The Select Board met November 20. Mr. Butch Malloy wanted to know when the Special Town Meeting would be held to vote on the proposed bylaw presented by Mr. Malloy and MinutemanWind at the Public Hearing on October 25. Mr. Bettis wanted the vote to be held in December. Mr. Bettis was informed the Planning Board had scheduled an informational meeting for December 13 to present the Planning Board proposed bylaw. Mr. Bettis stated this was the first he had heard of this informational meeting. He was opposed to the Planning Board presenting their proposed bylaw before Mr. Malloy’s proposal was voted on by the town. He asked if this informational meeting could be rescheduled. Sue McGrath told the Select Board this was not possible since the newspapers had been sent notification to be published. Mr. Betttis said Jamie Reinhardt, Planning Board Chairman, should have presented the Select Board with his proposal for an informational hearing before it was sent to the papers. Mr. Bettis said it has been three years, what’s another two weeks.
Mr. Bettis explained he was concerned the residents would be just as confused as they were at the Public Hearing about which bylaw was being discussed. Brenda Smith suggested to Mr. Bettis the residents would be prepared to make a correct decision for the Town if they were aware of the significant differences in the two bylaws. The presentation by Mr. Malloy and MinutemanWind compared only their proposal and the state requirements. Mr. Bettis asked if the Planning Board would use their presentation to show the differences between Mr. Malloy’s and the Planning Board’s proposed bylaw. Since the Planning Board does not have either the equipment or the money to make a similar presentation, this would not possible.
Mr. Malloy said the Planning Board has been stalling. He felt the Planning Board was now rushing their informational hearing since his proposed bylaw had been presented. Mr. Malloy said his lease runs out in January. He wanted his bylaw to be voted on before the lease expired. He further expressed his concern the project would not go forward if his proposed bylaw is voted down. Mr. Malloy, also, said referring to the Commercial Wind Energy Facilities Bylaw his bylaw was wrong.
The vote on the bylaw presented by Mr. Malloy and MinutemanWind will be held Thursday, January 3, 2008 at the Fire Department, 7 PM. If this proposed bylaw is approved, it will become the bylaw for Savoy.
There was a brief discussion on the override vote to be held at the Senior Center, November 28, from noon to 8 PM. By Brenda Smith

NOTICE:
The last day to register to vote on the override question is, Tuesday, November 6. The Town Clerk's office will be open from 2pm to 5pm and 7pm to 8pm for those who wish to register. The actual vote on the override ($70,000.00) will take place at the Senior Center on Wednesday, November 28, from noon to 8pm. from the Town Clerk's office

The following was left at the Savoy Store.

FY08 BUDGET NEWS:

This year at the Annual Town Meeting Savoy voters approved a nearly level funded budget submitted by the Finance Committee and Select Board seeing only moderate increases.

Currently with the first quarter of the fiscal year complete we now have the final numbers from revenues including state cherry sheet at $818, 574 an increase of $24,812, new growth at $31,612, local receipts $114,500 and free cash at $12,500 also expenditures state and county charges at $176,433 an increase of $66,992, overly, etc. A very large increase cost in Charter School at $82,242 an increase of $28,410 and School Choice $93,593 an increase of $38,593 in tuition up by 61%.

During this time of finalizing the budget there is usually a deficit to be addressed. The methods used are to trim the working budget, use money from free cash or stabilization fund to help balance the budget or vote an override of Prop. 2 1/2.

After review of the current budget the Finance Committee, Select Board and other town officials have found ways to reduce costs by approx. $60,000 dollars including using all free cash of ($12,500).

The recommendation is to take approx. $15,000 from the stabilization fund bring the deficit to $70,000 and vote in an override of $70,000 rather than continue reducing the town's stabilization fund ($160,352.53). The override's ballot vote will be held on Wednesday, November 28th, 2007 from 12 noon to 8pm at the Senior Center.

The increase in property tax will be approx. $1.00 per $1,000 of evaluation.

Select Board and Finance Committee

Contact People

John Tynan, Select Board Chair 743-3573
Joe Bettis, Jr. 743-8132
Scott Koczela 743-0792

Finance Committee
Emile Mazur 743-1354
Jody Jardine 743-0029
Susan McGrath 743-0977

PUBLIC HEARING
The public hearing for Mr. Malloy’s proposed "Commercial Wind Energy Facilities Bylaw" was held October 25 at the Fire Station. Mr. Malloy explained MinutemanWind did not write the bylaw. Mr. Malloy went to UMASS to see Sally Wright, , Renewable Energy Research Lab. Ms. Wright gave Mr. Malloy a copy of the state "Model Amendment to a Zoning Ordinance or bylaw". Mr. McCauley, President of MinutemanWind, stated they took the model and developed a proposal for Savoy.

Mr. Malloy felt the Savoy Planning Board’s bylaw had too many snags and was not workable. Mr. Malloy stated the proposed bylaw MinutemanWind would present had all the ‘meat and potatoes’ of the Planning Board without the snags. (The proposed bylaw presented by MinuteManWind will be referred to as the Malloy/MinutemanWind proposal not to be confused with the Planning Board proposal.)

Steve Weisman, MinutemanWind vice president, stated they had been waiting for the Planning Board bylaw but doubted the Planning Board would present their proposal anytime soon. The Planning Board has been working on a bylaw since 2004 and, it has not been presented to the town. Mr. Reinhardt, explained the Planning Board proposal would be ready as soon as town counsel clarified legal language in the document.

When questioned why Malloy and MinutemanWind didn’t wait for the Planning Board’s proposal, Mr. McCauley explained he was concerned about their data going stale. He briefly mentioned without going into detail, wetlands and habitats. Mr. Malloy mentioned the need to move forward to take advantage of environmental and tax incentives.

Some of the residents had issues with more of the ridgelines being used for wind turbines. Mr. McCauley explained the Malloy bylaw was for the project on West Hill Road, at this time.

Mr. Reinhardt was asked what would happen if the town voted for the Malloy/MinutemanWind bylaw and then voted to supersede with the Planning Board proposed bylaw. Mr. Reinhardt explained MinutemanWind would surely apply for a Special Permit from the Zoning Board as soon as the bylaw is approved. MinutemanWind would not be bound by the guidelines proposed by the Planning Board bylaw, only future projects, if any.

Mr. Bettis was moderator in place of Eric Krutiak, who had been called out of town. Mr. Bettis, Select Board member, explained the Planning Board has 21 days to review and make a written report to the Select Board on the "Malloy-MinutemanWind proposed bylaw". Mr. Bettis stated the Select Board thinks the "Malloy-MinutemanWind proposal" is a workable bylaw. He further explained the Select Board already has ideas on changing the "Malloy/MinutemanWind proposed bylaw before being presented to the town for a vote. The proposed bylaw will require a 2/3 vote at a Special Town Meeting to pass. Mr. Bettis stated the vote would be by ballot.

There was a question how concerns of citizens would be handled. Mr. Bettis said these issues would be handled by the Select Board. Concerned citizens would contact the Select Board and they would contact MinutemanWind.

Mr. McCauley was asked to define ‘sensitive economic information". Mr. McCauley said MinutemanWind would withhold sensitive economic information if it applies to individuals.

Mr. McCauley stated MinutemanWind wants to make "payment in lieu of taxes" (PILOT). Mr. Weisman stated assessors make assumptions about what taxes should be. The Select Board would negotiate PILOT. The propose settlement would be put before the town for a vote. If PILOT failed, the fallback for the town would be normal taxation. It was suggested taxation would be based on the cost of the turbines. The rate would be the ‘residential rate’ since Savoy has only a ‘residential rate’.

Mr. McCauley stated the Department of Revenue Regulations give the developer the right to PILOT. The proposed Malloy/MinutemanWind bylaw provides for independent consultants to be paid by the applicant. Mr. McCauley stated some towns hire consultants to negotiate PILOT. The town would be permitted to seek consultants familiar with negotiating fees for wind turbines and MinutemanWind would pay the consultants.

Mr. Bettis responded to inquiries about the fees MinutemanWind would pay the town. Mr. Bettis said the Select Board won’t know what the town would receive until after a bylaw is passed and MinutemanWind applies for a permit.

Mr. McCauley stated the existing bylaw would keep the project from beginning. The project would be illegal. The current bylaw has height limitations. Also, there is language that limits type of uses for land.

Mr. Malloy and Mr. Weisman both took shots at the Planning Board, as previously noted, for not having the Town Proposed bylaw ready. What they both neglect to appreciate is the Planning Board wrote the bylaw after reviewing exiting bylaws from other towns. The Planning Board members put in hundreds of hours researching issues the residents brought before them. The Planning Board has been trying to develop a bylaw that the residents would be comfortable voting for. They listened to the residents, trying to do the right thing for the town. The Planning Board had been working on the town’s proposal before Mr. Malloy walked into Sally Wright’s office and was handed the State’s generic model.

Mr. Bettis and Mr. Rosenthal had a brief exchange that brought a halt to the meeting. Mr. Rosenthal had his hand raised and wanted to be recognized to ask a question. Mr. Bettis told him he was not going to call on him again and to put his hand down. Mr. Rosenthal stated he was not going to put his hand down. Mr. Reinhardt stepped forward and adjourned the meeting. By Brenda Smith

An Educated Electorate
Savoy and the surrounding area is now the prime target for wind developers since the Cape Wind project was rejected. Savoy is facing the most serious challenge in its 210-year history: the question of whether or not to include commercial industrial wind plants in its rural, agricultural, residential area.

Only an educated electorate can make responsible choices. Objective, credible information is needed on wind, as a renewable energy source globally and how it will impact our Northern Berkshires locally. Without that reality check, personal subjective interpretation alone will guide perception.

