with that as well, too? That's also something to think about.

Yeah. I will say we're in a slightly more favorable position than unfortunately our residents are because of where we buy it through a different type of commodities market. But I can give the board a projection on where we are and the types of contracts that we have in place and we've sort of have been able to buy at opportune times and lock in rates that are favorable, but still. We're still seeing some small increases there, yeah. So I can give the board that projection as well. And then just a couple of quick other updates for this evening. I mentioned to the board and we'll be getting out some information very soon that the MBTA is planning to do some ADA upgrades to the Endicott Station starting in March going through the fall and these are improvements to the the actual station itself adjacent to the bridge.

We did get some responses back from the MBTA as to sort of the impacts over the summer. they're going to try to minimize scheduling impacts because that's their priority is to keep the trains running on time and on schedule. They are anticipating some loss of parking over the summer as they rebuild those parking areas. and take down some trees and other things and fix the platforms to be ADA compliant. They're trying to keep only 10 spots out of Service at a time there on Grant and on Elmwood. But again, as soon as we get more information on that, we'll share that with you. of Butter notifications this week, I believe. And again, we will amplify their messaging as soon as they share it with us, but that's sort of our role in this because they are they have contractors in place who are reaching out to the abutters to tell them about tree cutting and things of that nature that are happening on private property.

I'll keep the board and the community informed as much as we can.

Do you have a question? I have a question on that.

Do you have questions? So what other notification besides the Butters? Because I know obviously the Butters should know, but probably most of those are walk-ins. So in terms of the parking spaces there, I worry about people that live further out.

Yeah, and we will, like we did with the bridge closures, we can amplify that message through social media and through our town channels. and try to keep people notified as much as possible. Again, the plan is still somewhat fluid. They haven't told us exactly when certain aspects of the construction will start, and there's still some research happening as far as right-of-ways as well in that area. We will help keep the public informed as much as possible again because we know there's limited parking there. To take 10 spots away will jam things up.

It's just been a long slog with the other projects.

It has been, yeah. Thank you. This is luckily a relatively short project. It will deliver good benefits to modernize that station, but the timing is difficult. and then just last but not least, I just wanted to update the board on the facilities master plan steering committee process and the facilities master plan process. The steering committee met last night. It was a good meeting. Town staff had previously met with Arrow Street, who is our selected vendor on that program. We're planning to meet again with the steering committee on March 9th with Arrow Street. the steering committee will have its own meeting again on the 23rd of February to do some additional work prior to the meeting with Arrow Street, again on March 9th.

the committee assigned itself some homework of collecting master plans that have been completed by Arrow Street and other communities and we're looking at also some that are not on Arrow Street. so that the steering committee can get an idea of what they like and don't like about those and make suggestions to guide Arrow Street in their work because while the scope was mostly laid out in the RFQ, we really want to make sure that we're getting a product that benefits Dedham for the next 20-ish years. And so I think it's really important that the steering committee tell AeroStreet upfront what the priorities are as we're entering into this. So again, that is the work that we're doing right now with the steering committee. And I think Dimitria.

Yeah, so I just wanted to inform you of also what we did there is at the meeting last night that we established a full person community engagement subcommittee, which we thought was very important for this particular committee to get the word out. The charge of the community engagement subcommittee is going to be to support and to advise the steering committee on community engagement related to the facilities master plan. The subcommittee is going to review Arrow Street's proposed engagement plan. including timing, key audiences, and providing feedback to the steering committee that we'll review and discuss. So we'll work together, but it's gonna be their main focus. There'll be four people, last night we did vote to Add two people to that subcommittee and at our next meeting we're going to vote for two more people to be part of that committee. So we think that that's an extremely important subcommittee as well. Keep the word out and keep the community involved and know what's going on with this committee and our buildings. Thank you.

Thank you for your work.

And that concludes my report for this evening. Again, thank you for the time.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, can we push the consent agenda to the end of the meeting? I know we're about 20 minutes behind already, and we have the clerk, the treasurer, and then Herak and the retirement board here, so if we can maybe make some time up?

Yes. Okay, so next up, I invite Town Clerk Paul Munchback to discuss early voting with us.

Thank you Madam Chair, the rest of the board members, Leon, Nancy, and Amber. Paul Munchback, Dedham Town Clerk, just coming before the board with permission for some early voting dates and times. Real briefly, 2022 Acts of Chapter 93 signed into legislation gave municipalities the ability to expand on possible ways of voting. Prior, it was just in-person voting or absentee. It opened up for mail-in voting and early voting in person to the municipalities, just not for state. and Federal Elections. Dedham has been very good at providing opportunities for residents to vote. That can't make it to the polls that day and we'd like to continue that. Mail-in ballots. is two types of absentee ballots.

Those are by excuse, but the mail-in ballots are in place unless the board decided not to offer that and I think the boards in the past has always offered mail-in ballots. We also offered early voting in person. which we'd like to continue. On Wednesday, January 21st, the Board of Registrars met and voted unanimously to support early voting in person, and they also voted for the dates of the weekend prior to the election, which is being held Saturday, April 11th. The challenge that we have is that the Sunday before the election is Easter. Friday is Good Friday. So obviously we weren't going to hold any early voting in person on Easter. we thought would be a good compromise to be consistent.

What we've done in the past is to have early voting on Friday during normal business hours here at Town Hall, and then on Saturday offer extended hours from nine to five here at Town Hall also. It would be consistent with offering 12 hours of early voting that we've done the last couple of years previously. And if someone's here in line, we'll be here till as long as everyone has the opportunity to vote. they still will be able to mail in a ballot vote they will still be able to absentee vote they will still be able to vote on election day and you can always vote after from this after Easter up until the Noontime the Friday before the election you can vote absentee ballot in person over-the-counter so it still provides the same services we've done before so I just was hoping that board would support that and take a vote on that this evening so we can move forward.

Thank you. Thank you, Paul. Questions, comments from board members?

I do have a quick question. In a quick way, could you explain the difference between the absentee ballot and the mail-in ballot?

So absentee ballots are by constitution, so that's why they don't combine them. Mail-in ballots are by legislation. They're both the same except absentee ballots are by excuse if you weren't going to be here for the day of the election. if you had religious beliefs or were in the military, you would be exempt. So back, I use the words back in the day, you would be able to, you would have to have those excuses to vote by absentee. Now, absentee's still in place because they, and mail-in ballots are now by the legislature approved. for no-excuse mail-in ballots.

And do we mail everyone a mail-in ballot, or do you have to... We do not.

Different from the state and federal elections, they will have to apply for an application for the town election. this summer the state will mail out the postcards for the state primary and the state election that will be coming up so they can choose for that. So there is that little bit of difference compared to the federal elections, which the postcards get mailed out before the presidential primary, which is in March, which would include all elections if people, residents, chose to take that option, and our town elections, obviously, after the March presidential primary.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, I move to accept the recommendation of the Board of Registrars to offer early in-person voting for Friday, April 3rd, from 9 to 1 p.m., and Saturday, April 4th, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., a total of 12 hours, for the spring annual town election to be held on Saturday, April 11th, 2026.

Second. Hearing a motion and a second, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no.

Great. Thank you. Thank you. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you.

All right, next up we have discussion regarding the sewer bond to the MWRA, and I invite up Reilly to give us an update on that. Yes.

Good evening, so Brady Winston, Director of Finance. I'm here in place of our treasurer collector, Jason Caravaggio. So we are requesting the board's approval of a borrowing from the MWRA This is for our inflow and infiltration program, our annual program. So on the years that we don't participate in MWRA loans, we put this through the normal capital process and bond it. The great part about this program is the total award is $1.45 million, but over $1 million of that will be a grant. So we are asking approval to take out $363,000 of an interest-free loan. And the rest of that will be just a grant. So this is a great program for the town. We'll pay it back in 10 even installments. and the project that we use for our annual, like I said, removing inflow and infiltration from the stormwater system.

Excellent, thank you, Brady. Questions from board members?

Move to approve the issuance Issuance and details of sewer bonds to the MWRA dated March 2nd, 26.

Second. Hearing a motion and a second, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Great. Thank you so much. Thank you. All right, now we are having... We have time. There we go. Back on time. Okay, we will have a conversation, discussion, with PIRAC. and the Dedham Retirement Board. So I invite Bill Keefe up to the podium.

Madam Chair, the actuary, John, is remote.

Okay, great. Thank you so much.

And Adam's here from MMA.

Okay, excellent. And feel free to sit wherever is comfortable And Bill, if you could just start by... telling the public what PARAC is and why we invited you here today.

So my name is Bill Keefe. I'm the executive director of PARAC. which is an abbreviation for a long name, the Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission. We're the regulatory body oversight agency for the state's 104 public retirement systems. We have varied responsibilities in that regard. in terms of we have to audit every retirement system. We provide legal advice. We issue regulations. We do actuarial valuation work. We provide guidance. there's a host of responsibilities so one of our issues here tonight is to talk an overview of funding and John Borak our actuary will get into the details of that but just as a as a bit of an oversight, a kickoff.

