Date of Meeting: Monday, April 27, 2009
Location: Town Hall, 221 Main Street
Time: 6:30 PM – 8:30 PM
Members Present: Chairman James Stanton; Ken Sydow
Absent: Roger Deal
Others Present: Stephen Madaus, Town Counsel; Nancy Colbert, Town Administrator; Lori Esposito, Administrative Assistant; others as noted on attached sign-in sheet.
Financial Warrants were signed in approval.
Lease:
Nancy presented lease for the Board of Selectmen to be signed.
The dollar amount comes out to approximately $5K less per year. Nancy spoke with David Devine; he said the figure is already in their budget on their end and cannot be changed. He warned that he is also being asked to renegotiate active leases to reduce them (ours is at $85,822.78 for three years).
Ken made a motion to sign the lease, in the best interests of the Town, so it is not negotiated down even further. Motion seconded, voted All in Favor.
Meeting Minutes:
Ken motioned to approve the following minutes: 5/12/08, 5/19/08, 6/2/08, 6/9/08, 6/11/08, 6/23/08, 7/14/08, 7/25/08, 7/28/08, 1/30/09, 2/2/09, 2/9/09, 2/23/09, 3/9/09 with edits indicated.
Jim seconded the motion, voted All in Favor (Ken and Jim). (Previously reviewed and initialed by Roger Deal also.)
Warrant Review (7:00 PM):
Jim Stanton briefly reviewed Special Town Meeting Articles. FY’09 transfers to be made by the Town Accountant in Article 1. (List of transfers not available yet.)
Article 2 transfers $33,485 from Vocational Ed to the Elementary School to offset FY’10 budget. (Can purchase needs that won’t have to come out of FY’10 operating expenses.)
Annual Town Meeting:
§ Nos. 1 – 14: “Housekeeping articles,” to be taken as a group at the Town Meeting. Required to appear yearly.
§ Nos. 15, 16: Update salary schedules: 3% increase in grades from FY’09
§ No. 17: $215K transfer to Hillside receipts. Income receipts used to operate buildings.
§ No. 18: Marijuana bylaw: Prohibits use of marijuana in public places; allows police to enforce non-criminal use in public.
§ No. 19: Change Board of Assessors from elected to appointed.
· Ken: This is driven by many communities changing these important positions to appointed, qualified individuals.
· Carl Cravedi (Board of Assessors): The Board is against it. Anyone who wants to get on the Board and is qualified should be able to get on. We serve on the Board for the best interests of the taxpayers and feel it should be open to everyone. Mr. Cravedi stated he has nothing against the Selectmen. If there is a vacancy, the Board will recruit and interview the best person and present that to the Board for joint appointment. Under the present system, a person can run and his chances of getting elected are very good. However, if he wants to be appointed, and requests it, he might not get on the Board, since it’s at the discretion of the Board of Selectmen. We have no allegiance to any politicians; we serve the people and are totally impartial. It doesn’t matter who they know.
· Jim stated that many of those reasons are exactly why the Board wants to change to “appointment.” All of the Board of Assessors currently sitting has been appointed by the Board of Selectmen at some point when there was a need. Every year the Board of Selectmen reviews skill sets and considers qualifications and skills prior to appointing. This is what the Board is trying to ensure.
· Ken: the intent is to appoint only qualified candidates. For the position they are in, it’s a specific skill set and they must qualify.
· James Holyoak: The Assessors would no longer be accountable to the voters; they would be accountable to the Board of Selectmen. That’s a problem.
· Carl: Doesn’t see the need for it. Then why doesn’t the Board of Selectmen appoint all positions?
· Paul O’Connor: If an appointed position, they respresent the Selectmen. Regarding abatements, for example: if the Town is short of money, will Assessors feel pressure not to give as much of an abatement?
· Jim Stanton: We would expect fair treatment, regardless of elected or appointed, or the Assessors will have to answer to the Appellate Tax Board. We are really just formalizing the process by which they all got there to begin with.
· Carl: Then what happens in three years?
· Jim: When members are up for reappointment, they will be eligible for reappointment.
· Carl: If the Town votes, it’s residents, not just three people. Carl stated he is also against it because the Board of Selectmen can break up a Board and appoint someone else.
· Jim: Recalls history; he cannot remember when there has been more than one candidate for either election or appointment during a vacancy. Has not been the practice in the past of the Board.
§ No. 20: Board of Assessors has James Holyoak available to represent the Board of Assessors at the Appellate Tax Board. This article would allow him to represent the Board and be paid while saving taxpayers money so they don’t have to pay outside representation. Need permission to appoint as Special Employee to represent at the Appellate Tax Board.
· Stephen: this would have to be a recurring article each fiscal year.
· Dennis Pojani: Would compensation come out of Assessors’ budget?
