Town of Monson, MA - Meeting of 2003-02/25

Meeting of 2003-02/25

MONSON BOARD OF SELECTMEN

FEBRUARY 25, 2003

The regular meeting of the Board of Selectmen convened at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room at 110 Main Street. In attendance were Edward S. Harrison and Richard E. Guertin. James R. Manning was absent due to military service. Also present were the Town Administrator and the Media. Town Counsel did not attend this meeting.

Mr. Guertin made a motion to accept the meeting minutes of February 11, 2003. Mr. Harrison seconded and it was so VOTED.

A hearing commenced at 7:05 p.m. for pole petition #7737 – Zuell Hill Road – for the installation of one new pole. Mr. Guertin read the petition into the record. There was no public comment or input. The Highway and Water/Sewer Departments had expressed no objection to the pole location. Mr. Guertin made a motion to approve the petition as presented. Mr. Harrison seconded and it was so VOTED.

Ronald Garvan, d/b/a Garv’s Garden Mart was scheduled to meet with the Board of Selectmen regarding his appeal of a decision made by the Zoning Enforcement Officer, Chip Lapointe. Ms. Neggers said they are seeking a continuance on this until the full Board of Selectmen can be present, as a vote from the full Board is required in order to overturn the decision of the Zoning Enforcement Officer. The Board of Selectmen agreed to continue this appeal at a future meeting.

Mary Monahan-Burgess of Guertin Elkerton and Associates, Inc. and John Morrell, the Highway Surveyor approached the Board of Selectmen regarding the Storm Water Assessment Compliance. Mr. Morrell introduced Ms. Monahan-Burgess stating she is the consultant hired to put the town in compliance with the new EPA regulations that are coming into existence on March 10^th of this year. Ms. Monahan-Burgess explained this is an EPA regulation that mandates small municipals (260 municipals have been identified in the Commonwealth) to develop comprehensive Storm Water Management Programs. Along with this program comes a general permit which a municipal must apply for by March 10, 2003. Ms. Monahan-Burgess explained the March 10^th date is somewhat shaky right now, as the EPA has not yet released the application form to be filed on March 10, 2003, however she is anticipating the application will be forthcoming. Ms. Monahan-Burgess said there is a draft form, which she has been working with, but she is also anticipating the EPA will probably delay the application submission date for about a month (she explained that is her talking and not the EPA). In the mean time, what the municipals need to do is to look at the six minimum measures which are elements of this five year program, determine what level of compliance the town already has with some of the measurable goals the EPA has established and from that level of compliance develop a five year plan to implement those missing measurable goals. What Guertin Elkerton and Associates, Inc. came into town about six weeks ago and did a detailed interview with Mr. Morrell, members of the Conservation Commission and a few others who attended this meeting. They gathered some data in regards to what is currently happening in Monson with respect to these measurable goals. They then utilized other resources out there from EOEA, DEP and the Division of Fish and Wildlife to find out what other programs Monson may have going on in our community that they might know of and that we aren’t necessarily aware of. Ms. Monahan-Burgess explained Monson could claim credit through this program. What Guertin Elkerton and Associates, Inc. have done is complied this report, which the Board of Selectmen were handed a copy of at the beginning of this meeting. This report is written in such a way the lay person can pick it up at any point in time. It is a doctoral on what the program is, so you understand what it is the EPA is looking for and it then gives you, based on each measurable goal, the town’s level of compliance. It also lists some specific recommendations from them as to what the town can do over the five years of the permit program to get the town into compliance. Ms. Monahan-Burgess went through the six minimum measures, as the town will have to take it from here and at some point bring others into this discussion. The program is so comprehensive in nature; the Board of Selectmen will need Town Counsel at some point to look at mandated by-laws. The Board of Health will have to be brought in as well as the Planning Board. Some decisions will have to be made as to who will have the authority to do inspections and compliance inspections in regards to some of the mandated by-laws the town will need to adapt.