We've been talking as boards get closer to full funding, which is a great problem to have, until I think it was the mid-'80s, Pensions will pay as you go, and it got changed to forward funding. So to go from that point to now where we have 75 systems that are 70% funded or better is just great progress. So as boards are reaching full funding, and Dedham is at 93% and change, the question comes up as to what to do. And that's part of our, Mantra right now, one of my first conversations was with Adam Shaptalain of Mass Municipal Association. We've since spoken with Mass Government Finance Officers Association. We're getting out to the treasurers and the collectors, the accountants and auditors this spring, as well as the Mass CPA Society Government Committee. to talk about our thoughts on this.

We can't enforce our recommendations, but hopefully by building consensus with all the stakeholders, we'll be able to do that. and as boards reach full funding, we just want to see the cliff effect be avoided, that the contributions just completely get pulled away as a system reaches 100%. And it's for both the municipality's stability and for the retirement system's stability. We've come across a situation already where a community came up, they had reached full funding and they came up with a new liability which created a new funding schedule and they were midstream in their budget cycle. and needed to now scramble for that money. So by funding a little bit past 100%, you build some stability, some cushion in the retirement system. The municipality certainly could pull back some of the money goes to retirement. We know that there are a myriad needs for that.

We just hope that it's not all. that there's some split. I don't know what that split is yet. We'll still be working on that, but hopefully to work together so that there's stability both for the municipality and for the retirement system. but as I mentioned, Dedham's a very healthy system and John will get into some more specifics on options for the town, including maybe some ways to create flexibility and also get into a little more deeper dive into the funding system overall. So I'll turn it to John, who's been with PARAC for over 30 years.

Thank you, Bill. Can everyone hear me? Yes, thank you. Today what I'm going to do is I'm going to give a very high-level overview of some valuation basics, talk a little bit about plan funding, and we'll talk a little bit specifically about Dedham's funding schedule and some considerations. retirement board should take as they approach full funding and alternatives to the current funding methodology of full funding by 2040. Now with that being said, Retirement Awards are required to have actuarial evaluations performed once every two years, and this is by statute, Section 21.3, Act Club, Chapter 32. As Bill said, PARAC is an oversight agency. We perform some actuarial evaluations. However, we are not the actuary for the debt and retirement board that is seen as consulting.

So today I can answer some very general questions or provide general information, but I cannot provide the specific information other than the funding schedule. So when we do actuarial evaluations, the building block of all of our evaluations is this number called the present value and future benefits. So what we do is we calculate all of the benefits that are expected Pate using our actuarial assumptions to all members of the plan, both active and retired, and we come up with this present value and future benefits. Once we have that figure, we determine benefits a portion of benefits based on past service, which is known as your actuarial life, and looking at based on future service, which is known as your present value of future and open costs. As part of the valuation, we determine the value of assets.

Debt and Retirement Board uses a smoothing methodology to determine their value of assets so it eliminates some of the volatility of the market value while still following the overall trend of the market value. The debt and retirement board smooths their assets over a four-year period. A lot of para-clients use a five-year period to smooth their assets. Once we have our actuarial liability and our assets, we determine the fund status of the plan. The two measures we use as the funded status are the unfunded liability, which is the difference between the total liability and the planned value of assets, and the funded ratio, which is the ratio of the assets to the total liability. As Bill had mentioned, the Debt and Retirement Board has a funding level of 93.2% as of its most recent valuation. which was January 1st, 2024.

So the board is scheduled to have evaluation performed this year, so the numbers will change based on our updated information. The unfunded liability is $14.4 million. The funded ratio is 93.2%. Dedham is ranked 18th out of all the communities in the state, so that's a very good position to be in. and the last thing we do as part of our valuations is we determine funding schedules under our statute The first is the normal cost, which is the cost of benefits that are expected to accrue during that year. And the second one is the amortization of the unfunded liability, or we could think of that as a past service cost.

So some of those two pieces is the total cost. A lot of Chapter 32 retirement systems have schedules that increase a fixed percentage each year, year over year. The debtor retirement system's funding schedule is such a schedule.

Now, in Chapter 32, there are two primary sections that deal with pension funding.

I'm not going to get into the nitty gritty of both sections, but there's Section 22D and Section 22F.

and the basic difference between the two sections is section 22D applies to any funding schedule that completes the immunization earlier than fiscal year 30 and that the

funding schedule extends between 2030 to 2040, the rules around section 22F. And what I want to point out as the big difference between those two sections is if you have a section that extends beyond 2030, The law requires that the appropriation in any one year cannot be less than the appropriation from the private year. Under Section 22D, The law allows that your appropriation can't be less than 95% of the prior year's appropriation. The current funding schedule for the Dedham Retirement System, again, is based on valuation results since January 1, 2024, and that calls for total appropriation payments to increase 3.5%

Teehan, Teehan, Teehan. The schedule payments for fiscal 26 for the debt and retirement system, and this is the system as a whole, which is the payments for both the town and the housing authority was 4.96 million. and for fiscal year 27, the scheduled payment is 5.14 million. And now some considerations for plan funding. So we mentioned the funding ratio for Dedham is 93.2%.

Now what happens when the plan becomes fully funded?

Well, when the plan becomes fully funded, that means your assets are greater than or equal to your liabilities, or your unfunded liability is zero or less. and so forth. and then funded by utilities. So that component of the funding schedule will go its way and you're left with just the normal cost. Now, typically for most retirements, appropriation. So the cliff payment Bill was talking about earlier is when a system becomes fully funded, the appropriation decreases by about 75% to 80%.

And in the case of Dedham, the clip happens between fiscal year 28 and fiscal year 29. The appropriation payment for fiscal year 28 is $5.3 million. For fiscal year 29, it's $1.6 million.

So that's the difference of $3.7 million.

Now, when our systems approach that level, and again, Bill mentioned these are ARAC recommendations.

We can't require this to happen.

we recommend a couple of different things.

The first is once the system is fully funded, the board should consider having actual evaluations performed every year and the reason for this is to avoid unpleasant surprises, especially if the market does not perform as well as expected.

Another thing the board should consider is that the time

about decreasing the investment return assumption or de-risking some of the plan assumptions. We recommend funding to a level somewhere greater than 100%. where that percentage really depends upon the appetite of the municipality, but we recommend a level somewhere between 110% to 130%. and so forth. Pension asked us to create a surplus. And the reason we recommend this is once the money is removed from the pension budget, it's going to be repurposed somewhere else.

whether that's the schools, libraries, public safety, OTEP costs, you know, it could be adding staff, buying equipment, building more buildings. Once that money is removed from the pension budget, it's very hard to get that money back in the event of a market downturn where there is a liability again, the money level needs to increase. And so the way to do that is to increase taxes, which is not an option that people would look forward to going.

The last thing I want to mention about full funding status

funded, things can happen that cause it to have an unfunded liability again. These could be things like assumption changes that increase liability. plan provision changes which increase liability, which would be something like increasing the COLA base for the system. And lastly, actuarial losses, more specifically your system will have a large unfunded liability again. And the last thing I want to talk about funding, unfortunately this doesn't apply to Dedham at this particular time, but under Section 22 Terminal funding date for all retirement systems is just to be in 2040, so all systems have to be fully funded by 2040. Having a drop-dead funding date like this does lead to problems as we get closer and closer to the

Full Funding Date, because any losses that occur close to the Full Funding Date, you have much less time to recover those losses, to make up any of those losses. So when I first started at Parallel Equity some odd years ago, The brought in funding date was 2028. The legislature moved into 2030 and then a few years later they extended it further to 2040. Now some of the issues that were discussed 15 or 20 years ago when the date was 2028 So the same issues that we're discussing today and were discussed 20 years ago will be discussed again. So, my recommendation to removed this drop-dead funding basis to move to something known as the layered compensation funding schedule. So the advantage is it drops the drop-dead funding fee

and at the time each new evaluation is performed, a new layer of unfunded liability is created, whether it's through assumption changes, provision changes, an early retirement sentence, let's say, are actually looking at some losses, a new source is created. And the idea of a later schedule is you look at the source of each change in the unfunded liability, and you amortize that over a different period. So the ranges I'm going to give are just hypotheticals right now. But your legacy unfunded liability, you could amortize over a period of 15 to 20 years. and once that base is determined, it never changes. So when this valuation is done, if you use a 20 year, When the next valuation is done in two years, it's 18 years remaining on that. When the next valuation is done, there's 16 years remaining on that base.

Assumption changes you could amortize over 15 to 20 years, plan provision changes. It would be 15 years for active members, 10 years for retirees, early retirements, incentives appearing not to exist. The names that you have could be used to either eliminate an existing base or to offset some of the other layers. That was a very quick overview of pension funding and our recommendations. Does anyone have any questions?

Thank you. For this discussion we have PIRAC and then we'll hear from Adam at MMA and then we'll hear from the Dedham Retirement Board. I think it makes sense if we have some questions that would be relevant to PIRAC. that we ask those now and then I think saving up all of our questions to the very end would be complicated. So I open it up for questions or comments.

Certainly we can explain some things further. That's a lot to digest in a short amount of time.

