BOARD OF SELECTMEN

MINUTES

MARCH 10, 2008

Present:          Hal White, Chairman

Steven Halterman

Ted Goodwin

Arnold Wilson

William Emrich

James Malloy, Town Administrator

The Chairman called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.

Economic Development Committee

Alexandra McNitt, Kevin MacConnell, Steve Dalberth, Mike Cimini and Thad Darger of the Economic Development Committee appeared before the Board.  M. Cimini said that the members of the EDC wanted to discuss their vision and mission with the Selectmen, and requested their input.  He suggested they discuss what resources are available for economic development, ecotourism and industry.  He said that the EDC has had several meetings, and have developed a mission statement.  He said that their vision is to support diversification and growth in the local economy via advocacy of retention, expansion and attraction of high-quality jobs while also seeking to balance such diversification and growth with a desire to preserve and expand the unique character of Sturbridge.  He indicated that the key factors for success include unmatched local market acumen, strong ties to local community and government and active advocacy of growth requirements.  He requested assistance to put it into practice.

W. Emrich asked whether the pursuit of ecotourism would be included in their vision.  M. Cimini said that it could strengthen economic health, and if it supports the diversity and growth of the economic base, that is good.  He said that they need a guide document.  He said that people ask them about what Sturbridge is going to become.  T. Darger said that it is very important that the Board of Selectmen and the EDC agree upon the vision.  M. Cimini said that they can’t market or sell the product unless they are sure what it is.  K. MacConnell expressed concern about the goal statement, and that the Board of Selectmen is looking to attract high quality jobs, which conflicts with developing tourism.  He noted that increased tourism and hotel revenues would increase the general fund.  He felt that the wording is narrow in scope.

T. Goodwin suggested taking a look at what is available in town.  He said that Sturbridge’s core business is tourism, and the core business is in good shape and brings in a lot of high quality jobs.  He noted that shops and hotels rely on a tourism industry, and it is necessary to shore up that industry.  M. Cimini agreed that tourism retains high quality jobs, and is a big portion of Sturbridge’s economic base.

J. Malloy said that in the Strategic Plan there was a statement that we should be seeking business development opportunities that are consistent with existing businesses in town.  H. White said that there should be employment opportunities for technical jobs, tourism, general commercial, medical technology, etc.  S. Halterman said that the Board gave a presentation to the Finance Committee a few days ago, outlining the wastewater needs of the Town that the Board has considered over a period of years.  He noted that Sturbridge is a tourist destination, and the Board is talking about expanding the wastewater treatment plant to support residential, retail, commercial and industrial interests.

M. Cimini said that there has been a decline in industrial development from 2001 – 2006.  He said that it is necessary to figure out what Sturbridge has to sell to make it attractive to people, as a tourism draw.  W. Emrich said that Old Sturbridge Village is the big drawing point in town, there are many hotels and restaurants, and there is the creation of bike trails, fishing and cross country skiing, camping and recreation areas.  He said that Sturbridge is ideal to developing ecotourism.  T. Goodwin mentioned Hyland Orchards and Brewery and the many unique shops and bed and breakfast places.  He recommended making improvements to the accessibility to the shops on Main Street, stating that parking is a problem.  M. Cimini agreed that there are parking and infrastructure issues to address, and noted that some changes can happen relatively quickly.  He stressed the need for some long term plans also.

K. MacConnell said that tourism needs the support of the Economic Development Committee, the Board of Selectmen and all of town government.  He noted that there are very few parcels in the tourism commercial zone that meet the zoning requirements of one acre with 125 feet of frontage; most are ¼ acre lots.  A.Wilson said that the Zoning Study Committee reviews the zoning bylaws, and last year they focused on Rt. 20 and it is still an open subject.  He said that after they finish with Rt. 20, they will go on to Rt. 131 and the rest of the town.  He said that they meet on the second Thursday of each month.