In reviewing the six minimal measures, Ms. Monahan-Burgess stated the first two are regarding public education and outreach. This is where the town can claim credits for activities already going on, such as Boy Scout Troops doing a pond clean up. This could then be listed as one of the town’s measurable goals and activities. The program requires the town to have an awareness of what is going on out there.

Minimum measure number three is illicit discharge detection and elimination. This is probably the one that has a price tag attached to it (she stated it doesn’t have to be a large price tag). The EPA figures how can you manage your storm water system if you don’t know where it is and what condition it is in. Ms. Monahan-Burgess explained most storm water systems were developed as a result of neighborhood flooding or an individual problem down the street as opposed to your drinking water and wastewater. The EPA is requiring within the five years of the town’s permit, that the municipal minimally map all their outfalls and receiving bodies of water. The town can use the Assessors maps and street maps to do this. Some communities are using this as an opportunity to seek additional funding either from local sources or grants funding to GIS map the system. Ms. Monahan-Burgess reiterated there are five years to implement this. One of the recommendations she will get back to the town on would be to probably spread this portion of the measurable goal over the five years of our permit allowing the town to cut the costs up five different ways.

Mr. Guertin said the town is working on a Master Plan and already have a GIS map that was created of all the water and asked if this kind of map would be sufficient on this. Ms. Monahan-Burgess responded the town may have the receiving bodies of water on this, but now the town needs to find the outfalls. However this is a start. What has been done in a number of communities is, another component of minimum measure number three is to do a system inspection for dry weather flow. The town will need to find the outfalls and determine if you have dry weather flows and thus follow them up the line to see what might be happening in systems in your town.

Mr. Harrison asked if we have any of these storm drains in Monson. Mr. Morrell responded we have a lot of them. Ms. Monahan-Burgess said a couple of communities have already begun the process of system inspection at the outfalls. Even though some of these towns may not have GIS mapping in place, it is not any extra effort to go out there with the GPS backpack and GPS not that location as you already have a body of water there. This information can then be downloaded on a base map if you have one, either the USGS base map or the town can hold onto it until the town does a full GIS map.

Mr. Harrison asked Ms. Monahan-Burgess if she was talking about a constructed system or what happens naturally, as to the outfall. Ms. Monahan-Burgess said it could be a ditch, it doesn’t have to be a pipe, just anything that carries storm water. The EPA and the DEP consider a ditch, a swale and even roadways conveyances of storm water. An outfall is where that water ultimately discharges into a stream, brook, field or a wetland.

Mr. Guertin asked if those types of definitions are listed in the report the Board of Selectmen had before them. Ms. Monahan-Burgess responded yes. Some description is given in the narrative for minimum measures number three. Guertin Elkerton and Associates, Inc. have taken this text directly from the EPA and DEP literature so as to get as inclusive as they were in that language.

Mr. Harrison questioned what constitutes an illicit discharge? Ms. Monahan-Burgess said it could be floor drains in commercial buildings or old septic systems that might be discharging into storm drains. The illicit discharge would be where you have things connected to your storm drain system that shouldn’t be, that instead should be connected to your sewer drain system which goes to your waste water treatment facility. In most towns, they find those cross connections occur where the storm drains in commercial buildings on occasion somehow got mixed up where what should be going through a septic system ends up going through a storm drain, or you might have someone just dumping something on the side of the road, or someone does an oil change on their vehicle and these are the types of things to look for. Ms. Monahan-Burgess said a lot of people think the storm drains actually go to the waste water treatment plant and don’t realize they are discharging into the closest body of water without any treatment at all.

