Hi folks: Frank Reilly, tmm, pct 7 and chair of the standing committee on public works asked me to forward his e-mail to this network. He's not completely confortable in handling e-mail. and as I am a member of his TM DPW committee I am forwarding this as a courtesy to him. He also mentioned that he will be holding a major public hearing in Upper Nevins Hall on Wednesday, March 12th on key issues for Town Meeting. If you wish to contact him , his e-mail address is as listed in the cc: box above; his telephone number is (508) 877-0444.
Larry Schmeidler TMM, Pct 4 ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 1:40 PM Subject: riverpath wall > TOWN ALERT > STOP RIVERPATH AND ITS THE GREAT WALL FROM > DIVIDING FRAMINGHAM EAST & WEST . > > The opening of Riverpath Rd. as a public way would be the greatest > mistake ever made by the Town since the railroad crossing in downtown > Framingham. The left hand turn from Old Conn Path into Riverpath by many > hundred of cars returning home and the daily trips of school buses and > delivery > trucks etc. This well prove to be a solid wall of traffic from Riverpath to > Hamilton > St. and when joined by Hamilton St. left turners to will back-up all the way > to > Speen St. and beyond. If there is NO RIVERPATH there will be NO left turn > with its traffic wall. > > HISTORY KEEPS REPEATING & REPEATING & REPEATING > BEWARE OF DEVELOPERS BEARING GIFTS > > IT'S TIME FOR FRAMINGHAM TO START LOOKING ALL GIFT HORSES IN > THEIR MOUTHS & TO TAKE THEIR HANDS OUT OF OUR POCKETS!!! > > IT'S TIME TO REVIEW THE HISTORY OF FRAMINGHAM'S AGREEMENTS, > PARTICUALLY THOSE INVOLVING THE PRESENT TOWN OFFICALS AND THE > DEVELOPER ON THE PUD. > > Unfortunately the bottom line is that very few of the promises and commitments > made to Framingham have ever been completely kept and very few of the > Agreements have ever proven to be enforceable. With this record it is > critical > that In this year of financial crises the following question has to be --- > Why can't Framingham's make an enforceable Agreement? It is imperative > that no Agreements be made until we have an answer to this question. > Certainly no Agreement should be made or even considered until after the > voters have spoken on April 1, 2003. > > Here are some of the Agreements that come to mind that have cost the Town of > Framingham Millions and Millions of dollars: > The Planning Boards "Shopper Worlds Agreement" a very costly > mistake by the Planning Board---which includes an incumbent > running for re-election in April 1 election, > 9/90 sewer line Agreement one of the biggest rip-off in the history > of the Town--involving most of the players working on the new PUD > Agreement--see history of 9/90 Sewer line. > The Ashland sewer use Agreement 40 years of underpayments > because the first year of renewal was not taken advantage of --the > Town Counsel at that time is a member of the present Board of > Selectmen. > The Wonder Bread Agreement another lost court case with a > favorable payment to the out-of-town owner by a majority of the > present Board of Selectmen. > > History 9/90 Sewer Line: > When the Board of Selectmen proposed Article 41 for the 1998 Annual Town > Meeting many > Town meeting members objected to paying for this improvement in view of the > many special > benefits already given to the 9/90 developer National Development of New > England (NDNE). It > appeared that Article 41 was in trouble. > > On April 14, 1998 the Standing Committee on Public Works SCPW) voted to move > indefinite > postponement of Article 41 and so notified the Board of Selectmen, the Town > Manager Russell > R. Marcoux, the CFO Mark Rees and the Board of Public Works. Among the many > reasons for > this motion was the lack of information including costs supplied to the SCPW > by the > administration. > > Article 41 was placed on the table by vote of town meeting in order to give > the Selectmen and > the Bannon/Bernstein Committee time to workout an Agreement and for a motion > under Article > 41 that guaranteed a maximum cost to the Town for the completed 9/90 sewer > line, where > any and all funding required for a completed project would come from and what > were the > financial guarantees. > > The SCPW were ask to reconsider their vote on Article 41 by the > Administration, the SCPW > agreed if all the easements were now in place and the Administration's motion > guaranteed the > limit of any town costs for the completed project and which specified the > source of all potential > project funding. Based on that understanding a meeting was called by the > SCPW Chair Dan > Gittelsohn for May 27,1998 @ 7 P.M. in the balcony of the Memorial Building, > just prior to the > start of the Town meeting