M. Cimini suggested narrowing the focus to Old Sturbridge Village, ecotourism, boutique retail, lodging and dining.  He said they should address the questions of why more boutique retail is not moving into town, why there is not a shop at Wells State Park, and why is light industry not moving here.  S. Halterman said that this situation is not unique to Sturbridge, and it will be an uphill battle.  A. McNitt said that other towns offer incentives to businesses to attract them to their towns.  M. Cimini said that there are a few things in play, such as the possibility of money from CMRPC.  He said that Senator Brewer has volunteered to help to get some study money to obtain data that they could proceed to use.

J. Malloy said that he had met with Jim Donahue of Old Sturbridge Village, and he indicated that he would contact A. McNitt.  J. Donahue had suggested meeting with all of the Selectmen from the surrounding towns to make a presentation on April 14th at Old Sturbridge Village.  They did a comparative analysis with North Conway, NH and compared it to how they market themselves.  M. Cimini said that it would be a great model for tourism.  He said that they did a comprehensive survey, then sent secret polls out to find out where the town is deficient in tourism, and to identify its strengths.

J. Malloy said that it is a matter of having a balanced economy to support the restaurants, hotels, etc.  He stressed the need of having something that supports the town year round.  He suggested examining how the community presents itself and how it looks to people when they come into town.  He recommended that there be an investment in infrastructure, with easy things such as underground power lines, enter and exit signs.  He recommended bringing Design Review standards up regarding the appearance of buildings.  He suggested that they discuss the kinds of studies that could be done, and once that has been accomplished, then talk to consultants.  He said that articles could be put together for Town Meeting, and it would be a matter of getting the Board of Selectmen and Finance Committee to support it.

T. Darger said that there used to be Peter Pan buses that came to Sturbridge, bringing people who came to town to shop; those services are gone.  He suggested doing something to entice tourists to come to Sturbridge.  He noted that there had been a proposed mini golf course, but it did not come to fruition.  He said that there should be more than a Heritage Festival that only happens once a year and something else besides Old Sturbridge Village that people associate with Sturbridge.

A.Wilson noted that trails have been expanding, with maps and kiosks available.  T. Darger said that there are not a lot of communities that have a place such as Wells State Park, and suggested that such things be developed further.

K. MacConnell wondered whether the residents in town realize what tourism brings to the town in terms of money, instead of simply a traffic issue.  He said that the residents need to be informed why and how tourism helps the town.  He noted that the hotel occupancy tax helps out, and that money buys quality of life in Sturbridge.  S. Halterman asked about how to inform the residents of the benefits of tourism, and commented that there have been a series of articles about shopping in unique shops.

K. MacConnell said that a lot of things were touched upon that should happen, such as the appearance of the town, its venues, ecotourism, OSV, but more venues are needed.  He noted that there are millions of people passing through Sturbridge; the trick is to get them to stay here and spend some money at hotels and restaurants.  M. Cimini suggested rallying community support and contacting Senator Brewer and Rep. Smola for their assistance in developing community marketing tools.

T. Goodwin suggested integrating web links and finding out ways to direct people to Sturbridge on the internet.  He said that the EDC needs to open up a dialogue with the businesses in town.  He suggested a review of the permitting process to make it smoother and faster, and look for ways to sell the town as a good place to do business.  He suggested doing some surveys and asking businesses that have left Sturbridge their reasons for leaving the town.  He suggested that they communicate to business owners what the town needs from their businesses.  He said that they should identify the empty businesses in town, keep track of what is missing and determine how to encourage the right businesses to come to town, with our long term and short term goals in mind.

T. Darger said that there is a perception with current business owners that Sturbridge is not the easiest place to do business, and it is necessary to change the perception and reality.  He noted that Massachusetts as a whole has been losing residents.  He recommended streamlining the permitting process by providing a step by step guide through the process for businesses in town.  K. MacConnell suggested that the town give businesses assistance in a friendly atmosphere.  M. Cimini suggested meeting with the hotel owners, restaurants and retail establishments.