The list surrounding wind plants in the world, the state and the Berkshires is long i.e.: the financial picture, private property valuation and taxes, personal health, eminent domain, environmental impacts, wind plant power production and delivery, government subsidies to developers heavily underwritten by the common taxpayer, lucrative incentives to developers from commercial foreign and domestic investing, as well as profiteering landowners. Add the fact of nature that wind is not a reliable, controllable energy source and you have large profits to the investors,developers and land leasors for very small return of renewable energy. Is it worth it in the long run? No.

The financial picture is first on this list of issues for Savoy. Does Savoy need more money? One of Savoy’s pro wind plant assessors says either we let in the wind turbines or we must pay higher real estate taxes over the normal 2.5% yearly increase. This choice is given without knowing exactly what income will be from any wind plant in town. The developer, Minuteman Wind LLC, says that sum cannot be given unless Savoy approves their commercial/industrial wind plant first. Does the developer expect us to go ahead without the income figure, to buy a “pig in a poke”? These tactics, the threat of raising taxes and withholding town income figures, both are underhanded leverages for a pro wind agenda.

People need to know what is at stake so they can answer for themselves. The Savoy Mountain News and the West Hill Viewpoint http://stumpsprouts.blogspot,com/ continue to deliver responsible information. Preston McClanahan, Savoy Resident

I have been attending Select Board meetings for quite a few years. The Select Board has questioned why the townspeople don’t get more involved with the meetings. Attendance is nonexistent unless there is an issue that interests the townspeople. That is normal for most small towns. I propose another reason, could it be the Select Board makes decisions outside the Select Board meetings? I have been informed by three previous Select Board members that this was a practice. Is this practice continued by the current Select Board?

What I have experienced is townspeople asking questions and some members of the Select Board being rude in their response. We all know the purpose of Select Board meetings. The Select Board meetings are for the purpose of handling town business. Also, the Select Board should be clear what information they use to make their decisions. When townspeople have to ask the Select Board to speak up so they can hear what is being discussed, does this make for a good meeting? Does the Select Board want participation from the townspeople?

At the last meeting in September several issues came up that were cause for concern. The first was Don McCauley stating how the informational meeting for the Molloy bylaw for wind turbines should be conducted. Isn’t this the responsibility of the Select Board and Planning Board? The Select Board and Planning Board should have been informing Mr. McCauley what procedures would be followed.

The property tax rate for Fiscal Year 2007 was $10.77 per thousand. Property was reassessed last year. My property increase was approximately $30,000.00. If my math is correct, my property tax bill will increase $323.10 with the $10.77 rate without the annual increase. The town is allowed an automatic annual 2.5 percent increase in each year. Why haven’t the tax bills been sent out? The property tax bills are suppose to be mailed October 1. The Select Board answered that question. There is not sufficient funds to run the town. The Select Board needs to ask for a tax increase. How do I know how I should vote when I don’t know how much the actual increase should be now? Or, is this a ploy by the Select Board to get my vote for a wind turbine bylaw? Mr. Tynan said he might not want wind turbines, but he had to do what was best for the town. Every voter is faced with the same issue. It shouldn’t be all about the money but the best bylaw that protects Savoy today and for future generations.

Since the Select Board has verbalized the need for more funds, I had to research the Massachusetts Government web site to try and understand the difference between a "debt exclusion" and "Proposition 2 1/2". "A "debt exclusion" creates a temporary increase in the levy limit to fund the payment of debt service costs for capital projects by borrowing. The additional amount for the debt service is added to the levy for the life of the debt. Exclusions do not become part of the base upon which the levy limit is calculated for future years. Exclusion questions are placed on the ballot by a two-thirds vote of the selectmen. A majority of the electorate is required to implement an exclusion." Savoy has voted for two debt exclusions since Fiscal Year 2000. Fiscal Year 2001, voters approved the purchase of a new four-wheel drive loader. Fiscal Year 2003, a modular addition to the elementary school was approved.

"Proposition 2 1/2" is a vote by a community at an election that permanently increases the levy limit. Unlike capital outlay expenditure exclusions or debt exclusions, an override vote can increase the levy limit no higher than the levy ceiling. The override ballot question must state a purpose for the override and a dollar amount.

"Proposition 2 ½ allows a community to assess taxes in excess of the automatic annual 2.5 percent increase and any increase due to new growth by passing an override. A community may take this action as long as it is below it’s levy ceiling, or 2.5 percent of full and fair cash value. An override cannot increase a community’s levy limit above the level of the community’s levy ceiling.

"When an override is passed, the levy limit for the year is calculated by including the amount of the override. The override results in a permanent increase in the levy limit of the community, which as part of the levy limit base, increase at the rate of 2.5 percent each year.

"A majority vote of a communities selectmen allows an override question to be placed on the ballot. Override questions must be presented in dollar terms and must specify the purpose of the override. Overrides require a majority vote of approval by the electorate."
If the Select Board follows through and asks for a property tax increase. Will I be able to afford a tax increase? Tough questions need to be asked, the Select Board needs to have answers, not the standard "we don’t have that information". If they don’t have the information, how can I vote to support an increase when I don’t know what my taxes should be under the Fiscal Year 2008 budget?

By the by, the Trojan Horse is at the gate filled with promises of money. After the Select Board meeting had adjourned Don McCauley and Select Board members stayed after the meeting and discussed the wind turbine project. The discussion centered around the fees Minuteman Wind would pay Savoy. Mr. McCauley was told he should be specific to the amount of money Savoy would receive, and the timeframe. Would the fees increase or decrease over the years. There was a consensus the fees would decrease each year since the wind turbines would devalue each year. What percentage would the turbines devalue? If my memory is correct, Mr. McCauley previously stated at a meeting the intent of his company was to sell the wind turbines to another company after they had been built. He made the comment he was in this business to make money. No one can blame him for wanting to make money. What is the long term expense for Savoy. Will his promise to pay the town specific amounts of money flow to the purchasing company? What if the company is an overseas company, how would Savoy be able to recoup any expenses associated with this project? What is my problem with this discussion? This discussion occurred after the Select Board meeting. Shouldn’t the townspeople attending the meeting been included in this exchange? Isn’t this town business?

Am I prepared to sell the heart and soul of Savoy for money? If my answer is ‘yes’, do I know how the Select Board will spend this money? Will the Select Board expect the taxpayers to fill the void with continued requests for higher tax increases as the fees decrease? A more serious question for me is the consideration of a proposed tax increase by the Select Board while a proposed wind turbine bylaw is being considered. The Select Board indicated they were going to be neutral. To bring up the matter of money with Mr. McCauley in attendance and the discussion after the meeting, makes this all about the money. Is this neutrality?

Savoy residents do care. I have come to the conclusion that nothing will change until we have a Select Board who is open about town business and encourages participation by the townspeople. We need to know what information they are considering when they make decisions. This is a small town and cannot have the budget of a larger town. What has happened to sensibility?
That’s my opinion. Your opinion and comments are welcome. By Brenda Smith

The Select Board meeting held on July 31, 2007. The meeting lasted approximately two hours. While it is important to present the meeting, it would not be of value to transcribe the meeting in its entirety. We will try to provide the content without being inflammatory.

Preston McClanahan presented the Select Board with a petition with 24 signatures to remove the tower on West Hill. The Select Board said they would have to verify the signatures with the Town Clerk. Mr. McClanahan presented the Board with information about wind energy for their review. Mr. Bettis said they would put it in their file.

There were residents concerned with how Kevin Kruitak was not reappointed. The statement Mr. Tynan made to the newspaper concerning fire department members drinking and reporting to fire alarms was not resolved to the satisfaction of those in attendance. Residents felt such a blanket statement implied all members may have been drinkers. The Board would not apologize for the statement even though many of the residents expressed to the Select Board they did not drink.

The Select Board was asked what was going on in Savoy since the new Fire Chief had been appointed. After a lengthy debate, Mr. Bettis replies, "what do you want to happen?" Mr. Bettis and Mr. Tynan explained the Select Board had made their decision because they could; and it is their responsibility to appoint the Fire Chief. The Board members would not go into details of the precise reasons for not reappointing Mr. Kruitak. Questions arose as to why the Select Board had not requested the Fire Department members select a Fire Chief as they had in the past; and present their recommendation to the Select Board for approval. The Select Board did not feel they had to follow this procedure and could appoint who they wanted.

Mr. Bettis stated the Mr. Ordyna would not receive compensation this Fiscal Year. The money appropriated for the fire chief would be sent to Kevin Kruitak at the recommendation of the town’s counsel. If money became available for the new fire chief, the appropriation would need to be approved by the voters.

Jamie Reinhardt, Chair of the Planning Board, gave the Select Board an update on the "Commercial Wind Energy Facility Bylaw. He stated the bylaw probably would not be ready for August. The Attorney General’s Office had granted a review and noted areas of concern. The Planning Board is in the process of reviewing areas of concern and will update the bylaw. Mr. Reinhardt explained the Board had sought assistance from Berkshire Regional Planning. They had assisted as a courtesy, but they could not continue as a ‘free service’.

The town owns property at 116 Center Road. Mr. Tynan stated the property is ¾ of an acre. The Select Board is interested in asking abutters if they would be interested in the property. Sue McGrath explained the property had been turned over to the town for unpaid taxes plus attorney fees totaling over $13,000. Mrs. McGrath will do further research to determine whether the town can present the offer to abutters.

Mr. Bettis stated the berm at the school needs repair. In between meetings, he will let the Select Board know how much it will cost to repair the berm.

