Mr. Archer, Chairman, Called the Meeting to Order at 8:01 p.m.

Ms. Peluso: I am Chairman of the Commission on Aging and that is why I'm here tonight. The elderly in Town get a rental rebate or a homeowners' rebate and we have always, our Tax Assessor does these rebates. Our former Tax Assessor did the rebates. He would meet down at the different senior housing project for a couple of hours and this would entice the people to come and get a rebate. We seem to be having a problem now. We started last year writing to the Town Council and to the Town Manager and it's gone on a full year that the Tax Assessor does not feel it's her job. While we do represent the Town, this is a service for the elderly. I don't understand; if there was a change in a Job Description when this person was hired, and the Commission on Aging feels they aren't asking for much. It's 10 to 14 hours, at the most, so it's a couple of hours at each place from the months of May to September, and it would be a way, if you're disabled you're also able to go down there. We feel that the people have relied on this, it's always been there and we cannot understand why the Tax Assessor is refusing to do this.

Mr. Archer: So this is a question of her going to certain locations to make these more readily available to the elderly?

Ms. Peluso: Yes.

Mr. Archer: It's not that she's not offering a rebate?

Ms. Peluso: No, the rebates are there, they're offered, she's just refusing to go out and do them and the elderly have always gotten them. If you look in a book provided by the State of Connecticut for programs, it says in this book the Tax Assessor go to the Tax Assessor's Office. Now who would be more informed, be able to tell them exactly what to bring, whatever, than the Tax Assessor or her office help assistants. That's what I'm coming here for tonight, because we feel we've tried, we're not asking for a lot, we're not asking for something that we didn't have before, and the Commission asked me to speak tonight, and possibly the Town Council could speak to the Town Manager and see if something couldn't be worked out that . . . . . her hours could be arranged or whatever. We think it is an important service for them.

Mr. Archer: It doesn't seem at all like an unreasonable request given the precedent that was set before. Chuck, can you speak to this?

Mr. Frigon: Coreine, I apologize for any confusion. I didn't realize up until now that it's been a problem for a year. I did indeed write a memo to the Assessor last week, I did receive her memo. It was unauthorized. I don't know why she had made that decision to put that personal visit off until August or September. She has been requested by myself to perform those site visits herself, latter part of May, early part of June, so that's been taken care of.

Ms. Peluso: Thank you very much.

Ms. King: This is during regular working hours, right?

Mr. Frigon: Yes, it is.

Mr. Primini: Is this going to delay any senior citizen's tax abatement?

Ms. Peluso: They're so used to having the Tax Assessor go out, otherwise they have to go up to the Tax Assessor's Office and a lot of people, especially the elderly, get used to something and then it's taken away, it's made harder for them.

Mr. Primini: You said that this has been going on for a year, did they lose their . . . . ?

Ms. Peluso: No. They didn't lose it, it's there, the State gives it. The Assessor's Office informs people because this is given through the State, when to go up for the rebates. If they went up in the period that they had, yes, they would be fine. If they didn't go up . . . .

Mr. Primini: That's my question. Do you know of anyone who has lost out on their rebate?

Ms. Peluso: We really haven't checked it out as far as anybody losing it. We've been just back and forth with, it was like the end of the year and there was a prior Council in and it's going until now (inaudible) Commission on Aging, we've gone over this and we just can't let this sit.

Mr. Primini: I totally agree with you.

Ms. Cordon: First I wanted to thank Lee for coming to the Girl's Grows Program. Our opening day yesterday was very successful. It was the first time that the girls were separated from the Boy's Little League so it's a brand new league. I think everybody had fun. We were there pretty much all day from 1:00 to about 6:30 p.m. Games going all day, between T-Ball all the way up to the Girl's Major Leagues. Thank you for that.

I know I spoke to you about 3 weeks ago regarding the girls' fields. I couldn't stay for your response. I did appreciate your response; I watched it on TV the next night, so thank you. My question regards Deland Field. We know that we definitely have 3 mounds there. There are absolutely no softball fields, which cannot have mounds. Different leagues have different rules. They can have grass infields. What I would like to request is to have a mound removed so girls can play softball there, and I was told today by the Director of Parks that I would have to go to the Town Council and then it would be brought to the Parks and Rec Commission, and then he can remove one mound as long as it's approved and he gets the orders. First I'd like to know if we could do that?