S. Halterman said it would be good to know specifics on the hurdles facing businesses that are considering coming to Sturbridge.  A. McNitt pointed out that the sandwich bylaw is very restrictive, and said that it would be good for businesses to have those signs out more often.  She suggested the use of banners.

K. MacConnell said that it is worth noting that business difficulty in Sturbridge did not start with the current Board of Selectmen, it started about 10-15 years ago with decisions by the town.  S. Halterman suggested undoing any bad decisions that had been made previously.  A.Wilson suggested that the Board meet quarterly with the EDC; M. Cimini suggested June 9th for one hour for the next meeting between the EDC and BOS.  A.Wilson said he would like to see the EDC take a look at the economic impact on our local community of Governor Patrick’s casino plan if it goes through and if a casino is located in Palmer or Warren.  M. Cimini said that there is a lot of data on it.  M. Cimini said that the EDC will have another meeting before meeting with the BOS again.  H. White requested their comments in writing.

Wastewater Treatment Plant

J. Malloy said that the test results that Steve Woodard has been sending documents that the Bio-Mag process appears to be meeting and exceeding expectations, and with some fine tuning it is the right direction to take.  J. Malloy said that it looks like the investment will pay off.  G. Morse noted that hair has been clogging the shear and recycling hasn’t been where we would like to be.  He said that Ian Catlow gave a presentation to the Finance Committee.  H. White said that the outcome was a spreadsheet from J. Malloy, and the Board had looked at the numbers regarding the flow going to Southbridge and whether or not Sturbridge should have a redundant capacity.  He said that it the contract is not renewed, would Sturbridge be better off having in town capacity for the flow that is going to Southbridge.  J. Malloy said that they were the same according to Ian Catlow.

A.Wilson asked about the projected flow by gravity to Southbridge.  J. Malloy said that Ian will take a look at it.  He said that he would post the CWMP on line.

S. Halterman said that Tighe & Bond has 1.25 MGD for a design flow, and their numbers are close to the Board’s numbers.  He noted that Tighe and Bond added additional study areas that the Board had voted to not include and additional commercial/industrial and rounded the number up to 1,250,000 MGPD.  He said that in the presentation by J. Malloy and G. Morse, they used the study areas that the Board had selected; in the CWMP, Tighe & Bond actually increased the gallonage as if those areas were sewered and there was a buildout.  He said that Tighe & Bond is looking at a 40% increase in population in 20 years in terms of flows.  He encouraged the Board to look at the difference between what the Board had originally come up with and what J. Malloy and G. Morse had come up with.  The Board’s analysis came up with a flow of 965,000 GPD, which did not include a higher flow for residential for study area 10, or the increase in flow that Tighe & Bond had in other areas.  He noted that it is not far off from 1 million GPD.  He said that Tighe & Bond generated a flow number of 1.25 million, the number they feel is the maximum that can be discharged into the river, and they included a few more areas.  He asked whether the Board wanted to plan for a 40% increase, which would require 30,000 more gallons in the Wastewater Treatment Plant, and what they would add to the design flow estimate to take care of uncertainty.

S. Halterman noted that 690,000 is a particular statistical flow to establish a base design, and a maximum and minimum range of flows to size the plant; then they can project how to expand the plant for the amount of gallonage.  He said that the NPDES permits have changed the language, and the Board should ask why.  He said that the Board should consider how not to violate the NPDES federal permit.  He said that there should be some bylaws on how to allocate the flow and how they will be utilized.  He suggested that the Board look hard at the flows that will be needed over the next 20 years.  He said that looking into the flows generated and what Tighe & Bond put into their calculations, he is comfortable with around 1 million gallons of flow.  He recommended that the Board look at the flow and stop arguing about what percentage to put on top of that, and go to Town Meeting with 1 million gallons for flow and let the design engineers design the plant.

