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

On Clark’s motion, seconded by Hardin, the Board voted unanimously to approve General Minutes dated 11/15/99.

On Webster’s motion, seconded by Clark, the Board voted unanimously to table Executive Session Minutes dated 11/15/99.

The Board congratulated the Scouts for their project, and gave each one a Certificate of appreciation.

Roger Hill, Wayne Southworth, David Rapier, Sharon Rapier, John Keach in attendance.

D Rapier noted that they want water accessibility to build a home. He noted that his mother-in-law has owned the land for 35 years and then read from a prepared statement. Hill noted he has no objections but it is up to the Board of Selectmen. Hardin questioned if Rapier would be subdividing the lot into two. Rapier stated no. Hardin questioned if we have an agreement with Mansfield to service the equipment and to collect the payments. Southworth noted there are currently 9 homes in Mansfield, 16 in W. Bridgewater and 1 in Stoughton that receive water from the Town of Easton. He noted the Town could put a lien on these homes if necessary to collect water bill payments. Goodwin noted that 135 sq. ft out of 2.79 acres actually in Easton. Southworth noted that the current water hookups were paid for by the people involved. Southworth noted that Mansfield did extend their line closer, but is still 2000’ away. Southworth noted he hopes that eventually Mansfield will supply hook up for water for their own residents.

There was much discussion RE: a previous request that the Board voted on and didn’t allow the hookup.

Southworth noted that Mansfield has gone through several administrative changes in the last few years and there hasn’t been much continuity in the Water Dept. administration.

Clark noted this is not a subdivision plan but could be a Form A, and 2 lots could be formed in the future. Clark expressed concern with expanding the amount of people from Mansfield utilizing Easton’s water. Hardin noted there is no legal way to impose our restrictions on Mansfield, Stoughton or W. Bridgewater residents, i.e. water bans. Webster noted that at a meeting on 6/98, the Board voted against allowing this for another request. Webster further noted that the previous decision to service the current 8 homes was due to a serious health hazard in that area. Webster expressed concern that we have people in Easton in that area who don’t currently have water. Webster noted she wants to know what Mansfield is going to do about this area. Webster noted she is still waiting to hear from Mansfield as well as the Water Advisory Board, since the 6/98 meeting. Paicos noted that the Town of Mansfield notified the Board they would not be extending the water main in the near future, and that the Water Advisory Board already stated they weren’t in favor of the previous situation/request. Paicos noted the concern is that this lot will also be in danger from the Hercules dumpsite, and that fact makes this request different from the last one.

Clark suggested asking Mansfield again, what their intentions are, as well as asking the Water Advisory Board for their opinion. Clark noted he wanted to see the letter referred to by Paicos on this issue. Goodwin asked what is Mansfield’s responsibility for providing water to their residents. Hill noted Mansfield residents could petition their Water Commissioners and with a betterment could have the main extended through a Town Meeting process. Webster again stated the original homes were existing and in the emergency of the well contamination came to Easton for help, not someone asking to build a new home.

Tufts noted that in this case they do have frontage in Easton, the water main already runs by, they currently pay taxes to Easton, and there is possible contamination in that particular lot. Tufts noted he is willing to seek out more information and to see if there is something further that can be done.

Hardin’s motion, seconded by Clark to table this for a recommendation from the Water Advisory Board and an update from the Town of Mansfield RE: extending their water main in that area, was not voted at this time.

Tufts noted the need for a further discussion on the larger issue of extending our water main outside of the municipality. Tufts noted that Easton stepped in to help with a health hazard and 17 years later we are still providing this and Mansfield hasn’t come forward to help. Tufts noted this is a larger issue than one person wanting to build a new home.

J. Keach noted that these people (landowners) should have Town water. He noted they are decent people only looking for one house to get water.

Goodwin asked that the information necessary be requested ASAP so these people can resolve their home building.

John Keach, Charles Willis, Gerald Marsan and Anne Carney in attendance. Tufts read notice of the Hearing. Keach gave a brief introduction. A. Carney gave a brief explanation and reviewed her memo to the Board of Selectmen. Carney noted that $16.24 is the proposed new rate effective 1/1/00. Carney noted the rate has dropped but the residents will see an increase in taxes of between 3-5% in general, due to the Town Meeting spending and overrides.

