Chairman Charles Coldwell called the meeting to order at
7:30P.M. with Selectmen Sears, Selissen, and Gill present as well as Town
Manager, David Cressman and recording secretary, Charlene Dennehey. Selectman
John Ryan was absent. Town Counsel Charles Zaroulis arrived at 7:50P.M.
Mr. Coldwell read aloud a letter dated February 9, 2004
from Selectman Ryan informing them of his sudden major surgery and his thanks
for the many well wishes from the community. The Chairman offered the Board’s
wishes for a speedy recovery and his swift return to the board.
The Chairman opened the meeting with the following
Scheduled Agenda items:
Notes and Bonds -- Donna Walsh, Finance Director; Janet Smith, Treasurer
Mrs. Walsh handed out packages to the members including a
summary of the town’s actions. Following the presentation and discussion, Mrs.
Walsh requested the Clerk to prepare two separate Motions for approval.
Highlights of the presentation are below.
Regarding the Short Term
borrowing of $24,327,000, Mrs. Walsh covered a list of what it is comprised of,
i.e. a roll over from a prior short term borrowing and some new borrowing based
on new projects that town meeting authorized -- $10,200,000 was for the sewer
project. The interest rate received was a True interest rate of 2% which means
it will be paid back at 2%; Net Interest rate was 1.13% which allowed a premium
of $209,000 received. There were 7 bidders on the short term, interest rates
were close, and a Moody’s rating of a MIG-1, same as last year. These short
term borrowings are for one year.
On Long Term borrowing, borrowed
for the Water Treatment Plant, Anthony Road Water, and Water Distribution, etc.
and $3,978,000 for the Master Sewer Plan. The actual interest rate was 3.9%,
with 4 bidders and the interest rates were very close from 3.90 to 3.96% and
Moody’s rating of A-1, same as last year.
The Notes consist of 40 different
places to be signed and returned tonight in order to forward them to process
payments by the end of the week.
The Chairman requested comments from Board members.
Mr. Sears
requested information on the ratings of MIG-1 and A-1 ratings and how they
affect the town. Mrs. Walsh responded that they are arrived at by a
30-45 minute phone discussion with Moody’s who have copies of our financial
statements, official statements with information about the town, our direction,
and comparisons with other cities of the same size, population – they rate us on
that. Mr. Sears quoted from the provided documentation, Moody’s
statements, on the positive and negative meanings of the MIG-1 and A-1 and asked
Mrs. Walsh what are the cautionary items that go into the assessment by Moody’s,
the negative side.
Mrs. Walsh responded that they look at a lot of
factors: economy in general and the town’s ability to actually go out and
generate additional funds. We are limited by Proposition 2 ˝ , have used our
reserves over the last 2 years and hadn’t prior to that. We’re not doing badly
and similar to other towns, in that we are using some of our rainy day reserves.
Mr. Sears
asked how much is left in those funds now? Mrs. Walsh responded it is
our free cash which is on an annual basis. Mr. Cressman added that last
year, our free cash certification at year end was at $1.3 Million. The year
before it was $1.6 Million of which we used $600,000 in additional reserves so
we had $2.2 Million to utilize; the year before, $2.7 Million. With adequate
levels of fund equity from $2.7 Million to $1.3 Million, you’re losing fund
equity and in the audit report we’re down to 2.5% where our reserves are as part
of the overall budget. What Moody’s would like to see for a higher rating --
AAA -- would be way over 5% in terms of our reserves. Why are the reserves
down? (a) Taken cuts in State Aid in past 3 fiscal years. Also a significant
drop in revenues tied into the economy, i.e. Hotel tax – revenues dropping.
(2) Increasing costs for health
insurance and pension funds. This past fiscal year was a significant increase
in pension fund contribution and year before, a significant increase in health
insurance contributions. Those are all driving our budget and are not much
different than other communities in the state facing the same problems of no
state aid – the Commonwealth is rated #1 in the country in terms of the amounts
cut in aid to education.
Mr. Coldwell added that regarding the finance
department, “…tax receipts account for 56% of the town’s total General Fund
revenues and collections have been sound, averaging 98.8% to 99% over the last
5 years providing the town with a stable source of revenue for annual
operations.” That is much to the credit of the finance department who revised
things and collect revenues, taxes on real estate properties, and should be
recognized for that as 99% is almost 100% and you don’t see that every place.
He thanked them for their good work.
Mr. Gill added that we couldn’t have been that bad
for Moody’s as our interest rates are very good so whatever that negative remark
from Moody’s doesn’t mean much. Mrs. Walsh added that we had the same
negative outlook last year and our rates are even better this year.
Mr. Selissen asked on a Level-1, they pay us
premiums for short term borrowings, will it be allocated between the town side
and Enterprise Fund or how will we account for those. Mrs. Walsh will
look into that but generally, the premiums all go into the General Fund but
since it does include the Sewer Enterprise Fund, $10 Million, about a third of
it -- will look into it and if we can, we’ll move it over to Sewer. Part of it
we do have to reserve as well because it is related to an exempt debt; the
school department is exempt. Mr. Selissen wanted to clarify for people
at home, the bulk of the Short Term borrowings is for the Phase 7 of the sewer
project and the bulk of the Long Term borrowings is for Phase 6 which is well
underway. The $3,978,000 is for the Phase 6 versus the $10.2 Million which will
go on hopefully by the end of February, for the first contract of Phase 7.
With no further comments or questions from the board, the
Chairman entertained two separate Motions by the Clerk for the Short-Term
borrowing and Long-Term borrowing followed by a Roll Call for the record.
Motion by Mr. Selissen,
seconded by Mr. Gill, that the Board of Selectmen vote to approve the sale of
$24,327,000 Bond Anticipation Notes to Commerce Capital at a net interest rate
cost of $1.1343% dated February 20, 2004. Unanimous vote. On a Roll Call
Vote: Mr. Selissen, Mr. Sears, Mr. Gill, Chairman Coldwell, all in favor.
Absent Mr. Ryan.
Motion
by Mr. Selissen, seconded by Mr. Gill, that the Board of Selectmen vote to
approve the sale of $6,224,000 in Bonds to A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. at a net
interest rate cost of 3.901820% dated February 15, 2004. Unanimous vote. On a
Roll Call Vote: Mr. Sears, Mr. Gill, Mr. Selissen, Chairman Coldwell, all in
favor. Absent Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Coldwell thanked Mrs. Walsh
and her staff for the report and requested the Bonds and Notes be brought
forward for members’ signatures.
Donna Walsh introduced Dick Sullivan of Powers & Sullivan,
Certified Public Accountants and our independent auditors, here to present the
overview of the financial statements which are in their packages and to answer
any questions the members may have. At the outset, Mrs. Walsh stated that the
financial statements this year are vastly different than last year as there are
new reporting requirements, GASB 34 which requires us to do new statements in
more accrual-based, real life statements and acknowledged the help received from
Powers &Sullivan in putting these together. Also, for the first time, it
includes an inventory of our fixed assets. She thanked town staff for the work
they put in, particularly Donna Gill, Accountant, and Jay Kelly, Assessor, for
the work, research, and history in pulling it together.
