BOARD OF SELECTMEN

MINUTES

JANUARY 4, 2010

Present:          Mary Blanchard, Chairman

Scott Garieri

Ted Goodwin

Thomas Creamer

Hal White

Michael Racicot, Town Administrator

The Chairman called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. following the Pledge of Allegiance.

Approval of Minutes

MOTION:       To accept the minutes of December 21, 2009 as amended, by T. Creamer.

2nd:     H. White

Vote:  All in favor.

It was the consensus of the Board that a brief summary of the December 14, 2009 minutes would be sufficient.

Sandra Gibson-Quigley – Master Plan Update

Sandra Gibson-Quigley appeared before the Board to provide an update on the Master Plan.  She said that members of the Master Plan Steering Committee have been reaching out to other boards.  She noted that the public forum to discuss the 2010 Master Plan Update project was well attended.  After a presentation on Sturbridge land use and demographic data, a Strengths, Challenges, Opportunities and Threats (SCOT) analysis was conducted.  Participants were asked to describe aspects of living, working, shopping and playing in Sturbridge that was both positive and negative.  After the lists were generated, they were given four “voting dots” which were to be placed next to those items that the audience thought were the most important issues to address in the master planning process.  S. Gibson-Quigley submitted the results to the Board.

She said that they have broken down into focus groups, and the MPSC could also weigh in on what the focus groups come up with.  They need to finish the survey that will go out to residents in early 2010.  She said that if anyone would like to add issues to be addressed, to let her know or the Town Planner know.  T. Creamer noted the similarities to Dialogue for the Future.

T. Goodwin said that he had attended the meeting, and noted that it was professionally done.  He commended the committee for the great job they have done, and said that he was excited about the whole process.

S. Gibson-Quigley submitted a Disclosure of Financial Interest, as her daughter Megan Quigley was hired as a paid intern at the architectural firm of DRA, which is the firm designing the Burgess School renovation.

MOTION:       That the Board reviewed the matter and the financial interest described in the Disclosure, and determined that the interest is not so substantial as to be deemed likely to affect the integrity of the services which the municipality may expect from the employee, by H. White.

2nd:     T. Creamer

Vote:  All in favor.

Erik Wight, Building Inspector – Monthly Reports

Erik Wight appeared before the Board.  He said that the Center Office building has passed the framing inspection, and the project is moving along.

E. Wight said that he and M. Racicot had a discussion regarding reciprocity and the pay situation for alternate Building Inspectors Curt Meskus of Charlton and Nick Tortis of Southbridge.  He said that they are willing to work for Sturbridge on an emergency basis; beyond that, there is a problem with reciprocity.  He noted that an “emergency” situation would include the absence of the Building Inspector due to illness, vacation, family emergency or death.  M. Racicot said that typically, what is done in other communities is that building officials work out an arrangement with a reciprocity agreement, to be used on an emergency basis.  He noted that no money changes hands.  He said that E. Wight is in a different situation, as he lives a distance away from Sturbridge.  He suggested adding a line item to the budget to cover it.

H. White suggested that the work be done during regular business hours.  T. Creamer said that if E. Wight were available and the other town needed help because their Building Inspector was unavailable, the work would be done on Sturbridge’s time.  S. Garieri agreed, and said that if Sturbridge needed something done, he would not expect E. Wight to meet with a contractor at night.  E. Wight said that it is always an emergency for someone who needs an inspection, as there are time sensitive situations that come up.

E. Wight said that he and M. Racicot had a discussion about grievances regarding the sign bylaws.  He said that he always warns people about violations a couple of times.  M. Blanchard said that signs have been an ongoing issue, and enforcement needs to be stronger.  She highlighted the Boy Scouts and neon signs as examples.  E. Wight said that as a building official he makes judgment calls, and asked for direction from the Board.  M. Blanchard said that the direction is to enforce the bylaws.

T. Creamer noted that the Boy Scouts are a non-profit group, and are exempt from needing a permit to place their signs, but that non-profits are expected to adhere to the spirit of the bylaw.  M. Blanchard noted that they are not allowed to place signs on Town property, even though they are non-profit.  T. Creamer stated that enforcement must be uniform and not arbitrary or capricious and indicated that there is an increase in violations throughout town, which need to be addressed.   He suggested that E. Wight prioritize the sign issues.