In response to a question from Clark, Carney noted the average single family home will pay $3,300 per year.

On Clark’s motion, seconded by Webster, the Board voted unanimously to support and recommend a single tax rate in the amount of $16.24.

J. Keach, R. Hill in attendance.

Hill noted there is still work necessary to complete this, and the Board needs to authorize it also. Hill noted that the Town, as well as Keach as landowner, Planning Board, Historical Commission all need to be involved in this planning.

Paicos noted the Board needs to vote its blessing on the concept. Keach gave a brief explanation of Swift Park. Hill noted he has a plan that he will bring to the Planning Board and the Historical Commission.

On Webster’s motion, seconded by Goodwin, the Board voted unanimously to submit to DPW, Planning Board and Historical Commission a plan to resolve the issue at Swift Park, as well as any other departments necessary.

JUDY CANDY - She noted she is an active parent volunteer for 15 years in the schools. She was on the original playground committee and has served on several Town committees before. In response to a question from Clark, Canty noted she was not sure of the exact title of the committee. Webster questioned if she had any experience with computers/school technology. Canty noted she worked with the school/PAC’s to establish what was needed for the schools, i.e. software, hardware etc.

Goodwin noting that this committee is for both the School and Town, questioned if Canty was aware that this is not just a school project. Canty stated yes.

ELAINE SHIVEK – Noted she is new to Easton, has been a Mass. teacher and taught in Boston and Cambridge, now works fulltime for the State. She noted that as a schoolteacher she is interested in this committee and technology as it deals with teaching.

Wes Gardner, Wayne Southworth, Roger Hill in attendance.

Paicos gave a brief explanation of the Study.

event, or maybe bi-annually. Gardner noted that many of his clients are conducting yearly rate studies now.

Paicos noted this study allows for approximately $250,000 each year in excess to pay for debt service for the capital improvements.

Gardner reviewed the Study (on file in Selectmen’s Office).

Webster’s motion, seconded by Clark, to approve the recommendation in the Study with the new prices to be in effect as of 1/1/00, was amended by Tufts, seconded by Hardin, to leave the price structure for Fire Protection at the current $240, was not voted at this time.

Hill expressed concern with the Board not recommending the increase for the Fire Protection. Hill note that the Consultant and the Water Superintendent followed the Board’s premise and asked that the Board accept the full recommendation.

Hardin noted the article in the Enterprise on Wayne and the Water Dept. employees, and commended all.

On Webster’s motion, seconded by Hardin, the Board voted unanimously to approve the SERSG Bids, per recommendations (see attached).

M. Brockman, C. O’Neil, M. Boyle in attendance.

Paicos reviewed the recent history, and noted that two months ago the Board had a discussion on the Town Administrator vs someone else having authority to present the capital plan to the Town Meeting. Paicos reviewed the process over the last several years. Clark noted that his question is does the Town Adm. have the authority to change the priority of the list submitted by the Capital Planning Committee. Clark noted he also has a problem with the Selectmen, FinCom and Capital Committee not all going out together to inspect all vehicles. Clark noted he wants a legal opinion as to whether the Town Adm. can change priorities of the Capital Planning Comm. Boyle noted that he felt the charter states the Capital Plan. Comm. will put together the data and submit it to the Town Adm. and assist the Town Adm. with preparing his recommended Capital budget. Boyle noted there is a glaring need for following a "process". Boyle noted that the tennis issue speaks to the need for the capital planning process to be inclusive of every dept. or organization in Town. Boyle noted that the yearly requests would require more money than the entire operating budget. Boyle noted that M. Rousseau as Town Planner will be the keeper of the Capital Plan. Boyle noted he met with the major Town dept. and the Chair of the Municipal Building Committee to review the process. Boyle noted he felt that putting all the items in the STM Warrant didn’t do a service to the Townspeople, because good people were incorrectly led to believe that all items in the Warrant were priority. Clark questioned if all depts. Submit 5-year plans. Boyle stated some do, but not all. Boyle noted the Capital Planning Committee is going to be more proactive in soliciting 5-year plans. Brockman noted that in his two years as Chair every item was listed in the Warrants. Brockman noted that the "whole process" is not understood by everyone. He noted the need to go forward, learn from history, but to go forward with a good process. Webster noted the Capital Plan. Comm. is a balanced committee of citizens and dept. heads. Webster noted that we fall down on items being funded outside of the capital budget process. Webster noted the fall STM expended money on items that never went through the process. Webster expressed concern that building maintenance hasn’t been addressed in capital planning for the past 2 years and yet the PFSC put together a list of building and maintenance needs in school and town buildings. She noted the need to put a plan in place and follow it. She noted the need to plan for the future and not be reactive to individual needs. Boyle noted he doesn’t think every item submitted to capital planning has been printed in the warrants, only those items the Town Adm. feels the Town has the money to fund. Tufts noted the question is "does the Board submit the Capital Budget to the Warrant, and in what length or completeness?" Tufts noted the need for the Capital Plan. Comm. to get involved with the STM articles also and not just the ATM Capital Plan. Boyle suggested the Board could vote to not accept any

