Notes from the Select Board meeting, February 27, 2025, 6:30pm, Hybrid Continuation of the Public Hearing on 37 Interlaken – A vote on the submitted plan.
The applicant, Patrick Sheehan, 37 Interlaken (formerly the DeSisto School) can withdraw the plan before the vote and seek to negotiate an altered plan. He can ask for a determination about continuing the process, or he can call for the vote on the plan as submitted.
If he does not withdraw, the SB will continue the Public Hearing culminating with a vote of the Board to continue the process, that is, complete the next step which is a review of the plan by an outside expert, or approve/disapprove of the plan.
The hearing was limited to one issue: buildings A – H are ostensibly 1 building by virtue of connection by a walkway. Two are within 200 feet of the mani building, the Berkshire Cottage, Beckwithshaw (Desisto). To fit into the bylaws, can the two in question be considered one? The applicant said yes; Town Counsel said it was a matter over which SB had discretion.
The applicant asked not for approval or approval but if the plan as submitted had enough merit to continue the process.
The vote was yes unanimously.
The Hearing will continue April 17 and presumably be voted upon then.
In order for the plan submitted by 37 Interlaken to be approved, the vote must be unanimous. That means, in effect, each SB member has veto power. The vote can be to approve, disapprove or approve with conditions.
If the vote is not acceptable to the applicant, he can appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). If the decision of the ZBA is not acceptable, applicant can go to Land Court.
Notes from the Select Board meeting, February 20, 2025, Hybrid meeting
As suggested in the editorial, we can come together to help our neighbors even when we disagree in other areas. That can be a model for decision making as well. This meeting offered an example that may help.
Turning Conflict into Constructive Decision Making
There was a moment in a recent Select Board meeting that revealed something about municipal finance but much more about the art of decision making. It was an annual budget review meeting. Stockbridge Town Administrator Michael Canales developed and presented his first draft of the annual town budget. He presented it to the Select Board, because it is the body charged with overseeing the spending of funds appropriated by the Town — property taxes, local receipts. The budget automatically sets the tax rate.
At one point, it sounded as if an ongoing disagreement was developing between Canales and Select Board member Patrick White. White identified a budget item and requested it be reduced or moved from an operating line item to free cash. Canales advocated for leaving line items unchanged. Then came the moment.
White said to Canales, “you are protecting the institution, and I am trying to protect the taxpayer.”
What do we do with conflict?
Too often in today’s world, we describe disagreement as division. We treat it as permanent. It becomes an obstacle to civility, a roadblock to problem solving. Must it? Perhaps not. Conflict is not new. As a country, we were born out of conflict, never existed without it, and yet, look at all we accomplished. The outcome of the current divide is not a standoff.
Over time, we have come up with ways to resolve conflict at every level of government. In 1787 there were conflicts at the Constitutional Convention. There was one exquisite point of agreement: political without violence. We found ways to work together and work it out. That was, in fact, the distinguishing characteristic of the new nation — the characteristic shocking to the rest of the world — the peaceful transition of power.
Make no mistake — it is work — hard work — but it is peaceful, respectful, dignified work.
Differences Do Not have to be Divisions
They can be the points at which, if we want to solve the problem, we roll up our sleeves. In this example, and many others, points on both sides can and do have merit. Protecting the institution and protecting the taxpayer are of equal importance. The taxpayers need the Town to be on a solid financial footing. The Town needs the taxpayers to be well served at a financial burden they can afford. It is both/and not either/or.
Separate the Process from the Content
We get caught up in content and voice ultimatums. If we do, no one gets anywhere quite literally. If we drop the idea that we have the best solution and trust process: we can work through it. In good process, we test the validity of assumptions, remind each other of the goal, make trade-offs, reach the best decision. Agree that it is the best decision at the time and is subject to change. All we can expect of one another is a process with civility and integrity. Let it be the process every time regardless of the content.
Notes from the Finance Committee, February 26, 2025, Hybrid meeting
Big ticket items discussed were the new fire house and shared fire and emergency services with West Stockbridge. The services will be fully operational in July 2027.
The fiscal 2026 budget is $13.2 million. It is an increase of 8.6%. However, Town Administrator Michael Canales explained, if we factor in additional revenues and reimbursements, the net increase is 3.85% and the increase in the town’s operating budget is only 2.59%.
It drops because of the $587,000 income from West Stockbridge, the 16% increase in health insurance costs, and a 6.6% increase in the Berkshire Hills Regional School District assessment. The actual increase is 3.85 “high quality public services” according to Canales.
Property taxes are estimated to bring in about $10 million, representing a 4%, about $396,000, and local receipts estimated at about $3 million in revenue, or about $587,000. State aid is estimated to increase in fiscal 2026 by about 6%, or about $13,000.
On the wish list were: installing a Revolutionary War Monument on the town green, repairing other local monuments, funding a mausoleum at the cemetery, setting aside funds for a July 4, 2026 celebration during the country’s 250th anniversary, and adding pickleball courts. SB Chair Jamie Minacci was concerned these could draw down all monies in the free cash account, while SB member Patrick White responded that other funds could be used as well.
