The Board of Selectmen met this evening with Chairman Jeffrey Tufts presiding. In attendance were William Hardin, Frederick Clark, Patricia Hunt, Patricia Webster and Town Adm. Kevin Paicos.

Tufts read the proclamation. On Clark’s motion, seconded by Hardin, the Board voted unanimously to approve the MADD Proclamation.

At this point in the meeting on Clark’s motion, seconded by Hardin, the Board voted unanimously to take under emergency conditions, the selling of Christmas trees by a resident.

On Clark’s motion, seconded by Hardin, the Board voted unanimously to approve and waive the fee for Mr. Roberto to sell Christmas trees for Cystic Fibrosis at the Diplomat on Turnpike Street.

Hunt noted that she wanted to be sure the minutes aren’t released prior to the Clerk signing them, and checking for amendments. Paicos noted that the Attorney General’s Office has ruled that once recorded, minutes are subject to release when requested. Hunt noted she wants a written opinion from the Attorney General’s Office and the Secretary of State’s Office RE: the release of minutes. Tufts stated that minimally the copy should have the word draft stamped on it to indicate that the minutes have not been approved.

At this point in the meeting Chairman Tufts left during discussion and voting.

Webster questioned when Executive Session Minutes can be released. Webster also noted that a vote from Executive Session was listed on the front page of the Journal. Paicos noted that Town Counsel gave an opinion on approving release of that decision by the Board. Webster noted she thought the policy was made that Executive Session information wasn’t to be released until the issue discussed was resolved and the Board of Selectmen votes to release them. Clark noted that the Executive Session vote referred to in the Journal was 2-2 so by default the decision, discussed in the Journal, wasn’t appealed.

On Hardin’s motion, seconded by Clark, the Board voted unanimously to have Town Counsel meet with the Board to discuss Executive Session Minutes and procedures for release.

At this point in the meeting Chairman Tufts returned.

L. White in attendance.

White gave a brief explanation of why the original pole can’t be fixed by itself, and the need for the guide pole. White noted that Edison and the Telephone Co. tried three times to resolve this. Hunt noted this problem would be eliminated if the wires were put underground.

On Clark’s motion, seconded by Hardin, the Board voted 4-1 to approve Pole Petition 235S, subject to the usual conditions. Hunt opposed.

L. White in attendance.

On Clark’s motion, seconded by Webster, the Board voted unanimously to approve Pole 9-1 on Foundry Street, subject to the usual conditions.

J. Webby, P. Barske, B. DunKley, P. Marino, P. Fruzzetti in attendance.

Webby noted the Committee has completed Section 1 of the Charge and wants to go onto Section 2, 7-12. (see attached). Webby noted the ConCom is very supportive of their efforts. Webby passed out copies of maps to the Board. Barske noted the Army Corp of Engineers thought this project would be the largest in Easton and in the State, and would cost between $50,000 - $500,000. Barske noted the need to hire an engineer for a feasibility study. Barske noted the grant was denied last time but he is hopeful to re-submit, but will need an engineer’s report as to the amount of money involved. Barske noted that DEM thought the Town scored well on the last grant application and felt it was hopeful to re-apply. Barske noted the Committee has received a good response from the general public. Barske noted that Peter Webber sent a letter with the grant application, asking for the Town to re-apply. Barske noted he received a letter RE: re-appointment of the Flyaway Pond Restoration Committee, and questioned what the status is of the Committee members. Tufts noted the Board decided a one year term for this Committee. Tufts expressed concern with the range of $50,000-$500,000. Clark asked if the Town Engineer could do this work. Webby noted he didn’t think the DPW Engineer could handle this, noting the need for an engineering consultant firm to do this. Clark noted the need for State and Federal reps to express their support for this project along with the ConCom and Board of Selectmen. Webby noted that M. White has been handling the grantwriting. Webby noted this is a matching grant for engineering studies. Clark questioned if this could be tied in as a future aquifer resource. Webby noted he wasn’t sure and that is why there is such a need for a feasibility study. Webby noted he wants the Board to agree the Flyaway Committee can go to Section 2 of the Charge. Barske noted he would like to see the pond re-established, but it may have difficulties. Barske noted there may be a surprise from the EPA that it can’t be done as a full pond, but maybe 4 or 5 acres at a 10’ depth. Barske noted that the EPA may now say to leave this land as it is because of the ecological issues over the years since the dam broke. Clark reviewed the items 1-6 in Section 1 of the Charge, agreeing they have all been completed.