Articles that haven’t gone through the capital process. Goodwin noted the process of presenting to TM is a

real problem. She noted we need to present information to the body much better. We need to do a presentation on the amount of money available and the necessity of each item listed and how far we can expend that money. Goodwin noted she wants to research other communities and how they conduct their process and how they present it to the TM body. Goodwin also asked the Town Adm. to put together a presentation for the TM. Boyle noted the MMA has templates and he will be working with these template forms and the data will be kept by the DP dept. Hardin noted the Warrant is the "creature" of the Board of Selectmen. He noted the law does allow the FinCom and Capital Plan. Comm. to advise and prepare information for the Board. Tufts noted that either the first or second meeting in January he will make up a calendar for the budget submissions and preparations, along with TM dates, etc., and at that time he will allow for continuation of the "presentation to TM" issue discussion.

RE: odor at Landfill, Paicos noted that the SEA Consultant has looked at this problem, tested all the vents, and most if not all are emitting sulfur dioxide gas. He noted the DPW will be purchasing and installing scrubbers for all vents as soon, as is possible. Paicos noted that DEP gave approval for this plan and it will either be done by the end of this week, or the beginning or next at the latest. Paicos noted he will send a letter to the residents on Foundry, Howard, Prospect, Bradford, and will notify all of what the plan is to resolve this. Goodwin questioned if this is a health hazard. Paicos stated no. Goodwin asked Paicos to keep Board members apprised with anything significant and each member will also be able to call and inquire.

Webster asked that Media One correct the current audio problems.

Webster noted RE: status of the Fire Study issue if this will be addressed before budgets are decided. Tufts noted this will be on at a time prior to the budget discussion.

Clark reading from Minutes dated 11/15, questioned when the Chestnut Street water situation will be on the agenda. Paicos noted there was a memo in the I&N and asked the Board to review before putting an agenda item on. Paicos noted the first batch of test results should be back this week, and then he will ask Dave Jacobs to do a mini-report to be submitted to the Board.

Clark questioned the status of the Town Counsel selection process, and asked to see copies of the resumes. Tufts noted that the Town Counsel interviews will need a special meeting scheduled.

At this point in the meeting, on Clark’s motion, seconded by Goodwin, the Board voted unanimously to take under emergency conditions, zoning articles for the upcoming STM.

On Clark’s motion, seconded by Goodwin, the Board voted unanimously to refer to the Planning and Zoning Board the articles proposed for the STM (see attached).

Tufts noted that it will be tough in February to hold a Special. Tufts also noted that the Growth Management Committee will be meeting this Thursday, and will discuss the feasibility of the February STM. Tufts noted he will notify the Board of the results of the meeting.

At 9:55PM, on Hardin’s motion, seconded by Clark, the Board voted unanimously by roll-call, to go into Executive Session for the purpose of Labor Negotiations and Pending Litigation, not to return to Open Session.

APPROVED____________________________

DATED_____________________________