I understand what you're saying but I'd like to sort of think about what John said and maybe have Adam and the retirement board because I think it's what they have to say as well you know sort of it's a it's a general is going to be a general conversation. And for those that don't know, PARAC, this is the first time since far back as I can remember that we have ever had PARAC come into a select board meeting in order to explain who they are and what they are. My office in Treasury deals with Bill and Perak and want to say thank you for you and John for coming in. It's a lot to digest, but it's what we have right now. Facing us, pensions is something that isn't always talked about. The retirement board, the job that they have done

is amazing to get us to the point of where we are on our, you know, in the top, the top echelon of funding. So maybe if we can, unless somebody has some questions, Madam Chair, here for madam, and then the retirement board, whether the actuary, Segal, or chair wants to say anything. That'd just be my suggestion.

Does anyone have any questions that they feel can't wait until the end? I'll hold my questions. I am just interested in hearing. I would save my questions about Dedham for the end, but I would be interested in just having more context of Dedham in the top 18. in the entire state in that context. Like, who are these peers? What trends do you see happening now? I mean, you were here for our opening discussion about the budget situation. This is not unusual for cities and towns across the country, really. were facing challenging times. And so I'd be curious to hear what trends are among other cities and towns that are in similar situation to us, you know, and perhaps other

and other quartiles or percentage groups than Dedham being at the very top.

I'm sure Adam could give more picture of that too, but I will say that I don't have the listing of who's where with me right now, but it varies from community to community because it's partnership. It's the retirement, it's the employees making contributions, it's the investments, and it's the community making contributions. and obviously it's a balancing act on your end. You have public safety, transportation, schools, roads, a multitude of responsibilities and so as times get tough in different places, some places handle things differently and that's why I think there are 104 different retirement systems to reflect the different priorities of different communities. Some places have stuck true to their schedule all the way through. Some places have pushed their schedule out to create flexibility in their operating budget. So it varies greatly from place to place. One trend I would say as we see systems getting close to full funding is that

to create that stability that I talked about and also to create that cushion at the retirement system and also keep stability on the municipal side is that as boards are getting close to full funding or they hit full funding, there's been a trend to budget say just for say retirement. And if the retirement board needs a million dollars that year, you give them a million dollars, but maybe the retirement slot is, this year I guess it's five million dollars, so let's just say it's five million. The retirement system reaches full funding. Maybe retirement gets slotted at two million, and if the retirement system needs it, the retirement system gets it or you give it to OPEB or you give it to whatever else you want to use it. But some cities are using like a retirement slot and then having some flexibility, obviously in recouping some of the contribution, right? So instead of slotting 5 million Pensions, you're slotting $2 million. And maybe it doesn't all go to pensions. Maybe it goes to OPEB. Maybe it goes to something else. So that's one way we've seen flexibility.

Thank you. I appreciate it, and thank you for coming this evening to share your information with us. Sure. Sure. All right. Adam Shaptalin from Mass. Municipal Association.

All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening, members of the board. I think some of you likely know I'm a resident of Dedham, so I'm very, very honored to be here. And before I say a few words, I don't want to jinx my commute home tonight, but DPW has been doing a great job with the snow. Joe and the team. And I love the new emails sort of telling us what the forecast is for Dedham and what to expect for cleanup. So kudos. Kudos to all of you for that. Thank you. I'll be very brief. Like Bill mentioned, he had reached out to us at the MMA a couple months back to start a conversation much like what was just discussed by both Bill and John and really with this idea of how do we come up with a best practice for cities and for towns

wherever they are on this full funding schedule that recognizes the reality of the fiscal constraints that are facing cities and towns while also wanting to make sure no one gets themselves into some type of jeopardy by achieving full funding, experiencing a bad year in the market, and then all of a sudden finding themselves not at full funding without an appropriation to be able to get them there. So we haven't reached a best practice solution yet, but I can say from our perspective at the Mass Municipal Association, we're eager to balance Good practice and stability for communities, but at the same time flexibility for communities. And I think that's really a hallmark of the work that we do. We want to make sure that cities and towns have the ability to maintain their own local control, their own flexibility to make the best decision for their town. I think this is an area where we can make good progress.

I think there is a balance to be struck between being smart about the investments that should be made to be safe in terms of retirement planning for the retirement board while also recognizing the constraints that cities and towns are facing. Leon, I think, did a great job earlier mentioning the perfect storm report that we had put out, and then the navigating the storm report, which had a series of recommendations, which all sort of paint this picture of the challenges that are facing cities and towns. And I think the last thing I'd mention that might be a little bit off topic, but I know there's a lot of interest in the Municipal Empowerment Act, which has been filed twice now by the governor. It's now been heard by three different committees. It was actually broken up into three parts by three different committees by the state legislature. And we now actually expect it to begin advancing very soon, if not later this week, to be reported out of committee and then to start advancing further through the legislative process.

So not specific to pensions, but I think an important topic. to mention. So I wouldn't go much further than that, but I'd be happy to be part of any dialogue with the board that goes from here.

Thank you.

Of course.

And again, I'll save questions, but I would ask a similar question of you. What trends do you see? How does Dedham fit in context with the towns that are around us? and when I say around us I mean around our status relative to our liabilities as well as those who are similar to us which may be a very long list in terms of budgets and finances over the next few years.

Yeah, I mean, specifically to the pension question, I think Bill said it well. Absent there being a broadly adopted best practice, I think the map is pretty scattered in terms of what communities are doing about pension. I mean, it's definitely scattered in terms of where they are on that 2026 all the way up to 2040 reaching full funding. And then what they are planning to do once they reach full funding is also very scattered. So I think that puts an emphasis on the need to develop a best practice More broadly, I think if you were asking about Dedham's financial condition, I don't want to claim to be expert on Dedham's budget, nor the budget of any individual city and town, I do think the efforts that Dedham is undertaking with its financial or its fiscal task force to really dig in on where it stands with its tax levy and what various paths could mean, whether staying within the levy or considering an override. puts it on the vanguard of financial planning.

There's some towns that have done long-range financial planning for a long time. There's others that have not yet started it. But I still think Dedham is in sort of the early adopters of looking really long term, figuring out how making a decision today impacts things next year, the year after, in the year after that. So there's a lot of hard choices to make as I follow things, but I do think Dedham is setting itself up well to be able to make those choices with good eyesight into what's to come. Thank you.

And just sorry, you mentioned best practices. Is MMA pursuing developing a best practice, or are you just saying there should be a best practice around this?

I think we would want to do it in partnership with PARAC as well as the GFOA, as Bill mentioned, the Government Finance Officers Association. They have a national best practice for pension funding schedules, which is not necessarily specific enough to Massachusetts. But I think working with their Massachusetts chapter, as well as with Perak's expertise, we could be part. I think we'd want to be part of both having a say in what that practice is, but then certainly communicating it out with cities and towns.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Madam Chair, if it helps, I do have a list that's on our website of who the other committees are, if you want to read those off.

If you wouldn't mind sending that to us, that would be helpful just to understand who we're in company with. Thank you. All right, I'll invite up our Dedham Retirement Board. Thank you, Adam. We have Tom Rory, the chair, Lisa Vandermark, from Segal Actuarial, Barbara Eisberg, the director of the Dedham Retirement Board, and Brady Winston, director of finance and retirement, and the retirement board member.

Madam Chair, Member Mike Doyle is also joining us.

Oh, thank you for coming, Michael. Thank you. Thanks for coming this evening.

Good evening, Madam Chairman and the rest of the board. We're happy to be here to answer any questions you have. We're always concerned that there is going to be a cyclical change in the market, as we saw in 2008, and that had a big impact on us. But we are now back up to 93, haven't hit 100 yet. The question will be, once we hit that number, it reduces your appropriation The biggest concern I have right now is if we have another turn in the market, a drastic turn, where is that funding going to come from? It means that we have to come back to the town to ask for could be a big hit. And that's why we have to plan on, and I think John

It's recommended that we go beyond the 100%, even though I know a lot of the towns don't want to do that.

Of course. just wanted to make a note for the board and for the residents watching that the budget numbers that were quoted include the Housing Authority payment. So you'll notice, I believe Lisa has our actual payment schedule pulled up. so they are slightly different in case you were taking notes. That 5.1 number includes the Housing Authority. I believe this year we were at 4.6. And next year we'll be at 4.77. Oh, we've been working on the budget. The other thing is that Springtown meeting did approve an increase in the COLA base. So that will affect our next report. And so our financial forecast does not reflect full funding in FY. 28, as was said here. We projected that to be closer to FY 30.

Yeah, and one item that John Borak said before and Tom just mentioned was the 2008 market downturn. There's a pretty significant downturn in 2022 as well, which when we do the valuation this year, I actually haven't done any, I don't know if John has, we have. We're gonna be making up for those losses, combining with gains from 2024 and 2025. where it's gonna come out, we'll know in a couple months. So it's hard to say where, on the baseline, where that's gonna start at. But we also, like John, John's with . So I'm with Siegel, out of the 100 systems in the state, I call ourselves a private actuary. We do about 20 of them. I think John's group does 40, give or take. So we're the ones, I signed the valuations for Dedham right now. We became the actuary in 2019, I believe. So I can answer any technical questions as John can.