My next question is we have 3 baseball fields at Deland, we have 2 official softball fields at Veteran's, however, how many girls teams are playing on any of these fields?

Mr. Archer: I couldn't tell you.

Ms. Cordon: I need to find out because if that's boys mounds at Deland Field, that's 3 fields for the boys. I believe J.V. is practicing at Veteran's on 1 field, which leaves 1 field for the girls. These are the better fields in the Town. I'm not just talking about the actual Grows program, I'm talking about the Girls' Swift and High School team. These girls should have decent fields to play on. I was wondering if someone could tell me how many girls teams, any age group, are playing on Town fields, compared to boys teams? Is there someone who could answer that, or should I direct my question to someone else?

Mr. Archer: The question is probably best answered by Lisa Carew, the Recreation Director.

Ms. Cordon: Is there any way that the Town can help out if for any reason, if they're saying that these permits are already set for this year, but come next year, can we any way designate, these are the girls softball fields, that's all it's going to be used for? These are the boys baseball fields, that's all they're going to be used for. Just like with Mosgrove, all these years we put money into it, the girls, and they don't get to use it.

Mr. Archer: I would have to defer to her on that one as well. In fact she's here. She's in charge of scheduling who plays what on what fields, in conjunction with the sports leaders.

Ms. Carew: First of all at Deland Field, this is the first year that we are scheduling the fields now. The people who are in charge of the new Grows Girls Division Softball put in for just one field at Deland Field on Thursdays, and they were given that permit. At Veteran's, now this is something that she's going to need to go back to her group about, is apparently last year, and I was not part of this, but at Tom Cordeau's office at the Board of Ed, apparently the President of Little League, Joe Feero, and the President of the Girl's Softball, George Palomba, sat down and talked about who was going to go to what field. The Recreation Department was not part of that. As far as usage of Veteran's Park, no one has put in for a permit from either Swift or the High School or from Grows to use any of the fields.

Ms. Cordon: Okay, so that's something that they have to start, the coaches have to get more involved.

Ms. Carew: This year before we did anything as far as Deland went, we had the Youth groups sit down in my office and got everyone on the same page, because the fields are nice so everyone wants to use them. The Board of Ed would still have precedent during the day, and then the kids start at 5:00 p.m. at Deland Field. No girls division put in for using Veteran's at all. I'm the one that signs the permits, so I do know that.

Mr. Archer: Regarding your first question about removing a mound at Deland, if I remember from last Council meeting, you said that a proper girls' softball field doesn't have a mound or a grass infield.

Ms. Cordon: Right, and then I went back to the Grows program and double-checked. If you have the travel program, they do and the High School and Swift do require a dirt infield, however there are other leagues that do not require a dirt infield so the majors and minors (in-Town) and the T-Ball can all play on grass infields.

Mr. Archer: Putting aside for a second the issue of which fields are better, the field in the back of Swift that your kids were playing on on Sunday, is that a proper girl's softball field or no?

Ms. Cordon: It is a field, but I wouldn't say it's up to par. I would say it's decent right now, but as far as the fences, everything, do you want people from out of Town seeing that? It's embarrassing that we have to let other people see it, and it's also embarrassing for the girls who have to chase balls under fences because the fence is curled up. Again it comes down to with the Board of Ed, we have more than enough parents that are willing to help, and then again you have these nice fields for the Town. Like Lisa just said, now we know we have to definitely keep on everybody's back to make sure we get some decent fields, but everybody should have a fair chance to play on these fields.

Regarding the new land, how many fields are they talking about possibly for girls softball?

Mr. Archer: In both of the Public Hearings that we did on the land, I made the point that we have not made a determination of what fields would go in there simply because we're not the people to do that. My expertise is not in running a Parks and Recreation Department. That is something that would have to be decided with Lisa in conjunction with all of the sports leaders in Town. I can facilitate that meeting, but I'm definitely not he person to run it or make those decisions.