The Town Hall needs an evaluation of repairs. The back of the building is in poor condition.

The Select Board was questioned about the insurance rating for the town. The concern was the town may have a lower rating since the new fire chief does not have sufficient training. The Select Board responded they had not heard anything about it. They did not think their appointment would have any effect on the insurance rates for the residents.

The Select Board met July 17, 2007. Althea Maynard and Cecelia Bloniarz asked the Select Board the status of the Fire Department. Mrs. Maynard was concerned with coverage for the senior citizens and response to their life alert. Select Board Chairman Tynan explained the senior citizens didn’t have to worry. He stated the Town has full coverage. Since July 1, there have been new firefighters come on board the department, and there are three EMTs on the Police Department. Also, Windsor will respond when called. The Select Board received a letter from the Adams Ambulance stating they will continue to support the town. He assured Mrs. Maynard training will be provided for new members of the Fire Department who need training.

Don McCauley, President of Minuteman Wind LLC, asked if the Select Board had read their (Minutemand Wind) bylaw proposal. Mr. Tynan replied they had read through it but didn’t form a group opinion or anything like that. The Select Board is still waiting for the Planning Board to present the Town bylaws. Jamie (Reinhardt) has told the Planning Board the bylaws would be ready for August.

Mr. McCauley inquired if he should proceed with introducing his proposed bylaw. Mr. Tynan explained he would want to wait and see what happened with the Town’s proposed bylaw. Mr. McCauley stated "he would believe it when I see it".

Mr. Tynan responded the Select Board had a pretty candid talk with Jamie. "It sounds like they (Planning Board) are pretty much done and Select Board is waiting to see bylaw". Mr. McCauley said he is waiting and anxious to get going. Mr. Tynan stated the Planning Board had worked hard on the bylaw. He said when Joe (Bettis) gets back from vacation maybe the Select Board can give Mr. McCauley more details on the proposal he had presented. "Ask me, that sounds fair enough."

Mr. McCauley responded "very good".

Mr. Malloy gave an update on the progress of the Conservation Commission regarding Griffin Hill Road and wet lands. He will return to the next Select Board meeting with further progress.

The meeting adjourned. Mr. McCauley stayed after the meeting to speak with the Select Board.
* * * * * *

The Massachusetts Attorney General’s office has published "Open Meeting Law Guidelines" that encompass the Massachusetts General Laws that apply to officials in government. Following are excerpts:

"Massachusetts adopted in 1958 its first open meeting law applicable to governmental units at the state, county and municipal levels. St. 1958, c. 626. In fact, there were three separate laws, one applicable to each level of government (state, county and municipal), but the substance of the three laws was the same. The first statute was fairly general in approach, and after a series of amendments over the years, the Open Meeting Law was substantially revamped in 1975, adding for each level of government a set of definitions of terms used and making more specific the provisions governing closed meeting sessions and notices of meetings. There have been a number of amendments to the Law since 1975, but its general format and provisions have remained the same. The purpose of the Open Meeting Law is to eliminate much of the secrecy surrounding the deliberations and decisions on which public policy is based. It accomplishes this purpose by requiring open discussion of governmental action at public meetings. The requirements of the Open Meeting Law grow out of the idea that the democratic process depends on the public having knowledge about the considerations underlying governmental action, for without that knowledge people are not able to judge the merits of action taken by their representatives. The overriding intent of the Open Meeting Law is therefore to foster and indeed require open discussion of governmental action at public meetings. Yet the Law does recognize that public officials might be "unduly hampered" if all discussions by public officials were required to be open. As a result, it specifies certain types of issues that may be discussed and decided in a closed session. These exceptions, however, are limited in number and narrow in scope.

The Law applies to those meetings of governmental bodies in which a quorum of the body convenes to deliberate on any public business or policy within its jurisdiction. The terms meeting, governmental body, deliberation, and quorum are specifically defined in the Law. G.L. c. 39, §23A. For covered meetings, the Law lays out specific procedures that must be followed. Most important is that the meeting be open to the public except in nine specific circumstances that are described in the statute. If one of the exceptions applies, the governmental body can meet in an executive session (closed session), provided it follows certain preparatory steps. Other critical procedural requirements are that records be maintained of all meetings (including executive sessions) and be made available to the public, and that notice of all meetings be publicly posted. Responsibility for enforcement of the Law at the local levels is vested in the District Attorney. However, judicial remedies in the form of prospective injunctive and declaratory relief may be sought by the District Attorney, the Attorney General, or three or more registered voters. Relief may also include an order invalidating or rescinding past actions by a governmental body or requiring the body to make its records public. Other remedies may be available as well; the Law states that its remedial provisions are not exclusive.

The Open Meeting Law is clear that all meetings of a governmental body are to be open to the public and any person shall be permitted to attend any such meeting unless the governmental body (1) validly decides to hold an executive session for one of the nine purposes outlined in the Law and (2) follows the prescribed procedures for holding such an executive session.

Note: "Telephone meetings" -- discussion by telephone among members of a governmental body on an issue of public business within the jurisdiction of the body -- are a violation of the Law. This is true even where individual telephone conversations occur in serial fashion.

"Revolving door" meetings, in which a quorum of members participates in serial fashion, are meetings under the Open Meeting Law and must comply with all the Law’s requirements.

With the advent of computers, it has become more common for persons, both at home and at work, to communicate through electronic mail, or "e-mail." Like private conversations held in person or over the telephone, e-mail conversations among a quorum of members of a governmental body that relate to public business violate the Open Meeting Law, as the public is deprived of the opportunity to attend and monitor the e-mail "meeting." Thus it is a violation to e-mail to a quorum messages that can be considered invitations to reply in any medium, and would amount to deliberation on business that must occur only at proper meetings. It is not a violation to use e-mail to distribute materials, correspondence, agendas or reports so that committee members can prepare individually for upcoming meetings."

If you are interested in the "Open Meeting Law Guidelines", go to www.mass.gov.

Voting in Savoy on election day, November 7th, hit an all-time high with 44% of the town's 501 registered voters coming to the polls. The polls were open from 7AM to 8PM and the election workers were busy most of that time. Even with extra people counting the ballots at the close of the polls, the lights did not go out at the town office until 12:00 midnight. After the votes are tallied, the Town Clerk(s) have to report the final figures to the media, and the list of interested tv, radio, newspapers and news reports increases when it is a state and federal election. It is a lot of work for everyone and there is a constant need for help in all of these elections. Poll workers are always needed. If anyone has an interest in having their name on a list of available workers for future elections, please contact the Town Clerk.
Poll or election workers receive compensation at $7.50 an hour. They are required to spend the entire time at the polling place manning the voting lists and the ballot box and checking identification of voters when required. Election workers must arrive at the precinct at least 15 minutes before the polls open. Depending on the election, the polls can be open from four (4), eight (8), or thirteen (13) hours.
Counters receive a flat fee of $25.00 for their work. They are required to be at the polls just prior to closing time (8PM). As soon as the polls close and all the voters have finished voting, ballots are removed from the ballot box (in the presence of the police officer) and the counting begins. Counters are required to represent each national party (evenly). Counters check the ballots, mark the votes for each candidate or question, make sure the number of votes recorded equals the number of votes cast, submit the tallies to the election warden, and can then go home. At times the counters are in and out, other times, like when there are a lot of write-ins, it can be a difficult process. For all the workers involved in the election day process, it is a long day and can be very taxing, but it can also be a pleasant experience, talking with neighbors and residents of the town who come out to vote. The Town Clerk and Assistant Town Clerk want to especially thank all the election workers and the police officers who participated in this election, in particular the 'counters' who were called in at the last minute and helped get the votes tallied. It was most appreciated from the Town Clerk

The meeting on Thursday, October 26th on the proposed by-law addressing wind towers in Savoy drew a respectable audience, but hardly the amount of interest one would have expected considering the importance of the subject. Eric Krutiak served as Moderator while Planning Board members asked and answered questions, hoping to gather helpful direction from the comments offered by residents and others. The by-law has been in the works for at least two years and a final draft should be ready to put to a vote within four or five months, according to Planning Board Chair, Jamie Reinhardt. The passage or defeat of the by-law at a town meeting is the only vote the residents will have on the windpower project. It requires a two-thirds vote [in favor] to pass. Height, sound, lighting, set-back from property lines, monitoring, maintenance, liability insurance,safety considerations, emergency problems, emissions, construction, abandonment or decommissioning, are all part of the issues the by-law will address. The terms and conditions of the by-law will provide standards and requirements for regulation, design and construction of the turbines. "With this by-law, the town Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals and other governing officials can establish reasonable terms and conditions." The Planning Board has been working with advice from the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission and models of by-laws that have been written for other area towns to establish our own by-law.

The audience appeard to be well represented by both advocates of wind power in town and those who oppose any such project. Don McCauley and Steve Wiseman of Minute Man Wind, LCC, the Waltham based company looking to put in the turbines, took notes during the hour and a half long meeting, but did not speak openly to the crowd. The audience was asked to keep all questions and statements focused on the by-law only. Personal opinions, arguments for or against the project were discouraged. For the most part, everyone cooperated. A second meeting planned for the first week in November was considered unnecessary. The Planning Board felt the responses from the residents and others attending this meeting had been enough for them to finish their work on the by-law and that pretty much everything that could be said about it had been said.