Mr. Sullivan covered
highlights of the documents in front of them including the Financial Statement
which has changed significantly from prior years. Visually alone, this year it
is 49 pages versus prior years of 23 pages. Major changes were highlighted
under A Management Discussion & Analysis [MB&A] and there are new statements:
Statement of Net Assets, Statement of Activities, and Reconciliation
statements. Under Major Funds and Non-Major funds, the budget to actual is
expanded. Under the Management Discussion and Analysis Preface is the Statement
of Net Assets which shows where the community is at. Overall, Tewksbury’s
balance sheet looks healthier than a number of other communities whose audits
they do, particularly in the Fixed Asset area, i.e. we have progressive and
pro-active replacements in place.
The
Enterprise Fund is not part of this but will be in the FY04 report and a smart
move by the town to segregate its operations costs and debt service from the
General Fund. Non co-mingling gives a better sense of how the Enterprise Fund
will do as an operation and how the General Fund will do as an operation. Debt
management is excellent. GASB will be asking communities to value post
retirement figures. The town took on a lot of the work themselves, not
contracting it out which is cost beneficial and the quality is similar to the
work of outside contracts.
The Chairman opened the discussion to board members.
Mr. Gill asked Mr.
Sullivan to comment on any Enterprise Fund experience. Mr. Sullivan
responded that he has a lot of experience with it and had shared with Mrs. Walsh
the allocated expectations and pitfalls. Overall, the Enterprise Fund has to
stand on its own.
Mr. Sears questioned the
calculations and if they include historic debt from repairs to school roofs,
etc. Mr. Sullivan confirmed that yes, it is in the report to identify
the debt referred to.
Mr. Selissen asked where
the Uncompensated Absences shows up. Mr. Sullivan stated it is not a
deferred liability any more. $2.806 Million is a solid number based on early
retirements and buy-back of sick and vacation time. A current liability as they
could decide tomorrow but it’s in there. Mr. Selissen added that a year
to year wouldn’t change the number that much. It would warrant a Deferred
liability discussion sometime.
Mr. Cressman wanted to
highlight a concern on the Wynn School construction as it is on a bans basis
which shows up as a negative account and while water and sewer show up as
negative now, those will switch into long term next year.
MANAGEMENT LETTER: Mr.
Sullivan covered any comments addressed in 2002 and new comments for 2003. Out
of the five from 2002 which were carried forward, three have been resolved. Of
particular note was under the Encumbrances reporting by the school which should
say “resolved” not “partial”. The remaining two have either been resolved or
will be resolved by the conclusion of this fiscal year -- ideal action he likes
to see from a management standpoint.
Under New Comments: Parking
tickets – asked if there is a report that says number of tickets issued, voided,
collected, destroyed. One piece of that gap is missing and we ask that one be
filled. There are no serious matters that warrant any concern on the town’s
part. Overall, the internal financial controls of the town are working as
designed and as expected to be designed. The Assets are safe and the money is
being spent correctly.
Mr. Gill stated that he is happy as after last
year’s report, we asked for periodic updates since our last one and everybody is
doing their job and he is happy you have seen it the same way. Asked if we
should we strike the word, “Partial”. Mr. Sullivan responded, “Yes, please.”
For the record, “…under
the Encumbrances reporting by the school…”, strike the word “partial” and
replace it with “resolved” per the Chairman.
For the final report, Mr.
Sullivan continued that it shows how the town has administered and managed the
federal grant money it has received. Approximately $1.5 million of federal
money flowed through the town and was spent on various programs. This has been
audited and all was done correctly.
Mr. Selissen
complimented Mrs. Walsh and her staff who did a great job. He had focused
attention on the Management comments and nice to see nothing stood out except
the parking tickets which Mrs. Carey will take note of. The staff should
be recognized with their handling of the new program without hiring contractors
to handle it.
Mr. Coldwell thanked Mr. Sullivan and Mrs. Walsh and their
staffs and continued with the agenda. As it was still early for the next
public hearing, he requested any residents to speak.
Residents
Kim Derosa, 109 Jennies Way: Asked if the board is
planning on rescinding their letter sent to the Merrimac Valley Planning
Commission regarding the I-93 interchange. Mr. Coldwell responded that
it had not been discussed yet but probably will be at some point. Ms. Derosa
continued that due to the fact that you based your decision on Mr. Hajec’s
recommendations and he has since been fired due to the conflict of interest, she
hoped it would be discussed. She also cautioned not to take any more
recommendations from the Mills Study Committee as they have proven they are not
unbiased and were not set up to be making recommendations.
Susan Duffy, 67 Catamount Road: If this discussion
takes place, will residents be allowed to discuss it also or do we need to do
that now? Mr. Coldwell responded that if we don’t bring it up, he will
allow her to speak about it. If we do bring it up under our Reports section,
you can speak at that time.
Maverick’s Hearing – Alter Premises
The Chairman read the public notice aloud regarding the
alteration of the Maverick’s Bar and Grill plan. Attorney William Rambler of
1445 Main Street represented the petitioner, Mr. Richard Proctor, Owner who also
appeared. Attorney Rambler stated they were here regarding the provision of
their liquor license dealing with, “…changes to the premises.” They wish to
remodel the existing building and in the process, add approximately 800 sq.
ft.. Attorney Rambler referred to the 2 sets of plans which the board should
have in front of them.
Chairman Coldwell interjected his statement that it appears
that for the past week or so, there was a set of plans submitted to the building
department, a building permit was issued, and construction ensued. Mr.
Rambler replied that was correct. Mr. Coldwell continued that we received a
set of plans in the office that were somewhat different than the plans submitted
to the building department. On the February 8th, a revised floor
plan was submitted and Mr. Proctor met with Mr. Carbone and Mr. Colantuoni.
Mr. Coldwell read aloud a letter he received from the Public Health Director and
the Building Commissioner, in part: “…please be advised that on February 9th,
2004 we met with Mr. Proctor to discuss his plans for renovation of his
establishment. He has altered his plans several times to the point where he is
proposing more work from what was originally approved. In our discussion, they
needed again to revise this plan to reflect the 2nd floor office, the
installation of additional bathrooms to separate the bar users from the dining
patrons, and a relocation of doors. It is our recommendation that Mr. Proctor
return to the Board when his floor plans have been completed and approved by the
Building and Health departments …”.
Attorney Rambler
responded that the letter is a result of our ongoing efforts to work with the
building department and the revision of the plans has been for the purpose of
complying with the requests of the various departments involved. Mr.
Coldwell stated his concern is that they are working with several different
plans and which one is the one for the Board to approve, i.e. Mr. Proctor
obtained a building permit and proceeded on his construction. Because of a
misunderstanding, the building department did not notify Mr. Proctor or this
board that a hearing had to happen which is why we came here to night, an
after-a-fact thing because you have a liquor license. My concern is that we
should be hearing on the plan that was originally submitted to the building
inspector and a building permit issued for that – it didn’t happen. Somebody
came in and left a different set of plans for the Board of Selectmen so we can’t
have a hearing on something that was approved, that’s different, and now we have
a third set of plans that vary from the other 2. The building inspector and
public health are saying we better start from scratch and all get the same
plans. We don’t know what we are going to be voting on.
Mr. Proctor stated he was unaware of the letter
before them – the first he heard of it.
Mr. Coldwell stated that although the letter came
this afternoon, the meeting occurred yesterday between Mr. Proctor and the other
2 gentlemen and there must have been some confusion because he brought another
set of plans in today. Mr. Proctor stated he was told to do so by the
building inspector who said if you can finish it and get it to the board, get it
in there; so he dropped it off this morning to the office at 9:30AM.