Ms. Cordon: Right, because my discussion today was when Deland Field was being discussed 3 years ago it was strictly baseball fields. I'm sorry, but there are boys and girls. I played 30 years ago and there's no reason why there shouldn't be . . . . we never even should have to take this clay out to do the mound. Again here we show we're wasting money again because someone did not do their job properly.

Mr. Archer: Deland Field was approached as a restoration of an existing facility.

Ms. Cordon: Which had softball fields. It has 2 softball fields and 1 baseball field. And if you go back originally, we played there 30 years ago. Whoever was on this Committee did not look into it and did not think about the girls in this Town.

Mr. Archer: I would make it a point to not repeat that error with the new land.

Ms. Cordon: Cut it out of the TV.

Mr. Archer: I can facilitate the meeting and bring the parties together to make sure everyone is represented, but I'm not the person to make those decisions.

Ms. Cordon: Is there any way people from the Town can be on that Committee regarding this if it is approved and regarding what is going to happen with this park?

Mr. Archer: I'm sure there's no reason they couldn't be.

Ms. King: Could we have a report from the Park and Rec Commission on how many fields we have and how many boys and girls are playing on these fields so we have a sense of what's going on now? My second question is, is all the scheduling done for this year already? Are we talking about next year? If we are, then we have time to make it right, but it would be helpful for us to know what the current situation is.

Ms. Cordon: I know there are girls teams that are scheduled to play games there eventually so if the mound can be done this year? If it's not an issue until next year well then you had a whole year to take care of that 1 mound but they are going to be playing games there. We are requesting that it be done this year.

Mr. Archer: Chuck, I'd like to request, as Jean put it, that information for the Council; it would be useful.

Enrico Rinaldi, Saunders Avenue, Oakville, CT 06779

Mr. Rinaldi: Talking about ball fields, the parks, and I heard you want to purchase more land to build more fields. They can't take care of what they have now. It's a shame the way these fields are. These fields are not even fit to walk on sometimes. They spend a lot of money on the new field, and they're supposed to leave 1 field for softball, but they put 3 mounds there. Who was sleeping? We pay more money to watch contractors do jobs, and come to find out it doesn't cost $50.00, it costs $100.00, and still the job is not done right. I walked that field, in the outfield, and it's terrible. I don't think the Town will take care of the field, that's a concern, about a contractor. I saw him yesterday spraying something for bugs on the field. They want to purchase more land, and that land is wetlands. What are you gong to do with that?

Mr. Archer: My understanding, having walked it, that it's not.

Mr. Rinaldi: That land has been there for years and years and no one has wanted to buy it. It's been on the market for a long time, but no one wants it because of the wetlands. Before we hire contractors to do these jobs with the parks, we should check them out better. They should have left 1 field for softball, but they didn't, so who was sleeping on that?

Mr. Archer: I couldn't tell you. I wasn't here then. I doubt that a contractor accidentally put a mound in. Someone probably specified a mound, because I can't imagine a contractor would do more work than he was qualified for.

Mr. Rinaldi: These contractors say $50.00, and before you now it it's $100.00. Doesn't anyone read the contracts? They did the same thing with the school roofs; they had to pay overtime. Didn't they look at the contract?

Mr. Archer: There were some other things involved in that; I wasn't here for that as well.

Mr. Rinaldi: Lawyers recommend this or that, but it still costs more than it was supposed to. I was in construction all my life, and I'll tell you one thing, (inaudible) and we had to swallow it, look at your contract. No one looks at contracts anymore.

Mr. Archer: I haven't had the opportunity to go through that process yet but we will.

Mr. Rinaldi: They better take care of the fields they have now, never mind buying more land.

Mr. LeBlanc: I want to know if in fact my Noise Ordinance is legal yet, or are you still working on it?

Mr. Archer: I think that's on tonight's Agenda.

Mr. LeBlanc: So in other words after tonight we will have a Noise Ordinance?

Mr. Archer: After tonight I believe we'll be compliance with the Torrington Area Health District's Noise Ordinance.