Paicos noted the feasibility study is to see whether or not the pond can be restored, and the grant would be for $10,000 and the Town would have to pay $10,000. Paicos noted the need for the feasibility study prior to beginning Section 2. Hunt questioned if there is grant money available for the actual restoration of the pond. Webby noted not at this time. Hunt expressed concern with spending money to find out we can do something physically but can’t afford it financially. Hunt again asked if there is grant funding for someone to build this for us. Webby again stated not at this time. Hunt noted that money shouldn’t be taken away from other priority items currently not being addressed, i.e. building maintenance, repair of existing dams etc. Hunt noted it seems like spending money to study something that may never happen due to finances. Hunt questioned what is the point of spending money to do the study and then have no money to complete the project. Barske noted that certain wildlife and vegetations have grant money available for their study and preservation. Barske noted the No. American Fish and Wildlife Assoc., if we had low dikes, would be ready to build. Barske noted we were denied because of the full pond grant proposal we submitted. Barske noted that in the initial phase we must do an ecological and feasibility study. Hunt noted that identifying grant and outside resource money was to be done prior to the Town spending any money on this, and that is why the Charge is done the way it is. Hunt noted this is a new proposal from the Flyaway Committee, noting she thought the Committee wanted to issue an RFP. Hunt noted her reluctance to approve any Town money for something that may not be able to be built. Barske noted the need for money to establish the information and data in order to submit the grant application. Webster asked if the Committee could give the Board information on the full pond and dike form, and those places/organizations that can give grant money towards this effort. Webby noted yes. Hunt questioned that if a grant was applied for to receive consulting money in the amount of $10,000, could the Committee solicit private matching funds vs the Town paying. Paicos noted the only way to know for sure if this is feasible is to get a feasibility study one way or another. Tufts expressed concern RE: funding this project outside of the capital planning process. Tufts noted this should be lined up with all capital projects to decide where the money should be spent. Tufts noted he wasn’t in favor of the Committee formation due to the concern of the money not being there for the study. DunKley noted the Committee feels like they are spinning wheels in the sand, and need the study to go forward. Tufts noted he felt the Board was placating people by forming the Committee and he doesn’t feel the pond will be established. Tufts noted he is impressed with what the Committee has done but he is concerned that it hasn’t gone through the capital process. P. Marino noted that Congressmen Moakley and Frank led J. Kent to believe there would be money for grants available. Hardin noted it is sad that most of Easton has no memory of that pond and he laments the fact it is no longer there. Hardin noted that while he knows there are so many projects that need money, it is perfectly OK to spend some seed money, up to $10,000 for a feasibility study. Hardin noted he is very strongly in

favor of full restoration of the pond, approximately 60 acres. Webby noted this project hasn’t cost the Town any money yet and the Committee is willing to solicit private money to continue to go forward with this project. Tufts noted that if we accept donations for the matching grant and the Town hasn’t identified the money to build the dam eventually, he is concerned about this. Tufts noted that people need to know that we may never be able to go ahead with the entire project. Paicos noted a formal RFP can’t be issued without the money in place. Paicos noted he needs to talk with a couple of engineers as to approximate costs then he can apply for the grant, then get a formal RFP done. Paicos noted that beyond getting answers as to whether we can or can’t do this, we can get information on wetland restoration and that does have grant money available. Paicos again noted the need for a preliminary feasibility study in any case. Clark noted that the Town has 5 aquifers throughout the Town and currently the Water Dept. is looking at this area to do test wells. Clark noted that the need for adequate water supply for the Town and this project will work hand in hand. Hunt noted that it doesn’t make sense to spend money on any project if there is no end money for the whole project. Clark’s motion, seconded by Webster to approve the submitting of a grant application by 12/29/97 for matching funds for a feasibility study, and to research the feasibility/possibility of this area to be used as an aquifer or re-charge area, was voted 3-2. Tufts, Hunt opposed.