Mr. Gill is disgusted and doesn’t want to go
forward; the whole thing is a mess and the neighborhood is up in arms. They
have been a terrible neighbor up there; submitted various applications for
different reasons and all you want to do is expand the bar. You are putting us
last on the list -- not ready to go forward.
Mr. Selissen does not want to discuss it until the
building inspector has reviewed the plans. Suggested to postpone it until the
building inspector can come to the meeting. Mr. Sears had nothing to add
to Mr. Selissen’s comments.
Mr. Coldwell stated we should start with this set of plans,
the final plans, and start from the beginning and move forward from here. Then
everything in the building department’s office and Selectmen’s office will be
together. Hope to close this hearing tonight in taking no action and have you
re-file, and we’ll all travel the same road and at the same hearing.
Town Counsel Zaroulis stated that he had no
knowledge about this at all -- has no papers on it and assuming with the
original application, there was a set of plans submitted and that is what is
before the board tonight. Is that the set of plans you want the board to rule
on or not? Mr. Proctor responded, “No.” Attorney Zaroulis
continued that they should forget what you’ve said, request that either they
withdraw their application and resubmit it with the appropriate plan or it be
continued to a certain date with the plan that they wish to go forward on.
Otherwise, they are here for a Hearing. It has been Noticed, people are here,
and you will vote not on the plans submitted today but the plans that were
submitted with the application. It is up to them to make that decision if they
want to go forward. If you vote on the plans that were submitted, it is not
what they want. This is a hearing, not a meeting. The application was filed,
plans filed with it, and what you are here for tonight.
Attorney Rambler stated that Town Counsel’s point is
well taken and added that the reason for the several changes in the plans is
that we have made these changes in compliance with requests by the Board of
Health and Building Department. We are willing to withdraw and resubmit with
the current set of plans and that prior to resubmitting to the board, we will
again meet with all of the parties wishing input and the revised plans will be
ready.
Mr. Zaroulis stated it is understood they have
withdrawn and will file an amended application with plans they want to be
approved to be continued to a date and time certain or they can withdraw. I am
not sure we have any rules or procedure that when plans come to you [the Board],
they have to be approved by the Building Commissioner before you act on them.
You act separately than the Building Commissioner but when you act and if a
change is made later on, they’ve got to come back to you. It’s really something
they have to be responsible for to make sure the plans that are approved are the
plans that they want. Whether it’s continued and they amend the plan or they
withdraw and file a new one, to me it’s immaterial.
Mr. Selissen added a comment to Attorney Zaroulis
that the reason he was making a point about the building inspector being here
was because of a lack of coordination all around here so would like him to be
here so we know he has at least reviewed the plans and what is being submitted
to the Board of Selectmen are in fact the same plans that the building inspector
has reviewed. Attorney Zaroulis responded that it was not a bad idea and
in fact, may benefit the applicant having the building commissioner here. If
they submit plans that are not approved by the building commissioner or they are
varied later on, they are the ones that have the problem because you are
approving only what they submit. It behooves everybody, particularly the
applicant, to make sure that the plans they do submit are the plans that can be
approvable by the building commissioner.
Attorney Rambler asked if the meeting can be
continued to a later date.
Mr. Coldwell stated the next meeting’s agenda is
very full so the next opening is Tuesday, March 9 at 7:45PM.
Mr. Coldwell will provide Mr. Proctor with a copy of
the letter from the building commissioner and suggested he personally talk with
the board of health and the building commissioner. Mr. Coldwell will ask
the building commissioner to attend that meeting.
Motion
by Mr. Selissen, seconded by Mr. Sears, for a continuance of the
Maverick’s Hearing to Alter Premises to Tuesday, March 9 at 7:45PM. Unanimous
vote. Absent Mr. Ryan.
Neighbors of Maverick’s:
John Trani, 3 Madeline Road:
Lived here for 20 years and have gone thru 4 different establishments. This one
has been the worst; talked with Mr. Proctor and now more confused. He’s come up
with 15 different stories about that addition. Last June we heard work going on
in the back and confronted him and told him that the place was too big for the
parking as it was. He told us that he was so fed up with us, he was going to
move his restaurant down to where the Grand Prix was so the whole summer we put
up with noise from motorcycles, cars, people urinating on the backs of our
fences, trash thrown in the neighborhood – because we thought he was moving.
Now he’s slapping up a building that is already up, is weather tight so to us
it’s a done deal. He told us it would just be storage and now we find out he
wants to expand his restaurant, the bar, the kitchen. He has 8 windows facing
the back yard of 3 of our neighbors. Our back yards are useless now and this
keeps getting worse and worse. We didn’t speak up because we thought he was
moving, another tactic he threw at us. We’d appreciate it if you could help us
out.
Mark MacNeil, 14 March Road:
On the petition, it says ‘Maverick’s Restaurant and Lounge’. I don’t know if
it’s a compliance issue or not but on his front sign it says ‘Maverick’s Bar &
Grill’ so I want to bring it up. Mr. Coldwell replied that it depends on
the legal document which is ‘Rte. 38 Entertainment, d/b/a Maverick’s Bar &
Grill.’ Mr. McNeil continued stating parking is very tight now and any
additional patrons will spill over to March Road so please take note.
Susan Trani, 3 Madeline Road:
If you’re going to look at new plans, I’d like you to address something. There
is now an entrance to this new restaurant addition in the back, facing my yard
-- not just the 8 windows on the 2nd floor that the building
inspector told us was not a 2nd floor -- now there’s an entrance so
now all of the patrons will have to go right beside my house. There’s a small
hill between my property and his and I asked Mr. Proctor to put up a fence at
the bottom and didn’t get an answer from him. The electric company trucks, the
cherry pickers back up right onto my property and they run for hours while
they’re in the bar or the restaurant. I asked for a fence so they wouldn’t have
access to my property like that and he hasn’t given me an answer so now that
he’s put windows facing my property, I now would like a tall fence so that his
patrons can’t look into my home and I don’t have to look into his restaurant.
It is that close to my property, this addition. I invite any of you to drive by
and walk in my back yard and take a look at how close this is to my property.
Seeing no other neighbors who wished to speak, the Chairman
continued with a related item on the regular agenda under Unfinished Business.
Unfinished Business
Maverick’s Pool Table License – To Be
Reviewed
Mr. Coldwell stated that the Board has concerns about the
pool table license at Maverick’s and referred to the reports from the Police
Department that there was activity with the pool tables when the license was not
in effect. He suggested to put that license in abeyance until we meet again and
will ask the Police Department to check on what is going on there over the next
30 days and then take it under review. We did hold back the license for a
reason and we can give it back once the reason and matter have been resolved. I
will ask you to take things to heart, watch what goes on in the next 30 days.
Mr. Proctor stated the reason the renewal for the
pool table licenses wasn’t submitted was not any of our fault. We had submitted
all necessary documentation for that permit, and there is a letter in there
dated 6 months ago and the reason it wasn’t signed, was that the paperwork
wasn’t typed up by your people, by Ms. Barbeau. We asked why and she said she
hadn’t been able to get to it. Mr. Coldwell stated no, what happened was
there was non-payment of taxes and we held the license in abeyance until all
taxes were paid, which was only a few weeks ago, not months ago, and then the
taxes were paid and the office got backed up and it got on the agenda now. We
suspended it and did not renew the license back when Mr. Gill made a Motion
October 21st, 2003. Now we have reports that while the license was
not in effect, people are playing pool on the pool tables. Mr. Proctor
stated we spoke with the Chief about that, explained the situation about the
clerical issue, and he didn’t think there was a problem.