M. Blanchard noted that temporary signs need to be looked at.  T. Goodwin agreed that it is important to keep on top of it.  S. Garieri said that regarding the business community, the cost of advertising is high, and there are a lot of small businesses in Sturbridge that rely on temporary signs to make ends meet.  He said that he does not agree with neon or back lit signs.

M. Blanchard said that the sign bylaw could be updated, and perhaps the Economic Development Committee or the Planning Board, or even an individual could review the sign bylaw.  E. Wight commented that towns want businesses, but not signs, and there are always complaints.

T. Creamer said that the temporary sign bylaw was changed last year.  He said that the EDC had provided the Planning Board with language that they felt would be palatable to the business community and the rest of the community, and that the changes had met the 2/3 threshold at Town Meeting.

M. Blanchard said that people should come forward with their ideas.  S. Gibson-Quigley said that under 43D development, one of the things they are doing is design standards.  She said that they have already made suggestions for things to look at.  She said that it would take awhile, but it is being tackled.

S. Garieri suggested notifying the business community, and offered to get a sounding from them as to what they would like.  T. Goodwin suggested passing the feedback on to the Planning Board.

M. Blanchard noted that the fees were listed in the fee column in the October and December reports, but not in the totals.  E. Wight said that he would check on the breakdown of categories.

H. White said that he would like to see a report of building permits for single family dwellings from the last year compared to the previous two or three years.  M. Blanchard requested a comparison of how many are on septic, and how many are on sewer.

M. Blanchard asked about the status of 207 Podunk Road.  E. Wight said that it is not moving as quickly as he would like, but it is moving in a positive direction.

Publick House – Request for Abatement

Michael Glick of the Publick House appeared before the Board to request an abatement for their water bill for meter 0618 for the period ending 10/01/09.  He said that the bill indicated that the meter measured usage of 1.6 million gallons during the period.  The meter is located in the closed Orchard Restaurant and Function facility located on Haynes Street.  He noted that the building has been closed since 2004, and during this timeframe only twice has the water bill exceeded $77.00; for the period ending 10/04/09, the water bill is $16,700.53.  He had spoken with the Tax Collectors and Water Department, and verified that the water bill indicates that all of the past billings were based on actual readings and not estimates.  The Water Dept. indicated that the 1.6 million gallons were used in 96 days from 7/1/09 through 10/4/09, an average of over 16,000 gallons per day.  The Water Dept. had the meter tested and the results came back that the meter does not meet A.W.W.A. accuracy limits; it is obsolete and needs to be replaced.  M. Blanchard noted that when it was tested it was shown to be running at a slower pace.

The water bill was paid in full, but they dispute that any more water was used during that period than has been used during the past four years.  M. Glick submitted to the Board a copy of the meter testing report, a letter given to Barbara Barry, Finance Director, when they paid the water bill, and a letter sent to the Town Administrator, Michael Racicot, when they first received the water bill.

M. Glick said that no repairs have been done to their building; there was no broken pipe to explain the amount of water used.  He noted that the bill in question coincided with renovation of the Center Office building.

M. Blanchard said that more information is needed from the Town’s Water Department and DPW as to what happened.  She stated that the burden for proving an error exists falls on rate payers, not the Town, and unless the rate payer could substantiate such, they would be obligated to pay the bill in full.  S. Garieri asked about the possibility of looking at the sewer usage during that period.  He said that when the meter was counting, because of age or rust deposits, it may have flipped two numbers instead of one.  G. Morse said that if something was not being recorded correctly, it would have shown up when the meter was tested.

T. Creamer said that he found it to be odd that in the 22 quarters prior to this one quarter, the total consumption amounted to $4,000, then in one quarter it went to $16,700.53.  G. Morse said that based on the information he had received, the meter did not over record.  It was the consensus of the Board to get more information regarding the Town’s records regarding flow numbers during that timeframe.