Many residents in town are under the impression that there will be a ballot vote on the wind turbines. This is not the case. The by-law will be presented to the voters at a town meeting. Voting will take place by the raising of hands or (if requested) a secret ballot. A two-thirds majority is necessary to pass the by-law. If passed at town meeting, the paperwork on the by-law, a certification of the final vote, and all pertinent information, is sent to the Attorney General by the Town Clerk for approval. If the by-law is approved by the Attorney General, the Clerk is notified of the decision and this notification must be posted at various places in town or published in the local newspapers before officially becoming a law of the town. It is a lengthy and complicated process. If the by-law fails to pass at town meeting, the developers can submit an application for a special permit to proceed with the project. This also is a lengthy process with time restraints. The responsibility to decide on the special permit rests with the Zoning Board. There will be a public hearing on the project which is meant to help the Zoning Board make a decision on whether to grant the permit or not, but the town will not have a vote. A by-law in place, voted on by the town, is a way the residents of this town can control such a project. Residents are urged to learn as much as they can about this process and what it will mean to the future of Savoy. from the Town Clerk

What: Tall Girls Clothing Swap
For all girls and women 6 feet tall and over ONLY! (And those with wicked long arms & legs.)
Where: Meeting in Style
5 State Street, 3rd Floor
Shelburne Falls, MA 01370
When: Saturday, October 28, 2:00pm sharp to 5:00pm
Cost: This is a free and open event. RSVP is required. RSVP at http://www.evite.com/app/publicUrl/chassewithme@hotmail.com/tallgirlsclothesswap
or 413-625-2682

If you’re 6’+ you know how hard it is to find clothing that fits! You're not alone. Clean out your closets and bring those pants you haven't worn in five years! Someone wants them here! You may walk away with the perfect sweater, one that reaches to your wrists and covers your belly.What to bring:
Long pants
long armed & torso(ed) shirts
long skirts
long dresses
coats with long sleeves
shoes size 10+
any other items designed for the long torsoed/legged/armed female populationAll (number/letter) sizes and ages welcome. Unless they match or complete an outfit comprised of an item listed above, please do not bring shorts, short skirts, cropped pants or short sleeved or tank shirts unless the torso length is long. Sorry - the venue, www.meetinginstyle.com, is not handicap accessible.If you can't attend and have some clothes to donate, call Stacy Kontrabecki, 6’1”, at 413-625-2682 or email chassewithme@hotmail.com

The Planning Board met October 4. Jamie Reinhardt said the Planning Board has scheduled hearings for October 26 and November 2 from 7 to 9 p.m. at the fire house. Eric Krutiak will be the moderator. Jamie outlined the procedures for the meeting. The Select Board will open questions and comments to the residents of Savoy before permitting non-residents to speak. The November 2 meeting will be held if everyone who wants to comment has not had an opportunity at the October 26 meeting. Jamie emphasized the hearing is on the proposed by-law only. The Planning Board will not entertain any questions specific to the Minuteman Wind Project. The Planning Board would prefer specific questions regarding the proposed by-law to help them in defining language changes in the proposed by-law. After the meetings, the Planning Board will finalize the by-law and present to the town for a vote. At the meeting for voting on the by-law, amendments can be presented for consideration. The amendment will require a two-thirds vote to pass.

26 JULY 06 Worksheet
Introduction: In the summer of 2004, the Planning Board mailed a questionnaire to all town residents soliciting their opinions on the topics of wind turbine projects and telecommunication towers (cell towers) in the town; 48 were returned. Of the questionnaires received there were 40 in favor and 8 opposed to Wind Turbine Projects. The result favorable of such projects was 83.3%.
Due to the surrounding communities interest and potential development of wind turbine projects, the results of the questionnaire and the recommendation of the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission (BRPC), the Planning Board has developed this bylaw for the purpose of providing standards and requirements for regulation, design, construction, monitoring, modification and removal of such facilities. With this bylaw, the town Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals and other governing officials can establish reasonable terms and conditions. The Zoning Board of Appeals is the Special permit granting authority (SPGA) in such matters. The by-laws are an attempt to balance community and environmental concerns and in the best interest of the town.
Research:
1. How are complaint/resolution mechanisms routed and by whom?
2. Some wording if something is found of concern that is not specifically worded in the bylaw/
3. Wording if some new ‘issue’ arises. Were do we add such a thing?
4. Can Fish and Wildlife provide information/recommendation?
5. Visit a project. Dialogue with township officials and residents.
6. Mechanism for settling disputes/claims by resident(s).

Commercial Wind Energy Facility Bylaw
1. Purpose
The purpose of this Commercial Wind Energy Facility Bylaw is intended to protect the scenic, historic, environmental and natural or man-made resources of the community. This bylaw is a guideline providing standards and requirements for regulation, design, construction, monitoring, modification and removal of such facilities. The guidelines are an effort to seek a balance between community and environmental concerns and act in the best interest and character of the town.
2. Definitions
Blade Throw: This occurs when a turbine blade, pieces of the blade, or ice from the blade separate from the structure and "fly" off outward and down.
Commercial Wind Energy Conversion Facility: A facility that uses less than 50% of the electrical energy generated by the facility on the site.
‘Decommissioning’: The physical removal of all structures, machinery, equipment, fencing and transmission lines from the facility.
Flickering: This occurs when the sun’s rays on nearby receptors (usually homes and businesses) are temporarily blocked by the passing of a rotating wind turbine blade; the extent of flickering is dependent on turbine height, blade length and seasonal position of the sun on the horizon.
Height: For the purpose of calculating the overall height of a wind turbine, the total height shall be measured from the average grade to the uppermost extension of any blade or maximum height reached by any part or the wind turbine.
Shadowing: This occurs when shadows are cast by wind turbines; the extent of shadowing is dependent on turbine height, width and seasonal position of the sun on the horizon.
Facility Owner
The owner(s) of the wind turbines and its accessory equipment involved in the generation of electricity. The operator shall be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the facility to ensure that the facility is in proper and safe operating order.

Facility Owner
The owner(s) of the wind turbines and its accessory equipment involved in the generation of electricity. The operator shall be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the facility to ensure that the facility is in proper and safe operating order.
Property Owner
An individual. Firm, association, syndicate, partnership, or corporation holding proprietary interest in land on which the Wind Energy Conversion Facility is located or proposed to be located. The owner may or may not be the Facility Owner.
All improvements are removed, the site and accompanying access roads are re-graded to match pre-existing topography, and the site and access roads are re-vegetated. Existing trees shall only be removed if necessary to complete the required removal.
Restored
All improvements are removed, the site and accompanying access roads are re-graded to match pre-existing topography, and the site and access roads are re-vegetated. Existing trees shall only be removed if necessary to complete the required removal.
Wind Energy Conversion Facility: All equipment, machinery and structures utilized in connection with commercial wind-generated energy production and generation, including related transmission, distribution, collection, storage or supply systems whether underground, on the surface or overhead, and other equipment or byproducts in connection therewith and the sale of the energy produced thereby, including but not limited to, wind turbine (foundation, tower, nacelle and blades), anemometers (wind measuring equipment), transformers, substation, power lines, control and maintenance facilities, site access and service roads.

Wind Turbine: Equipment used in wind-generated energy production. Wind turbines capture the kinetic energy of the wind and convert it into electricity. Primary components are the foundation, tower, nacelle and blades.

3. Wind Monitoring or Meteorological Towers
Meteorological towers shall be a by-right temporary structure installation provided the tower meets the following conditions:
(a) The tower shall be removed after a period of 18 months from the date of the erection. This may be extended a period of 2 months with evidence of a failure in the data collection equipment. If a meteorological tower is to be permanently installed, it shall be permitted in conjunction with the special permit for the project.
(b) The site shall be restored to the existing conditions prior to the installation following the removal of the tower. If wind turbines are being proposed for the site(s) on which the towers were located, the site shall be stabilized rather than restore it to pre-existing conditions until the time of a turbine being installed. Stabilization shall be limited to a period of 1 year after which, the site shall be restored to the existing conditions prior to the installation.
(c) A financial surety, in a form and amount acceptable to the SPGA, shall be provided to protect the town from decommissioning, abandonment and/or environmental damage from inappropriate construction practices. The amount, shall be adequate to cover the cost for removing the structure and devices, disposing of those, restoration of the site and associated fees.
(d) In the event that the private property owner wishes to retain foundation components of the meteorological, the owner shall ensure stabilization of the site against erosion.
4. General Requirements for Wind Energy Conversion Facilities
4.1.1 General
A wind facility may be authorized by a Special Permit issued by the Special Permit Granting Authority (SPGA). The SPGA is the Zoning Board of Appeals.
4.1.2 Findings
The SPGA may grant a Special Permit only if it finds that the proposed wind facility:
Complies, at a minimum, with all the criteria of this bylaw; and
(b) Will not have detrimental effect upon the local neighborhood and the town, by locating structures so that they minimize negative impacts, such as, but not limited to, visual blight, noise and falling objects on the general safety, welfare and quality of life of the community; and