Mr. Guertin asked in terms of town responsibility, the discharge problem talked about, is this primarily under the privy of Conservation? Ms. Monahan-Burgess said no. Conservation is going to be responsible for the area that is within their buffer zones. The town has to take responsibility for this now because the EPA is mandating that a municipal does that. As to just who in the town is responsible is an internal decision that needs to be made. In some communities, they have full time Conservation agents that become the inspector and guardians of this type of by-law, and in other towns it is the Building Inspector. EPA is silent as to who in the community is responsible. Mr. Guertin asked if the EPA comes in periodically to inspect. Ms. Monahan-Burgess said this is an EPA regulation, but the DEP has taken on a partnering role with the EPA and they have every intent of showing up on March 11^th, beginning with the basin inspection site. Fortunately, Monson is in the first year of the cycle so Monson can almost be assured our storm water management program will be reviewed by the DEP over the next twelve months as the DEP is willing to take on the role of police officer for any EPA program. Ms. Monahan-Burgess added this is a program, Monson doesn’t necessarily have to be in the field with on March 11^th. What they are going to want to see is the fact that Monson has determined the level of compliance and put together a plan for getting into compliance over the five years of the permit.

Numbers four and five refer to the fact the EPA has always mandated construction activities that disturb five acres or more. What is happening now is the threshold has been dropped to one acre or more for a total land disturbance, and this requires a general permit. Ms. Monahan-Burgess explained in the past, the town wouldn’t necessarily be aware of the fact that you had a contractor out there with a general permit from the EPA, because they are two separate entities. EPA had delegated down to the town now the requirement to actually monitor those permits. So minimum measure four and five address the need for the town to adapt local regulations and by-laws giving the town the authority to monitor construction activities and that includes monitoring during as well as after construction. Ms. Monahan-Burgess said the DEP has developed model by-law language in consultation with the Attorney Generals Office, again for some strange reason, they are not letting this information out yet. Once this information becomes available (and she said she has given the Board of Selectmen the DEP web site) they do intend to post this once they get permission to make it public. She also intends to follow up with all their clients and she will put it in the mail to the Board of Selectmen as well. The model language does exist and the town does have five years to adapt that by-law. This doesn’t have to happen by March 11^th, but the town does need to have a plan of addressing it and making it happen over the five years.

Minimum measure number six is the public works operation. This covers how the town manages storm water run off from its streets, fields and other areas of the town it has jurisdiction over. It generally requires developing a written operation and maintenance plan. Most towns now do both of them. They know they are going to go out there every year and sweep the streets and they also know exactly what schedule they are going to follow. This program is requiring that to be written down and it requires them to adapt some best management practices in doing that. Ms. Monahan-Burgess stated what she is finding is this is not going to be a major change in how a public works operation does their thing, its just going to require them to document it more on what they have done.

Section seven refers to the draft permit that has been out there. The DEP and EPA are requiring the municipal to acknowledge that storm water doesn’t impact critical habitat, doesn’t impact historical places on the National Register and it doesn’t impact endangered species. Ms. Monahan-Burgess said Guertin Elkerton and Associates, Inc. has already done that research for Monson. The attitude from the EPA and DEP to date, hopefully it’s not going to change, is that unless they can prove otherwise, there is going to be an assumption that endangered species and/or critical habitats are not being impacted by storm water unless someone proves different. They have identified all the endangered species and critical habitat that are noted to be in Monson and given that listing to the Board of Selectmen. The other thing the program requires is if Monson has any impaired bodies of water, otherwise known as 303D bodies of water. Those are waters listed by the DEP as having a pollutant problem. These waters are either no longer fishable or swimable and they can no longer be used as they were historically intended due to pollutants. Ms. Monahan-Burgess said Monson doesn’t have any. Mr. Harrison stated this is comforting to know. Ms. Monahan-Burgess said if Monson did have waters that were polluted, our program would need to address those know pollutants in those bodies of water. Ms. Neggers asked how you would know that without testing the water. Ms. Monahan-Burgess stated the DEP is testing. Several hundred bodies of water are listed on the DEP web site under 303D Bodies of Water. Not all of the bodies of water in the Commonwealth have been tested yet. They are still doing this and following up on those bodies of water that are listed as impaired with establishing total maximum daily limits. This means now they want to control the actual amount of pollutant going into the water. Since Monson isn’t on the 303D list, we don’t have to worry about the TNDL’s at this point. The other requirement that the DEP and the EPA have introduced in the last couple of months is that your storm water management program is recognizing drinking water protection, which isn’t that difficult. There is a map on the drinking water protection areas in the back section of the report as well as a map on Monson’s urbanized areas which is the area that is regulated, and they are almost the same. So Monson is already there.