Webster asked for information on the suggested grant programs in writing.

At this point in the meeting Selectman Hunt sat in the audience as a resident.

C. Hannigan, B. McAndrews in attendance.

Paicos noted the letter sent from the Legislators RE: route recommendation through Easton, was not supported or signed by our Legislators. Paicos noted he sent a response letter to this to the Acting Governor. Paicos noted that our Legislators also prepared a response letter. Paicos noted that J. Haederle sent a letter which was received today with recent updates. Paicos noted there is a legislative hearing this week on Wednesday to discuss the Transportation Bond Bill, and there is not currently money proposed for this extension. Paicos noted that if he finds an opportunity to be there worthwhile, he or a representative will be there from Town. Paicos noted he had extended an invitation to the Raynham Board of Selectmen for the 12/8/97 meeting. Paicos noted he has a draft response being reviewed and will be ready in about a week for the Board. Tufts noted he read in the paper that Raynham stated that reps from the MBTA would be at the 12/8 meeting, and the truth is that maybe a rep will be present, but he is still working on this. Tufts noted he wants the Board to be able to review the report from the Department Heads prior to the meeting with Raynham. Paicos noted that at this point there is not enough new information for another public meeting, and the meeting with the Raynham Board of Selectmen is fine, but the Board should meet with our Legislators and Department Heads to establish a strategy. Webster noted that she read again in the papers something the Board is doing that she didn’t know about, and questioned how come the Board didn’t get this information. Tufts noted he contacted the Raynham Executive Secretary about the 12/8/97 meeting and they reported this is the paper, not us. Paicos noted the invitation to Raynham was extended and a confirmation hasn’t been received yet. Webster noted that the Board should have been told that the meeting was scheduled for December. Tufts noted the Board asked for a meeting with Raynham and he tried to schedule it. Webster noted that in August at the MBTA hearing it was stated that a report from Department Heads would be forthcoming and it is negligible that it hasn’t been finished. Paicos noted he has been working on this issue constantly with our Legislators, staff etc. Paicos noted that the report is very comprehensive in terms of analyzing the MBTA’s report. Paicos noted to do a good job it is very time consuming, and a lot of work has been done on this. Paicos noted the Legislators have cautioned against "peaking too soon". Paicos noted that if there is something someone suggests to do, he will do it, but he has been going forward at the advice of our Legislators. Webster questioned having a referendum question. Hunt, as resident, noted that the impression out there is that there is not a full appreciation of what is happening but there is a full court press going on to extend the rail through Easton to Fall River. Hunt noted that our Legislators haven’t been told the Selectmen took a vote.