And right now, the big question will be, where do we come out when we remeasure the data and assets at 1-1-2026, January 1, 2026? We have the colon that's going to increase. We have the losses to make up. We have gains for the previous two years as well as anything else that happened with demographics. So I'm not going to make a guess as to where it's going to come out, but we do strongly recommend, one thing that a lot of people say is pay me now or pay me later, which I don't want to get into that, but you do want to fund ahead because whether you want to call it a black swan or 20 2008 2022 as much as we hope that's never going to happen again it's going to happen again in my opinion thank you all right I'll open it up to questions from board members

if I could, Madam Chair. So first of all, thank you all for coming tonight. Just a few points to make on the retirement side, Brady. When you talked about the COLA, can you just sort of explain that the The COLA is why it affects the unfunded liability. The actual COLA is not on the entire pension that a retired employee gets. but just explain sort of it's 16,000 and what that, so that 3% is on only the first 16,000.

So Brady's nominating me to answer that. OK, go ahead. So the COLA, as of two years ago for Dedham, it was just this 3% on the first 15,000 of a retiree's benefit. the board voted to increase that to 18,000 a year or two ago. in the same link that a bill will be sending, you can see the colon base of every system across the state. You probably were at the median, you might be a little bit above. When that happens, the actual liability increases. So before the board made that decision, we did some analysis, which is what Brady was just referring to. That will all be incorporated in this year's valuation, but we did do Calculations of that, I'm going to say a year, year and a half ago, so that they could see what would happen to the funding schedule. So those are not in the report. The board looked at those, determined that it was are able to absorb it and that will be included. Does that answer your question?

It does. I knew, but for those that, since we're talking about pensions and if you don't deal with pensions, you just don't know. And the other point that many might not be aware that a certain percentage of employees' salaries go towards their pension and it's staggered. whoever wants to answer the question. So if an employee starts today, what is the percentage? If an employee was here 15 years ago, 20 years ago, what was the percentage? I think it's important because it's really, I think, a fact that employees that are starting today will be paying their entire pension. by their contributions. And I think that is sometimes missed in the public, that they don't realize that employees, especially the newer employees, and for the last five years or so, will be self-funding their pensions when they get to that point.

So if you could just.

Yeah, I was gonna do it off the top of my head. That's fine. And Barbara will correct you. Okay, sure. So current employees today, beginning with 1996, is that right? 9% of your salary plus 2% of about $30,000. That has ranged, I'm going to go backwards, 8, 7, 5. It was 5% back in 1975. So there's about three different tiers, but everybody hired in the past 30 years exactly, July 1st, is 9% plus 2% above $30,000. So that's significant. The employees are putting a significant portion of their money in. and then in the appropriation, in the funding schedule, that's the employee portion and then we have the, excuse me, what I call the employer assistance portion.

Does that answer your question? Thank you, and I think it's important that, you know, as Tom mentioned, when we're getting, the time to plan is now, not when we're in you know fiscal 27 or fiscal 28 of what are we going to do because we need to work as together to decide what are we going to do so that is everybody understands whether it's you know I know I know, John, you said 110 to 130. Well, you know, whether it's 105% or whatever that number is that we need to start planning now, and also the, as either Bill or John had mentioned, when we hit that, when we get close to it and start to roll back, is that not the, we figure out what is that percentage? is it going to be 75%? Is it gonna be 50%?

So that we have that cushion in the event that we have another 2008, which was, Disastrous. And by the way, all debt on retirement money is with PRIM, right? Yes. Yeah. So who wants to just... I can. So PRIM... who wants to tell what is PRIM and how we get, what happens to the money that gets to, go ahead.

Bill or John would have the best.

Can you go up to the mic, Bill, up there? It's for cable. So just of where the retirees...

and it's to retirees money is, where is it? So PRIM is the state agency charged with investing retirement funds. The state employee system and the teacher system their money automatically by statute goes with PRIM. All the local systems have an option to go to PRIM. I just listened to PRIM's investment committee meeting today. they had a 12.6% return in calendar year 25. They have a three-year return and that equates to $13 billion, I believe, an increase in the fund. They have a record high balance in the fund as of the end of 2025. they have what the executive director described as a super streak. It's a three year period where I believe the increase in the fund has been $36 billion. It's a 23% annualized return. And to everybody's point in here,

the executive director of PRIM spoke to say the history is that that's going to change. It's either going to be a market revision or it's going to be a soft landing. But one way or another, you know, that trajectory is just not going to hold. but you know by and large that trajectory is good over the long term and that's what it's about long-term planning and you know PRIM has a mantra that they don't try to Nobody can predict the future, so we're not going to try. They try to perform as best they can in up markets and down markets. They're not going to probably hit the highest of the highs. We're going to also try to avoid the lowest of the lows. Very professionally well-run organization. So that's where Dedham's money is. The bulk of retirement systems, I think about 90 retirement systems out of the 104 have some of their money with PREM, if not all of it.

I believe that there's 40 to 50 retirement systems that are fully invested with PREM, and the others participate in what they call sleeves or segments, they invest partially with prime.

Thank you. Thank you. Thanks.

Other questions, comments from board members?

I have a few, Madam Chair. Thank you. A couple things. First of all, this isn't the first time that we've talked about retirement stuff over the years, and if you're a taxpayer at home, You should thank the Retirement Board over the last few years because you've made decisions that have benefited the taxpayers that you didn't have to make. I appreciate that because it's actually helped the bottom line. Let me state unequivocally that I probably won't be on the board in the two years when you guys are making this decision. but we need to learn from the mistakes of other communities that have attempted to just fund the normal and gotten burned by it because a lot of communities have tried to just go to that bare bones level and then when something unexpected happens, they get burned by it. So we do need to always fund above the normal.

in terms of ensuring that our town employees, our police, our fire, our GPW, everyone always has a retirement to look forward to and that is fully funded. That said, I also think we have overfunded. Thank you. Thank you. 70%. of the 375, 75 of the 375 communities in the state are above 70%. So the vast majority of communities are under 70% funded, is that right?

75 of 104 retirement systems.

75 of 104 retirement systems. So we're ranked 75? No, no, no. 75 of 104 are under 70%.

Are over 70%.

Are over 70%. But Dedham is ranked 18th out of 365.

18 out of 104.

18 out of 104.

18 best funded.

Out of 104. Okay. So we're one of the better funded retirement systems in the state. and I think that comes at a time where we're facing unprecedented financial challenges. We had a discussion about five or six years ago about the retirement fund and at that time we made a decision to lower a discount rate. Is that not true?

Yes.

Where did we lower the discount rate from? Do you remember?

that I don't have the reports that far back in front of me. The current discount rate is 7%, which is what the state also is. When we lowered it from 7.25 to, was that when? Oh, I'll be very frank. When Siegel was hired in 2019, I believe we recommended to lower it and the board agreed. based on what we saw with capital market expectations. It was our opinion. that the discount rate at the time with the previous actuary was.

So in 2019 we lowered from 7.5 to 7.25 and then another time we lowered from 7.25 to 7. Is that what it is? Or we lowered from 7.25 to 7?

I think we went 7.25 to 7.

In 2019? I have to go back.

Yeah, I don't know what, but we're currently at seven, which is where the state is.

Do you know how the market has performed since that decision was made?

Yes, so the market has performed the past three years, what Bill just said, well above seven.

Since 2019.

I mean, I could look at- No, I can look up.

It's 189% and 16.6% per year. It's almost twice the assumption. So when we had the same conversation in 2019, we were compelled It wasn't our decision, of course. It's the retirement board's decision to change to lower the discounting rate. And one of the major arguments we were told at the time was very similar to what was said tonight. Well, if there's a big downturn, if there's a big downturn. There's intrinsic risk in all investing. All of us are taking risks in our retirement investing. It's how the market works. since that decision to lower the discount rate from 7.25 to 7 which created a huge liability for our taxpayers that remains unfunded because we would be fully funded if we didn't make that decision the market has almost on an annual level, almost two and a half times outperformed the actuarial assumption. So I think that needs to be said. You mentioned 2008. The market's up 589% since 2007. That's over 11% per year.

So there are downturns that are always going to come in the market. We need to make sure the fund is able to withstand those. but we also know that the market does have bad years and good years and it tends to go up. So I favor 100% supporting funding over the action. It would be a big mistake for us to fund at the minimum, to fund at the normal cost, but the reality is We're facing an unprecedented challenge. And as much as I think it would be wrong to fund at the normal cost, I also think it's wrong to keep moving the goalposts. Because we've done it several times, and the things that were said Here, when we did it a few years ago, they haven't proven true. That's just the reality. And at some point, we have to give our taxpayers some kind of relief. and some kind of credit for the fact that they have supported this retirement system and they have put us in the top 20 percentile of the state. So we've aggressively pursued it as a community. We need to continue to support it. We need to continue to support it above the normal.

We can't take the excuse. to go back to the normal. But I think we also have to be realistic and learn from past decisions and realize what our families in this community are facing, what our taxpayers are facing, and the decisions we're facing as a community because we are facing unprecedented financial challenges. and let's face it, our taxpayers have backed up this fund and we need to think of them and how we make decisions moving forward. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Other questions or comments from board members?