A.Wilson asked whether the Finance Committee had taken a position on Article 10: 1.1 MGPD.  H. White said that they have not.  A.Wilson recommended going to Town Meeting with 1.1; Tighe & Bond suggested 1.25 as a maximum permitted justifiable flow.  H. White suggested that the engineers design a plant to treat 1 MGPD, and have a buffer.

J. Malloy said that when the community reaches 80%, it will be necessary to either go through the CWMP process again or put a moratorium in place to remain in compliance.  T. Goodwin said that the plant is designed to promote growth and for failed septic systems, and expressed concern about having 65,000+ 32,000 on top of that for commericial/industrial.  S. Halterman said that 64,000 for residential and 65,000 for commercial/industrial were added to reserve that already exists.

A.Wilson noted that it was the consensus of the Board to go to Town Meeting for a permitted flow of 1.1.  He asked whether the Board should reconsider its vote on Article 10 for a permitted number and show how to meet the permit limits.

G. Morse said that industry standards are 20%, based on past design criteria.  T. Goodwin asked about the percentage of operational buffer, and to get an explanation from Ian Catlow on the difference between 950,000 and 1,000,000.  J. Malloy said he will find out about the permitted numbers and what the dollar amount would be.  He said that Ian Catlow indicated that he would design the plant for a maximum monthly flow.  G. Morse said that based on the history of this town, it has been growing at a rate of 2.6% a year over the last 40 years.  H. White suggested being consistent between the School Building Committee’s school population projections and the WWTP.  A.Wilson said the school population projections were based on a number of factors, school age children, etc.; the WWTP is based on how many people are in this town, school age children or not.  He said that they are not growing in parallel.  S. Halterman said that the Board is 30,000 gallons short on its estimate; he suggested the Board consider 3% for uncertainty for 1,025,000 GPD.

Budget

#11451-51120          Finance Director Dept. Head Salary

MOTION:       That the Finance Director’s salary be set at $71,028, by A.Wilson.

2nd:     S. Halterman

Vote:  All in favor.

It was the consensus of the Board to hold action on the Town Clerk Salaries/Wages for the Assistant Town Clerk position pending input from the Finance Committee.

#12201-51300          Fire Dept. Overtime Expense

MOTION:       To approve $101,158 for the Fire Department Overtime Expense, by A.Wilson.

2nd:     W. Emrich

Vote:  All in favor.

#13002-53000          Education – Burgess Elementary School

MOTION:       To approve $8,542,853 for the Burgess Elementary School, by A.Wilson.

2nd:     W. Emrich

Vote:  All in favor.

#13002-53200          Education – Tantasqua Town Share

MOTION:       To approve $5,347,457 for the Tantasqua Town Share, by S. Halterman.

2nd:     T. Goodwin

Vote:  All in favor.

#13002-53210          Tantasqua Transportation Assessment

MOTION:       To approve $63,940 for the Tantasqua Transportation Assessment, by S. Halterman.

2nd:     T. Goodwin

Vote:  All in favor.

#13002-53220          Tantasqua School Committee

MOTION:       To approve $0 for the Tantasqua School Committee, by T. Goodwin.

2nd:     S. Halterman

Vote:  All in favor.

#13002-53215          Tantasqua Debt Assessment

MOTION:       To approve $487,535 for the Tantasqua Debt Assessment, by T. Goodwin.

2nd:     S. Halterman

Vote:  All in favor.

#14212-52400          Town Road Maintenance Repairs & Maintenance

MOTION:       To approve $180,100 for Repairs and Maintenance, by A.Wilson.

2nd:     S. Halterman

Vote:  All in favor.

#14212-52430          Road Construction

MOTION:       To approve $150,000 for Road Construction, by A.Wilson.

2nd:     S. Halterman

Vote:  All in favor.

#14231-51300          Snow & Ice Control Overtime

MOTION:       To approve $20,000 for Overtime, by A.Wilson.

2nd:     S. Halterman

Vote:  All in favor.

