APPLYING BUSINESS METHODOLOGY IS EASY & EFFECTIVE

At last week's Budget Planning Group meeting the Water Commission submitted a  statement of revenue, expenditures and changes in the fund balance, FY 2011, August  31, 2010.
Mostly due to the dry summer, the numbers look good but more importantly our new commissioners, Chris Seebeck and Peter DeCaprio, have been using their financial experience and acumen to establish a consistent methodology and reporting format along with a normal management process and reporting from the Commission consistent with the Town's financial office.
The Commissioners plan to establish a more corporate reporting format and to produce financial reports to Town Hall on at least a monthly basis with a goal of weekly reporting.
In the past there's been a lot of bleeding between capital and operating expenditures but no longer. While the revenue side is easy, sorting though the expenses has been challenging.
Previously up to 50% of the processed water was not billed. Through increased efforts the Commission has identified 5 illegal connections. Imagine citizens in our community deliberately bypassing their water meters. Shame, shame. Efforts to detect and fix leaks have also made a difference. Now almost 85% of the processed water is billed!
They're aggressively examining the contract with American Water and visiting neighboring water plants talking with their counterparts. Expect recommendations soon as to the future operations of the water plant.
Once Chris and Peter are done with water, I want to shift them over to sewer! 


On a related note, the audit is progressing nicely with both the water and sewer commissions as well as the finance department cooperating fully with the auditors. Everything looks to be on track for a report to the November Town Meeting. 

BoS AGENDA Monday October 4

REPRESENTATIVE GARRETT BRADLEY will give the Board a legislative update from Beacon Hill.
PILGRIM BANK - Frank Campbell will give a presentation on the building project
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - Tim Chamberlain will review the 2010 Cohasset Day celebration, ask that Lydia Everett and David Greaney be appointed to the committee and update their efforts in marketing Cohasset to business.
SPECIAL TOWN MEETING ARTICLE REVIEW - 
Defferal of Water & Sewer Use Charges - Deputy Assesssor Mary Quill
Beach Street Easement - Town Manager
Community Septic Management Program - Board of Health
TRIATHLON - Bill Burnett will revisit the concerns previously expressed by the Board
POLICIES - the Board will consider adopting policies for town government
TOWN MANAGER SEARCH - the Board will review a proposed ad

NIMBY OR NOT?

The objection to the reduction of the water department's easement at 100 Pleasant Street, their desire to relocate that easement to town-owned land off Reservoir Road, and the proposed cell antennas on the Bear Hill water tank may appear unreasonable. Let's take it step by step and see if this is simply another NIMBY issue.

1. Everyone agrees the Water Commissioners and the property owner had the right to relocate the original easement. What is in question is whether they had the right to reduce the easement from 30' to 12'. Some legal opinions differ with Town Counsel and view this is as an abandonment which cannot be done without the approval of a 2/3 vote of town meeting and is therefore an illegal contract. Since no one wants to negatively impact the property owners what the legal remedy would be presents a Gordian Knot. 

2. The Water Commissioners stated the reduced width was sufficient for their use and would not negatively impact the use of the easement. This is disingenuous at best: they knew they needed to get large trucks up the easement periodically to clean out the water tanks and they were already in negotiations with ATT & Verizon which require a construction access greater than 12'. 

3. The law allowing for the relocation prohibits it from (a) significantly lessening the utility of the easement, (b) increasing the the burdens on the town in its use and enjoyment of the easement, or (c) frustrating the purpose for which the easement was created. I think it does all three but you decide for yourself.

4. Did the WC use the need for a wider access for the cell carriers and dangle the carrot of $20,000 per carrier (as of now only ATT has a contract) as an incentive to have the BoS approve the new easement location? Proponents of #1 think the WC should live with their decision and its consequences. Certainly the reduction benefited only the developer.

5. We need better cell reception in Cohasset but at what impact to a neighborhood? It's not simply a matter of a few antennas on the water tank. It's accessory compounds (40' x 25' per carrier since they refuse to share) with transformers, propane gas tanks, high voltage electricity, HVAC systems and generators all surrounded by a 7'6" wire fence topped off by 1' of barbed wire and signs warning not to proceed closer as radio frequency fields may exceed FCC regulations. (see photo of compounds at TOD cell tower or better yet visit the site and listen to the constant hum of electricity and the recycling of the HVAC units) Just what we'd like next to our homes, right? 

7. Why does this differ from the cell installation at the 1st parish? Everything is concealed within the building and has no visible impact on our Common or abutters. BTW I'm told that before ATT contracted with the WC they were in negotiations with St. Stephen's. Wonder why that deal fell apart.