Mr. Coldwell replied, quoting from the Chief’s
letter, “….this appears to be a violation as the permit was not renewed. Please
advise me what action your office would like to take.” As long as you didn’t
have a license in your hand, there should not be any pool played, for any
reason. The dates are December 11, December 19, and December 20. I would like
to see these pool tables covered for the next 30 days and nothing be allowed.
Do what you are supposed to do and come back and talk with us.
Mr. Proctor continued that sometime in October I got
a letter that they weren’t going to renew the pool table license unless I paid
my real estate taxes on the restaurant. So I paid the taxes sometime in
September, early October, and waited for the license to be signed so I could
pick it up and had been in touch with Sandy several times. Then I get a letter
from the town that says they won’t renew it until I pay every tax I owe on all
my property in the town of Tewksbury, so it changed from a first plan to a
second plan. Then I paid all the taxes in the whole town, in January and I’m
waiting for the license to come through.
Mr. Coldwell stated that the neighborhood turned out with
their concerns on his business, the board has concerns, and he as a business
owner should work with everyone to make this work. Mr. Coldwell also offered to
work with Mr. Proctor and all these people to get this all together and asked
him to show good will by covering the pool tables, show us you can comply, and
it will be back on the agenda for the March meeting. Mr. Coldwell asked that
the neighbors who appeared tonight leave their names and telephone numbers so he
could contact them to meet on this issue. March 9 at 7:45PM is the next hearing
on this matter.
Stanley Folta, Conservation Commission Chairman – Re: Membership
Mr. Coldwell stated that Mr. Folta is detained at work and
unable to make the meeting and had planned on a continuance or to send a
communication regarding this but deferred to Mr. Gill. Mr. Gill
suggested that this is a subject for a decision by the full board, Mr. Ryan
included.
Mr. Coldwell stated that when Mr. Ryan returns, we will
have Mr. Folta invited at that time.
Mr. Selissen voiced his point that this is the
second time.
J. Rags Bar & Grill – Hearing
Robert Pendergast, 8 Tanager Road, Tewksbury appeared
before the Board regarding the report of liquor license violations at J. Rags
Bar & Gill, 1475 Main Street. Mr. Coldwell stated he has a letter whereby Mr.
Pendergast is going to agree to stipulate to the facts of the case and accept
the recommendation.
Town Counsel stated that the Assistant to the Town
Manager, Sandra Barbeau, informed him that she had been in communication and
that Mr. Pendergast is prepared to stipulate as to the facts in the police
report. Mr. Pendergast responded that was correct. Mr. Zaroulis
suggested that regarding the hearing, they enter the oral stipulation that the
facts contained in the police reports are stipulated and go to the next step
which is for the board to make a determination that there was a violation.
Also, there has been a recommendation made by the police chief for a
2-day suspension and that Chipen, Inc. agrees to that
suspension. It is now up to the board to make a determination whether it agrees
with that suspension.
Mr. Coldwell asked Mr.
Pendergast if he had a conversation with Mrs. Barbeau. Mr. Pendergast
replied yes, he did.
Mr. Coldwell asked Mr.
Pendergast if he did agree to stipulate to the facts of the case as presented by
the police. Mr. Pendergast responded, “Yes sir.”
Motion by Mr. Gill,
seconded by Mr. Sears, that the violation did occur on January 17, 2004 at
approximately 1:40 a.m. and on January 18, 2004 at approximately 1:05 a.m.,
according to the police report. Unanimous vote. Absent Mr. Ryan.
Motion by Mr. Gill,
seconded by Mr. Sears, to a two-day suspension of license from the close of
business on Sunday, March 7, 2004 until the opening of business on Wednesday,
March 10, 2004, as recommended by the Police Chief. Unanimous vote. Absent Mr.
Ryan.
Mr. Coldwell closed the public hearing.
Town Manager
Town Counsel Invoice
Motion by Mr. Gill,
seconded by Mr. Selissen, to approve payment of Town Counsel invoice for two
months in the amount of $17, 585.35. Unanimous vote. Absent Mr. Ryan.
Labor Counsel Invoice
Motion by Mr. Gill,
seconded by Mr. Sears, to approve payment of Labor Counsel invoice in the amount
of $6,525.00. Unanimous vote. Absent Mr. Ryan.
Public Works – Working Foreman
Motion by Mr. Selissen,
seconded by Mr. Gill, to authorize the Town Manager to post the Working
Foreman’s position in the Public Works Vehicle Maintenance Division. Unanimous
vote. Absent Mr. Ryan.
Dispatcher Appointment
Mr. Cressman announced the appointment of Denise Graffeo as
a Dispatcher effective February 22, 2004. Ms. Graffeo has been a Reserve
Dispatcher for almost a year.
Reserve Dispatchers
Motion by Mr. Gill,
seconded by Mr. Selissen, that per Chief Donovan’s request, to authorize the
Town Manager to post an announcement for filling four Reserve Dispatcher
positions. Unanimous vote. Absent Mr. Ryan.
Executive Session
Mr. Cressman announced the three items for Executive
Session this evening:
Superior Officers Negotiations
IBPO Negotiations
Health Insurance Negotiations
Approval of the Minutes
of December 16, 2003 (reg. session), and January 6, 2004 (reg. session)
Motion by Mr.
Selissen, seconded by Mr. Gill, to approve the regular session Minutes of
December 16, 2003. Unanimous vote. Absent Mr. Ryan.
Under discussion on the regular session January 6, 2004
Minutes, Mr. Sears amended page 18 as follows: to strike the name
Charlie Coppola and insert the name Attorney James E. Coppola, Jr.
Motion by Mr.
Selissen, seconded by Mr. Gill, to approve the regular session Minutes of
January 6, 2004 as Amended. Unanimous vote. Absent Mr. Ryan.
Reports
Before discussion of Board reports, Mr. Coldwell
distributed separate envelopes from Mr. Ryan to the members, Town Manager, and
secretary, containing the DRAFT outline for the televising of public meetings
and requested the board to review them and to send any comments or suggestions
for the next meeting’s agenda, or if there are any items for a deep discussion,
we can invite the members of the committee who put this together to come in and
discuss them. Mr. Sears would like to have them come in anyway and Mr.
Coldwell agreed to request their attendance. An Agenda item for the next
meeting.
a.
Mr. Sears: (a) No need to talk about videotaping ideas as it will
be at the next meeting.
(b) Asked Mr. Cressman if he inquired why the Perkins’ and
town didn’t inquire about the boundaries and ownership of the disputed
properties back in 1998 as was suggested by this board 3 or 4 meetings ago and
in the January 6 minutes. Mr. Cressman asked if Town Counsel was ready
to respond. Mr. Zaroulis had received some materials from the town for
his review and has drafted a response which needs consultation with James
Coppola before final release but he expected to have it in final form in
approximately a week’s time. Mr. Sears stated that some people in
Jennies Way would like to know why in the last 6 years, the suggestion of the
superior court has been acted on, however it has been, and that his report would
express what went on or not. Mr. Zaroulis responded that he didn’t think
it will and to be clear on one point, they are referring to a superior court
case which was a zoning case as opposed to a land court case.