From a cost perspective, if the town is going to start doing our system inspection and mapping, the regulations require you to only do that within the urbanized areas and funding constraints would limit our level of effort to that urbanized area. However, we would have to follow our way out of it if we were to find any illicit and illegal discharges, even if they are occurring outside the urbanized area but discharging into it. It would still be a problem under this program.

Mr. Harrison asked about salt for melting icy roads being a pollutant. Ms. Monahan-Burgess said salt isn’t necessarily a pollutant. What they ask is that the Highway Department develop a plan, probably for the amount of salt and sand mix. This would be a program so they have control over how much is out there. Certain areas, due to drinking water protection, may have established some salt related bands. For the most part, sanding and salting the road is not a problem. However, environmentalist may not agree. But under this program, it is not something that needs to re restricted. Under this program sand and salt are not required to be reduced, eliminated or even certain levels or thresholds met. This is one of the good things about this program, is the fact that it doesn’t establish thresholds. The EPA has stated in the past that just the change in procedures that this program is going to require in and of itself should positively impact water quality.

Ms. Neggers asked how this works as far as the State Highway and the portions that are under the jurisdiction of the Mass. Highway Department. Ms. Monahan-Burgess said portions that are under Mass. Highway are their problem not the towns. At the seminars there has been dialog, and we might want to continue that dialog over, but it may be a state highway, but it is town storm water that is actually feeding into those ditches and/or storm water conveyances. Ms. Monahan-Burgess said she thinks there is going to be a joint effort between Mass. Highway and the local municipality. The town could then go back to the state and have regulatory authority and say to the state that we are finding a problem here.

Mr. Guertin asked if the State Highway had to conform to this as well. Ms. Monahan-Burgess said she has heard they are actually challenging their portion of this report and she isn’t sure how this is going to end up.

Mr. Guertin said in looking through the report, it looks like this is going to cost the town a lot of money, as far as inspections and setting up a regulatory review. Ms. Monahan-Burgess responded these are all recommendations. What she has tried to do is to make initial recommendations under each section specific to things we already have going on in the community. The only things we have to do are the mapping and the system inspection. The rest, when developing the public education program, will be specific to what does Monson have available for resources and what are Monson’s problems. Jenny Scarlett and Linda DaMenski from the DEP will be out here asking to see our schedule as to monitoring the appropriate development for the public education program.

Section eight has a compliance tracking. There is a CD included containing this. These are appropriate minimum measurable goals for each of these control measures. The town is going to define them more clearly. Under the Creative Public Education Outreach Plan, one of the minimum measures she has written about in her report is the Chicopee River Watershed Councils offer to support local educators and bringing materials to the schools regarding water quality education. The town might list for year one, contact the Chicopee River Watershed Association about establishing an education program in the school. This is a measurable goal as it is an effort on somebody’s’ part as it’s someone’s’ responsibility. There is probably very little cost associated with this. Any cost would be negotiated between the Chicopee River Watershed and the school and would probably be an exchange of data and information for the cost of printing materials that they have established for handing out. There is a level of effort involved here and people are going to have to commit some time to this. The disk given to Ms. Neggers has approximately 300 handouts downloaded from the EPA that are organized by activities such as lawn maintenance activities, business activities, educational activities in the school, etc. If someone utilizing that disk and that information copied down whatever appropriate brochures might be needed for a particular event and distributed them, you would now have met another measurable goal. Ms. Monahan-Burgess said she just wanted to mention that in Easthampton, they had a local Boy Scout who was looking to earn his Eagle Scout award. He and his troop put on a program regarding the threat to ponds in which they took some of those brochures that were for lawn maintenance activities and on that given day handed them out by distributing them to the homes within that immediate watershed. Using the resources of the Chicopee River Watershed Council, they got some storm drain stenciling advice, raised the money to purchase the paint and stenciled the storm drains. A local restaurant donated drinking water bottles that commemorated the day and they had an audience because they tagged onto another event. Ms. Neggers asked if you only had to do this once or are they going to want to see this on an occurring basis? Ms. Monahan-Burgess said they are going to want to see this as on going. Ms. Neggers stated some Eagle Scouts have actually done some river and brook clean-ups in town. Ms. Monahan-Burgess stated this would come under minimum control measure number two, which asks for participation by the public in this program. Ms. Neggers suggested an adopt a storm drain program. Ms. Monahan-Burgess stated this has been done in the Town of Milbury by a 7^th grade class. Every 7^th grade class inherits these two storm drains and the Town Manager states these kids know more about these two storm drains, they even go out there to monitor them.

