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.

On Hardin’s motion, seconded by Clark, the Board voted unanimously to approve General Minutes dated 12/22/97, as amended.

Tufts noted the recent death of Anthony Ferragamo

On Clark’s motion, seconded by Hardin, the Board voted unanimously to send a letter of appreciation and condolences to the family of Anthony Ferragamo and to advertise the two unexpired terms on the COA and the Cable TV Advisory Board.

TOWN COUNSEL BUDGET - M. Lincoln in attendance.

Paicos gave a brief explanation of this Budget. On Hunt’s motion, seconded by Hardin, the Board voted 4-1 to recommend approval of the Town Counsel Budget in the amount of $138,300. Clark opposed.

SELECTMEN’S BUDGET - Paicos gave a brief explanation of this Budget. Hunt noted the need for more information on the capital side and a general breakdown on the budget in general. Paicos noted he will get a spreadsheet for the capital items.

After much discussion, on Hunt’s motion, seconded by Clark, the Board voted unanimously to table the Selectmen’s Budget for more information on capital budget, general breakdown of operating budget, information on out-of-state travel for the past couple of years.

DATA PROCESSING BUDGET - G. Danziger, E. Camara, E. Davis, R. Hicks in attendance.

Paicos gave a brief explanation of this Budget. It was noted that most of the increase in the DP Budget will be paid for out of Net School Spending in the Ed Reform Formula. Hunt noted she wants to know what other DP departments look like in other communities. Danziger gave a brief explanation of developing in-house vs off the shelf software, and the benefit to in-house. Hunt noted that there now are two high level full-time positions that were not projected after the previous computer study and she needs to know if our expenditures are in line with other communities costs. There was much discussion RE: the Regional School continuing or not, to update the computer system for the School. Camara noted that the Auditors have been stating for years that the school payroll should be done in-house. Camara noted the Treasurer has also been asking for years to have this done in-house so she isn’t reporting to the State and IRS from two different sources. Davis noted in response to questions, that the ambulance billing is now integrated with outside software/collection; there is already an existing personnel system in place for the general government employees. Hicks noted that the departments integration with computers are ahead of many communities. Hardin’s motion, seconded by Tufts, to recommend approval of the Data Processing Budget in the amount of $211,440, was not voted at this time. Webster noted that the work plan for FY’99 included making all workstations internet accessable and quesioned costs associated with this project. She also questioned why the Town is currently using several internet providers at different rates and suggested that the Town investigate cost savings associated with using one provider.

In response to questions, Danziger gave a brief explanation of the fire wall protection and capacity necessary for all PC’s to be on one internet services, vs the several services currently being paid for.

Paicos will research ARGO as the sole provider of internet services. Board asked for the following:

costs of all DP services; general ledger; accounts payable; payroll; central system operations; WAN/LAN costs; operating budget in general, in comparison with other communities.

Vote on the motion did not pass with a 2-3 vote. Hardin, Tufts in favor.

Paicos will get the information requested.

Attorney G. McGregor, R. Wilmer, J. DuPont, D. McKinnon, G. Luciano, A. Barron, L. Bader, R. Hicks, R. Hill, approx. 40 residents.

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

McGregor noted his office has reviewed the report from Sec. Moynihan that was sent to G. Creedon, and the report announces the Stoughton line is permittable. The MBTA assertion is to aggressively pursue the Stoughton line based on the report. DuPont noted the MBTA will proceed regardless of what local communities say or concerns they express. A. Barron noted that at the MMA meeting he spoke with an agent from the EPA who is reviewing further, the letter submitted by W. Southworth RE: the Hockomock issues. Tufts noted this is a long drawn out process and there won’t be trains running next year.

Hunt RE: the so-called independent assessment by the MBTA noted her disappointment as a taxpayer because she thought they would engage a wetlands person to do an assessment, and instead they hired a firm to do a paper review of all existing MBTA reports. Hunt noted there is a huge assumption in the report that no federal money will be used, and basically the report states that the State doesn’t have enough information to give an actual report. Hunt noted the Middleboro route is not an alternative based on the least environmental disruption alternative. The report assumes Middleboro is not viable based on full construction of the Greenbush line. Hunt noted the Greenbush line has been in the works for 14 years, spent millions already on it, and it is now in litigation in the federal courts. Hunt noted that now the commuter boats are very popular and they hadn’t been thought of at the beginning of the Greenbush design. Hunt noted the T shouldn’t presuppose the Greenbush line will be established, and suggested the Town pursue the alternative Middleboro line based on the Greenbush line not being finished. The Town should cause re-examination of the Attleboro line also. Hunt noted that instead of communities fighting each other, they should have the MBTA put forth the proposal for the Middleboro line being pursued.