Town Administrator’s Update

Financial:

M. Racicot informed the Board that he worked with staff at the MSBA and Town Counsel to complete the necessary paperwork for the Project Funding Agreement for the Burgess Elementary School Project.

MOTION:       To enter into the Project Funding Agreement with the Massachusetts School Building Authority as presented and have the Chair sign on behalf of the Board of Selectmen, by T. Goodwin.

2nd:     H. White

Vote:  All in favor.

M. Racicot had discussions with Bruschi Bros. over the final payment for the Rt. 131 water main project.  Mass. Highway officials contacted him with their assessment of the condition of the road and explained that they saw no reason to hold the final payment.

M. Racicot said that a question had come up over the building permit fees for the Wastewater Facility expansion; since it is a Town building, he asked whether the Board wanted to waive the fees or a portion of the fees, e.g. general vs. electrical and plumbing.  S. Garieri saw no reason for the Town to pay itself, and said that the electrical and plumbing inspectors should be paid for their work.  T. Creamer agreed about waiving the fees.  It was the consensus of the Board that the Town should not charge itself fees.

M. Racicot met with James Donohue, President of Old Sturbridge Village, and signed the amendment to the current lease for the Lodge.  The Town now has a four month extension, granting use of the temporary offices through August 17, 2010.

M. Racicot is staying abreast of the budget process with the Finance Director.  He said that the operating, capital and betterment budgets are all underway, requiring attention and decisions which will need to be made.

M. Racicot contacted the Mass. Highway Director with information they had required before moving to free up the grant funds for the Grand Trunk Trail project.  He noted that Tom Chamberland had details on it.

Personnel:

After a review of Chapter 28, Acts of 2009, the Ethics Reform Law, M. Racicot learned that the Town needed to designate a senior level employee as the municipality’s liaison to the Ethics Commission.

MOTION:       To designate the Town Administrator as the Sturbridge municipal liaison to the Ethics Commission and notify the Commission of the appointment, by T. Goodwin.

2nd:     H. White

Vote:  All in favor.

Chief Ford informed M. Racicot of an injury sustained by Officer Ronald Obuchowski while on duty.

MOTION:       To approve the IOD claim of Ronald Obuchowski for the injury sustained on December 21, 2009, by T. Goodwin.

2nd:     H. White

Vote:  All in favor.

M. Racicot said that he had contacted all three of the Town Administrator candidates to make them aware of the Board’s action relative to their interviews.  All took the news well.

M. Blanchard expressed her displeasure with T. Creamer’s assumptions about her motivations and her integrity.  She said that there was a disclosure filed that she had a right to participate in the discussion about the candidates, and the disclosure is on file with the Town Clerk.  T. Creamer said that he stood behind his concerns with M. Blanchard’s ability to be objective during the process.

M. Racicot said that because the employment recruiting and hiring process for the permanent Town Administrator candidate is going to extend beyond the end of his contract with the Town, he is prepared to remain.  He said that with major project activity, the budget preparations, preparation of the Town Meeting warrant and various other time-sensitive issues that are ongoing, a vacancy in this position could be problematic.  He had submitted to the Board the legal opinion from Town Counsel as to whether the Charter would allow continued services beyond the current six months; it is grounded in case law and legal precedent, and allows the Board the leeway to maintain a suitable person.

T. Creamer said that he was not prepared to support an extension of the contract for M. Racicot as Interim Town Administrator because he believed it to be in conflict with the Town Charter, and that it amounted to legal activism.  T. Creamer read the Charter language specific to this situation.  He said that Kopelman and Paige is not beyond reproach.  M. Racicot said that he asked Joel Bard of Kopelman and Paige to meet with the Board on January 19, 2010 to address their concerns.

T. Goodwin suggested that the department heads handle the workload until a permanent Town Administrator is found, which would save the Town some money.  M. Blanchard said that she did not think that a department head could take over the Town Administrator’s responsibilities at this time.  She noted that this is a busy season for the Finance Director and the DPW Director.  S. Garieri said that he understood the point of saving some money, but with all of the major projects that are going forward, he expressed concern that a deadline could be missed, or something go wrong, with serious consequences.  He said that it is important to have a Town Administrator to lead the Town through until the new permanent Town Administrator begins work.  H. White agreed, and said that the Town needs a temporary Town Administrator.  He did not think that the job could be divided up between department heads.  M. Blanchard and S. Garieri said that they stood behind Town Counsel’s opinion that the Board has the right to extend M. Racicot’s contract.

