Simsbury, CT - August 15, 2006

BOARD OF FINANCE

1. CALL TO ORDER

The Regular meeting of the Board of Finance was called to order at 6:30 P.M. in the Eno Memorial Hall, 754 Hopmeadow Street, Simsbury, Connecticut. The following members were present: Chairman Paul Henault, Peter Askham, Nicholas Mason, Anita Mielert and Kevin North. Member Candace Fitzpatrick was absent. Also in attendance were Finance Director/Treasurer Kevin Kane and other interested parties.

Mr. Henault indicated that the main issue before the Board was how to deal with the Ethel Walker proposal and that the Board must have the ability to review the proposal as well as take a vote on an outstanding motion from the Board of Selectmen.

Mr. Henault stated that the Board of Finance normally only has two public hearings per year, one for the capital budget and one for the operating budget, but in the interest of the limited timeframe of this project and, in that the Board of Finance does not normally have public audience, this evening’s meeting should operate under the rules of a Public Hearing.

Mr. Henault than gave an overview of his thoughts relative to this project (Addendum II). First, he stated that the Board of Finance (BOF) has supported many land acquisitions in the past, but that it also has a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers of Simsbury, both residential and commercial. He noted that the BOF must do due diligence, exclusive of the emotions, rhetoric and politics that sometimes accompany highly charged issues. He stated that this process includes looking at the debt policy and the capacity of what the community can afford as well as considering what other special projects are coming behind the project under consideration .

Mr. Henault then provided a slide presentation outlining the key considerations involved in this particular project. He reviewed the role of the Board of Finance and its responsibilities as stated within the Town Charter and Connecticut state law.

The issues currently before the Board with respect to the Ethel Walker property consist of:

· 426 acres with a potential yield of 104-135 building lots

· A question of fee simple (outright) purchase vs. a purchase of development rights

· Neighborhood concerns

· Public policy relative to expending large sums of money for the purchase of open space

· The Trust for Public Land, which has been assisting in reaching an agreement

· The role of the Town of Simsbury and the process it goes through in bringing an issue to referendum

Mr. Henault reviewed his areas of concern relative to the Ethel Walker proposal as follows:

· The impact on future capital projects

· The implications on residential and commercial taxes

· The Town debt policy of 7% of operating budgets which has allowed other previous projects

· Prior land acquisitions and how they were structured

· Future land purchases, i.e., what is down the road

· The fair market value of the property

· A fee simple, development rights, or combination purchase

· The effect of such a land purchase on pending union negotiations relative to the community’s capacity to pay

· The six-year capital plan currently in place and the future projects the purchase could affect, such as renovations to Latimer Lane School, Memorial Park, Tootin Hills School, Simsbury Meadows Phase III, Simsbury Farms, Eno Hall, Squadron Line School and Henry James Memorial School, etc.

· The tax implications, assuming a 10-year bond as has been the past policy that has served the Town well, would result in a 2% tax rate increase in residential and commercial taxpayers in addition to any other increases imposed by future budgets.

· The debt policy would rise to form 7% to 8.96% in fiscal year 2008, assuming some capital projects can be eliminated

· Bond rating agencies would require a reduction in the six-year capital plan and a restriction on future land acquisitions

· The valuation of the land relative to appraisals that have been done and Town estimates in comparison with recent land acquisitions; the four recent farm acquisitions (Hall, Flamig, Rosedale and Tulmeadow) averaged $16,000 per acre or a per lot basis of $71,000 and the Ethel Walker/Trust for Public Land proposal averages out to be $32, 763 per acre or a per lot basis of $133,654.

· The current appraisal is at $11,044,250; the Ethel Walker/Trust for Public Land proposal is for $13.88 million.

· The Town’s contribution rate on prior land purchases were 6.2% for the Rosedale purchase and 9.1% for the Tulmeadow purchase, in partnership with the Simsbury Land Trust. The Trust for Public Land request is for an 80% contribution from the Town.

3. PUBLIC AUDIENCE

Joan Coe, 26 Whitcomb Drive, felt that, in the interest of keeping taxes within check, maintaining the 7% debt policy and keeping within the capital plan, such a purchase would not be fiscally responsible and should be denied by the Board of Finance.

Michael Rinaldi, 32 Pinnacle Mountain Road, stated that, although no one wants this land developed, price is the issue. He felt that Ethel Walker School has an inflated perspective of their property, which has remained tax-free and tax-supported for decades by the taxpayers of Simsbury and noted that recent land acquisitions have been substantially less expensive. He also thought that it is inconceivable that the School would consider jeopardizing the Town’s water supply for financial gain, in spite of any current financial difficulties they may currently be experiencing. He urged the BOF to not be intimidated by a special interest group and the Ethel Walker School.