#14232-52000          Snow & Ice Control Purchase of Services

MOTION:       To approve $40,000 for Purchase of Services, by A.Wilson.

2nd:     S. Halterman

Vote:  All in favor.

#14232-54000          Snow & Ice Control Supplies

MOTION:       To approve $60,000 for Supplies, by A.Wilson.

2nd:     T. Goodwin

Vote:  All in favor.

#15431-51120          Veterans’ Services Dept. Head Salary

MOTION:       To approve $3,002 for the Dept. Head Salary, by T. Goodwin.

2nd:     S. Halterman

Vote:  All in favor.

#15432-52000          Veterans’ Services Purchase of Services

MOTION:       To approve $150.00 for Purchase of Services, by A.Wilson.

2nd:     W. Emrich

Vote:  All in favor.

#15432-54000          Veterans’ Services Supplies

MOTION:       To approve $100.00 for Supplies, by A.Wilson.

2nd:     S. Halterman

Vote:  All in favor.

#15432-57000          Veterans’ Services Other Charges

MOTION:       To approve $325.00 for Other Charges, by S. Halterman.

2nd:     T. Goodwin

Vote:  All in favor.

#15432-57700          Veterans’ Services Veterans’ Benefits

MOTION:       To approve $5,000 for Veterans’ Benefits, by A.Wilson.

2nd:     T. Goodwin

Vote:  All in favor.

#15102-57000          Board of Health Other Charges

MOTION:       To reconsider the vote on Other Charges, by A.Wilson.

2nd:     S. Halterman

Vote:  All in favor.

MOTION:       To approve $1500 for Other Charges, by A.Wilson.

2nd:     T. Goodwin

Vote:  All in favor.

Special Town Meeting Warrant

MOTION:       That the Board vote to reopen the Special Town Meeting Warrant for April 28th, by A.Wilson.

2nd:     S. Halterman

Vote:  All in favor.

Article 68:     Lauren Lane Acceptance

MOTION:       To place and support Article 68, by A.Wilson.

2nd:     T. Goodwin

Vote:  All in favor.

Article 69:     Town Counsel

MOTION:       To recommend $20,000 for the Town Counsel Account, by A.Wilson.

2nd:     T. Goodwin

Vote:  All in favor.

MOTION:       To close the Warrant for the Special Town Meeting, by S. Halterman.

2nd:     W. Emrich

Vote:  All in favor.

Annual Town Meeting

Article 14:     Burgess Elementary School Renovation - $40.6M

MOTION:       To support Article 14, by W. Emrich.

2nd:     T. Goodwin

Vote:  Four in favor; A.Wilson opposed.

Article 15:     Burgess Elementary School Renovation - $17.9M

MOTION:       To take no action on Article 15, by T. Goodwin.

2nd:     S. Halterman

Vote:  Four in favor; A.Wilson opposed.

J. Malloy said that Dan Durgin, Superintendent had suggested changing the wording in order to get funding through the SBA; J. Malloy will correct the wording as appropriate.  It was the consensus of the Board to agree with that.

Article 29:     Acceptance of MGL Ch. 148, §26H

MOTION:       To support Article 29, by S. Halterman.

2nd:     T. Goodwin

Vote:  All in favor.

Article 32:     Acceptance of MGL Ch. 148, §26G

MOTION:       To support Article 32, by S. Halterman.

2nd:     W. Emrich

Vote:  All in favor.

Article 40:     Sturbridge Area Tourist Association

MOTION:       To support $88,052 for Article 40, by A.Wilson.

2nd:     W. Emrich

Vote:  All in favor.

Article 3:       Utilization of Free Cash

MOTION:       To support $250,000 for Article 3, by A.Wilson.

2nd:     T. Goodwin

Vote:  All in favor.

MOTION:       To adjourn, by A.Wilson.

2nd:     S. Halterman

Vote:  All in favor.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:47 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Judy Knowles

_______________________________

BOS Clerk                                         Date