session where Article 41 was to be taken up. > > The Bannon/Bernstein Committee, Developers & their Counsel, the Board of > Selectmen, the > SCPW Vice Chair and others met at a Selectmen's meeting just prior to the > start of the special > town meeting and the taking of Article 41 off the table, at which time the > Bannon/Bernstein > Committee, the Developers & their Counsel and the Board of Selectmen, agreed > on a motion > approved by Town Counsel that was guaranteed to meet the request of the SCPW > on funding > and payments. Further, it was pointed out by the Administration that while > the other users > of the sewer line didn't really need the new line NDNE did and that therefore > there was no > possibility that the Town would pay more than the $80,000. > > Presented with the motion that according to Town Counsel met the SCPW > request, the SCPW > voted @ its meeting on 5/27/98 to reconsider their voted and then voted to > support the new > motion that was made and voted later that evening. The new motion was as > follows: > > 5/27/98 Voted: That Town Meeting transfer from Sewer Retained Earnings > $80,000 to design > and/or to construct a sewer extension line to serve the 9/90 crossing site > and the Framingham > Industrial Park. The balance of the costs associated with said project to > come from a > combination of a CDAG grant and/or other contributions from outside companies. > Note: It was discovered years later that actually the administration had paid > for work on this > sewer line prior to the May 27,98 town meeting, in addition, funds > appropriated for the > Hemenway Pumping Station replacement in 1999, were also used, both the Board > of Public > Works and the Standing Committee on Public Works questioned the legality of > such payment > and demanded an explanation. > > The following are pertinent excerpts from that 2/15/00 Town Managers report > and > explanation which was left on the back table during a special town meeting at > which this > matter was not a subject and therefore never discussed or voted on by Town > Meeting, a > full copy is available. > > Excerpt(s) from that 2/15/00 Town Managers report: > "The overrun at this time is $407,013.91. Although the size of this overrun > is large, it could have > been much greater" > "The first $200,000 was paid -----as per the Computer Associates Tax > Increment Financing > agreement--" > > Excerpt(s) from that 2/15/00 Town Managers report: > "At this time we have encumbered funds in FY 1999 Sewer Department > maintenance and > operating line item to pay our portion of the balance. The Board of > Selectmen voted to take this > action, providing the Town Counsel concurred that the expenditure is legal > from this account. He > has indicated that this is a proper action." > > Comment(s): > For the record the requested copy of the Town Counsels written opinion by > both the > Board of Public Works and the Standing Committee on Public Works (SCPW) have > never > been received. > > Excerpt(s) from that 2/15/00 Town Managers report: > "The original Town funding for this project amounted to $80,000---under > Article 41 ----There was > a sentenced in the motion for that article that said the balance of the funds > for this project would > come from grants or outside contributions. The Town Counsel has ruled that > this line in not > legally binding."---" > > Comment(s): > For the record the requested copy of the Town Counsels written opinion by the > SCPW > have never been received. > > While the SCPW has never received their requested complete accounting on the > 9/90 > project, figures that are available show the town paid not the $80,000 > guaranteed > maximum limit but between $300,000 and $500,000 (note the original budget was > only > $1,952,700). As a yard stick $500,000 is 5% of the $10,000,000 Sewer budget. > So 5% of > your bill went to pay for these overruns. On a annual $500.00 Sewer Bill > that would be > $50.00 for the year. > > SUMMARY OF PEOPLE/COMMITTES/ BOARDS INVOLVED > Developer National Development of New England (NDNE). > Bannon/Bernstein Committee Elizabeth Bannon Town meeting member & Susan > Bernstein > Planning Board > Town Counsel Aaron Bikofsky > Board of Selectmen Christopher J. Petrini Chairman, Joyce A. Tolman > Vice > Chairman, Valerie M. Mulvey Clerk, John Kahn & Charlie > Sisitsky. > Town Manager - Russell R. Marcoux, Town Manager > CFO Mark Rees, CFO > SCPW Dan Gittelsohn Chairman, Francis X. Reilly Vice Chairman, > Barbara E, Gray, Charles Taylor, Elizabeth Valentini, Brian > Pollack, Peter Hansen, Carol Briggs, Philip R. Ottaviani, jr., > Joseph B. Connolly, Andrew Dallamora, Elisabeth J. Stone, > Robert B. DeShaw, Tilio Franchi, Victor A. Ortiz, Salvatore > Montillo,