I'm going to comment a few items. I'll try to keep it brief. First of all, the assumption for the discount rate, which I believe has been at seven for four or five years. I'm not an investment consultant, and neither is John, but we have investment consultants. We have with Pritt. NEPC, as well as my financial arm, Cecil Marco, every year we look at the best estimate assumption based on current capital market expectations and the asset allocation. 7% is, in my opinion, a very good place to be. I would never recommend an aggressive assumption, which is what I believe was there when Siegel took over in 2019. I don't want to state the obvious. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. But when I look at the past four years of market gains and losses, the losses outweigh the gains by 8 million. 36.

Over the past eight years, with the 7% assumption, there was a $36 million loss in 2022, which is greater than the gains in the other three years. So I don't want to get into a mathematical discussion here, but I think 7% is a Very good place to be. It sounded like you had concerns about us decreasing it to seven.

No, I think it's good to stay at seven, but I don't think we should lower it again. We lowered it once before.

I wouldn't say whether I would lower it based on the past. My recommendation is based on current capital market expectations, which come from investment. I'm gonna use the word experts, not myself. With Siegel, we have our Siegel-Marco arm. John and I also get, everybody sees it, the Pritt or Prim memo. We're usually within 10 to 20 basis points of each other. I wouldn't say, In my opinion, I wouldn't decrease it because of what happened in the past. I would decrease it when the financial experts know the return will be notably less than seven, and I have two sets of data that say that. So I would not recommend a decrease because of that. With that, the board will always work with the town. I think you want to look forward, not look back with the assumption.

I just want to point out too that since 2022, I just looked up, the S&P is up 58.78% annualized return of 12.25% since 2022. So that includes the debt. which we all felt in 2022. Thank you.

Thank you. Sounds like there's some conferring.

Oh, no, we just wanted to mention one other. John alluded to this, but just to clarify with the market value of assets, whatever is in the annual statement or the trust, the Dedham system as well as all of mine at Segal and most of John's we use an actuarial value of assets which is the four year average that John described before which means each of these gains and losses So real briefly, at the last valuation, the gains and losses over four years were $7 million minus $37 million, $21 million and seven. That's how much they vary. that's why we average them and why we look at the current capital markets which will each be receiving information from our investment advisors in February. But the actual, when you do get a loss of minus 20%, it goes through, it takes four years to go through and recognize that. So I just wanted to clarify that. Everything uses what's called an actual value of assets which averages gains and losses over four years.

So those gains and losses I just described about at the previous valuation two years ago, that's how much they varied. A loss of minus 36 million to a gain of 21. Thank you. Does that help?

and other things as far as the investment return goes, when the investment return assumption goes.

When we measure the gains or losses, we're doing it against the 7% low peak.

So you might be in a situation

Thank you for watching.

So you don't need to look at the whole numbers.

You don't consider just the whole numbers.

You have to look at it relative to the investment return assumption itself.

And I think it's also important to note with PRIM, they have investments in a lot of buckets. It's not just one bucket, whether it's Timberland and real estate, whether it's equities, there's all different buckets. if the board would like, I can have Michael Trotsky and somebody come in and give you an update, I should say an overview of what PRIM does. Because it's not as, it's a lot more complicated than than what a normal investment that when you invest in your personal money, what you look at, there's a lot that goes, and as it says, what goes up does come down. but I'd be happy to have Trotsky come in and sort of give a half an hour discussion about what PRIM does and how they do it. I tell you,

the professionals within PRIM are probably some of the best in the country. They could be making a lot more money working in the private sector than they are working in the public sector. But I think there's a lot that goes into, The next PRIM newsletter report that goes out, I will make sure that it goes to all the board members. And if you want any additional information, we can have that given as well.

Thank you. I just have, before you go, I do have, I think, a question that would be helpful to me and I think the general public. Could you just briefly describe, as the Dedham Retirement Board, your authority, your decision-making process, and when those decision points are so that we can understand.

Yes, so we're currently starting our new evaluation. this probably within the next month or so, we'll be sending Lisa all our new data. She'll put it together, maybe in March-ish, we should have some results. will meet with the board, we'll go over different changes, and Lisa, if you wanna.

Yeah, I could expand on that. So when, I thought you were asking a different, so we get data, we get assets, we put it all together, we come through with a premier report, which involves what John was describing. Here's the position you are today versus two years ago. Any recommended assumption changes and here's what the funding schedules might look like. I think one point that you might be asking is, in my opinion, or it is, it's the actuary's job to pose assumptions to the board. It is the board's responsibility to accept or reject those assumptions. If I was ever uncomfortable with an assumption from a board, I would disclose it in my report. It's never been the case in any of my history here. I think John has the same opinion there. So the board is responsible for selecting the assumptions. for selecting a funding schedule. And then I don't know if I get into a COLA base. There's a process for the approval there, but yes. I calculate all the numbers. I can calculate any numbers. I can provide guidance based on gains and losses for assumption changes, demographic.

generally speaking, to be very frank, John alluded to this, the gains and losses over investments are generally much larger than the demographic, not to oversimplify, but the demographic assumptions when you might die, terminate, retire, salary, When you take hundreds or thousands of employees, there's a lot less variability in the investment game loss, which is why that is such a big focus. and what is most likely the assumption that could change in the future but I don't think we expect one this year but we don't have enough information yet.

I'll also add, and then when those results do come back at the board meeting, we also invite Leon, and we have a finance committee representative that also attends and we show them the results and basically give them the option of choosing which payment plan works best for the town.

Okay, so the ultimate decision making.

I mean, we make the ultimate decision.

You make the ultimate decision. So for towns that aren't funded at 93%, that's because their retirement board have made different decisions.

I don't know if I would say, I mean, I have to, and John has been doing this for 32 years. I've been doing it for 27, but in Massachusetts for seven is, They could have had different gains or losses. They could have had different assumptions in the past. Did they make a different decision? I don't want to play that good or bad decisions would make a system fully funded in 2028 versus 2038. There's certain things that are out of the control. John, if you want to speak any more on that, he sees all 100 systems from the funding schedules, but is that decision directly known as the experience of the plan and the experience of the investments too?

I guess I'm trying to get at the guiding policy. Because if we're in the top 20%, towns seem that they're going under different policy They're guided by different policies.

I mean, we're controlled by state law.

So I'm just really trying to get the layperson's description of why are we at 18 out of the top 20% and other towns aren't. Where are those decision points? John, do you want to take that?

Yeah, a lot of the systems that are struggling now with their bonding Back in the 90s when they had this boom market, they took advantage of the boom market by lowering their funding schedule to the minimum amount allowed under the law.

I'm sorry, they being...

of the Board, boards of certain systems. So the systems that are better funded now are the ones in the past several years as far as their funding schedule goes, where they always maintained a rather regressive funding schedule as opposed to dropping the schedule when the games allowed it. So that's primarily the main reason why some systems are in better shape than others. And it has to do with past funding history.

So it's really what happened in the past. And at this point, that ship is sailing. So if we're looking at where you brought up that the state keeps kicking out that date. I'm still not really understanding where those decision points are. we're looking at a situation of not considering slowing down a little bit or shifting or if our, I mean, we are under tremendous budget pressure right now. And we're looking at a few million dollars every year. is this set or are there, I'm still kind of unclear, is there a set, is there a body here that's making the decision as to whether we're fully funded in five years or 15 years?

I would say that's the retirement board. I should have added one thing. In early, which is actually within the next month, we have a plan and meeting with them to talk about funding schedule guiding principles. which is we'd like to maintain a 3.5% increase to be fully funded. I'm making that up. So different boards have probably made different decisions with that. For example, I'm totally making this up, Let's pretend there was a huge, a really large gain this year and one board will say, I want to take that 3.5% and I want to go flat for four years. That board, when 2008 or 2022 came, now they're behind the eight ball. The boards that kept that 3% and 4% and stayed there, again, John's seen this for 32 years, those decisions have varied over the past 10 to 30 years for each system. Because there is a range of acceptable outcomes as you might imagine with the date of 2040 and each board, makes decisions. We have boards that a 3% increase is not atypical.

We have boards that have increases of 8% and are fully funded past 2030. not in as good shape as they would like to be, and certainly not as in good shape as Dedham. Why, I'd have to go back 20 years, but as John said, at some point in the past, they made a decision, that board, to do something where that they might have cut back on recreation. Not to use a phrase, pay me now or pay me later. If somebody cut back and then you have this downturn of 2008, 2022, those systems aren't less good shape to handle it. Thank you.

Well, I mean, I appreciate the conversation because this is obviously very complex and we're in a very complex time. I mean it's wonderful that we are in a pretty ideal situation in terms of funding this liability. We're in really not ideal situations when we look at other parts of our budget, like our buildings and maintenance in town. like we're talking about which service do we need to cut next? Can we add paraprofessionals in kindergarten classrooms? So we're in really not ideal situations in lots of places. that help run this town. So I'm interested in continuing the dialogue as to whether or not at some point we should have conversations about how ideal do we continue to be in this one area when it forces us to continue to be really unideal in other places. So that's why I'm really trying to understand where are the

flexion points as we continue to look at the full scope of what we all have to contend with and other boards across the town as well.

Madam Chair, can I try to clarify? I think the point you were making was, so under Chapter 32, it sounds like municipality or retirement boards have the decision of either paying off by 2030 or 2040. and you could create an amortization schedule that would get you there, but you also can't change your payment year to year by more than 5%, is that at the maximum?