Mr. Sears clarified that the suggestion
was that the town on Perkins’ nickel take to land court any boundary question
and any title question on the parcels abutting the Jennies Way parcel or that
was seeking to be developed. It was the intent so that the town and any
interested folks up there would have this clarified so that in 2004, we wouldn’t
have some of the issues of who owns what and where it is. Mr. Zaroulis
stated he wasn’t sure he could address what the town did there at that time but
when he was involved in that particular case, as far as the agreement for
judgment -- not a court order -- it was an agreement made by the party and he
did not believe in his discussions at that time, the question ever came up that
this would be done in order to make sure something didn’t happen in 1999 or
2003, 2004. It was a question that they would turn over certain information to
the town concerning any title issues and they might, if requested by the town,
proceed within one year for land court. His understanding is they did not turn
over records to the town for approximately 3 years and the town never made a
request that they file anything into land court.
Mr. Sears continued his concern “…that
suggestion made by the superior court…” Mr. Zaroulis corrected him that
-- no this was between the 2 parties -- they negotiated an agreement for
judgment, made by 2 parties and entered by the court. The court never got
involved in any of that language; it was language developed primarily by the
town and enters as an agreement for judgment -- it is a judgment and is
enforceable. Mr. Sears questioned that the town did not within a year
take Perkins to land court to clarify the boundary and ownership issues of the
land subject to this agreement for judgment. Mr. Zaroulis stated he
could not answer that specifically but he understood that the town did not
request Perkins to file suit in the land court. Mr. Sears asked if there
was any reason why we didn’t do that as a town. In 2004 these are very live
issues and if this had been dealt with in the way that the agreement for
judgment had suggested, then we wouldn’t be in the position of reinventing the
wheel at this particular junction. He stated he looks forward to Town Counsel’s
written commentary.
Mr.
Cressman added to Town Counsel’s information that it was an agreement for
judgment, no trial on the matter in court, and a negotiated settlement came back
within a year as the Perkins Family Trust did not present any information within
a year’s period of time. Without any information presented, they were the ones
who claimed there was a difference in terms of the titles down there and land
ownership, so why would the town pursue the issue and why would we want to? If
there is no information provided by the other party and the town at that point
believed that it had ownership based on the records we had at that time, why
should we want to encourage giving back a parcel until such time as we have any
information to that. Mr. Sears stated that it says we could find out
from Perkins and later on this board enters into an agreement for land which Mr.
McGee claims to have some title in, and the board wasn’t informed to that extent
when it signed off. There is questionable title which will probably end up in
land court and my anguish is in the way you handled this and your question on
why should you pursue it.
Mr.
Zaroulis recommended that this should not be explored tonight but it has to
be put in context. Everything must always be taken in context and not taken out
of context. At that time, keep in mind it wasn’t the Board of Selectmen, it
wasn’t the town, that brought Perkins to court. It was David G. Cressman who
brought the Planning Board and Perkins to court in order to avoid a situation
down there for mitigation if there was going to be a subdivision, he wanted to
avoid the town being involved in continuous complaints about people buying homes
there and complaining. People in purchase and sale agreements and otherwise,
would be informed that there was a piggery nearby and there would be smells and
there was a land fill nearby and there would be those kinds of problems. In
addition, there was at that time, an issue where the town believed that it owned
that particular property. At the time according to the assessing record, the
town owned a piece of property down there. The thinking at that time was,
listen Perkins, if you disagree with us, you present information to us that we
don’t have title and if we get that information, the manager would then say
within that one year, take it to land court and pay for it. They never raised
the issue during that one year that they owned the property. Subsequently, you
had the issue after a foreclosure on another piece of property, not Perkins, but
under the name of McGee that the issue then surfaced concerning title – it’s a
separate issue. You have to go back several years ago to find out why didn’t
David Cressman notify them to file in land court and it’s because they did not
make a claim during that period of time by giving him documents that they had
title to that property. In regards to that issue, that to me is the simple
answer.
Mr. Sears stated he didn’t
know if there are more properties than that property as it was “boundaries and I
thought, titles”. Mr. Zaroulis stated that subsequently he thought
without having all that information, that there were 2 or 3 properties back
there being foreclosed and different questions of ownership. The title down
there is a complex issue and is a problem for someone – it is not a problem for
the town of Tewksbury. To deal with the situation that occurred back in 1998
which is 6 years ago, you have to take and understand the circumstances at that
time and keep it in that context as to what happened. In retrospect, you had a
Planning Board protecting people. The person who came forward and filed the
suit was not the Board of Selectmen, not the Planning Board, it was David G.
Cressman to protect people in that area.
Mr. Sears added his
question was that if the town wanted to have a year to go forward, Perkins would
be able to pay for it, but if there is some question on who owned property other
than the Jennies Way property down there, that it would go to land court.
Mr. Zaroulis: This case really did not involve any title issues but
somewhere along the way, there was a suggestion made that the town owns property
and if you people claim you own it, then you present the information within one
year; the town manager would review it, and if he felt that you had some claim,
he would say you file in the land court and establish your claim. They never
submitted any papers to David Cressman until 3 years afterwards concerning a
claim of title. They made no claim within that one year that the town did not
have title. Mr. Sears: So three years later, they enter on the very
same property, an agreement with the town which avoids land court. Mr.
Zaroulis: There is a question concerning title down there and anybody who
is going to develop that land -- not the town of Tewksbury -- will have to now
incur the expense of a land court title issue. If you look at the documents
here in the file and the report by James Coppola, he is very careful and
cautious in his language and he states in the letter to the Board of Selectmen
back 3 years ago, “… that there’s issues down there….” And uses words like
“maybe”, “might”, “may” – nothing is conclusive. I think to this day, the more
you see of it, the more you become aware that there’s not clarity down there
concerning title because a lot of the descriptions are very, very old
descriptions. I emphasize that this is an issue for title between private
parties, not the town of Tewksbury and they do have a problem, I think, but it
is not the town’s problem. Take things in context, not out of context.
Mr. Coldwell added that a letter will be coming
forth. Mr. Sears thanked Mr. Zaroulis for his clarification. Mr.
Cressman added that he agrees with Town Counsel that it is a multi-faceted
issue down there over that development of which where the location of Lot 1 on
Map 114 was, was only one of several issues as part of that lawsuit and
furthermore, for me to have run back after a year and say, let’s run into land
court so you can “claim that property back” -- why would anyone encourage me to
do that -- the town’s interest would not be served. Mr. Zaroulis stated that at
that time, it was on our rolls and listed as our tax property at that time.
There was a Right of Redemption at that time; getting too technical now, not
necessary to get into it here.
Continuing with his report, Mr. Sears: (c). Two
letters to Mr. Burke, one from Mr. Cressman dated January 23rd and
his own as a private citizen dated February 5, both concerning the Board’s
approval of the 5th ramp alternative at the January 20 meeting.
Concerned that he first saw Mr. Cressman’s letter posted on the Tewksbury Issues
website and as a Selectman, hadn’t seen it. The letter advised Mr. Burke,
“…that the board unanimously adopted a Motion and approved the 5th
alternative for an interchange at the Lowell Junction as proposed by Mills to be
considered by the Merrimack Valley Regional Planning Council in review of the
I-93 corridor study.” No issues with that as it is true as to what we did, but
we didn’t vote or authorize Mr. Cressman to say anything else, specifically:
“…the board had taken no position in support of the Mills Corporation proposal,
hasn’t received any peer review reports from the Mills Committee, that most of
the reports from the Mills Committee are incomplete, hasn’t reviewed the merits
of any rezoning proposal, has not reviewed any development agreements from
Mills, and has no recommendation to make to any town meeting…” The letter also
doesn’t mention that “the peer review engineer who claimed that the 5th
alternative interchange proposal was the best proposal…”, was fired by the town
for a conflict of interest. I [Mr. Sears] put in my own personal
recommendations to kindly include these comments with the above-referenced
letter or withdraw the letter until the Board of Selectmen have had the
opportunity to review its contents in a public forum and this may be the time to
review it in a public forum. Also, very upset this got filed in a
correspondence file and should have gotten into the boxes for the Selectmen and
didn’t get that far. Appears nobody would know about it until the February 1
deadline went by and that was his cynicism and he mentioned it to Mr. Cressman
on the phone and then wrote his own response.