Documentation that the facility complies with all applicable local, state, federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to all applicable safety, construction, noise, electrical, communications, environmental and aviation requirements.
4.1.3 Surety
The project owner(s)/developer/operator shall post a financial surety in form and amount satisfactory to the SPGA and the Town Counsel, to ensure compliance with all conditions of the Special Permit. Conditions shall include, but not be limited to, provisions for repairs to the access road, restoration of required buffers or restoration of the environment at no cost to the Town. Such surety shall also cover the removal and disposal of the facility and restoration of the site and/or access roads to pre-existing conditions in the event of non-operation or abandonment. An access road may include existing town roads not designed for heavy traffic. Abandonment shall be defined as the unexcused failure to operate the facility, except for repair, refurbishment or upgrading, for a consecutive period of 12 months. See Section 9 Abandonment or Decommissioning.
4.1.4 Ongoing Surety Requirements
The project owner(s)/developer/operator shall also provide an ongoing financial surety in a form and amount acceptable to the SPGA to ensure that the facility will be removed and disposed of and the site, including access roads and power line rights-of-way, will be restored to a stable and attractive condition if the project owner abandons the facility or does not meet the special permit conditions.
a. The amount and form of the surety will be reviewed by the SPGA prior to expiration, but no less than every two years.
b. If the estimated costs for removal and restoration increase beyond the amount of the current surety, the SPGA shall increase the required surety amount.
c. Upon a finding of noncompliance by the SPGA with the special permit conditions, or abandonment as defined above, the SPGA shall notify the project owner at their last known address by certified and first class mail of the noncompliance or abandonment and shall provide 30 days notice that the surety may be called in so that the Town may correct the deficiencies or remove the facility and restore the site. In the event that certified mail cannot be delivered, it shall be presumed that first class mail was received by the project owner.
d. After the 30-day period, if the deficiency has not been corrected, the facility placed back in operation, or the facility owner has not appeared before the SPGA at a public meeting and the SPGA provided additional time to bring the facility into full compliance, the Town shall collect the financial surety in the manner established in the surety documents.
e. Subsequent to collecting the surety, the Town will take the necessary steps to correct the deficiency or remove the facility and restore the site, utilizing the funds from the surety. Collected surety shall be maintained by the Town Treasurer in a separate, interest-bearing account and utilized only to bring the facility into compliance. Costs may include necessary legal, engineering, permitting, procurement, and construction/demolition expenses.
f. If surety has to be drawn upon by the Town to correct deficiencies, and the facility is not removed, the surety amount must be recalculated and adequate surety provided to continue to ensure that the full costs of possible future deficiencies or removal and restoration can be covered by the surety.

4.1.5 Liability Insurance
The owner(s)/developer/operator shall be required to provide evidence of adequate liability insurance against loss or damage to persons, including personal injury or death, and structures occasioned by failure of the facility.
4.2 Design Standards
4.2.1. Aesthetic and Environmental Considerations
A Wind facility shall be:
(a) Located so as to minimize visual and environmental impacts, especially from highly rated scenic areas, while being consistent with economic viability.
(b) Located to utilize existing power lines and existing cleared rights-of-way.
(c ) Located to avoid rare species habitat, wetland resources and old growth forest.
(d) Located in areas where land has already been cleared in order to avoid habitat fragmentation.
4.2.2. Height
The height of a wind facility as measured from grade to blade-tip height or the uppermost extension of any attachment of the wind turbine shall not exceed 350 feet, with a minimum blade clearance from the ground immediately below of 20 feet.
4.2.3. Sound
4.2.3.1 Airborne Sound
Operational noise, shall conform to the guidelines of the Division of Air Quality Control Policy, which clarifies the enforcement of 310 CMR 7.10.
Research BRPC comment below
I would refer to the Div. of Air Quality Control POLICY, not 310 CMR 7.10. It is the policy that has set the level at 10dBA above ambient; 310 CMR 7.1 does not set a limit.
Our previous text:
as measured by the latest standards of ‘The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Air Pollution Control Regulations 310 CMR 7.10: Noise.’
4.2.3.2 Infra-sonic Sound
4.2.4. Color
All facility devices/components (tower, hub and blades) shall be colored (‘putty’), molded and/or installed to blend into the structure and/or the landscape, including the use of non-reflective exterior paints.



4.2.5 Lighting
a. Lighting of the exterior of the wind facility shall be prohibited, except for the minimum extent necessary lighting or marking requirements of the FAA.
b. Supplemental lighting of safety or informational signs as determined necessary by the SPGA. Safety or informational lighting shall be shielded and angled so to illuminate only the signs.
c. The facility shall provide the SPGA with a final official determination by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as to its lighting requirements and/or markings prior to the issuance of any special permit.
4.2.6. Accessory Uses
Wind turbines may be used to locate telecommunications antennas, subject to applicable regulations governing such uses subject to the following:
a. All ground-mounted equipment shall be located in a shelter, within the wind turbine or otherwise screened from view.
b. Antennas shall be flush-mounted to be in keeping with the design of the wind turbine.
c. All associated cabling shall be contained within the tower structure or enclosed within a conduit finished to match the turbine.
4.3 Setbacks
4.3.1 From property lines:
A wind facility tower shall be located at a distance of at least 1.5 times the height of the facility from any adjacent property boundary.
4.3.2 From Structures:
A wind facility shall be located at a distance of at least 1.5 times the height of the facility from any structure/building occupied by humans, whether on site or on adjacent properties. This is relative to any existing structure/building or proposed on record with the building official at the time of the owner(s)/developer/operator application for a special permit.
A natural vegetated buffer shall be retained for at least 50’ (fifty feet) in width around the entire perimeter of the project except were the access drive crosses said buffer.
4.4 Safety
4.4.1. Interferences:
The proponent shall prove to the satisfaction of the SPGA that the facility will not prove detrimental to neighboring properties due to electromagnetic fields, or radio, television, or cellular communications interruptions, or due to shadowing or flickering.
Once built, the facility shall not operate in a manner that exceeds maximum disturbance levels that have been documented as part of the special permit application submittal.

4.4.2. Signage:
a. As determined by the SPGA, to minimize trespassing and to minimize the threat of injury or death the wind facility shall have signage (‘POSTED’ / ‘WARNING’) surrounding each turbine and the access road as deemed necessary by the SPGA with consideration to blade throw and seasonal use of the surrounding property.
b. A locked gate shall be provided at the main access road(s) onto to project facility. An emergency key system (‘KNOX’ Box) shall be provided at each gate and corresponding keys provide to all emergency response personnel and Town Hall.
4.4.3. Emergency Contacts
There shall be a sign clearly displaying the names and telephone/cellular number(s) where the responsible party can be reached on a 24-hour basis. Signage shall follow existing bylaw requirements.
4.4.4. Safety Training
Safety training courses, exercises and equipment shall be provided by the Facility Owner for safety/rescue purposes. Requirements and equipment shall be provided to satisfaction of the governing authorities. (Fire Department, Police Department).
4.5 Permit Process and Filing Requirements
The Application for a wind facility shall be filed in accordance with the rules and regulations of the SPGA, ZBA – Zoning Board of Appeals.
4.5.1. Quantity
The applicant shall provide the Board(s) with a minimum of eight (8) copies of the requested documentation.
4.5.2. List of Applicant Contacts
Provide the name and contact information for the applicant/proponent.
4.5.3. List of Consultants
The proponent shall provide a list of all project related consultants and technical specialists.
4.5.4. Location Map
A copy of a portion of the most recent USGS Quadrangle Map, at a scale of 1:25,000 showing the proposed facility site, including the turbine sites, and the area within at least two miles from the proposed facility.
Note: The following maps and site plans shall be prepared, stamped and signed by a professional engineer licensed to practice in Massachusetts. The maps and plans shall be prepared on 24" X 36" sheets and shall be displayed on as many sheets as necessary to meet the requirements of the Vicinity Map and Site Plan as described below.
4.5.5. Vicinity Map
a. A map of the facility at a scale of 1" = 200 feet, with contour intervals no greater than 10 feet showing the entire area within a 2,000-foot radius of the wind facility project site, including existing topography, public and private roads and trails, building and structures (labeled with the latest owners name), historic sites, bodies of water and landscape features. Indicate the property lines of the proposed wind facility site parcel and of all abutters within 2,000 feet of the site parcel. Show any access easements or rights-of-ways needed for access from a public way to the wind facility, and the names of all abutters or property owners along the site and the easements, or those who have deeded rights to the easement.
b. A separate map shall be provide to show location of all transmission lines and transformers and the site where the electricity generated from the wind facility will join the existing electric grid system or inter-connect location.

4.5.6. Site Plans
The Site Plan shall include at a minimum the following information.
4.5.6.1 Contact information of the landowners of the facility site; and names and addresses of all landowners within 1000 feet of the wind facility parcel.
4.5.6.2 Existing property lines and location of structures or buildings within 1,000-foot radius of each proposed wind facility structure.
4.5.6.3 Existing Conditions Plan: A recent survey of the site at a scale no smaller than one inch equals 40 feet (1:480) with topography drawn with a minimum of five-foot contour intervals, showing existing utilities, property lines, stone walls or fence lines, wooded areas, individual trees with diameters greater than 12 inches within a three hundred foot radius from the base of each proposed tower site (labeled with their current heights).
The survey plan must have been completed, on the ground, by a professional land surveyor within five years prior to the application date, unless there has been substantial change since such date.
4.5.6.4 A plan showing the existing vegetation to be removed or altered.
4.5.6.5 Engineering plans showing drainage of surface water and plans to control erosion and sedimentation both during construction and as a permanent measure.
4.5.6.6 Show the boundary of any wetlands or floodplains or watercourses, and of any bodies of water included in the Water Resource Overlay District (if applicable) within 200 feet for the facility or any related facilities, accessways or appurtenances. Delineation of all wetland resource areas and their associated buffers, and of any certified or suspected vernal pools, and location of all structures and roads within wetland resource areas or within 100 feet of vernal pools.
4.5.6.7 Location of rare and endangered species or communities and flight pathways of bats and birds, including those previously known and those discovered through the Avian and Bat Risk Assessment (as described in Section 4.5.9.c of this bylaw), within a 1000 foot radius of each of the wind facility structures.
4.5.6.8 Locations of all buildings, structures and their appurtenant structures, including supports and guy wires and any equipment, including without limitation, power lines and transformers. Indicate the distances of the bases of the wind turbines to the nearest property lines, buildings, roads, driveways and trails.
4.5.6.9 The proponent shall provide representative elevation views of buildings, structures, including exterior appearance, color and materials.
4.5.6.10 Show two cross-sections through a wind turbine, drawn at right angles to each other and showing the ground profile to at least 100 feet beyond the limit of clearing, and showing any guy wires, supports, transmission lines and any accessory structures. Show the foundation, transmission lines and other infrastructure below grade. Show the relative height of the wind turbines in relation to the surrounding trees; if the trees are not at mature height, also show their expected height in 10 years.
4.5.6.11 Proposed Site Plans: Plans of the proposed facility site layout and utilities, access roads and staging areas, indicating whether they are temporary or permanent, including grading, width and drainage. Include storm water drainage plans, including location and design of conveyance and detention/retention structures. Include a cross-section of the access road indicating the width, crown, depth of gravel, and paving or other surface material. Plans shall be at the same scale as the Existing Conditions Plan.