Ginger Peabody questioned the need for a part time Administrator, and expressed the opinion that the department heads could handle the work, as they know the Town.  She said that the projects each have a Clerk of the Works.  She suggested that the Board speak to the Department Heads prior to making a decision and gain their input.

M. Blanchard stated that it is not up to the Department Heads to decide whether or who the Interim Town Administrator should be.  That was a decision to be made by the Board of Selectmen, as the Town Administrator works for the Board.

H. White said that the Town Administrator has specific duties, and the Town is required to have a Town Administrator under the Charter.

MOTION:       To extend the appointment of Michael J. Racicot beyond January 13, 2010 as temporary Town Administrator until such time as a permanent Town Administrator is appointed and begins work, by S. Garieri.

2nd:     H. White

Vote:  Three in favor; T. Goodwin and T. Creamer opposed.

General Government:

M. Racicot learned that Mass. Highway had opened the bids for the road reconstruction project for Route 131.  The bids are under review and they anticipate an award in the spring.

T. Creamer said that he has heard concerns from merchants about the Route 131 project being done during the daytime hours, and its impact on their businesses.  He suggested the possibility to have some of the work done at night.  S. Garieri said that he had discussed the matter with Greg Morse, DPW Director, Bruschi Bros. and the engineers on the project, and they had pointed out that there is a safety issue regarding working at night, as well as the cost factor, since they would be working at a different pay scale.  There would also be a noise factor for residents in the area with jackhammering, etc.  He said that someone would be inconvenienced by the project one way or another.  T. Creamer said that communication with Mass. Highway is critical, and the dissemination of information to the public is important.

M. Racicot said that he had attended the Town Hall construction meeting, and reported that they are currently working on fiber optic connection between the Center Office building and Town Hall, and how to make it happen in the most efficient way.  He noted that bitter weather has slowed down some of the outside construction activities.  He will request that the Building Committee meet with the Board of Selectmen at the January work session.

T. Creamer noted that the general contractor is going to charge the Town an additional fee because of the slate roof; he asked if it were possible to recoup the funds because the contractor failed to take advantage of good weather conditions.  M. Racicot said that they spent hours at the meetings arguing these points, and made the contractor aware that the Town is unhappy.  T. Creamer noted that some change orders were denied.  H. White said that if the Town requests changes, the Town pays for the changes; if there is additional time involved, and the contractor does not deliver the work on time, the contractor will pay a penalty to the Town.

M. Racicot informed the Board that he had met with the Cable Television Advisory Committee, and they discussed various options and will hold a meeting with representatives of Charter Communications during the second week of January to negotiate the renewal contract details.

Old Business

T. Creamer suggested that the Board review its agreement with Kopelman and Paige.  He noted that it is an appointment made by the Town Administrator, subject to confirmation by a majority vote of the Board of Selectmen.  He suggested looking at what other legal firms might be able to provide.  H. White said that he did not think that it is up to the Board to investigate other firms; it is the role of the Town Administrator as to which names to bring forward.  He did not think that the Board had the authority to say which firm is better, so the Board is in reactive mode, not proactive mode.  T. Creamer said that it doesn’t prevent anyone on the Board from investigating and expressing an opinion.

New Business

MOTION:       That the Board approve deficit spending for Snow and Ice expenses as requested by the Director of Public Works in his memo dated January 4, 2010:

$7,500            Overtime #14231-51300

$20,000          Purchase #14232-52000

$30,000          Supplies #14232-54000

by T. Goodwin.

2nd:     H. White

Vote:  All in favor.

It was the consensus of the Board to send a letter to Senator Brewer to thank him for his role in getting the Governor to reinstate transportation to regional schools.

MOTION:       To adjourn, by S. Garieri

2nd:     H. White

Vote:  All in favor.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Judy Knowles

___________________________

BOS Clerk                             Date