Susan Masino, 41 Madison Lane, said that this is a natural resource with a national profile that contributes to Simsbury’s desirability as a place to live. She felt that tourism, recreation and regional money that comes to Simsbury for ongoing stewardship of the Farmington River should be taken into account, as well as special grants for environmental education, which are on the rise.

Diane Nash, 5 Merrywood, stated that it is the right of the voters to determine if this parcel should be preserved under the agreement option with the Trust for Public Land and Ethel Walker School and questioned if the Board of Selectmen has given the power of decision to the Board of Finance and do the citizens have to force a referendum in order to have a voice in how their dollars are spent.

[Mr. Henault clarified for Ms. Nash that, as with all projects, the Board of Finance may send back another amount to the Board of Selectmen, according to the Town Charter and state law. If the Board of Finance does not take action, then a budget may go to referendum.]

Chuck Matczak, 18 Wooster Road, Tariffville, cited a publication of the Trust for Public Land entitled “The Economic Benefits of Parks and Open Space”, which says “if you develop everything, you destroy what people come here to see”. He said that it must be assumed that the price was negotiated in good faith, but no one seems to be aware of the cost of not buying the development rights and spoke of how residentially developed property can result in a negative cash flow vs. open space purchases, which are an investment that can pay for themselves. He urged the BOF to make this investment.

Judy Schaefer, 16 Lost Brook Road, said that, in conversation with other 60-year-old+ residents, the consensus is that they do not want more land development or any more projects like the one going on in the Powder Forest and that they are willing to pay the increase in taxes that this project would entail.

Frank Plona, “Trout Unlimited”, Collinsville, noted that these negotiations have been going on for a while, that the Trust for Public Land has brought two sides together and does not have a reputation for taking sides; he also noted that there had been no mention of a dollar value for water protection and urged the Board to send the project to referendum.

Melissa Spear, Trust for Public Land, addressed the price issue and state that the Town had made several attempts over the last 6-7 years to negotiate a price, but that Ethel Walker School was not happy with the offer price. The Town then invited the Trust for Public Land to act as a third independent party that might engage more productively with the School towards an agreement. After six months of intense negotiations, an agreement was signed in June 2006 to purchase the property for $13.85 million. During the initial negotiations, it was the TPL’s hope that they could keep the cost that the Town would bear around $8 million; however, the development potential raised the amount to $10 million. The agreement of $13.85 million includes an understanding that the TPL would commit to raising $2.75 million through private funding. She stated that, if the Town is not able to commit to $11.1 million, which includes bridge financing until such time as grant money can be secured, it is most likely that the project will not move forward with the Trust for Public Land’s support. She noted that an appraisal amount was obtained today.

Mr. Henault noted that there is a public misconception that the “deal is done” and that is not the case and Ms. Spear concurred. Mr. Henault also asked Ms. Spear if other towns in Connecticut are being asked to commit such large amounts to land acquisition. Ms. Spear noted that Newtown, CT and Watch Hill, RI have done so and agreed that there is no question that the purchase being considered is a very significant purchase. She also indicated that state and federal funds for open space acquisition are being reduced and the burden is being shifted to the municipalities.

Jan Beatty, 30 Woodhaven Drive, provided the Board with a copy of the Financial Analysis of Bonding for Open Space, which was prepared by the Open Space Preservation Committee of New Hartford, which led to the successful acquisition of about 170 acres of open space. The publication theorized that the acquisition of open space results in a net savings to taxpayers over time; she also cited other towns that had bonded to buy large parcels of land and stated that the Ethel Walker proposal is in line with what other towns are investing in open space.

Frank Untermeyer, 9 Clover Lane, stated that he was the President of the Board of Directors of the Farmington River Watershed Association and is also a CPA, and as such, understands the position being faced by the Board in making its decision and appreciates the role that the Board has played in insuring the financial health of Simsbury as well as the support the Board has shown for land protection in town. However, the FRWA feels that there are many negatives that will be put into motion if the proposal is not moved forward to referendum at the $11.1 million level, i.e., the Trust for Public Land agreement would be scuttled and the property would be developed, risking the contamination of drinking water and degrading of unique natural resources. He aksed the BOF to let the voters of Simsbury decide at referendum.