.5.7. Reports
4.5.7.1 Narrative Report: The proponent shall submit a narrative report summarizing the proposed project, and describing the facility design and the technical, economic and other justifications for the locations of the site and the access road(s) and the various structures. The report shall also describe design features to minimize the visual and environmental impacts of the proposed facility, including a summary of the findings from the Environmental Impact Report.
4.5.7.2 Site Control: The proponent shall submit documentation of the legal right to install and operate the proposed wind facility at the time of application for a Special Permit. Documentation shall also include proof of control over setback areas and access roads. Control shall mean legal authority to prevent the use or construction of any structure within the setback areas for human habitation.
4.5.7.3 Provide a traffic management plan.
4.5.7.2. Provided map of roadways to be utilized for construction and delivery of all project components and materials.
4.5.7.3. Provide information on delivery vehicle types available for delivery of wind turbine components, the vehicle type selected by the proponent and why.
4.5.7.4. Show all transportation routes to be used to transport the wind turbines to the site.
4.5.7.5. Report all locations along the delivery route were land alterations, not withstanding ownership, are necessary.
4.5.7.6. Report if there will be road closures and disruptions effecting provisions for emergency response.
4.5.7.7. Report on all road improvements. The cost of all road improvements shall solely be borne by the facility owner.
4.5.8 Sight Line Simulations
Proposed Sight Line Simulations: The proponent shall submit computer-generated modeling, photographic simulation or other form of documentation acceptable to the SPGA to show the following:
4.5.8.1 Up to (8) eight sight lines, from sites chosen by a coordinated effort between the Planning Board and SPGA, shall be shown of the proposed wind facility.
4.5.8.2 Sight lines shall be mapped on a site plan at a scale appropriate to the number of sites and the distances of the sites.
4.5.9 Environmental Impact Report (EIR): The proponent shall conduct an Environmental Impact Report that will assess the risk to plants and animals. The EIR shall, at a minimum, include:
a. Provide a 3 year study based upon the United States Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service.
b. Biological Impact Assessment, which will evaluate the potential risks of the proposed wind facility on rare plants and plant communities, and on rare resident and migratory wildlife on the wind facility site and within 1000 feet of the proposed facility.
c. Pre-construction Avian and Bat Assessment, which will evaluate the potential risks of the proposed facility on resident and migratory birds and bats. This assessment shall be conducted in a manner acceptable to state and federal wildlife agencies having authority over resident and migratory species, and shall be conducted (as indicted above), including at minimum both spring and fall migration seasons, prior to the submission of the Special Permit application. The Avian and Bat Assessment shall continue up until the commencement of construction of the wind facility and the data shall be provided to the SPGA on a quarterly basis.
d. Contingency Proposal, which will outline mitigation measures that will be undertaken in the event that unforeseen and unacceptable wildlife impacts and mortalities occur at the wind facility. Unacceptable wildlife impacts and mortalities shall be determined by the state and federal agencies that have authority over the impacted species.

4.5.10 Balloon Visualization
Within 35 days of submitting an application, applicant shall arrange to fly, or raise upon a temporary mast, a (3) three feet (we had a 6’ diameter) diameter nine and one half foot long brightly colored balloon at the maximum blade tip height of the proposed wind facility and at each end of the array of the wind facility. (we had all sites). The dates, (including a second date, in case of poor visibility on the initial date in the reasonable opinion of the Planning Board and SPGA), times and locations of this balloon test shall be advertised, by the applicant, at seven and fourteen days in advance of the first test date (and a second date if applicable) in a newspaper with a general circulation in the Town. The applicant shall inform the Planning Board, SPGA and the Select Board, in writing, of the dates and times of the test, at least fourteen days in advance. The balloon(s) shall be flown for at least four consecutive hours sometime between 9:00 am and 5:00 pm of the dates chosen.
The applicant shall prepare and mail a general circulation in the town to each resident and property owner at least five days prior to such flight. The documentation shall provide the recipient with an explanation of the test and its purpose. The narrative shall be reviewed by the Planning Board, SPGA and the Select Board for review and comment prior to its issuance.
The applicant shall coordinate the procedure with all necessary local, state and federal agencies.
5.0 Independent Consultants
The SPGA may, at its discretion, hire independent consultants whose services shall be paid for by the proponent.
Upon submission of a complete application, the Board(s) shall hire independent consultants whose services shall be paid for in-full by the applicant. In addition to the complete application, the applicant shall deposit with the Town funds sufficient to cover the projected costs of any and all consultants whose services may be required and requested by the Board(s). If the SPGA finds that additional funds are necessary, the applicant shall be required to provide those funds.
6.0 Approval Criteria
In addition to the findings required in this Wind Energy Conversion Facility section, the SPGA shall determine that the proponent has agreed to implement all reasonable measures to mitigate foreseeable and unforeseen adverse impacts of the wind facility should they be later determined to have occurred, including electronic or cellular interference and unacceptable bat and avian kills.
The SPGA shall act upon the wind facility proposal in accordance with the Special Permit procedures and time lines established in Town By-laws.
The SPGA may impose conditions that it deems reasonably necessary to minimize or mitigate detrimental effects to the environment and to neighboring properties, including but not limited to impacts incurred during construction and/or operation of the wind facility.
7.0 Monitoring and Compliance Evaluation
7.1.1 The facility owner shall, at all times, maintain the access road and the facility to a level acceptable to the local Fire Chief, Emergency Medical Service and Highway Department.
7.1.2 The Facility Owner shall be liable for the cost of maintaining the access road (unless accepted as a public way), the project sites, and the facility and for restoration of any damage occurring during construction or as a result of operation of the facility and the cost of any extra maintenance of the access roadway from the accepted public access road(s) if it is caused by the project owner(s)/developer/operator.
7.1.3 The SPGA may impose such safety-related conditions, including but not limited to fences, gates and warning signs as it deems reasonably necessary to protect public health and safety.

7.2 Pre-Turbine Construction Testing:
After the granting of the special permit and before the applicant’s wind energy facility begins operation, the applicant shall pay for an independent consultant, selected/hired by the town, to monitor background noise around the site. A report of the monitoring results shall be prepared by the independent consultant and submitted to the Board(s) and Building Inspector.
7.3 Excessive emissions:
Should the monitoring of the wind facility site reveal that the facility exceeds this bylaw’s requirements with respect to noise levels, the owner(s)/developer/operator shall be notified so by__________. The owner shall submit to the ________ (Board) and the _______ (Building Inspector) plan(s) for the reduction of noise levels to meet compliance within 10 business days of notification of non-compliance. That plan shall reduce emissions and noise to the required levels within 14 days of the submission of the plan. Failure to do so shall be a violation of the special permit and subject to penalties and fines, as specified in Section ___, payable by the owner(s)/developer/operator of the facility.
The SPGA may impose additional or modified conditions when the facility is inspected annually or earlier if a more stringent compliance schedule is mandated or deemed necessary by another agency to assure continuing compliance. The owner(s)/developer/operator shall file a copy of the inspection records with the Building Inspec tor and ____.
The Building Inspector and SPGA shall receive a report/notification of all serious ‘incidents’ recorded on any/all wind turbines. Incidents include, but are not limited to, structural deficiencies or failure, blade failure, lightning strike, wind damage, vandalism and fire.
The Building Inspector shall receive copies of documentation regarding the warranty period by the original installer. If the warranty/maintenance of the facility is to be performed by other than the original installer, the Building official shall be notified and copied on all maintenance reports etc.
The proponent or project operator shall monitor and maintain a [ ] log of all dead birds and bats found within 1000 feet of each wind turbine for a minimum of five years after the commencement of turbine operations. Consult with United States Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service to determine the collection requirements.
These logs shall be submitted to the SPGA the state and federal agencies, local Conservation Commission. This schedule may be modified depending on the results from the previous year(s) or operation as determined by the United States Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service.
8.0 Term of Special Permit
The term of the Special Permit for a wind facility will be 20 years with the final decision by the SPGA not to exceed 30 years. Two years prior to the expiration terms of the original special permit the applicant shall file for a renewal of the Special Permit.
The SPGA will reserve the right to waive sections of the wind turbine bylaw based upon historical data recorded over the prior years of operation.
Annual Meeting
An annual meeting shall be conducted (to be scheduled by the Facility Owner) between the facility owner and the town officials to discuss project related issues/concerns etc. Topics to include, but not be limited to:
1. Recorded problems/incidents
2. Resolution of problems/incidents
3. Report on device service plans

9.0 Abandonment or Decommissioning
The facility shall be considered abandoned when the facility fails to operate, except for repair, refurbishment or upgrading, for a consecutive period of 6 months, unless with the expressed written consent of the SPGA due to extenuating circumstances. At this time, the Town shall have the authority to enter the property and physically remove and decommission the facility, using the financial surety provided under Section 4.0 of this bylaw for such purposes.
When the wind facility is scheduled to be abandoned or decommissioned, the owner(s)/developer/operator/operator shall notify the Town of the proposed date and decommissioning plans at least 60 days prior to the commencement of removal activities.
The Facility Owner shall at this time explain the details and get approval from the SPGA for the removal of the facility and its materials.
The SPGA may impose conditions to ensure that any damage to the environment or public ways caused by the removal are corrected and the site, including private access roads, is restored. The SPGA may require a financial surety to repair such damage and to restore the site.
Provide:
Disposal of all solid and hazardous waster in accordance with local and state waste disposal regulations.
Restoration of the wind facility site to pre-existing conditions, including but not limited to stabilization or revegetation of access roads to prevent erosion and sedimentation to wetland resources.
The SPGA may allow the Facility Owner to leave the landscaping and some below-ground foundations intact in order to minimize disruption to existing vegetation and to minimize erosion.
10. Severability
The invalidity of any section or provision of this By-Law shall not invalidate any other section or provision thereof.