Mr. Guertin said he agrees with a point made earlier by Mr. Harrison that there has got to be things in these steps i.e. the educational pieces, where every town is going to have similar needs and it is almost like you could use exactly the same thing for every town. Ms. Monahan-Burgess stated he is right and as she was putting this information together she found an awful lot of resources out there that the state had in place that were probably under utilized. This list included the Watershed Incentive and the Watershed Basin teams, which two weeks ago were shut down. As the Board of Selectmen are being asked to move a program forward, the resources that were out there to help them have been shut down. From her conversations with the DEP, there is a lot of information out there. She will clarify this for the Board of Selectmen once the dust settles, as well as a lot of things the towns can use out there. No one can tell her where that information is going now.

Mr. Guertin asked what happens to the town if they don’t comply, given the revenue picture and if the town just doesn’t have the money or the resources to do this at this particular point in time? Ms. Monahan-Burgess stated she couldn’t speak for what the EPA or the DEP are going to do. They like to threaten and have indicated a fine would be imposed. She stated another consulting firm from another state stated in their brochure the fine would be $27,000.00 per day. However, Ms. Monahan-Burgess has no idea where this figure came from. She said for year one, Monson is 99% there. We have the report and we just need to fill in a couple of blanks to make them up-close and personal. She will talk about stream clean up and make that our measurable goal for minimum measure number two. For the drinking water protection, one of the measurable goals she brings up is to apply for funding from the Source Water Protection Grant Program. Monson doesn’t have to do anything, just apply for the grant.

Mr. Guertin said his concern is for the long-term basis. He explained, initially you can sit down and say who is going to get this and assign a responsibility to a variety of people and groups in the town. On an on going basis in the months and years ahead, who is over seeing this since the Selectmen and people on town committees come and go and where does this overseeing responsibility rest? Ms. Monahan-Burgess stated she is a former Town Administrator and DPW Director so she knows exactly where Mr. Guertin’s fears are coming from. She said she wished she could give him the answers, but this is such a loosey goosey type of regulation, they didn’t get specific. They left it up to the town to make some of these decisions. Depending on the size of the community and the resources available, some of the larger towns have full-time engineers and this isn’t that big of a problem. When you get to the smaller communities that don’t have those resources or those resources are already stretched out on other things, it is a different problem and she doesn’t know what the answer is. Mr. Morrell added some of the towns right around here have full time engineers and they are hiring consultants to do this. Ms. Neggers said this is a local responsibility to implement and make it happen. The consultant is merely telling you what Ms. Monahan-Burgess has said regarding the specifics of getting this into place. Ms. Monahan-Burgess said she will help us get through that and also when it comes to the field work, doing the grant applications or making some of these things happen. But, we are still going to want to consider local resources whom we are already paying for or hiring a consultant to make it happen. Ms. Neggers added this is a daily operation. Ms. Monahan-Burgess said we could meet a measurable goal by just posting some best management practices on the Town’s web site.