Bruce Hunter, Farmington, stated that he was an independent certified real estate appraiser that had been hired by the Trust for Public Land. He wanted to speak to the confusion relative to the value of the land. Mr. Hunter stated that he was providing an oral appraisal report.

[Mr. Henault admonished Mr. Hunter that no Board of Selectmen or Board of Finance member has seen any new information that Mr. Hunter might be reporting on at this time; they were operating on a written report dated June 2006. He noted that it would have been helpful for these new appraisals to be received prior to the meeting so as to allow for adequate review and that Mr. Hunter’s presentation was that of a “surprise witness”.]

Mr. Hunter noted that the June 2006 appraisal was for 314 acres (104 lots), not the entire parcel of 451.5 acres, since 110 of those acres had already gone through an appraisal process in connection with open space grant applications with the State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection and 27.5 acres were reserved by the school. He also indicated that Ethel Walker has done a significant amount of testing and surveying.

Mr. Hunter stated that the proposal is for the Town to buy the development rights on a total of 422.1 (123 lots, which is 19 more lots than the prior valuation scenario) acres (451.6 total acres west of Bushy Hill Road less 29.5 acres for the equestrian facilities, a water tank, several houses and the observatory). After the imposition of an easement, the final valuation is $12,125,000. Mr. Hunter indicated that his written report would be delivered to the Trust for Public Land and the Board of Finance later this week or early next week.

Ashley Lang, Old Farms Road, said that the proposal before the Board made good economic sense and felt there would be a net cost to the Town due to developed housing. He felt that the high mill rate is due to unrestricted residential development. He asked the Board to move the proposal forward to referendum.

Don Nash, 5 Merrywood, stated that most of the audience present supported the proposal and that this is not a “minor backyard issue”. He expressed his concern about the promiscuous deterioration of the Town’s natural resources. He asked that the Board let the people decide.

Sue Brokowitz, 10 Pinecrest Drive, spoke about the special characteristics of the Stratton Brook Aquifer and the potential contamination thereof. She stated that this is the “clean Town water” that gets connected to should wells fail or become contaminated. She felt that sound fiscal planning should include budgeting to protect the Town’s water supply.

Helen Peterson, 20 Long View Drive, stated that the Ethel Walker proposal is not new to public officials as a project. She stated that the fact that $1 million is set aside per year within the Town’s budget for open space acquisition makes it part of the six-year plan. She also noted that land acquisition comes up when the seller decides the time frame. She felt that, although past practices have proven well, some investments are not just for the short-term and that we should be “good stewards” for the future. She stated that a ten-year bond issue is appropriated for projects with a short shelf life, but that a twenty-year issue is more appropriate for the long-term, makes a project more affordable and should be considered. She said that the project must go to the voters with BOF endorsement and then they can expect all funding opportunities to happen. She felt that the Town can not afford to not preserve this property.

[Mr. Henault commented that, in spite of the original intent of setting aside $1 million per year for open space acquisition, in actual practice, what has actually been put forward to the Board for approval has been $1 million every other year.]

Chris Barrett, 92 Westledge Road, felt that a 2% increase is a small amount to ask of the residents to pay for such an important piece of property and asked the BOF to approve the project.

Steve Collins, 15 Long View Drive, stated that the Town does not need any more single family residential development. He stated that he has heard that a national developer has already made an overture about the property. He wondered what expenditures would result from 122 new homes that would affect the six-year plan. He asked the Board to be creative and allow the voters to decide.

Irv Hargrave, 40 Long View Drive, stated that he is a retiree. He noted that price is what a buyer is willing to pay from someone who wants to sell, not the appraised value. He felt that the Trust for Public Land has brought the seller’s desires to the buyer and worked out an agreeable figure.

Nate Kennedy, 18 Long View Drive, stated that we know from past experience that development will affect the aquifer. He asked the Board to move the project forward to referendum.

Melissa Spear, Trust for Public Land, stated that the Town has not signed a purchase/sale agreement and basically there are two options available to the Town, namely, either to agree to the terms that the Trust for Public Land has negotiated or to scrap the deal currently on the table and try to negotiate a new deal. From her personal perspective, she felt that it was a deal or no deal situation.

[Mr. Henault added that the issue before the Board is what amount the Town is willing to appropriate and, since it is a deal or no deal situation, the burden appears to be on the Town with no burden on Ethel Walker.]

Mary Baier, 92 Westledge Road, expressed her concern over the lack or breakdown of partnership between the Town of Simsbury and the Trust for Public Land. She felt that any talk of renegotiating at this point represented a very poor form of business partnership on the part of the Town of Simsbury.