SAVOY WIND TURBINE ZONING BY-LAW PROPOSED
Thursday, September 21, 2006

For the past 2 years (or more), the Savoy Planning Board has been in a time consuming and tedious process of developing a Commercial Wind Energy Facility Turbine zoning by-law for the town. We began this effort shortly before the announcement of the West Hill Commercial Wind turbine project by Minuteman Wind. The purpose of the by-law is to provide guidelines for future commercial wind turbine projects that will strike a balance between prospective wind developer’s plans and the concerns of affected residents in the town.

As Planning Board members with no hidden agendas, we have been and will actively be attempting to determine the opinions of the majority of town residents before finalizing the by-law and presenting it to the town. In the summer of 2004, we mailed a questionnaire to all town residents to solicit opinions on possible wind turbine projects. Of the 48 that were returned, 40 were in favor and 8 were opposed to wind projects. Despite the low number of returns, this is all we had to go by. It should also be noted that in 2000 when the Planning Board suggested a By-law to prohibit commercial wind projects until it could further research the subject, the town rejected this.

However, as the current wind project proposed for West Hill looms in our future, it is becoming quite evident that some of the town’s residents are violently opposed to any commercial wind projects in this town. At a special meeting sponsored by Minuteman Wind (developers for the West Hill Project) held on Thursday, September 14th at the Savoy fire station, residents voiced their concerns over safety, noise, aesthetics, visual impacts, property value devaluation and other issues. Although Minuteman Wind representatives did their best to address these concerns, it was quite obvious that many of those present were not satisfied with the answers.

It is too bad that the apparent majority (at least from the results of our survey) did not speak up at the meeting. They were the ones who listened - respectfully and courteously, I might add - to Minuteman's presentation.I have received numerous mailings at my home (some signed and some anonymous) that have all been opposed to this project. If there are Savoy residents who are in favor of these projects, then I suggest they make their voices heard soon before we finalize the new by-law. Our Planning Board meetings are open to the public, and it would assist us in our work if we could hear, in a courteous manner, from both opponents and proponents on the topic.

Tom Sadin – member of the Savoy Planning Board

The State Primary will take place on Tuesday, September 19th. Anyone wishing to register to vote or voters who want to change their party must do so before August 30th. Absentee ballots are available from the Town Clerk's office now. If you need to request an absentee ballot, call and request an application to do so. The Town Clerk is available on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 1 to 5PM. You can call the office and leave a message at any other time. The number is 743-3759. from the Town Clerk

Donald McCauley of MinutemanWind address Select Board by Brenda Smith
The following is from the taped discussion by Mr. Donald McCauley and the Select Board on Tuesday, July 25. I have put in quotations the exact statements made during the meeting. I have tried to be as clear and concise as Mr. McCauley was during his presentation.

Mr. Donald McCauley from MinutemanWind attended the Select Board Meeting Tuesday, July 25. He stated he was there to bring the Select Board up to date on what their activities have been. "Obviously, we attended the opposition meeting that was held at the fire house. We are preparing our information in the form of the questions that were raised there. We are just about to file a Notice of Construction with the Federal Aviation Administration to make sure there are no issues and that will address the lighting issues that people are concerned about. We are, also, finalizing an environmental notification form which we will be filing with the Environmental Protection. We have prepared a draft of a Zoning Amendment that we have gone over with counsel. I expect to have a draft of a zoning amendment to bring to you at the next Select Board meeting and then work with you on the process of getting it introduced . This amendment will also be presented to the planning board for a proper hearing process. We expect to send an informational update to the residents mid to late August by mail. We want to have a community informational meeting in early September (September 7 or September 14, both are Thursdays) . I need to check with you to see if that is available. Then after that information session, we would go to planning meeting. Plan to hold hearing on zoning by-law and at the same time try and keep separate the notion that the first step is the adoption of the zoning by-law, which would set forth the general framework for addressing projects. Once that is adopted, we would bring specific plans for the project before the Zoning Board of Appeals to get a Special permit consistent with the by-law. So, that is the path we are anticipating." Mr. McCauley proposed a Special Town Meeting in late October for the town to consider the zoning by-law. He stated that the steps he had listed is what they are looking to do, and to give the Select Board a sense of where they were now and what they are expecting to do.

Joe Bettis asked if he is looking to bring the by-law up before MinutemanWind applies for the permits?

Mr. McCauley responded the project is a two-step process. "As a major project, it’s the type of project we typically do through the Special Permit process. The Zoning Board has Special Permit Authority." Mr. McCauley said that the Zoning Board would be able to propose any mitigation to the project they feel appropriate. There will be a general structure in place that deals with establishing what the parameters for review, and address some of the restriction in the by-law. Mr. McCauley spoke about the June 28 opposition meeting and, the issue of height limitations. Mr. McCauley explained how the by-law would need to be modified to make the project feasible, "perhaps some other restrictions in the bylaw as well". "We are trying to come up with a simple but comprehensive by-law that would then give direction to the Zoning Board and how they would do it."

Mr. Bettis asked if Mr. McCauley has seen the draft from the Planning Board. Mr. McCauley responded "we have seen the draft of that, we are trying to respect that as much as we can." Mr. McCauley called the Planning Board to give a copy of ours, ours will be significantly different from that." MinutemanWind wants "a fair chance for review from the town. Obviously, It will be the town’s decision to do it." They would, also, consider any amendments that would be proposed.
Chad Wagenknecht inquired what would happen if the by-law is shot down. Mr. McCauley stated "if the by-law gets shot down, we can’t proceed with the project". Mr. Bettis inquired what if we don’t have a by-law. Mr. McCauley responded there is a height limitation, it’s probably not legal to do it in town without a by-law amendment."
Mr. Bettis stated that’s why the ZBA is here. Mr. Wagenknecht looked up the by-law and read from the Zoning By-laws Section 5.1.4: "The height of any building or structure shall not exceed 35 feet. Height restrictions do not apply to agricultural buildings or structures, spies, chimneys, antenna or other appurtenances usually placed about roof level and not intended for human occupancy."
Mr. Bettis said he didn’t think the by-law would pertain. Mr. Wagenknecht stated this would not pertain because it states any structure "not intended for human occupancy". Mr. McCauley responded, "unfortunately, it’s ambiguous enough that even if it were right, might be subject to litigation and litigation is, also, a risk." Mr. Tynan restated that if they proceed without a by-law, litigation could stop the project in it’s track. Mr. McCauley agreed "it’s never simple".
Mr. Wagenknecht addressed the height limitation. He asked if the turbines can be lowered to make up for the height loss." It just seems to be that everybody objected to the height". Originally, the turbines proposed for the project were lower . He questioned if they could shorten the turbines and add one more.

Mr. McCauley said one difference, in a sense, is they are newer turbines they are looking at or the same hub height, which is where the rotors are attached, is not higher as what had been discussed. The proposed turbines have longer blades. He further explained it might be possible to be a little shorter on the tower and on the blades to create a little reduction in height. "But, of all that, will have an effect on performance of the machines. But, unfortunately wind energy increases by a cube to the factor of the power of three as you go up. "So, given the advantage as you go up higher to capture more wind, and I think achieves a level of calm at this height, which has been a growth over the past five years. These machines have increased around a 50 or 60 feet hub height to a 80 meter hub height, we don’t see going bigger than that. Transportation restraints and the like would prevent that as well."

The next Select Board meeting is scheduled for August 8.

I attended the Planning Board meeting, Wednesday, July 26. Jamie Reinhardt said the proposed wind turbine by-law is almost ready. There are still a few issues that must be resolved. He presented the current draft with changes as of July 26, 2006 to the members. There will be no Planning Board meetings during the month of August. The next meeting is scheduled for September 6.

Due to work related meetings, I was not able to attend past Select Board meetings, except for July 11. I have the minutes from the meetings and will publish them for your perusal. The minutes are old, old news; but for continuity, I will bring the blog up-to-date. The following is from Brenda Smith.