Mr. Cressman apologized
that it [the letter] did not get into their mailboxes as it was “cc’d Selectmen”
which usually indicated it goes into their boxes instead of correspondence which
is usually the Selectmen’s information file. Regarding the peer engineer, the
letter was written on January 23rd and sent to Mr. Burke. The
information concerning the peer engineer and Mr. Hajec’s status did not come to
light until January 27, several days after the letter was written. As to the
other comments, he did not see at any point where he indicated that the
Selectmen indicated anything about this in terms of “taking a position on this
matter” – never said that. Did say other excerpts as at the time written,
thought the schedule of the subcommittee should issue its report in the next
month which at that point in time, was the schedule, “…after which a town
meeting would have the opportunity to consider a rezoning proposal for this area
to accommodate the Mills Corporation development which would necessitate the 5th
alternative interchange…” and “… a town meeting would be either called by the
selectmen or as some of the proponents have indicated, petitioned for..” – also
factual. “…While your comment deadline precedes the rezoning decision, it’s
clear from the peer engineering review by Mr. Hajec, that the fifth alternative
proposal is the best proposal if the land is rezoned plus it addresses the needs
of the other commercial entities in that area, within and outside of Tewksbury.
Based on the information presented at that meeting, when the Selectmen acted on
January 20…” – also correct statement. Mr. Sears responded that it
seems it says a bit more than we actually authorized saying. Didn’t something
like this happen also at Gator before my time like you wrote a letter about
access roads and then the Selectmen had to go and write another letter
themselves? I’m saying that I felt that was a little bit too much and that’s
why I wrote mine and sent it.
Mr. Coldwell asked if the members wanted to discuss
the status of Mr. Hajec at this point in time, i.e. he was relieved of his
duties.
Mr. Gill stated he didn’t know anything.
Mr. Selissen had asked Mr. Cressman informally and
will be glad to put it in a Motion, but would like the board at a minimum to
look into payments that have or have not been made to Mr. Hajec either thru Mr.
Hajec or Mr. Dobrowski. We should make a determination if in fact those
services were provided and if they were billed to us or billed to the Economic
Council or make it clear before we go forward with making any payments to Mr.
Hajec.
Mr. Coldwell’s concern is that the Merrimack Valley
Planning Council should be informed that Mr. Hajec has been replaced or is going
to be replaced and asked Mr. Sears if the committee is going to look for another
review through another person. Mr. Sears responded the committee has not
met yet to discuss this and does not know whether there is another name floating
around. Does this person start building on any of Mr. Hajec’s work or go off
and do their own work; hopes they do their own work particularly as Mr. Hajec
did absolutely nothing concerning the traffic to destination malls which is a
qualitatively a different type of animal than regular malls which he was
studying. This is a setback on the studies.
Mr. Coldwell asked the Town Manager if the Merrimac
Valley Planning Council was aware that Mr. Hajec was working for two employers
at the same time? Mr. Cressman responded that they are aware of it today
but not sure if his termination was clearly communicated. Mr. Coldwell
stated the termination should be communicated and in addition, there is the
possibility that there could be a different outcome determined than what Mr.
Hajec made.
The Chairman allowed any residents to come forward on this
topic.
Susan Duffy, 67 Catamount Road: Based on the fact
that Mr. Hajec has been terminated, you should rescind the letter until you hear
the new findings and reviews of the new traffic consultant. I hope you consider
that action.
Mr. Gill is not ready to rescind as he needs a
reason why to rescind on information that was only part of his decision-making
process.
Kim Derosa, 109 Jennies Way: Asked if Mr. Cressman
made the MVPC aware that Mr. Hajec had been fired as soon as you found out, so
you contacted them on the 27th before the deadline?
Mr. Cressman clarified
that he thought Mr. Coldwell said Merrimack Valley Economic Development Council
and that’s what I was referring to. I have not had contact with Merrimack
Valley Planning Council. Ms. Derosa: So they haven’t been officially
made aware that Mr. Hajec was fired.
Mr. Cressman: Not officially by the town. Ms.
Derosa: Then why didn’t that take place when the letter was sent on Jan. 23rd
-- he was fired on the 27th, the deadline for input was Feb. 1. Why
wouldn’t we have tried to notify them of this before their input period closed?
Mr. Cressman: There was no action by the board in terms of where the
Motion was other than January 20th. And I have been questioned
tonight by one board member as to certain statements that would be put into that
letter to the Merrimack Valley Planning Council already. If I had called MVPC
without action by the board, we would be up for another discussion from another
group of people tonight. Ms. Derosa: It all comes back to the board
sending the letter prematurely which is what we all stated on January 20th
at the meeting. You were making a decision based on a report that wasn’t
complete and that was being made by a person that wasn’t qualified to make the
recommendation to begin with.
Larry Knight, David Street: Back when Merrimack
Valley Planning Council met on the I-93 corridor study, the public hearing up in
Methuen, Mr. Wahr came before this committee trying to influence you to initiate
a letter at that time that they could hand carry up to the Merrimac Valley
Planning Council. You refused to do it at that point in time because you didn’t
have the information to make that sort of decision, weren’t going to rescind the
letter you wrote regarding ramp alternatives. Subsequent to that, you have a
meeting which includes Mr. Hajec who was supposed to be an independent traffic
consultant who now we find out has a conflict working on both sides of the
issue. Besides having the information from Mr. Hajec, what other information
did you have available to you that particular night that prompted you to make
the decision? I didn’t see anything, saw Mr. O’Neill come up and make a
statement with regards to his pitch and saw Mr. Hajec. Mr. Gill stated he is
not ready to rescind; if you’re not willing to rescind based on information that
we now find could possibly be erroneous due to a conflict, what information did
you base your decision on that particular night? Mr. Gill: I was part
of the Master Planning committee and our recommendation and vote was for a ramp
for certain uses of that land. That was not just a vote based on Mr. Hajec’s
recommendation as you insinuate so you’re wrong. Mr. Knight: I’m
inquiring as until that time when Mr. Hajec made his presentation at the most
recent meeting before the Board of Selectmen, nobody on this board was willing
to make a decision. When it goes back to that night in Methuen, the same
argument was presented by Mr. Wahr, you guys stated at that point in time that
you didn’t have the information to make that decision and therefore you were not
going to present them with a letter to bring before the I-93 Corridor Study. In
order to alleviate that problem, we bring the guy in who’s going to provide the
information, that guy is Mr. Hajec. Now we find out he has created a conflict,
we can’t rely on the information that he supplied, therefore the decision to
base a decision based on what Mr. Hajec provided should be null and void as far
as far as I’m concerned. Mr. Gill: As you see it.