Webster questioned if there was anyone in attendance who was in favor of the train, no one responded. Webster noted her concern that she is still reeiving calls from residents unaware of the proposal and its impacts on Easton, and feels that there is a need for more community education on this issue. Webster noted that there is a need for public vote on this issue to support the Selectmen’s position.

Tufts noted we already held two very large hearings and overwhelmingly everyone was opposed to the train. Tufts noted the proposed ballot question has timing problems and the Selectmen haven’t taken a vote to hold a ballot question. Tufts expressed concern in waiting for a ballot question results and letting the T continue to run over us. Tufts again stated that we already held several hearings and even though he is personally in favor of the train, he is not in favor of the proposal by the MBTA for this Town.

Webster noted she wants to hold a major public hearing with T Reps. prior to an April ballot question. Webster noted people are now expressing concern that money is being spent and people need to know money is necessary to fight this.

A Resident questioned what the change would be in a future meeting vs what came out of the last several hearings. Webster noted that no further information may be gained except the opportunity for those not able to attend the last meetings may gain information to help them make an informed decision about the train, not just support it for reasons such as shopping or Red Sox games in Boston.

Tufts noted that when we had the T out to the meeting they gave no answers to any questions asked at that time or in subsequent correspondence. Tufts noted he doesn’t think anything will change with another hearing, and we need to go after the funding source the State is proposing for this project. Tufts noted that people from Stoughton are calling also, stating their displeasure with this proposal. Tufts suggested putting together a point person for the citizen groups.

DuPont noted that Attleboro became unviable to the T after just one person made fighting the line her cause. She successfully gained support from town officials and residents, noted that a train affects "all back yards, not just abutters". DuPont noted the Raynham ballot question was 75-25% opposed to the train. DuPont noted he wants to maintain quality of life in Norton, Raynham, Stoughton, Easton, and a train would destroy that.

Webster noted that 10,000 registered voters, voting a position sends a greater message to our legislators than the position voted on by 4 members of the Board of Selectmen. Tufts noted our legislators aren’t the problem.

G. Heino noted he would not want this to go to a vote now, because people’s reasons are not educated enough. Heino noted he would like to see a list with two columns. One column with the advantages and

one column with the disadvantages for the Town to see. Heino noted we need to assume we are being rolled over by the MBTA and everyone else is in favor of this. Heino noted we can’t wait for a vote.

A Resident noted we need to fight this on three areas, environment; safety; economics.

Paicos noted there are two major inadequacies in the T’s report. One is the results are based on information given to the consultant by the T with incorrect information. Two is the best way to negate the report conclusion is to prove the assumptions are incorrect. Paicos suggested hiring a botanist to survey the wetlands and see how much wetlands need to be disrupted by this plan and he will hire someone ASAP. We will then have a report based on facts to refute the T’s conclusions. Paicos listed all current activities in process to fight this: list of all forms of media already established for dissemination of information; we need to continue to communicate with the T through our local press, our commitment to fight; we established a position paper that is available for the public; a video was produced by staff from both Raynham and Easton that will begin airing on 2/17/98, with a call-in program; a botanist will be hired, as previously noted; need to illustrate a strategy that involves each community from Hingham to Attleboro, and from New Bedford to Easton; we need an expert to convince everyone from the Governor on down that the Middleboro route is the best and most viable; ask our Attorney to make multiple information requests of ridership stats, exactly what was submitted to Sec. Moynihan from the communities of Easton and Raynham, and to find out the T’s funding source for the costs about to be pursued.

DuPont noted the need to pursue the legal issues on environmental and permitting issues. We need to be able to tell the T exactly why the train can’t go here and exactly why it can go somewhere else. We need to be sure the T can prove and justify their assumption.

A resident questioned if there will be a bulk mailing in the near future that could list this information, i.e., water bills. Paicos will research this.

Heino questioned if the T has clear cut right of way. Paicos noted through Easton, yes but not through Raynham.

Hicks noted that he estimates there will be deficits for the T with all these stations within 5 miles of each other, and those deficits will affect the town share of State aid and could cause a reduction in the town’s service capabilities. Hicks noted this will also affect property values for those abutting the tracks.