Hunt cautioned that the MBTA will do a study of the ACEC issue. Hunt noted she attended hearings in Hingham and they were fully prepared as a Town to defend their position. Hunt noted that those in attendance stated that you can’t believe what the MBTA says, and that they will not respond either if you send letters. Hunt noted that Easton needs to be prepared to make a financial investment for studies to refute the MBTA studies. Hunt noted that the urgency is appropriate and it shouldn’t take three months to do reports, it looks like the Town is ill prepared. Hunt noted the need to invest money into this fight. Tufts noted he wants to fight a flat out no, not offering any compromises. Tufts noted he doesn’t want rabblerousing meetings, they are not productive. Hunt noted that no impact amelioration will ameliorate the effect of this train coming though Town. Hunt noted there is already a snowball effect in the opposite direction. Hunt noted the meeting on Wednesday is too important for any other conflict to interfere with it. Webster noted she wants the report within 1-1/2 weeks and to hold this meeting on 12/8/97. Paicos noted a State Rep’s aide didn’t transmit this vote to the Rep, and he thought the press would have carried this story. Paicos noted he sent a memo to the Board 2 months ago with a plan of attack and have had no direction from the Board on proceeding. Paicos noted the Board should try to meet with Raynham and any other community to try to put forth a clear effort. Paicos noted that any perception that things haven’t been done is incorrect. Paicos noted our Legislators are guiding against having a big public meeting. Clark noted there was no information in the agenda folder on this and asked if there is any information. Paicos noted he had just given a 15 minute verbal update. Clark asked if anyone had contacted the MBTA to attend on 12/8. Tufts stated no. Clark noted that if someone wants to put a line though Easton, we should continue operating as we have. Hardin noted the need to establish what the Town wants and to have a fall back position. Hardin noted we will lose if we don’t have a fall back position. C. Hannigan noted that two years ago he wrote a letter to the Selectmen and didn’t receive a response. Hannigan noted that as President of Rockmeadow Association he wrote another letter 2 1/2 months ago with no response. Hannigan asked if it is common practice to respond to citizens or not. Hannigan RE: a referendum question noted that around Town people seem in favor but they are not informed about the ramifications of grade crossings, traffic, etc. Hannigan noted the need to have more information before the public has a referendum question. Hannigan noted that lots of people don’t know what is going on and they don’t have enough details. McAndrews noted that two years ago at a meeting with 2 reps from the MBTA he asked if Easton doesn’t want this will we still get this, and they answered yes. McAndrews noted that people feel that if reps from the MBTA can state that we can’t stop this, they are giving up. Hunt noted the reason she acts with concern is that there is an appearance that factual studies are taking longer than they should and facts will resolve this. Hunt noted that facts will decide this in particular with the ACEC issues. Hunt noted the Town needs a response with these facts. Hunt noted that maybe engineering could draw maps as to where the train is going. Hunt noted the need to put money into getting expert guidance. Paicos noted the position paper will be ready in the next few days and the Board could schedule this discussion prior to or on the 12/8 agenda and could use Paicos’ memo for discussion on action to be taken. Paicos suggested having our Legislators present. Webster noted we need to take this seriously and get information out there. Tufts noted the reports from Department Heads took longer than thought, and that he had sent a memo to the Board for a no vote for the Legislators. Hardin noted there will be a railroad station on Washington Street due to the MBTA owning the right of way. Hardin noted this may happen soon and should be addressed. Webster noted she opposed this coming to Easton at all, not even the train station in No. Easton. Hannigan noted that two years ago the MBTA stated they weren’t coming though Town and now they are proposing this, we can’t trust the MBTA. Tufts noted the Board will have the reports from Town Departments prior to the 12/8/97 meeting with Raynham and will discuss this information.

At 9:10PM, on Hardin’s motion, seconded by Tufts the Board voted 3-1 by roll-call, to adjourn to Executive Session to discuss Real Property with the possibility of returning to Open Session.

At 10:20PM, the Board reconvened Open Session.

Paicos noted the trip to New York to present to Moody’s for the bond rate increase with A. Carney, E. Camara, C. Curry and the 2 Bankers from Fleet.

Paicos noted he is working on the operating budget currently and is still trying to produce it by the first or second week of December.

Paicos noted the Capital Planning Committee Chairman could meet on 12/8/97 with the Board, but not as previously scheduled for 11/24/97.

Webster questioned where the fleet list was. Webster noted that she was told that the police cruisers have already been purchased and cars already traded without a signed contract, and she is not sure if this is legal. Webster, noting a memo from Paicos in April questioned why cars didn’t go where memo said they would. Webster noted she wants this issue on an agenda. Paicos noted the vehicles haven’t been purchased but have been delivered. Paicos noted no payment has been made yet. Webster noted that payment for computers and lights for the cruisers has been made, and the other cars didn’t go where the memo said they would. Paicos noted he would research what happened to the other cars. Webster noted she thought the Town Meeting vote was for 4 cruisers, not 3 cruisers and a car for the Chief. There was much discussion RE: Paicos taking the Chief’s old car and the Chief getting a new car. Webster noted she wants a discussion with the Police Chief present RE: this issue. Paicos noted he would resolve this issue with the Department Head.

At 10:50PM, on Clark’s motion, seconded by Webster, the Board voted unanimously to adjourn.

APPROVED_____________________________________

DATED______________________________________