So by the statute, if you have a funding schedule that finishes before 2030, you have the option of making a payment the next year that is 95% of this year's payment. So you could save 5% of your payment. If you're past 2030, you don't have that option. You have to pay at least the minimum that you paid in the current year. So you have some flexibility there. The Commonwealth just did it this year. They extended out their funding schedule. The Commonwealth was going to be fully funded in 2036. it's going to be 2039 now. So that creates wiggle room, right? That you're stretching out your payments. So, I mean, if that's something that this board and this town is interested in doing, that's a conversation to have. you know as with any retirement board there's two elected members on the retirement board there's two municipal members and there's a fifth member chosen by the other four so it is a partnership and you know it's not just the retirement board they're not this thing off to the side they're

members of the community and part of the community and the employees and the municipalities have representation.

Madam Chair, can I just say one more thing? I do appreciate all that you guys have done, and I'm sorry for asking difficult questions, but as long as I sit up here, that's my job, so forgive me. But I also want to say that one thing that we did all agree on was when we had a free cash surplus about seven or eight years ago. we put $8 million into the retirement fund. And what's that worth now? Like 20 something million dollars, right? So one of the reasons that we're even able to have this conversation about having a fully A fully funded pension fund in 2028 is because we made that smart financial decision a long time ago and it reaped a lot of benefits back to the community. I think that money we put in is worth, what, two and a half times what we what we put in at the time and that's why we're even in this position one of the reasons why so that was a that was a good thing that we did that we did all you know get behind and agree on so thank you

And I appreciate what Dr. Teehan is saying. We do think about the decisions we make based on what's best for our members, but we also think about the taxpayers of this town. And the biggest thing we don't want to do is put ourselves in a position where we take a risk that puts the taxpayers now funding the retirement system is going to be a challenge on top of all the other challenges that we spoke of earlier that are coming in the near future so it's a balancing act also we do consider it all of it

40% of our retirees are town residents.

Two of them are my parents.

Thank you, yeah. What the gentleman just mentioned, the X million dollars of free cash, that's a perfect example of how a system is better funded than, you did that and you got ahead. Another system that, so that's an example of a system that might be more likely Somebody didn't do that or if somebody in a year they took advantage of the 95% and cut back, Pay me now or pay me later.

If we had just taken our money and put it in our pockets, right, and then we would have a great tax year that year, reset the thermostat, set us up for bad tax years after that, and we never would have got any of the benefits back that we've ended up getting from that money being invested and growing and helping to fund the pension. So just an example of a good financial decision making. Thank you. Sorry.

Thank you. And I appreciate the conversation and your deliberation and review. So I look forward to continuing the conversation. as we all will need to do as we move through the next several years in discussing our budget and tax needs. So thank you so much. Thanks for coming this evening. Thank you for coming to Dedham. Thank you for being a resident of Dedham. And thanks for coming this evening.

Appreciate your time. Thank you all. Bill.

Thanks. All right. Okay, we're at public hearings. Both of which are being deferred.

Both of which are being. We need to take a vote on each of them, please. to open the hearing and move them to March.

Okay, I'll entertain a motion.

I apologize.

So moved.

Do I hear a second? Hearing a motion and a second, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. All right, those will be moved until February 26th.

March, March.

Oh, March. Thank you.

First meeting of March, Madam Chair.

March 6th. 12th. 12th? Okay. Who's on first? Okay, so that takes Temizcal and Hilton off the list.

El Centro and Hilton. El Centro. And your next item is the violation hearing for Temescal. Right. Thank you.

So it's Kings and El Centro are moved.

All right, and we're on to violation hearing for Temizcal.

Yes, 750. Not bad.

How are you? Thank you. Good, how are you? I'm good, thank you. I have some of these hard copies. I don't know if the members have received one. Well, good evening, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Kevin Cloutier. I'm an attorney from the Cloutier Law Firm located in West Roxbury. I'm joined here. Today, tonight, by Sean MacDonald, who's the Director of Operations for Rebel Restaurants, which owns and operates Temes Cal. Amy Magner, who's the General Manager of the Temes Cal in Dedham, and Gentirapi, who's a manager at Temmins, Collin, Dedham. Between the three of them, and I'm not trying to age anybody, but they have nine minutes.

Madam Chair, before we start, if I could, swearing in by the of anybody that's going to perform testimony tonight, please.

If you're going to provide testimony this evening. Just everyone. You swear the testimony you're about to give this evening is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.

Yes.

Thank you.

I think I've always started before the oath, so I'm sorry about that. Doesn't mean I'm not trying to be truthful here, but thank you. So between the three of them, 95 years of experience in the restaurant industry, which they do bring to bear in Temescal. Regarding the reason why we're here tonight, we're not contesting the facts. We're here to accept responsibility for the violation. We also want to come out and acknowledge this is our third violation within three years. In May 2023, we had a violation for, oh, I don't know, did you want to have the police?

Madam Chair, can we have a summary from the officer please, the sergeant, of what we're here for?

Sure, Sergeant Sullivan, District Representative, Dedham Police Department. So on Monday, November 17th, at approximately 5.10, Officer Reilly and Officer Kozak were assigned to conduct an alcohol compliance check at 660 Legacy Place, Taz McCall. An underage operative was used to conduct this check. The underage operative possesses a valid under 21 vertical Massachusetts license. the underage operatives entered the establishment and ordered a Corona bottle. The employee did request to see the driver's license and looked and then proceeded to serve the underage operative a Corona. At that time, the employee stated that He looked at the date of the license and thought the underage opted was 23, and that's why he served her. And then Officer Kozak entered the establishment to fill out all the necessary paperwork.

Thank you. And you stipulate to the report. Yes. Thank you.

And again, so this is the third violation within the three-year period that the board uses for look-backs. In May 2023, we had another under 21 violation with a sting, also with a vertical under 21 license in which the bartender asked for ID. and just continued on to serve when they should not have. The last violation prior to this one was May in 2025. again it was a Dedham sting operation and the underage operative did provide a vertical 21 under 21 ID County, upon request by the bartender, the bartender did continue then to serve that person and they should not have. We were also cited in that incident for not having appropriate TIPS certification records on site when asked by the Dedham Police.

And this most recent occasion, as Sergeant Sullivan just reiterated, the violation occurred during a sting when the operative asked for a beer, the bartender asked for ID, received it, looked at it, and just didn't take that next step. So it's the third time, it's the same violation, and that's certainly not lost on us. So what I'd like to, and the board knows that Temescal here in Dedham is one of the Rebel Restaurant Organization's restaurants. They have nine restaurants. Mr. MacDonald is the director of operations, so oversees operations at all these restaurants. Temescal has been here in Dedham for nine years and employs approximately 50 people. So there is an infrastructure behind this location that works well in many respects. In this incident, the bartender, Mr. Rigotti, he's a good employee.

he's been a trustworthy employee, he's a good team member, he's reliable, and this was a situation that was out of character for him. and what I'd like to talk about is some of the mitigation measures because we were here in July in front of the same board talking about a similar incident and we told the board there were certain steps that Temazcal was going to implement to try to mitigate and prevent this from happening again. Those steps were implemented. they didn't work in this case. But what I'd like to walk through, if you have it, exhibit one, this was actually something new. This is an acknowledgement of lawful alcohol service policy. and Ms. Magner implemented this after the May incident. And what it was is it just really reiterates in a single document the alcohol compliance requirements and each staff member that were coming on as new, but existing staff members all had to go through this. they would discuss it with the manager and they'd all just sign it.

I've attached that to Exhibit 1, Mr. Rigotti's signed acknowledgement of that policy. Exhibit number two, this is a printout of our tips tracker. Again, a system we implemented after the May incident was to keep an Excel spreadsheet, an electronic tracker that has all the employees who serve alcohol, when their TIPPS training occurred and when it expires. So that just helps us maintain sort of a, it's an active, it's a live document. Again, implemented after the May incident, Mr. Rigotti's shows here as being compliant. Exhibit number three, the restaurant has always had pre-shipped agenda items that the manager will discuss. After the May incident, actually, sorry, an alcohol policy is always referenced in this. Check IDs, check IDs, check IDs. After this recent incident, we added to the bottom of it vertical IDs bring to management.

And that policy is added after this most recent incident. Anytime we see a vertical ID, it has to go to the manager on the floor. So that policy has been incorporated so the staff members see this every day pre-shift. Exhibit number is a licensed scanner. This is a licensed scanner that was added after this November incident. What the scanner does, and I don't know if anyone's been able to see it, but I also sent a little video of a demonstration to Ms. Baker but we have a little policy that's written up. The scanner is behind the bar. What it does, it's just more front of mind for servers. Any ID that's taken by a bartender is gonna be scanned. And like I said, if they get a vertical ID, that has to go to the manager. So it's just another step that's been implemented to try to really keep this alcohol compliance top of mind. Exhibit 5, this is just...