July 11: The issue of Don Curley’s property was discussed. The law firm representing Mr. Curley’s estate is waiting for the probate court to appoint an executor. Once this has taken place, the Select Board has requested the clean-up of the property be completed by November 15.
Fred Sawyer requested the Select Board do something to keep the water from running off Route 8A onto his property. Since the road was blacktopped three years ago, water has continually run onto his business, (S & S Machine). The Select Board agreed to have the highway department lower the manholes.
Daniel LaBonte from the Conservation Commission came before the Select Board with concerns regarding Burnett Road. He stated there was nothing in the conservation files for the work done on Burnett Road. Chad Wagenknecht explained to Mr. LaBonte that Ray LaBonte, Highway Superintendent, spoke with Mr. Dave Demariais (property owner on Burnett Road). Mr. Ray LaBonte instructed Mr. Demariais to replace the old culverts with 15" culverts, and to have construction grade aggregate put on the road to bring it up for use. Ray said he had not had any problems with Mr. Demariais. Mr. Demariais was willing to do what Ray requested. Mr. Daniel LaBonte was still concerned that this might set a precedent if Mr. Demariais did not go before the Conservation Commission with a plan for what he intended. Mr. Wagenknecht suggested Mr. Daniel LaBonte send a friendly letter to Mr. Demariais requesting he attend a Conservation Commission meeting. (Note: When Emile Mazur was on the Select Board, Mr. Demariais approached the Select Board to discuss his plans for building a home. At that time the Select Board was considering discontinuance of maintenance of part of the road. The Select Board agreed not to discontinuance maintenance if Mr. Demariais repaired the section of Burnett Road leading to his property. Mr. Mazur conveyed this decision before he left the Select Board to Mr. Bettis and Mr. Wagenknecht.)
Mr. Ray LaBonte last day as Highway Superintendent was July 13. He will return to County Concrete.
June 17: Alice Liebenow requested the catch basin near her property be repaired by the Highway Department. She stated the catch basin is in bad shape. Joe Bettis will investigate and talk to Mr. LaBonte.
There was to be a bid opening for the Highway Department as run in the newspaper. There were only two bids. These bids were returned. The town is looking for more bids.
Mr. Wagenknecht discussed improvement to Tilton Road, extending to the end.
June 13: Robert Lucido discussed raises for Highway Department, cost of living every year set at Town Budget. Joe Bettis explained the process vote by town.
Bob Maynard, Town B cemetery. Mr. Maynard stated the cemetery is town owned and provided papers of ownership. Question, does the town want to care for the property currently cared for by him. Joe Bettis suggested a meeting with the Cemetery Commission to investigate further.
Don McCauley, from Minuteman, gave an update where they are going. He indicated he may want to attend Select Board meetings in the future. Mr. McCauley expressed his thanks for the use of the Town Fire Department for his group’s meeting. Mr. McCauley discussed the permitting process with the Town and concerns with the proposal bylaw, ‘cumbersome’. Mr. McCauley had model by-laws from Fair Haven. He also inquired who is the Town’s Counsel.
Mr. Wagenknecht stated the state will allow the Select Board to adjust account and transfer funds to balance the budget, up to 3% per account or $5,000.00, which ever is greater.
May 30: The Town Clerk noted it is time for the Select Board to make appointments for Town Boards. There was also a request for a raise for town election workers. The Select Board approved the request. They reviewed current appointees on town boards and addressed open positions in need of filling. They will continue working on filling these positions.
May 23: Preston McClanahan (Blackbrook Road) and Noel McClanahan (Hawley) came to discuss wind power. They were concerned about the effects of noise from the towers. This group wants to use the Savoy Fire House for an informational meeting for "Green Berkshires" to do a presentation, and showing films representative of impact results. Group stated inaccuracies in Minuteman presentation (visual projections). Select Board stated they will remain neutral. The Select Board suggested they contact the Savoy Fire Chief for using the firehouse.
Joe Bettis stated the Senior Center has damage that may require repair and will need to be evaluated.
Assessor Sam Davis has received a letter from theBureau of Local Assessment for the State of Massachusetts. The letter states that the Town of Savoy has forfeited to appeal the Commissioner’s determination of the 2006 Equalized Valuation.
May 16: Joe Bettis stated he will be the Northern Berkshire Solid Waste representative, appointed by the Select Board.
Jamie Reinhardt came to speak about the wind turbine meeting. Mr. Reinhardt explained the wind tower by-law is still in draft form and would like feed back from Select Board. The committee has been working with the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission. Mr. Reinhardt told the Select Board that the proponent has a draft copy of the by-law.













-

Appointees for town boards who have not been sworn in should contact the Town Clerk as soon as possible. Summer hours are 1 to 5 PM on Tuesdays and Thursdays and by appointment. Please call 743-3759 Appointees who have not taken an oath of office are not eligible to vote on issues their committees are addressing.

There seems to be a great deal of confusion on who will have the final word on whether the five wind towers slated for West Hill in the Brier section of town will be built. Many residents have been counting on casting their vote in the ballot box to decide the outcome of this proposal. This is not the case. The decision is the sole responsibility of the Zoning Board, not the voters.

MinuteManWind, LLC, the company involved in the wind tower project, must submit an application for a special permit to erect the turbines in town. The application is reviewed by the Zoning Board, who will grant or reject the request. The Zoning Board must publish a notice of a public hearing within 65 days from the time the application is received, recorded and certified by the Town Clerk. After the date of the public hearing, the Zoning Board has 90 days to approve or turn down the permit. The Zoning Board will decide the outcome. Not the voters.

If the Board rejects the application and will not issue the permit, the applicant can appeal. They can also bring the issue before a Superior Court judge if it is felt the ZBA failed to execute their duties within the 90 day time limit. The law favors the applicant.

The only vote the town will have is on the by-law, which could restrict the size of the towers and address other issues the town deems important enough to put into law to protect itself from present and future problems. The by-law must be brought before the voters at a special town meeting. If passed by the voters (and a two-thirds vote is necessary), it must then be approved by the Attorney General before it is a town law. At the present time the by-law is being worked on by the Planning Board. It is very possible that the by-law will not be ready and in place before the application for a special permit is submitted by MinuteManWind.

The topic of choice whenever someone visits or calls the [Town Clerk's] office is, without question, the wind towers. Still, the legal procedure continues to be misunderstood. Residents need to understand that they will not decide the outcome by a vote. Let the Select Board and the Zoning Board know how you feel about the project. The 'pulse of the community' is what will aid the ZBA in its decision. from the Town Clerk

It was difficult to tell just how many people attended the wind turbine informational meeting at the Fire House on Wednesday evening, May 10th, but it was standing room only. Residents of Savoy and individuals from neighboring communities listened intently to representatives from the Minuteman Wind,LLC who were there to lay out the plans for the construction of five wind turbines on West Hill in the Brier section of Savoy. A slide presentation of area photos depicting the site, its potential as a wind project, and its impact on the town held the audience in total awe while representatives of engineering and environmental studies talked about what had been done to assess the site and what possible impact it would have on the community, economically and environmentally. Questions from the audience proved to be the most interesting part of the evening as residents and others who would be affected by the view or perceived noise of the turbines put a true picture of the project flat out on the table. The questions raised were intelligent, probing, and direct. They hit right to the heart of the matter and were seemingly asked without prejudice. Savoy residents should feel proud of the way they maintained a constant give and take of information throughout the meeting. There were no angry outbursts or lengthy personal pros or cons to waste the vital time to gather as much information offered.

The five turbines were downgraded from seven originally proposed. Each turbine is 420 feet tall. They would have a total rated production capacity of 12.5 MW. The proposed route the trucks containing the materials to construct the turbines will take is up 8A from Windsor to 116, north on Center Road to Adams Road and then east on Adams, crossing Blackbrook and onto Brier Road. The route continues on Harwood Rd to the site on West Hill. Minuteman Wind Co. will undertake road improvements to the town roads in order to facilitate access to the windmill site. The actual construction at the site is estimated to take about three months. Construction is anticipated to begin in the spring of 2007. The subject of how much electrical power would be realized, the benefit to the town in revenue, the cost in loss of property value (or increase), were not specifically answered. Estimated results were not something most were comfortable with and a request for more studies and available information was definitely the order of the day. Although not mentioned in the information presented, it is rumored the Minuteman Wind, LLC, a company located in Waltham, MA, is preparing to submit applications to the town to begin the project within a matter of a month or two. The Savoy Planning Board has been working on a draft of a by-law that would put important restrictions on the project. The by-law has to go before the voters at a town meeting and be approved by them by a two-thirds' majority. The by-law, if passed by the voters, is then sent to the Attorney General for state approval before actually becoming law. from Town Clerk

The Annual Town Election of Tuesday, May 9th netted enough candidates through the write-in process to fill most of the open seats. Candidates who were listed on the ballot ran unopposed and had no problem receiving enough votes to put them in office. Individuals who received the most write-in votes for a specific position were asked if they would accept the job and all agreed to do so. Two positions, Planning Board, 3 year term, and Treasurer, were considered "vacant" or "failure to elect" because there was no clear winner in the tally of write-in votes. In both situations, five (5) individuals were listed as receiving one (1) vote each. The Select Board will have to appoint someone to fill each of these positions. At this time, the Treasurer's job is still an elected office. At the Annual Town Meeting, the town agreed by vote to change it to an appointed position. This does not become official until the current term (3 years) is over.

The following is a list of the winners of this year's annual election:
Sam Davis will continue as ASSESSOR for a 3 year term.
Karen Freitag accepted the job on the CEMETERY COMMISSION.
Eric Krutiak will continue to serve as MODERATOR
Tom Sadin was easily elected to the PLANNING BOARD for a 1 year term
Don Phinney will remain on the PLANNING BOARD for 2 more years.
Rona Brandt Tynan agreed to serve on the PARK COMMISSION (a 3 year term)
Chris Andersen was again elected to the SCHOOL COMMITTEE for 3 years.
John Tynan ran unopposed for the open SELECTMAN's seat and was elected for a 3 year term.
Susan McGrath will continue as the TAX COLLECTOR for 3 more years.
Jane Phinney will remain the TOWN CLERK (a 3 year term)
from the Town Clerk