When it comes to numbers four and five, the by-laws, Monson is at a standstill anyway because the DEP hasn’t distributed those model by-laws. Ms. Monahan-Burgess said it is going to take several discussions internally, public hearings and we are going to want Town Counsel involved because those by-laws are going to have some far ranging ramifications. A measurable goal could be to present the by-law at the Town Meeting in the year 2003. The Town Meeting might not accept it so you still have that same measurable goal in 2004 when it is reintroduced. She has tried at the end of each section; to have specific recommendations to programs the town already has in place and has access to. She also stated what Monson needs to be aware of now is that the March 10^th deadline is coming. Before March 10^th, Ms. Monahan-Burgess said she would get back with the actual permit if it exists. In the meantime, Ms. Neggers or someone will need to sit down and come up with an initial sketch; this can be up-dated and modified on April 3^rdif anyone wants to change it. Ms. Monahan-Burgess said she has spoken with the DEP about the inability of most towns to meet the deadline date of March 10^th, and their response to her was to submit something. Mr. Guertin said he will talk with Ms. Neggers about this and Ms. Monahan-Burgess said she would be in touch with Ms. Neggers as well.

The multi-sector general permit is another requirement from the EPA, which requires vehicle maintenance facilities to apply for a general permit by March 10, 2003 for their operations. This was challenged in court and the courts decided municipal vehicle operations are clearly not subject to this regulation. The EPA has made the statement to never mind this regulation, however, Ms. Monahan-Burgess said they are reconsidering classifying vehicle maintenance activities as significant contributors to storm water pollution. Ms. Monahan-Burgess stated this procedure would take a couple of months. If they are successful in doing that, then the work that a number of towns have already completed (including Monson) in support of this March 10^th deadline, will then need to be submitted at that point. This probably won’t happen until the summer schedule. This would include the operation of the Highway garage as a facility due to the sand and salt storage, the fuel, washing vehicles, etc. Mr. Harrison asked if this includes car dealerships as well? Ms. Monahan-Burgess stated the private side has been subject to this permit for the last fifteen years. They thought phase two of the regulation removed the exemption from the municipal vehicle operation. The court said, currently Municipalities are temporarily exempt. The EPA has stated they are going to review this and find another way of classifying municipalities as an entity subject to the permit. In the meantime, a storm water pollution prevention plan has been done for the Monson Highway facility with the intent of filing this on the March 10^th deadline. Ms. Monahan-Burgess stated the March 10^th deadline on this program has now been put off probably for several months, but this is ready when it is needed. Ms. Neggers said a lot of this was done when a floor drain was installed and the leaking gas tanks were removed along with all the earth removal at the Highway facility. Mr. Guertin added also some underground storage tanks were removed up at the school.

The next item on the agenda was to appoint Todd Mongeon as a Reserve/Special Police Officer. Ms. Neggers read a memo from Police Chief McKenzie into the record respectfully requesting the appointment of Auxiliary Officer Todd Mongeon to be appointed as a Reserve/Special Police Officer. Chief McKenzie stated Officer Mongeon has satisfied all the minimum requirements for this position and that he had received a positive evaluation from Sargent Shuemaker, the departments Training Officer regarding Officer Mongeon’s performance. This appointment would be effective immediately through June 30, 2003.

Mr. Guertin made a motion to appoint Todd Mongeon as a Reserve/Special Police Officer effective immediately through June 30, 2003. Mr. Harrison seconded and it was so VOTED.

Ms. Neggers said Chief McKenzie extends his thanks and his regrets that he was unable to attend this meeting due to a prior commitment.

Mr. Guertin stated at last nights Finance Committee meeting, the Finance Committee did approve an additional $50,000.00 for the Snow and Ice deficit spending.

Mr. Guertin made a motion to approve an additional $50,000.00 for the Snow and Ice removal. Mr. Harrison seconded and it was so VOTED.

Ms. Neggers said subsequent to the action taken last night, she met with Mr. Morrell briefly this morning and that action was taken based on the bills and payroll that have been sent up to the Accounting Office. The Highway Department hasn’t received all of the bills from last week’s storm and this amount will be insufficient to pay all the bills the town has incurred. Roughly speaking, because all the bills aren’t in, if the Board of Selectmen approved an additional $50,000.00 beyond that $50,000.00 just approved, this would leave approximately $35,000.00 to $40,000.00 to the good to get the town through however long it takes.

Mr. Guertin made a motion to approve an additional $50,000.00 for Snow and Ice removal subject to review by the Finance Committee for their approval as well. Mr. Harrison seconded and it was so VOTED.