Susan Duffy, 67 Catamount
Road: I am also a member of the Master Plan Committee. The MPC did not
make a recommendation for that area for a ramp proposal. The MPC actually made
a recommendation from our subcommittee, the Land Use subcommittee, for various
land options in that South Street study area and referenced from the web site:
“…the land use options in the vicinity of the Perkins parcels, there are 2
different outcomes that depend on whether or not a new interchange is
constructed and the recommendation was split into a ramp versus a no-ramp
scenario. The no-ramp scenario: the land should be zoned to allow for
encouragement of open space residential design sub-divisions and if there was a
ramp proposed and approved and eventually built, the uses under this scenario
would include office research, resort, golf, hotels, convention center, and
commercial retail.” This is all the information I’ve collected over the last 2
years with regard to traffic and the ramp issues. I’ve been studying the Mills
Study committee for the Mills Corporation for over 2 years now since Gator first
came to town. There’s also a Rte. 93 Corridor Study that’s 419 pages long, not
gotten thru all of it but most of it.
Concerned
about the Mills Study Committee. The committee since day one when you formed it
on June 24, 2003 -- there have been a lot of things going on that have been very
concerning to me. You stated over 3 times in the meeting minutes that you
wanted that process of discussion and communication between the Perkins and
Mills people to be an open and honest communication process and that everybody
will be heard equally. In August when Mr. Sears started bringing up the land
ownership issue, the committee did not want to hear it and it became so heated
at that meeting, that they ousted Mr. Sears as the Chairman and voted in a new
Chairman. That night I heard later that there was a group of the Mills study
committee and Perkins and Mills people were at the Piccadilly Pub -- now
allegations that there may have been an open meeting violation which is now
being investigated by the DA’s office. In addition, now this latest issue with
Mr. Hajec.
In my
opinion, this Mills Study Committee is not doing what it was set out to do. Its
charter has been changed twice and since Mr. Brabowski has entered into the
picture, I feel the charter has changed again because it’s been told to me more
than once listening to you, that the committee was not to make any
recommendations. They were to gather the facts and put together a report and
present that data and those facts to you as a board. Now I’m hearing that with
Mr. Brabowski on board and this development agreement that’s being proposed and
developed as we speak, that this Mills Study committee is going to be making a
recommendation. They’re making recommendations right now about how they feel
that building should look, how the development agreement should look, what
should be involved with it. Very concerned about this whole study committee and
don’t think it’s turned out to be what you promised the citizens of Tewksbury it
would be.
With Mr.
Hajec, I think that you should rescind the letter to Merrimack Valley Planning
Commission, not the Economic Development Council and state that yes, he has been
fired and our decision was partly based on his findings and recommendations and
we will await the recommendations and findings of the new traffic engineer. I
was told by Mr. Sadwick yesterday that the Mills Study committee meeting is
still tentatively meeting on February 26 and that he had hoped that the new
traffic person has seen Mills’ traffic stuff and he was hoping they would be
able to make some type of report to the committee on February 26. I am also in
agreement with Mrs. Derosa that the deadline for input to the corridor study was
February 2, that Monday, and am hoping that you all will consider rescinding
your letter and they will also accept that as part of their decision making
process.
Have you been in receipt of a
request for scheduling a Special Town Meeting for any zoning? Mr. Coldwell:
I have not. Ms. Duffy: Question about that process. Have conflicting
information about the Special Town Meeting process. The Board of Selectmen can
call a Special Town Meeting or it can be petitioned by residents? Mr.
Coldwell: Correct. Ms. Duffy: If it’s petitioned by residents, the
Board of Selectmen have to call the meeting? Mrs. Carey told me last month that
the Board of Selectmen can refuse to call that meeting. I’d like clarification
of that, not now but if you could find out for sure. In reading the town’s
Charter and everything else, I could not find anything that states that clearly.
Town Counsel Zaroulis
responded that if 200 citizens petition for a Special Town Meeting and the
Selectmen fail to call it – they don’t have to – then those citizens are
required to get a Justice of the Peace to conduct that meeting. It becomes a
very difficult task for a Justice of the Peace in today’s age to conduct that
type of a town meeting. Ms. Duffy: So it’s not that the Board refuse
the meeting, they would just refuse to call it. Mr. Zaroulis: They
could refuse to call the meeting and for a number of reasons, i.e. because of
the expenditure that’s necessary and in view of the fact that it’s now for
example, February. By the time a petition comes in and by the time the
Selectmen by Statute would call the Town Meeting, you’re close to an Annual Town
Meeting and consequently, the courts would hold that the shortness of time does
not warrant the court getting involved --to force them to call this Town Meeting
before the Annual Town Meeting because that’s in May. That’s the reality of
that kind of an issue and it forces a Justice of the Peace to conduct the
meeting.
Ms. Duffy: I know Mr.
Selissen was at one of the study committee meetings but also hope all members
have been watching the meetings as they’ve been going on and in making decisions
like this, you should be. I have attended and reviewed all of the meetings that
have gone on to date and am concerned that the Board of Selectmen is expecting a
report soon and with everything that is going on, it is not going to occur. I’m
reading in the papers that you’re expecting a report from the study committee
for your March 9 meeting and I was hoping that you won’t be adding any pressure
to the committee to rush thru their work until they have all the information
provided. Mr. Shaw has told us more than once that he will continue holding
meetings as long as all the good questions are still being asked. You also had
agreed that when these committees were meeting, that the committee meetings
would be taped and would be replayed on channel 10 and it has not been happening
consistently. Mr. Kelley asked Mr. Shaw at the last meeting if the last meeting
was taped and if it would be replayed. Mr. Shaw said it would be and I haven’t
seen it replayed on Channel 10 as of yet.
Mr. Coldwell commented on two things. (a) I expect
a report when it’s ready and not before. Nobody on this board put a date on
that. (b) You stated that Mr. Shaw said he will conduct meetings until all
questions are answered yet you said you felt that the public wasn’t being
heard. Those two statements seem to be in conflict.
Ms. Duffy: If you’ve been
watching some of the meetings, residents will get up and speak and all of a
sudden there’s a time limit and other people get up to speak and there is no
time limit. It got so ridiculous at the last meeting, that I said the next
meeting I’m going to bring a timer for Mr. Shaw – it hasn’t felt fair in terms
of time we’ve been able to speak. This information is provided to you as a
Board because I’ve been hearing, and feeling, and reading in the papers, that
there’s this rush to get this report done by March so that hopefully this
article can come before Town Meeting in May.
Mr. Coldwell: If it’s
ready in March, fine; if not, that’s fine too. We’ve asked for a report,
something that this board can read and make their own determination as to the
positives, the negatives. When I put this into motion, I felt it was a big
enough project for everybody to have their say. No doubt in anybody’s mind who
are opposing and who are proponents. To say that people have not been heard --
we stayed here at the last meeting went until almost 11:30PM. The Chair was
accused of not staying on the subject of the access ramp yet we were fighting
the British in Lexington, and had Indian sayings, etc. which I allowed. I think
that we as a Board and as Chairman, we have allowed people to speak their minds
during this whole year. I don’t necessarily have to agree with them nor they
with me, but we’ve all been allowed to speak. The people have had their say in
the town government in all subjects. If there’s something going on that is not
right in somebody’s mind, we try to address that as best we can.
I expect a report when it is ready and not before. We have
not received a request for a Special Town Meeting so I have no idea what is
happening. When we do get that request, everybody will know it. Just like this
gentleman who was dismissed – it was in all the newspapers; the people down at
the designated agency must know it by now, they read the papers. The people in
Wilmington, a young lady Selectperson who spoke here and said that she was the
one who said there was a meeting – all that information has been disseminated to
these people.