R. Hill noted that the T has broken promises to the Town of Bridgewater, in particular with speeds agreed to in writing of between 35-40. Hill clocked trains at 72MPH. Hill noted T overestimated ridership in every line to date. Hill noted T will bring the same Rep. as before with the same answers/information or lack there of.

G. Luciano noted that a Kingston Selectman stated that the T didn’t address any issues they agreed to, and mitigating circumstances never addressed after the line was up and running. Luciano noted that trust with the T is not there based on there past history. Luciano noted that Harvard School of Design projects that a 23% increase in population will follow rail service. The T is projecting 65MPH for trains through Easton and Raynham. They have projected 13 deaths due to rail service. Raynham will have 34 trains per day with 6 grade crossings. No T Rep. has attended any Raynham meeting or answered any questions, or returned any calls. The MBTA is now questioning the two Towns resolve and long term fight. Luciano further emphasized that we must remain united and ready for a long term fight.

L. Bader noted that the last information he got from the T was they weren’t coming through Town and now they are trying to. Bader noted the Town needs to stay organized to fight this.

McGregor noted that it is heartening to see the citizen input and stated that transportation projects usually take the path of least resistance be they railroads, highways, or bike paths. McGregor noted State agencies love having money in their budgets to run these types of budgets and projects. The State doesn’t necessarily stop to collect the data. McGregor noted we need to get together as citizen groups, educate ourselves and continue the fight in the long term. Need for citizens to write letters to the editors, elected state and local officials and need to hire experts to see how the Town will be affected with the railroad. He further noted that the State is waiting to see if citizens will know that the State, not environmentalists, are really making these decisions. McGregor emphasized the importance of citizens in the fight, and not just the local officials.

Clark expressed concern with the environmental impacts on ACEC’s and Town water supplies. Clark noted the position paper doesn’t have hard facts. Clark read from a letter received from J. Haederle. Clark noted that videos and letters are nice but we need environmental studies done that will stand up in court. Clark noted the need to educate the 10,000 voters on the adverse effects and take a vote once people know the facts.

Clark’s motion, seconded by Webster to conduct a vigorous education campaign with facts and figures, to support a ballot question on April 27, 1998, was not voted at this time.

Tufts questioned what the reason for a ballot question in April would be and expressed concern that waiting would put the Town in jeopardy.

At this point the motion was expanded to include moving forward with environmental studies, public hearings, and a public meeting specifically for the environmental expert to explain results.

Hardin noted he is in favor of a referendum question if it is worded properly for an honest answer of what people in Easton want. Hardin noted we need a Town Meeting vote to keep spending money on this issue.

Tufts expressed concern that the Town Meeting that authorizes the money is held prior to the election/ballot question time.

DuPont noted Raynham’s question was among several other questions, and was non-binding. Raynham’s question was worded "do you favor restoration of commuter rail service to the Town of Raynham" Yes/No.

A Resident noted he had attended meetings for over two years and is concerned in holding this to a ballot question and to connect this with elections. He noted he would rather go forward with the vote taken to date by the Board. He expressed concern whether efforts should be on education of the people for a ballot question in April or on letting the State know we don’t want the train.

Hunt noted that Hingham actually held a Town Meeting, but another community had one Town Meeting vote that was opposed to the train, and then weeks later on the ballot, the vote was in favor.

Heino noted he is opposed to a ballot question and stated that the train will devastate the entire Town. Heino noted what if the ballot question comes out in favor, it will be devastating to the overall Town.

A Resident noted that the Board seems split over a ballot question and that he doesn’t think the Board has made their position clear enough.

A Resident expressed concern with trains bringing in certain elements to the Town that could cause problems, with no increased police protection.

Hicks noted he would rather have a ballot question stating "Do you want the rail road to go through the Town", not just to the Town.

Webster noted she would have wanted a referendum question 6 months ago and it didn’t happen. Webster noted the need for a long term commitment from the voters in terms of money needed either by an ATM warrant article or a referendum question to support spending funds.

Paicos noted that in terms of spending money the only vote that means anything is the Town Meeting vote to appropriate money, not a non-binding referendum question on election day. Paicos noted the ATM vote would be a better place for decisions such as this and the only referendum that matters is the ATM warrant article.

A Resident noted the Selectmen need to get the information to the public and call a special meeting.

Paicos suggested a Special Town Meeting within the ATM with only one issue.

Webster again noted the Board needs public input and support.