Robert Stillman, 35 Woodhaven Drive, pointed out that there is value to intangibles such as conservation, preservation and a way of life that is difficult to capture in financial analysis.

Mr. Henault closed the Public Audience at 9:37 PM.

Mr. Mason introduced the following resolution, which was seconded by Ms. Mielert:

RESOLVED, that the Board of Finance recommends that the Town of Simsbury appropriate $11,100,000 for the acquisition of development rights, conservation easements or land in fee simple for the preservation of open space on a 420 + acre parcel of land west of Bushy Hill Road at the Ethel Walker School and for the acquisition of three additional parcels of land now owned by the Ethel Walker School at 42 Longview Drive, 186 Stratton Brook Road and on the south side of Stratton Brook Road; and that the Town issue bonds or notes and/or temporary notes in an amount not to exceed $11,100,000 to finance the appropriation.

RESOLVED, that the Board of Finance of the Town of Simsbury recommends that any bonds issued to implement the project be issued with a term not to exceed ten years.

Ms. Mielert made a motion to amend the original motion by striking the second paragraph and Mr. Mason seconded this motion.

Mr. Mason felt that approximately $2-$3 million of reserves could be used towards the purchase, but did not feel comfortable bonding more than $8.5 million. Mr. Askham asked about the impact on future capital and if Mr. Mason was proposing to eliminate certain items which are currently in the six-year plan. Mr. Mason stated that he thought some of the projects could be reduced or removed.

Mr. Askham stated that the magnitude of the project warrants a close look. He stated that the original negotiations were for an amount less than $5 million and there was discussion around the land being purchased in stages in previous Executive Sessions. He said that the Board has consistently been concerned about money as the negotiations proceeded and the amounts being discussed increased. He said that, in other land acquisitions, the Town was not leading the deal and asked why it is leading now; he wondered why the Simsbury Land Trust is not involved and stated that their absence concerned him. Mr. Askham stated that, although he has heard about a lot of commitments for grants, he knows of no actual grants in hand and that the Town of Simsbury is being asked to have faith and commit to this dollar amount with the understanding that the final amount will be lower. He said that he is not sure that the number will be lower as the Town will be guaranteeing it and, once a number is stated, that is most likely the number that will get bonded.

Ms. Spear of the Trust for Public Land stated that, if more than $2.5 is raised, any additional amount will be used to decrease Town costs.

Mr. Askham stated that he would like the agreement to be more of a partnership with the Town of Simsbury having less than an 80% involvement; he stated that the timeframe and urgency of this issue is making that impossible. He reiterated his concerns that all the dollars must be committed by the Town upfront and that all the fundraising is “out there”, which is the reverse scenario from prior land acquisitions. Mr. Askham asked if there were any environmental concerns associated with the land being acquired and if there had been any testing done.

Ms. Spear stated that a Phase I Study had been completed by HRP in connection with the Trust for Public Land’s due diligence and it disclosed a 4,000 gallon underground fuel oil tank that had been abandoned upon the demolition of a house on the property in 1963 and there are currently negotiations being made with Ethel Walker School as to what needs to be done with this tank. Mr. Askham asked about the liability issue relative to the purchase of development rights vs. a fee simple purchase. Ms. Spear responded that, in a fee simple arrangement, all liability passes to the Town and, in a purchase of development rights, the liability remains with Ethel Walker.

Mr. Askham noted that, since the commitment to allocate $1 million per year towards open space acquisition has not been consistent, he would support the use of reserves to make that up. But he noted that he was still having trouble with the impact that this project, which is outside the capital plan, would have on projects that are currently in the capital plan. He noted that, although 2% may not seem that much, when the high school renovation project was being considered, there was extensive debate about exceeding the capital plan and 7% debt policy. Also, the high school had been in the capital plan for five years before the actual dollars were known; to his knowledge, this project has never been in the capital plan in spite of it being known that it was out there. He concluded that the main issues for him were if the Board wanted to deviate from the capital plan and exceed the 7% debt policy.