The last item on the agenda was the MIIA Loss Control Credit Incentive. Ms. Neggers stated the Massachusetts Interlocal Insurance Association has approached some of their member communities regarding an interest in participating in a Loss Control Credit Program whereby you have to agree to renew with them for next year and there are various steps that are optional. By doing so, the town can receive a premium credit. You can pick and choose which ones you can do and you receive percentages anywhere from a 1% to a 1.5% reduction by taking these measures. This particular program, when Ms. Neggers said she met with our Loss Control Representative, was the Workers Compensation Policy. It is a very low effort for a high return which can be obtained by attending free Workers Compensation seminars offered by MIIA, by holding at least one free training session locally (particularly in the Highway and Water/Sewer Departments where these have been held regularly anyway), report at least 80% claims via the 1-800 reporting line and handle the reports for the lost time claims. If the town does these four things, the town will receive the 1.5% premium credit upon renewal.

The loss control visit recommendations are three or four times a year a loss control representative comes out to tour anyone of the town’s facilities at random and makes recommendations. The town would have to respond in writing on the status of these recommendations. Ms. Neggers stated this is something the town has improved our compliance with and actually by working in a pro-active way we have been able to reduce the amount of recommendations by anticipating these measures and by just maintaining a safe work place.

Mr. Guertin asked if the 8% potential saving referred to be very hard to achieve. Ms. Neggers said it is very unlikely we would achieve it all because a lot of it is based on your loss ratios and your experience and that is very uncertain. The town has maintained a pretty good loss ratio for a number of years. The other portion the representative went over specifically with Ms. Neggers was under the School Board liability. That would be to adopt certain employment practices and policies. There are also a set of four 12 minute tapes that all elected and appointed officials would need to review (not all four tapes for everyone) on how to hold a public meeting, employment practices and things like that. This is a brand new program and it is a good faith effort. Accepting this proposal means the town must stay with MIIA for one year.

Mr. Guertin made a motion the Town of Monson adopt the Massachusetts Interlocal Insurance Association Loss Control Credit Program. Mr. Harrison seconded and it was so VOTED.

In other business to come before the Board Mr. Guertin stated at the Finance Committee meeting last night the question was raised as to when the Selectmen will be setting the date for the Annual Town Meeting. He responded he wasn’t sure, as this has not been officially discussed. Ms. Neggers said the Annual Town Meeting is set by by-laws making it the second Monday in May. Last year the Annual Town Meeting was postponed. Mr. Guertin said the reason the Finance Committee was asking is due to the fact they are scheduling meetings with department heads and trying to get through that process. Mr. Harrison said the primary reason the meeting was put off last year was due to the fact the state didn’t have any numbers and wondered if we are in a better position with the state this year. Ms. Neggers said it was postponed due to two things last year hoping for better numbers and the numbers they ended up using offered no benefit in delaying the meeting. This year we don’t have in place the Constitutional mandate that the Legislature had to conclude the budget process by July 31^st due to the election. This year could be very similar to the process two years ago when the town didn’t get numbers until November. Ms. Neggers said she feels it too premature to say right now, but she doesn’t feel we are going to have the numbers and we are going to have to make our best effort to go forward with the information we have with some kind of understanding that we may have to go back to change things. Which is what the town has done the last town years. As it stands right now, Ms. Neggers stated she would hold the Annual Town Meeting on the prescribed date, as she sees no benefit to putting it off, this would just extend the uncertainty for people. Mr. Harrison said at this juncture to adhere to the original schedule, which is the second Monday in May. Then if there is additional information from Boston in the future that warrants putting it off by another month, they could always do that, unless there is a clear benefit to postponing the Annual Town Meeting now which at this point they don’t foresee.

Correspondence was read and completed.

At 8:10 p.m., Mr. Guertin made a motion to adjourn the meeting from open session to go into executive session to discuss litigation and collective bargaining, not to return to open session. Mr. Harrison seconded and it was so VOTED.

________________________________

James R. Manning, Clerk