At this point in the meeting Webster amended the main motion, seconded by Tufts, to have a Special Town Meeting within the Annual Town Meeting with one question RE: appropriation for money to fight rail service to or through the Town and a commitment to fight it with long term financial support.

Vote on the amended motion was 3-1. Hardin opposed.

H. Joress and several residents of Wedgewood Drive in attendance.

Paicos noted that Special Counsel was hired and the Town is prepared to bring suit against the DOR.

Paicos noted that Counsel has suggested an Administrative Action which if successful would resolve this and save the Town some money also.

Clark read the letter sent by H. Joress. Clark noted that this section of roadway approx. 270’ is not completed and is hampering emergency vehicle access. Clark recommends that the drainage should be looked at, gravel should be put down in this area, in the spring a base coat with scuppers, check the catch basins, and to have the DPW do interim repairs under emergency conditions. Paicos noted we would need an ordinance in place to use public money on a private way. Paicos noted that if the Town passes an ordinance we would come into full liability for the street, which would expose the Town to tremendous liability. Clark noted the Town could take the 270’ of land by eminent domain at the ATM. Paicos noted then the Town would have to pay the entire repair costs.

A Resident questioned how long it would take to get back the $86,000, and if the Town pays the cost to repair the street up front, wouldn’t that money go back to re-pay the Town. Resident questioned also why the Town can plow private ways but not repair them. Paicos noted a special Statute that provides for the Town clearing snow and ice only. Hunt suggested newspapers take pictures of the street and the story of the DOR taking the money. H. Joress questioned why the Town government isn’t helping with this. Joress noted residents shouldn’t have to go to Senator Creedon to get this resolved. Hunt noted the Town has done as much as it can legally. The Town tried to protect the residents by holding the bond money but the DOR stole that money. Paicos noted that the Town is expending great energy to try to get back this money. Paicos suggested the residents wait on our Counsel’s advice and if the Administrative Action doesn’t work, the Town will then take the next step to bring suit against the DOR.

Clark noted he wants the DPW to inspect the roadway and drainage. Paicos noted this has already been done. Clark noted it is nonsense to say the Town can’t do this. Paicos gave Clark a copy of the legal document and asked for him (Clark) to show Paicos where it is that the Town can legally do this.

Clark’s motion, seconded by Webster to have the Town Administrator look into alleviating this situation RE: emergency issues with possible alternatives for the 270’, was not voted at this time.

Paicos again noted it is not legal for him to expend any money on a private way.

A Resident questioned if the money doesn’t come in could the residents come to the Town Meeting to have the final piece accepted. Paicos noted that citizen petitions can be brought up to the Town Meeting at any time but traditionally the Town doesn’t accept any streets not up to the P&Z standards with the recent exception of Pammy’s Path.

At this point in the meeting Webster withdrew her second to the motion.

No further action.

Tufts read the request from the Easton Democratic Town Committee.

On Clark’s motion, seconded by Webster the Board voted unanimously by roll-call, to appoint Robert McLaughlin as Deputy Warden in Precinct one.

R. Hicks in attendance.

Tufts recommended advertising this opening. Paicos noted that J. Keach stated the law requires 2 but can have 3 positions available.

On Clark’s motion, seconded by Hunt, the Board voted unanimously to advertise the Fence Viewer position.

FINANCE COMMITTEE BUDGET - R. Hicks in attendance.

On Hunt’s motion, seconded by Webster, the Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Finance Committee Budget in the amount of $4,500.00

RESERVE FUND - R. Hicks in attendance.

On Clark’s motion, seconded by Hunt, the Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Reserve Fund in the amount of $100,000.

TOWN ACCOUNTANT BUDGET

Paicos gave a brief explanation of this Budget.

On Hunt’s motion, seconded by Webster, the Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Town Accountant Budget in the amount of $57,949.00

BOARD OF APPEALS BUDGET

Paicos gave a brief explanation of this Budget.

On Hunt’s motion, seconded by Tufts, the Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Board of Appeals Budget in the amount of $12,273.00

UNCLASSIFIED BUDGET

Hunt noted the Board agreed to get an opinion last year from Town Counsel RE: spending public funds for private organizations, and it hasn’t yet been received. Paicos will get the opinion from Town Counsel on this issue.

Paicos noted the County Pension amount will be changing due to recent correspondence.

Paicos agreed to put a line item in for the senior tax voucher.

Due to the late hour, this item was held to another agenda.

On Webster’s motion, seconded by Clark, at 11:45PM, the Board voted unanimously to adjourn.

APPROVED________________________________

DATED_________________________________