Mr. North stated that he shared many of Mr. Askham’s fiscal concerns. He stated that he thought the Town’s level of contribution expected in this project is beyond the capacity or means of the Town and could contribute to going back to the pattern of 5-7% tax increases that existed several years ago. He noted that the Board has worked very hard to get down to a reasonable growth rate that is representative of the growth of the grand list as well as the growth of the rate of inflation. He stated that he is troubled by the precedent that would be established by the Town contributing 81% of the money for this project, especially when its contributions on Rosedale and Tulmeadow were 6.1% and 10%, respectively. He thought that taxpayer money can go a lot further towards the multitudes of needs that this community has when there is a better partnership. He would feel better if the Board of Education and the Board of Selectmen, could identify savings in the capital plan that could offset the expenditure, per Ms. Mielert’s suggestion, but nothing has been forthcoming. He felt that the issue being presented to the Board this evening was if it was willing to exceed the debt policy by more than it agreed to do even for the high school project and that it did not make good sense to do so. He concluded that they could accelerate some of the open space funding that is in the 2008/09 capital plan and that $2-$3 million could be tapped from reserves, but the maximum that he could support contributing towards this project would be $5 million.

Ms. Mielert stated that the farms being referred to as comparable purchases were bonded for and bought 100% and, although the Town was extremely fortunate to have a land trust help with the purchase of development rights, the Simsbury Land Trust is avoiding this project due to its size. She stated that it falls to the municipalities to preserve open space and is in favor of asking the people as to whether they want to support it. She stated that she has seen the people of Simsbury continually support open space acquisition and that she believes they will do it again. She felt that it is the role of the Board of Finance to find a way to fund what the voters want. She noted several items that she saw on the six-year plan that she thought might be reduced or eliminated. She supported a fee simple purchase, as it would move a large asset on to the Town’s balance sheet. She supported going over the 7% debt policy for four years. She noted that the high school project was outside the capital plan and stated that the Town has been talking about saving this property for seven years and that it is no surprise. She concluded that we must respect the seller’s price and let the people decide.

Mr. North read Ms. Fitzpatrick’s comments into the record per her request (Addendum I).

Mr. Henault stated that his concerns include the market value issues, the capacity of the community to afford the project and its ability to address future needs, a fee simple purchase for land that the Town will not use, and the impact of this project on future tax increases in conjunction with how hard the Board has worked to bring in a 3.5% increase last year and a 1.99% increase this year. He also expressed his concern as to the effect higher tax increases would have on commercial property in Town and noted that, although commercial taxpayers can not vote, they can move out or scale back and cited the loss of Blue Ridge Insurance to Avon due to the mill rate.

Mr. Henault stated that, although he can not support $11.1 million, he could support an amount that shows a good faith commitment. He finds it hard to believe that Ethel Walker would turn its back on the community and allow contamination of an aquifer. He stated that the Town of Simsbury worked very hard to maintain a debt policy that has allowed other projects to happen. He noted that the Board of Finance is elected to make decisions and that not everything is moved out to the voters.

The motion to amend the original motion by striking the second paragraph was defeated 3-2 (Mr. Mason & Ms. Mielert voted “yes”). The original motion was defeated 3-2 (Mr. Mason and Ms. Mielert voted “yes”).

Mr. North introduced the following resolution, which was seconded by Mr. Askham:

RESOLVED, that the Board of Finance recommends that the Town of Simsbury appropriate $5,000,000 for the acquisition of development rights, conservation easements or land in fee simple for the preservation of open space on a 420 + acre parcel of land west of Bushy Hill Road at the Ethel Walker School and for the acquisition of three additional parcels of land now owned by the Ethel Walker School at 42 Longview Drive, 186 Stratton Brook Road and on the south side of Stratton Brook Road; and that the Town issue bonds or notes and temporary notes in an amount not to exceed $5,000,000 to finance the appropriation.

Mr. Mason asked why they were bothering as the motion was a waste of time. Ms. Mielert felt that it was undoing the deal and was an insult to their partner in negotiations. Mr. Henault thought that, although he understood the value of Mr. North’s intent to be financially more responsible, he felt that an amount in between that better approximates the amount originally proposed by the Board of Selectmen would be in order and, therefore, he would not be in favor of the motion.

The motion was defeated 3-2 (Mr. Askham and Mr. North voted “yes”).

Mr. Henault asked if there was any member that wished to make the motion at the $8.5 million level. Mr. Mason stated that, if the amount is not $11.1 million, then there was no point and that the original motion assumed bonding at the $8.5 million level. Mr. Mason questioned Ms. Spear about the fund raising efforts of the Trust for Public Land. Ms. Spear commented that it would be difficult to convince her Board of Directors to support a fund raising commitment higher than $2.75 million and that a $5 million appropriation would not constitute a viable project. She stated that the Trust for Public Land does not normally support grass roots efforts and that she would prefer to work with the Board of Finance, but that the Trust would most likely not provide a contribution with an appropriation of $8.5 million. She noted that there is an effort to move the project to referendum via petition without Board of Finance approval, but that she was not certain if the Trust would be able to support such a project.