This just reiterates, it's the employee handbook, it's something that's always been done. When anyone's on board in alcohol policy, it's discussed with them, it's reiterated with them. Exhibit number six, this just shows the bartender training. So we have a bartender going through training. They role play. And what I've attached here is Mr. Rigotti. Again, he was the bartender. in this scenario in November, who went through this training. He was evaluated. There are specific line items here for asking for ID, checking the ID, and whatnot. So again, he was trained on this. He obviously didn't comply fully when he was confronted by this last operative. We have visual cues throughout the restaurant. We implemented after the last incident a flip chart on the bar. It's to try to take away, I mean, they're asking for ID, but then they're missing the next step. They're just not taking it further.

that could be for any number of reasons, whether it's just sort of like a brain freeze, but it's really a managerial responsibility to make sure they do

get to that last step.

So to sort of take as much thought out of it, we put the flip chart having the cutoff birth date, it's on the bar, it's on the whiteboard, on all the scanners where they take the orders. ID on the terminals where the bartenders enter into the system. It's take ID. So again, we have those visual cues throughout the restaurant. Finally, as far as what did the bar do after this incident? They did take some corrective action with both Mr. Rigotti, who was the bartender, as well as Mr. Genty. He was the manager on duty at the time. Mr. Rigotti's been a good employee. He wasn't terminated. He received a write-up. I provided a copy of that in the packet where these policies were reiterated. He was suspended for a week. During that week's suspension, he was ordered and he did complete a bartender training course. This is in addition to the TIP certification.

I provided that as well, although I think I mislabeled exhibits seven and eight, so sorry for the confusion. So Mr. Rigotti took that course while he was out during suspension. Mr. Ghenti also received a write-up from upper management, really emphasizing that at the end of the day, the buck stops with you. You're the man on the floor. You've got to make sure that all of your members of the staff are constantly reminded to not only check the IDs, but to assess the ID. And if there's any confusion at all, you bring it to the manager. And now the new policies, any vertical ID has to go to the manager. Again, this was human error. That's not an excuse. It was a costly error. And we've tried to create systems that eliminate that human error possibility, and we're committed to continuing to try to reemphasize these issues and hopefully prevent this type of thing happening again.

Obviously, Mr. MacDonald, Ms. Magnum, Mr. Gentile, if the board has any questions, could speak to some of the on the ground level operations. I thank you, and again, we would ask for some consideration. Last time we did get a day suspension. I know what the guidelines say. I know the guidelines recommend a pretty severe penalty for this being our third violation in three years. We can only... say that we're doing the best we can. We're trying to take care of our customers, our employees, and to do so safely and responsibly. So thank you for your time. And again, we'll answer any questions.

Thank you. Questions, comments from board members? Okay, hearing none.

If anybody else, anybody else have anything to say? No? So I will thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the email today with the descriptions. So we call them compliance checks. We don't call them stings because it's to prove whether you are or are not in compliance with the rules and regulations for the town of Dedham. 56 establishments were a part of this compliance checks. Five failed. Couple of them first time, couple of them multiple times, including yours. You know, when When it happens the first time, say, okay, things happen, they'll learn, but you have a, this is a pretty sophisticated operation. You have a lot of restaurants.

you're not like a mom and pop store that has the family out in the front of the house that might have, and even they're passing compliance checks. So the first time I get, mistakes happen. Second time, well, you know, what you told me the first time, I guess you didn't really do because you're back again. So what you told us the second time, wasn't enough either because you're back a third time. I mean, that's... and we know it's difficult for businesses. We know that you get a thousand moving parts. The manager has so many jobs to do to oversee anything. Are you having this problem in your other restaurants? I'm asking. No? Why?

What is different than your other restaurants than what you have here in the town of Dedham? If you could, please.

Employer attention has been probably our most significant problem in Dedham. you know, we've had some management changes. Guenti's been with us for quite some time, as well as Amy. We have gotten much better. In the past, we did have considerable turnover, especially at the bar, And let's just say through COVID and after COVID, the restaurant industry has been very different. And holding on to staff, you get them training, you spend two years with them, they're trained, they're prepared. then the next restaurant opens up in town and you lose them because that's the hot spot and that's where the place is called. So I mean, these aren't excuses, but our restaurant in Dedham has seen significant turnover and each of these employees are You know, not fairly, they're fully trained. When they enter the bar, they're fully trained. They go through all the steps, all the role plays. They are, you know, we quiz them, we test them, we get them certified, and yet...

on the spot when they see it, they freeze up and they just, they're not doing what they're trained to do. It's not an excuse, again, it's not an excuse, but we don't have this problem in the other restaurants.

So the machine that you just brought in, and I did look at the video, why now and why not before? Why did it take you three times to fail to finally corporate say, I guess we have to take away the physical viewing of a license to a mechanical. Why did it take you so long? This is three years. three violations, why did it take you so long to recognize that? Help us understand why.

We're a restaurant first. We're known for scratch cooking. We're all about serving the guests and a full dining experience with an alcohol aspect. These systems, these ID verifications, are more for clubs and bars and places that aren't really offering food. They're really looking to push alcohol. We're a restaurant first, and that's our bad, but we've gotten to the point where we're sitting here. I'm embarrassed and disappointed that we're here again. So we're doing everything we can. And this was, you know, if there was, if there's something I'm missing now, I take, you know, whatever ideas you have, we want to make sure this never happens again. We do not want to ever be here again. The scanner is one. I mean, we actually discussed the possibility of never serving anybody with a particle license.

Some people have a five-year license that do extend out. So even though they're 21 and they have a vertical license, we can still serve them. It's getting to the point where that might be our policy after today that we are not going to serve anybody that has a vertical license. We're just going to make it clear to all our staff You know, they cannot enjoy an alcoholic beverage if they don't have a valid, you know, horizontal license.

There's probably dozens of restaurants similar to yours that, you know, it's combination of dining and alcohol that don't have a problem. So that's why it gets frustrating. And I know it's frustrating for the police. and I know it's definitely frustrating for, because this is an expense. You have to hire an attorney, you have to come out of the, you have to do all sorts of stuff, so we understand that it's an expense, but I'm always at a loss when it's the third time, especially when I see a restaurant chain that has such a great reputation. that does tremendous employment for a lot of people, serves quality food and alcohol and everything else to complement, but yet there's a management failure.

So I appreciate you coming in, and I appreciate the explanation again, and thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Other questions or comments from board members?

Just one quick thing. I think Jim said everything for the most part, but I do just want to say, I do think, and I've seen this a lot over my time, that the food places sometimes is the ones that You have to worry about the most because first of all, it's not the focus, like you said, of your establishment. And second of all, I remember when I was under 21, if I wanted to try and get served, I'd always go to a restaurant over a bar. because they weren't paying as close of attention, right? I'm sure a lot of us were the same. But I think people seek out those places because they know they're busy, they're serving, they're cooking. It's not the emphasis. They're not a watering hole. Those places tend to deal with it better, the watering holes. There's something to think of just to be really careful. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Other comments from Board members? All right. Thank you.

Madam Chair, I'd move to close the public hearing.

Hearing a motion and a second, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no.

Madam Chair, I move to take the matter under advisement until February 26th meeting.

Hearing a motion and a second, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no.

Thank you. You don't have to come back on the 26th. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, up next, compliance failure hearing for helping at Dedham Place.

Yes. Madam Chair, is nobody here representing the Hilton?

They were here. They were here.

Oh, okay.

Take a look to see here recently. While we're waiting, can we take our next agenda item? Okay, we have discussion and vote with Chair Cecilia Butler. Yeah, it's still on. Okay, discussion and vote regarding requests for common victual or license for Just Salad.

Madam Chair, joining us remotely tonight for Just Salad representing the organization is Daniel Brennan. The confusion with the Hilton may have been my error when I said that we were voting to defer it. I meant El Centro and Kings. I corrected that pretty quickly right afterwards.

Yeah, I corrected that.

Well, unless they show up before the end of the meeting, we'll need to defer to the February 26th meeting. So request for common victual license for just salad. Hi, good evening. Thank you for hanging in there. Sure, it was entertaining. Glad you find it.

So my name is Daniel Brenner, and I handle permits and licenses for Just Salad. Here today we're at the location of the former bank over next to CVS. We're going to have a drive-thru location there and the space is just over 3,000 square feet. We have 56 interior seats. Hours of operation proposed are 1030 a.m. to 9 p.m., seven days.

We're under construction now.

We've had some delays, so right now we're looking at probably end of March, early April opening.

We don't serve any alcohol.

Great, thank you. Questions from board members? Where exactly is this? Providence Highway. Got it. I've been to the location in Needham and it's a great addition to have.

Madam Chair, I move to approve the issuance of a common victorial license for Josel at 929 Providence Highway.

hearing a motion in a second all those in favor say aye aye aye opposed no good luck congratulations good luck thank you All right, discussion and vote. Request for secondhand license for Roadshow Concepts, LLC.

Madam Chair, joining us this evening to answer any questions regarding this request is Amy Morgan.

Okay, is Amy online?

She is. Amy, I don't know if you can hear me, but it says that you're denying the request to be promoted to panelists. Can you accept that?

Okay, I'm going to allow you to... Oh, there we go.

Okay, cool.

Good night.

Hi there. Hi, yes, we can hear you. Thank you, Amy.

Sure, wonderful. Could you tell us a little bit about your application?

Oh, and sorry, could you turn your camera on? That's required.

Yeah, let me see if I can switch over, because I have two different meetings going, so I'm trying to navigate the poll to see what I come up with.

