by Frank Schroth
At last night’s Selectmen’s meeting Denis Keohane, voted opposite his colleagues on two matters. The discussions on these matters and the split votes that resulted were in some ways more interesting than the matters themselves.
The Selectmen rarely have split votes. Last night there were two. The first was on a motion to extend the contract with MATV for 60 days. Mike Lynch, executive director of MATV, appeared before the selectmen to review a nine part report on MATV which has the contract with the town to provide local access programming. The report covered financial statements, current programming, status of broadcasting capabilities, and other service offerings (e.g. training on video production and broadcast). He acknowledged that Comcast subscribers in certain parts of town were experiencing issues with the broadcast quality on Channel 8. The issue is being diagnosed and addressed with Comcast and he asked for the public’s patience as they work to isolated and resolve the issue. Member Hurley called out some anomalies regarding certain budget figures that Mr.Lynch said he would get explanations for.
The discussion then turned to an extension of the contract. MATV sought the Selectmen’s approval for a 4 year extension to their existing contract which is about to expire. Chair Katie Conlon said she would like to get public input on the service and recommended a 60 day extension that allows for public input after which they would look to approve a 4 year extension. Hurley concurred; Keohane did not. “Why give ourselves more work?” he asked. [I don’t think] we should delay any further. . . [we need] to keep this board moving forward.” He favored the 4 year extension. Conlon countered that the public comment period could result in good suggestions coming in and provide better transparency to the process. Keohane pressed on saying “I don’t know what the public will do to [extend] the contract . . . no one is here . . . no one cares . . . I certainly don’t want to hear from people around town on MPEG.” Member Hurley said, “I do not think this will bog us down” and Conlon added, “It just helps us make an informed decision.” Keohane continued, “This is not the reason I came on this board.” He said the board had more important issues to address and that “it’s almost [as if we are questioning] the integrity of the [MATV] board.” Conlon thought that a gross exaggeration. She said that the request for public input was to provide transparency and potentially receive suggestions that could improve the service and not a reflection on the integrity or hard work of MATV. It was not mentioned but perhaps should be noted that Mr. Keohane sits on the MATV board as the Selectmen’s appointment. A motion was made and passed 2-1 (Conlon, Hurley for; Keohane against) to extend the contract 60 days. Members of the MATV board there to show their support were Bernie Lynch, James Mullen, Ella Welz, and Becky Padera.
The second kerfuffle flared up over the recommendation of the Town Administrator to retain additional legal expertise to assist with advice and representation before the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) regarding comprehensive permits (i.e. chapter 40B developments). Carrick Realty has applied for a comprehensive permit and is in the process of a hearing before the ZBA. A proposed development on Randolph Avenue has also received a letter of eligibility and is expected to file a for a comprehensive permit soon.
The attorney recommended by Ms. Fagan, Town Administrator, is Kathleen O’Donnell, a Milton resident with expertise in 40B. (You can find her qualifications here). Ms. O’Donnell is familiar to both Member Hurley and Ms. Conlon. However, she is not known to Member Keohane and there is the rub. “I cannot vote on someone I do not know about,” he said. “I feel this is being rammed down my throat. I’d like to know well in advance if we are hiring some lawyer.” He noted that he is the real estate business and that he knows attorneys that might be helpful though he also questioned whether an attorney was needed at all.
Fagan said she had reached out to all three members of the board the previous week regarding their thoughts on bringing in additional counsel though she had not specifically identified Ms. O’Donnell. Her reasons were that town hall didn’t have the resources to prepare properly. An assistant town planner has not yet been hired and she said there is a mind of paperwork to be managed and prepared. Keohane questioned the cost. There was no amount specified. Conlon said that O’Donnell would not be charging her standard rate. It is expected to be ~$150 an hour. She added that she wanted to ensure the town was adequately represented on this issue and “[I] defer to the Town Administrator’s judgement. I think she (O’Donnell) will serve the town well.” A motion was made and passed 2-1 (Conlon and Hurley for; Keohane against) to retain Ms. O’Donnell to provide expertise and assistance to the town in matters of 40B before the ZBA.
In a somewhat related matter, the board heard from Building Inspector Joe Prondak regarding the demolition bid for the town owned portion of the Hendries building (0 Central Ave). Prondak recommended that he (Prondak), the Town Administrator and a member of the BoS meet with the demolition firm to discuss further ways that might be available to trim the bid (~$347K). Prondak noted that the bid included an amount for a license from the MBTA to close service. There was previous discussion that such a license would add $100,000 to the cost; but it was unclear where that figure came from. Mr. Prondak said that the T had been challenging to coordinate with regarding costs but that as of late there were better channels of communication.
Keohane said he spoke to two contractors that took out the RFP but did not return them and was hearing that the estimate was overbid and that a more reasonable amount would be $160,00 – $170,000. He asked about the option of rejecting the bid and reopening the bid process. Prondak said that the current bidder, who is also the demo firm hired by Carrick Realty to take down their portion of the building, was concerned about a lengthy extension due to changing market conditions (e.g. price of steel). Prondak also said that there was a risk in putting out the RFP again as it could result in bids higher than what has been received. He too had spoken to contractors that had not returned the RFP and the reason he was given was that they did not want to work a site that had multiple contractors on it.
It was agreed that they would meet with the contractor to review the cost. Mr. Keohane volunteered. Ms. Conlon said they had time and would like to think about it as she is currently engaged in discussions with Carrick Realty, owners of 131 Eliot St.