Mr. Henault stated that, although a petition may force a referendum, it was his understanding that bond counsel will not accept a petition that is not approved by the Board of Finance. Therefore, if the Board took no action tonight, the process would effectively stop and he was hoping for a motion that would allow a continuance of the discussion. Ms. Spear stated that then the Board would be effectively asking the Trust to change the agreement, which would put $130,000 of the Trust’s money at risk and that, without a commitment from the Town, her Board will tell her to walk away from the deal.

Ms. Mielert re-introduced the original resolution, asking that the Board consider creative financing options, exceeding the debt policy and changes to the six-year plan. The motion was seconded by Mr. Mason:

RESOLVED, that the Board of Finance recommends that the Town of Simsbury appropriate $11,100,000 for the acquisition of development rights, conservation easements or land in fee simple for the preservation of open space on a 420 + acre parcel of land west of Bushy Hill Road at the Ethel Walker School and for the acquisition of three additional parcels of land now owned by the Ethel Walker School at 42 Longview Drive, 186 Stratton Brook Road and on the south side of Stratton Brook Road; and that the Town issue bonds or notes and temporary notes in an amount not to exceed $11,100,000 to finance the appropriation.

Ms. Mielert stated that this property is the first priority of the Open Space Committee that was established by the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Henault reminded Ms. Mielert that the Board of Selectmen sets the six-year plan, not the Board of Finance and that there has been no input from the Board of Education. Ms. Mielert responded that none of her proposed changes to the six-year plan were Board of Education projects.

The motion was again defeated 3-2 (Mr. Mason and Ms. Mielert voted “yes”).

Mr. Henault also stated that an amount like $8.5 million continues the dialogue and would be appropriate, but that he cannot support $11.1 million. Mr. Mason stated that if it is not at $11.1 million, the deal is squashed and that there is no time to go back and re-negotiate.

Mr. Henault stated that, if the Board of Selectmen had supported $8.5 million last week, the Board would be looking at that number this evening and, although the vote would probably not be unanimous, it would move forward. He noted that Mr. Mandell had stated that he would move it on to the Board of Finance, but if the Board of Finance came back with $8.5 million, that he would support their decision. Therefore, if the Board of Finance does not send back something that is at least $8.5 million, they have nothing to work with. Mr. Askham asked how the $8.5 million could be achieved, and Mr. Henault responded that there are $2 million in reserves, $700,000 in grants and the balance would be from bonds, which would make the project workable. Mr. Kane noted that the language of the resolution takes state grants into account and that bond counsel recommends that they not be included in the resolution.

Mr. Askham asked about timing and Mr. Henault noted that notices for a Town Meeting would have to be published by September 6th and, prior to that, the Board of Selectmen would have to send a request for a referral to the Planning Commission; therefore, action must be taken this evening. Mr. Henault asked if there were any other motions that anyone wished to enter and none were forthcoming. Mr. Henault closed discussions on the project and moved forward to the next agenda item.

5. OTHER BUSINESS

Mr. Henault noted that the Town Attorney was asking that the Board amend a motion regarding the Hayes Landing settlement that was approved at a prior meeting. He stated that one owner has declined to execute a release form and that it is holding up the appropriation. The Town Attorney has stated that this did not put the Town in jeopardy and was asking the Board to amend its original motion so that the settlement with the Condominium Association could move forward.

Mr. Askham entered the following amended resolution and Mr. Mason seconded the motion:

Resolved, this motion supercedes the motion originally approved by the Board of Finance on December 20, 2005 regarding this matter-Be it hereby resolved that the Board of Finance recommends a supplemental appropriation in an amount not to exceed $35,000 to settle the claim of the Hayes Landing Condominium Association for expenses incurred due to a storm water backup on October 14th and 15th 2005. These funds are to be provided as a full and final settlement for any claims that the Hayes Landing Condominium Association may have in the future with respect to claims related to this event. In approving this resolution, the Board of Finance does recognize that one unit owner has declined to execute the release form. In addition, the Hayes Landing Condominium Association is to install all improvements as recommended by the Water Pollution Control Authority.

The motion passed 4-1 (Ms. Mielert voted “no”).

Mr. North made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:05 PM. Mr. Askham seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

_________________________________ ___________________________________

Paul Henault, Chairman Debra L. Sweeney, Clerk