· Jim: Yes; there is already a line item in the budget.
§ No. 21: Animal Control Bylaw: gives dog officer authority to fine and collect fees, etc.
§ Nos. 22 and 23: Fire Department: Transfer funds from ambulance receipts.
§ No. 24: Transfer from Ambulance Receipts $190K to replace current ambulance. Was due to be replaced about five years ago. Funds received from ambulance revenue.
§ No. 25: $20K from free cash to replace Fire Department’s Car 1 – Ford Explorer.
§ No. 26: $35K from free cash for fire apparatus and equipment; Town 5% matching portion of $700K grant for new fire truck.
§ Nos. 25 and 26: Must be read: “transfer from available funds in the treasury.” Will be amended at Town Meeting.
· Ken: If grant does not come through, will $35K be spent?
· Joe: It can only be spent on similar equipment.
§ No. 27: $155K from free cash for replacement of Highway Department front-end loader. Put out to bid for new or used loader; bids due Thursday, April 30 at 1:00 PM.
§ No. 28: Citizens’ Petition for Fuller Zoning:
· Richard Baker: The Planning Board held a public hearing and has a report. Brought forward by property owners (Rte. 140 across from old Mobil station). Presently zoned residential, they’d like it re-zoned to industrial to relocate a portion of RV sales/rental business. (Would need to be industrial zoned.) Also want to include specific dimensions for their use. The effect of the dimensional requirements would make the lot to be used only for the sale of recreational vehicles.
§ No one appeared at the hearing to express opposition. Fuller’s had a petition signed by all abutters except one; the Planning Board voted to approve the request.
§ Irene Symonds (429 School Street). Not abutters to the property, but within 300 feet. She feels it is spot zoning. She spoke to neighbors; neither she nor they received notice of a hearing. She is questioning if it should be on the Warrant. She has made her objection clear to the Planning Board; this is a residential area; industrial should not be allowed.
§ Stephen Madaus said there is no requirement for abutters’ notice for property owner requesting zoning change. A two-thirds vote is required (Ch. 40A) at Town Meeting. His opinion regarding spot zoning is that the court is less apt to find; not as easy to establish and courts tend to defer to the will of the Town Meeting two-thirds vote. This is just his opinion.
§ Having it on the Warrant is appropriate and legal.
§ Eric Brose asked what the justification for the Planning Board recommendation.
Rich Baker: There was no objection at the hearing; also, the Route 140 area is the best location for industrial and commercial zoning. It was advertised in the Worcester Telegram & Gazette legal section and also was posted at Town Hall Clerk’s office.
§ Ken asked Town Counsel if we could have a Town bylaw that would be more strict than State with abutter notification.
Stephen said yes. You would have to be careful when crafting the bylaw as to abutters being notified.
§ Nancy said it is difficult to have different rules from those of the State.
§ Rich Baker: When citizens come before the Planning Board they strongly recommend abutters are notified. Since it is a Citizens’ Petition, it falls upon them to explain it is best for the Town
· No. 29: Change to Regional School agreement.
§ Brian McDermott: Currently, apportionment accounts for students in seats. Change will include all students – choice out, charter, etc.
§ Also, to minimize the impact of large student enrollment changes, it averages out apportionment costs over a number of years.
§ The result would be a positive impact for Boylston and reduce apportionment costs because proportionally, Berlin has more students that choice-out and charter, etc.
§ Berlin voted to accept these changes last year.
· Nos. 30 and 31: Priority Development Site bylaw changes:
· Nancy: to be in compliance with 43D for expedited permitting at either Priority Development Site. A “housekeeping” effort to remind us of our responsibilities.
· Joe McGrath: Would wetlands be part of this?
· Nancy: No; applicant can apply for an extension
· Richard Baker: Held public hearing tonight and the Board recommended to vote approval. Her reminded that Turf Links site was permitted well within 180 days even prior to 43D requirement.
§ No. 32: Storm Drain bylaw: required to be compliant under Clean Water Act. Allows Town regulatory authority for any misuse of storm drains. Co-sponsored by Conservation Commission and Board of Health.
§ No. 33: Transfer $100K from free cash to reduce the tax rate.
· This provides flexibility to stay below levy limit
· State has not approved FY’10 and might reduce State aid further. This will allow us to compensate for additional State budget cuts.
· If not, we will reduce the tax rate.
§ No. 34: Transfer $300K to the Stabilization Fund. This requires a two-thirds vote at the Town Meeting. Have $600K in free cash prior to the Town Meeting.
§ No. 35: Budget: Amendment to be made on Town Meeting floor. Transfer from Highway Expense Account ($9,500) to pay for sand and salt. This line item should have been level-funded and was not.
Upon motion made and seconded, and voted All in Favor (Ken and Jim), the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lori Esposito
Administrative Assistant
| 