6. ATT went before the ZBA in an informal hearing and convinced them it was okay to put this commercial installation smack dab in the middle of a residential area. In all fairness I haven't talked to the ZBA yet. 

7. Some legal opinions again differ from TC and state the WC does not have the legal right to enter into a contract with ATT or Verizon as their authority is linked directly to the conveyance of water. They do have the right to manage structures as they deem in the best interest of the town but does that extend past maintaining and operating the structures? I believe the authority to enter into such a contract lies with the town.

8. The new WCs are working and succeeding at straightening out the water enterprise fund. It looks like the dry summer will result in a surplus. Is $20,000 a year worth so negatively impacting a neighborhood? The Scituate water tower is available. St. Stephens is still available. Options exist. 

This is really a test of what we value more: the character of our community or cell phones. 

ENVIRONMENT VS. ABUTTERS YET AGAIN

Last week the Conservation Commission held its first hearing on the permitting of the Cat Dam NOI including an O&M (operating and management) plan for the tidal gate. Frankly, I was disappointed in the quality of the town's engineering consultant's presentation. Fortunately, representatives from some of the environmental regulatory entities were in the audience and filled in the gap at the time and with a subsequent email addressing questions posed by ConCom. More disappointing is that politics are still playing a role in this important decision.
I successfully lobbied the BoS to have this issue moved to ConCom quite specifically to place it with a permitting board whose decisions would not be influenced by politics but based solely on federal, state and local regulatory laws. 
Inner Little Harbor does not meet the water quality standards for SA classified waters and the many professional reports to date attribute this to the lack of tidal flushing due to the limited opening of the tide gate/dam.
ConCom's first and only priority is to uphold the environmental regulatory laws: politics have no place in their deliberations. Their decision must be based on data, fact and law and it must hold the environment above the vested interests of abutters.
Now that's not to say that whatever decision is made should be punitive to the abutters; nobody is suggesting that. Nor can it be punitive to the environment. 
So, realistically, some compromise must be achieved that satisfies the law, achieves a higher water quality for ILH (which both sides profess to desire), allows for future improvement in water quality and yet does not unreasonably affect the abutters.
Herein lies the problem. Abutters who champion the environment are willing to agree to an adaptive management plan that has oversight by representatives of environmental regulatory entities and abutters. Others argue for the status quo (a recurring theme in Cohasset) and have retained an attorney to represent their interest and promise a law suit if the decision is not to their liking. 
I have great respect and admiration for our Conservation Commission and have every confidence they will make the right decision despite this unacceptable intimidation. If they don't, most likely the EPA will step in and impose an O&M independent of local considerations.

I'M FROM VENUS; THEY'RE FROM MARS

Frankly, I think some of the other selectmen and I are talking about different issues or someone has given me a different set of facts. Really. Most nights I return home shaking my head. I must be talking in a foreign language because they look at me as if what I'm saying is incomprehensible. If I weren't so confident in my intellect this might be daunting.
For example, having previously received an opinion from town counsel that the town has no legal responsibility for stormwater flooding on private property*, last night I was trying to resolve the issue of just what the town is obligated to do under the Bigelow Easement to preserve the privately owned Treat's Pond in it's "natural state" which includes keeping its natural outfall open to Sandy Cove. (See Tinytown Unleashed for details of the discussion http://www.tinytowngazette.com/blog/)
Town Counsel opined that the BE allows the town to do certain things but doesn't obligate us. The property owners don't want us there. We don't have the obligation to be there. Why do we keep spending our limited resources (translated as our tax dollars) where we're not appreciated? 
I think we should go to land court and find out what our legal rights are under the BE. If it turns out that we don't have any then I think the town should be relieved of it's obligation. It's not like it can be developed or filled in if the town isn't in charge. It's protected by the Wetlands Protection Act and local wetlands bylaws. We wouldn't be abandoning the environment; the Conservation Commission would exercise jurisdiction over it.
If we do have rights let's exercise them. One way or the other, let's do something other than continue to spend good money after bad. 
My opinion is we should seek relief from the easement. It's a poorly written document that burdens the town without any benefit. What were the selectmen thinking when they accepted such a one-sided contract? It probably was clearer then as there was one property owner. No one foresaw the sale of the land and how the vested interests of new and multiple property owners would muddle the waters (sorry, pun not intended). 
I'd like to resolve the issue even if it means making a hard decision. Others on the BoS don't seem to. I guess that's the difference between us. I'm from Venus; they're from Mars. 


*Unless the town has a direct causal participation in creating it.