Give me one second.

I can't see any way to turn my camera on.

She says...

in the meeting at the campus.

Well, sometimes if you have two zooms open, they compete with each other.

And now they've got two audio lines.

Yeah, so. Maybe pop out of the other one. Yep, oftentimes if you have two Zoom meetings going, they conflict with each other. Can you briefly pop out of the other one? This won't take very long.

How much is $400,000?

Okay, thank you.

There you go. There you go.

All right. We can see you now. There you go. There we go.

All right. Thank you, Amy.

Could you tell us a little bit about your request?

Yeah, so we are a company who works in areas for about a week. We make offers and assess antiques. precious metals, jewelry, kind of everything, collectibles, coins, all sorts of things like that. We assess them, we offer pre-evaluations, and then we make an offer and if the customer accepts it, we purchase those items, and if not, that's that. We're operating, I believe, for five days Looks like March 31st to April 4th, Tuesday through Saturday, it's going to be 9am to 5pm. We'll be hosted at the Hilton on 25 Allied Drive. and we hope everybody in the area is able to come and if not, we usually come back again.

And can I just confirm the other questions? Can I confirm the dates? It looks like...

If I may, Madam Chair, in my speaking with the gentleman I've been dealing with, they're seeking a license for the full year because they will be back and forth in Dedham for multiple times. So this would be a license annually they can choose or not choose at the end of this calendar year to renew it. Thank you. But the reason we did not put specific votes is that it will just stand as a license for them in Dedham when they come. Okay, great, thank you.

Questions or comments from board members? Yeah, it is interesting.

I'm just trying to think if there's anything I can bring.

All right.

Move to approve the issuance of a secondhand dealer license for Roadshow Concepts LLC, Oak Brook, Illinois.

hearing a motion in a second all those in favor say aye aye opposed no all right that's been approved great thank you we look forward to having you here good luck thanks you too

Add this one.

The email said February, but she said March.

She did? Oh, so they moved it.

That's right.

We'll let you know.

It was through March 4th.

And I wasn't going to, because she probably wouldn't know. when I see using state-certified scales, because they're going to be in our town, Who confirms that the scales are accurate? I'm not sure. So something to look into.

We can send the sealer of which you mentioned.

Just curious because I don't know what these things... I don't know.

Only because I just recently saw the report from Norfolk County. I do know that they have inspected some in the past that are more temporary. So I do know that the Norfolk County weights and measures dealer has done that in the past.

Maybe we should... When we get the show dates, we'll make sure that they go. And they also have a requirement under the statute to report to the police department any items that they take in. that's required of all secondhand dealers whether they're purchasing and reselling at the site or just purchasing if they're required to report for any possible concerns regarding the items and where they originated from. Okay. Thank you.

All right. We're at discussion and vote regarding sanctions for field compliance for Tavern in the Square and Plaza Liquors.

Madam Chair, after the hearing on the 29th, I would move to find that the, January 29th, 2026, I'd move to find that the licensee, Tavern in the Square, 985 Providence Highway, did violate Mass General Laws Chapter 138, Section 34, sale or delivery of alcohol to a person under 21 years of age in 204 CMR 2.05, permitting any disorder, disturbance, or illegality of any kind to take place in or on the licensed premises and are the rules and regulations for holders of all alcoholic beverage licenses in the town of Dedham, rules number 21, sale and delivery to a person, alcohol to a person under 21.

Second.

Hearing a motion and a second, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no.

Madam Chair, as a result of said findings, move to issue a warning, written warning to Tavern in the Square, 985 Providence Highway.

Second.

Hearing a motion and a second, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Plaza Liquors.

After due hearing on January 29, 2026, I move to find the licensee Plaza Liquor Mark 761 Providence Highway did violate Mass General Law Chapter 138. Section 34, sale or delivery to alcohol to a person under 21 years of age before CMR 2.052 and or the rules and regulations for the holders of alcoholic beverage licenses in the town of Dedham, Rule Number 21. as a result of, okay, that's it.

Second. Do I hear a second? Second. All right, hearing a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, no.

as a result of said finding, I move to issue a written warning to Plaza Liquor Mart 761 Providence Tower. Second.

Hearing a motion and a second, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Okay.

and move to approve the regular session meeting minutes for November 6, 2025, December 3, 2025, January 15, 2026.

Can I mention two quick typos before we vote? Yes. On December 3rd, the holiday stroll was referred to as the colony stroll, and on 1-15, Condon Park was called London Park.

I'm sorry.

Sorry. So January 15th, number seven. Okay. Thank you. Those changes I second.

Thank you.

Yes. Okay. So I heard a second. Hearing a motion and a second, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. and are there any items not on the agenda for this evening? Consents.

We have the consent agenda. Consents.

And then, okay.

We need to approve the consent agenda including approval of drain Layers, A.D. Martino Construction, D.J. Morris Contracting, and Sean Farrell Excavation, Mass General Laws, Chapter 268A, Section 20B, Exemption for Dina Della Iacono. Request for signs and banner for MBACC Open Studios on May 16 and 17, 26, 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. Gift acceptance of a control poll for animal control.

Second with discussion, please. Okay, so the exemption for Dena Della Iacono, can I just have a little bit more detail on that?

She is currently a para in the school system and she is also going to be joining the Council on Aging periodically to provide to do cooking and provide lunches and hopefully in the future a dish using our new kitchen that we've been looking forward to have someone join us to use and be able to serve our seniors. So because she's an employee of the school and will also be compensated for her work in the center, the exemption is required.

Okay, so that's something new, this particular one. I know we've done it for others. but this particular one is new. So this is something new that we're doing in the Senior Center right now.

Yes, we've been looking for a very long time for someone to come in and hopefully if time allows she can do more as time goes by. have to do it outside the hours that she does her work as a power.

So it's more cooking for them, not program teaching or anything?

We hope maybe at some point it will evolve to a teaching, but right now it's cooking for them.

All right, thank you. And then my second question or statement or whatever you want to say, the signs, the banners for the open studios, as we've said before, the removal. There's always a problem. And it's not, I'm not just saying, I'm not saying, you know, the NBA, the NBA, I'm not saying that, but you ride through town and people are supposed to be taking down the signs. and months later they're still there. And so that's all of our faults that, you know, and I myself have said something about signs that are there and there and there's sign. and they don't get moved. So we really need to work on police getting those signs down and having them commit to them taking their signs down. And as they drive by them, please take them down. Appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you.

Thanks, all. OK. So did we have a motion? We need a motion. We did have a motion and a second. We had a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. And items not on the agenda. Move to take items not on the agenda. Do I hear a second?

Second.

Hearing a motion and a second, all those in favor say aye.

Aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Move to approve Capital Services LLC as a drain layer in Dedham. Second. Hearing a motion and a second, all those in favor say aye.

Aye. Opposed, no.

Madam Chair, I move to take another item that's not on the agenda dealing with House Bill 5047.

hearing a motion and a second. All those in favor? Well, we're taking this out of, not on the agenda as the first vote. Yes. So hearing a motion and a second. All those in favor of putting this on the agenda? Say aye. Aye. Opposed, no.

Madam Chair, I'd move that this board support House Bill 5047, an act authorized in the division, of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance to take by eminent domain certain land in the town of Norwood. And I'll just explain a little after a second.

Okay. Is there a second? Second. Hearing a motion and a second.

Madam Chair, this bill is one that has been put forth by Senator Rush and Representative John Rogers. concerning the Norwood Hospital that has been vacant since the flooding, I don't know how many years ago. What was it, Dennis? So this would authorize DCAM to take it by eminent domain, and that's the whole process. But since there's been no other movement, we have been asked to support and I feel that clearly having Norwood Hospital not in operation has been a detriment to to the residents of Dedham and the businesses of Dedham, and quite frankly to our public safety.

Police and Fire, you know, with delays and turnaround of EMS that go to either in town or to Needham because those are the nearest hospitals. Thank you.

Thank you for an explanation, Jim. Hearing a motion and a second, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no.

and I will, I am going to try to go to that hearing on Thursday afternoon to speak in favor of this because I agree with Jim, this is so, so important. The Malvern Hospital just leaves a gaping hole in our medical community, and it's really sad. Actually, we need to get it back open.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any old or new business?

I might just recognize that this is February, so it's Black History Month, and it's the 100th anniversary of Black History Month, so I just want to note that occasion.

Thank you for that note. Other old or new business?

One item that was said today and has been on my mind is the Massachusetts Municipal Empowerment Act or the Community Empowerment Act. There's a lot in that, and it might sound like it's wonderful, but I'd really love to have somebody come in to speak on that in more detail of what's behind that and what's in it and what that means. I think that's really important. to learn the ins and outs of that proposal.

Great.

Yes.

Thank you. I agree. Thank you. Okay. Motion to adjourn. Second. Hearing a motion and a second, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no.

Oh, Madam Chair, before we adjourn, I would move that the hearing, the violation hearing for Hilton be moved to our February 26th. Is it the 26th? Yes. February 26th meeting. I'm sorry, I should have... Great, thank you.

Hearing a motion, is there a second? Second. Hearing the motion and the second, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, and motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Second. Hearing motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, no.

Great. Thank you.