Ms. Duffy: I still think
something should be written coming from you all.
Mr. Coldwell: We had 4 options prior to the 5th
alternative presented to us. Those 4 options to this particular Board of
Selectmen were not acceptable because they could cause traffic problems for our
town, we became parochial in that. The 5th alternative does not let
that happen. Had we not said to add the 5th alternative, and a road
was to be approved by the federal government, state government, whoever the
agency might be, we could have an access road that actually emptied traffic onto
South Street. The trumpet was stated that it would land lock property and
should a commercial development not be built, the residential were to be built,
where’s that traffic going to go? Down South Street as well. This board voted
the 5th alternative because we wanted to have a little bit of a
voice. If Mr. Hajec is wrong or if the gentleman that Doug’s committee is going
to deal with disagrees and has good reason to disagree and convinces us, we will
let the people know that.
Ms. Duffy: Please
consider officially letting them know. Taping the study committee meetings --
who do I talk to on how that can still occur? Mr. Coldwell: We’ll speak
to Sandy tomorrow. Mr. Gill: The last meeting was on TV because I got
complaints about the quality of the broadcast. It was replayed. Ms. Duffy:
There was nothing on Channel 10 informing people it would be replayed
because I looked 4 times on the weekend looking for the schedule and the meeting
before that wasn’t replayed.
Larry Knight, David Street: Along with the open and
fair process, I would suggest that if there is not a deadline, that Mr. Shaw be
instructed to stop quoting in the newspapers that he’s looking to get his report
to the Selectmen on March 9 because that’s causing some concern for those of us
in the opposition that think this thing has been put on the fast track. If it’s
not on the fast track, then slow him down and get him off the March 9 date.
Regarding people getting up to speak, at the Mills Study Committee meetings, at
best there are maybe 6 people that regularly get up and state their opinions.
At the last meeting, we had a lot of information presented to us, i.e. traffic
consultants, water sewer consultants, etc. which prompts a lot of questions.
Mr. Kelley is the most outspoken of our group and represents the group. He got
up and started to direct his questions and was shut off. If we are going to let
people ask every question, let them ask the question. He shouldn’t be shut off
and he wasn’t at the podium more than 5 minutes and we had a lot of information
to discuss and should be considered. At the same time, Mr. O’Neill was allowed
to sit there for 20 minutes and make his pitch about what the skating rink is
going to do for Tewksbury. We have questions about water, sewer, environmental,
etc. – we don’t care about the ice skating rink so much at this point in time.
I ask that you instruct Mr. Shaw to give us consideration at the microphone with
questions pertinent to the subject at hand.
Reports (continued)
(a). Mr. Gill: (a). Received some replies
relative to the Tennessee Pipeline question I proposed last meeting. Had become
aware of many problems with citizens settling their case and received a letter
from Mary Usevitch who wants me to call her and I will ask her about their
relationships to our citizens and how they are handling them and how many cases
they have pending and will report back to the Board at the next meeting after
discussing it with her. (b). Received a report from Comcast relative to how
many problems were reported to them by the citizens in Tewksbury who have cable
service. Now that we’re involved with another rate increase with Comcast, it is
very important that if you do have problems with the cable company, call them
because by law, they are required to report to us the type of complaint, the
length it took to resolve it, etc. Your calls to the cable company are very
important. Last year there were 252 complaints about installation, 347
complaints about service interruption, 34 billing errors, 44 missed service
calls -- it’s important for us to gauge during the renewal process that the
citizens call Comcast as we need the information for our future contracts.
(c). To Mr. Cressman, has Mango’s served any food or have they opened? Mr.
Cressman: No to both. Mr. Gill stated that we were told by Green Mango
that by January 30, they would be open. Mr. Cressman will check on it
and has asked Mr. Carbone of the Health Dept. and Mr. Colantuoni of the Building
department to put together a report and brought it up in his staff meeting again
today and asked Mrs. Barbeau to contact Attorney Gaffney regarding Green Mangos
as to their status and also on something from Mr. Carbone, to check on the
status of Mr. Proctor’s package store’s license. Mr. Gill asked if he could
provide some of that by the next meeting, i.e. preliminary reports. (d). Took
note a couple of weeks ago of an award that Marty Meehan was able to get, a
monetary award for a town hall somewhere in the Commonwealth in his district for
“preserving the town hall because of its historic nature”. We have a historic
nature out here that’s dumping heat all over the place – not in here. Asked the
Town Manager to find some way to explore the possibility of getting our
representative Meehan to indicate that this town Hall is in dire need of some
money he has received, est. $75,000 for rehab of a Town Hall. Want us to get
some of it. He’s been here and knows the condition of this place.
Mr. Coldwell added that on Tennessee Gas, Selectman
Ryan had met with the neighbors and had hoped he would give a report but the
situation will not allow that. Also, on Comcast and their service, putting
their outrageous rates aside, calling Customer Service is pretty good in getting
resolution. Encourage the public to call them with any complaints and let the
Board know the results and if not resolved to your satisfaction, let us know
that as well.
(a). Mr. Selissen: (a). Regarding payments to
Mr. Hajec, made the following Motion.
Motion by Mr.
Selissen, seconded by Mr. Gill, for Mr. Cressman to review the payments to Mr.
Hajec to make sure that he is not being paid twice and to get back to us at the
next meeting. Unanimous vote. Absent Mr. Ryan.
(b). Asked Mr. Cressman if he
planned on presenting our financials at the next meeting or in March? Mr.
Cressman stated early March is the schedule. Since there was a lot of
discussion earlier about the fact that our Bond rating and some of the financial
problems we’ve been having, the draft financial model I put together that I
showed you, I’d like to see if maybe we can incorporate some of that information
into your presentation because it does point out some of the problems that we’ve
had in the past and some of the problems we’ll have coming up. (c). February
26 is the next Sewer Advisory Committee Meeting.
(a). Mr. Coldwell: (a) Hoping for warm
weather and will be having our first meeting to plan the Memorial Day parade and
anyone wishing to help should call Jim Williams, our new Veterans Agent and also
in charge of the parade. He can be reached at the Veterans Office and will give
the date and time of the meeting; can use help and assistance. (b). On
Saturday, a town resident reached his 102nd birthday and we sent a
citation and want to recognize him for this accomplishment. The citation reads
as follows: “Be it hereby known to all that the town of Tewksbury hereby offers
its sincere congratulations to Antonio Segnini on the occasion of your 102nd
birthday and recognition of over 50 years as a resident of the town of
Tewksbury.” It was signed and sent by the full Board of Selectmen. Happy
birthday to you from your town.
Motion by Mr.
Sears, seconded by Mr. Gill, to send a letter from the Board to Mr. Gaylord
Burke and the Merrimack Valley Regional Planning Council informing them that Mr.
Paul Hajec was dismissed from our employ. Unanimous vote. Absent Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Sears also asked Mr. Cressman about the status
of his records request for some financial information the other day. Mr.
Cressman stated it is forthcoming.
b. Town Counsel – Nothing tonight.
c. Secretary – Please recycle and post your house
numbers.
Unfinished Business (continued)
The Board came out of Executive Session at 10:45P.M. on a
Motion to adjourn by Mr. Selissen, seconded by Mr. Gill. On a roll call vote,
Mr. Selissen, Mr. Gill, Mr. Sears, Mr. Coldwell all in favor. Absent Mr. Ryan.