Mr. Frigon: The status as far as I know, is the same, Bob. I'm making the assumption that the Torrington Area Health District has done as they had promised, that they would take it to the State and D.E.P. and have it approved. I don't know if that process has been completed yet.

Mr. LeBlanc: The letter that was sent to the State D.E.P. asks for information on how to do it. It doesn't say we're going to do it.

Mr. Frigon: That doesn't preclude that they have received that information, are in that process, and I don't want to make that assumption that they're not.

Mr. LeBlanc: Yes, they haven't received it yet. I go every day to the Torrington Health District; I have nothing else to do.

Is anything being done about recording the mileage of Town vehicles for personal and/or recreational, if they are being used for personal and recreational use? Is there any way that's being tracked yet, or is that also in limbo?

Mr. Archer: I don't believer there was ever a move to record mileage for personal use, so I would have to answer no.

Mr. LeBlanc: I thought the Town received information from C.M.U. saying that income tax people are now looking into towns that do not record mileage on Town vehicles for personal purposes?

Mr. Archer: It wouldn't surprise me, no.

Mr. LeBlanc: And they're going to start coming down hard on towns. I want to know if anything is being done?

Mr. Archer: Not at this time. I'm aware of it in part because you told me, but as of now is there anything particular being put in place for that? No.

Mr. LeBlanc: I'll get my information elsewhere. I just wanted to ask you what we're doing about it.

I made mention before at the Public Hearing regarding the use of skateboards on private parking lots. Under Section 3c of the Skateboard Ordinance it says "unless a private for patron only parking lot is posted", it's indicative that skateboarders can use it. Maybe I'm reading it incorrectly. It says "unless it's posted", it's restricted if it's posted. If it's not posted, does that mean that they can use it?

Mr. Archer: Right, you brought this up during the Public Hearing previously, and during the break between that meeting and this one, we did discuss it and we are going to add a simple change to the language approving this to make an amendment to that particular section so it would read "which is made primarily for the benefit of paying customers and/or which is properly posted prohibiting the use of any wheeled vehicles" which would then eliminate the (inaudible).

Mr. LeBlanc: I have to read it, but I accept that.

I know we're having trouble with the Town's liability insurance, but a couple of weeks ago I had trouble with a fence, so I asked how fence problems are resolved. They said you go to Zoning. Zoning has nothing to do with a fence under 6 feet. The only restriction they had was you could put the fence on either side; it's your option. Then I went to the Fire District and asked them what their fence regulations were, 6 foot or less, facing of a fence. They said whatever you want to do, but the courteous thing would be to put the nice side to your neighbor, but if you hate them you put it the other way. Then I went to the Building Inspector. He fortunately called the State Building Inspector and they said you can build a fence 9 or 10 feet high and there are no regulations as far as Building Inspector is concerned.

Mr. Archer: On the State level.

Mr. LeBlanc: No, on the Town level. They used to have restrictions, but the State level changed it, they put down regulations saying you can't do it anymore. In the Blue Book I fond regulations for fences for the State. It seems that our Town must have a Fence Viewer to adjudicate any problems with fences. So I'm asking you if we have a Fence Viewer? This Statute was revised in 1949 and it's section 4743 to 4756. It was very interesting reading. A Fence Viewer gets $2.00 per day.

Mr. Archer: In 2002 dollars it's probably more.

Mr. LeBlanc: No, I checked, I called and asked if this is true, and it is. If I have a fence problem, who should I see in Town? First it should be the First Selectman or someone appointed by the Town Council, a Committee of 1 to 3.

Mr. Archer: Bob, I hereby appoint you the Fence Viewer.

Mr. LeBlanc: I would read you section 4756 which states if I want to put up a fence on my property and you live next door to me, you would pay half, and if you don't agree to pay half, I would go to the Fence Viewer and he adjudicates it.

Ms. King: Don't our own Planning and Zoning and Building Inspector rules that are in place have anything to do with this? The Building Inspector has informed me, very recently, that as long as a fence wasn't 6 feet you could do (Tape #1, Side A ended - may have missed some) rules are in effect.

Mr. LeBlanc: You're mistaken. The Building Inspector's office stipulates, according to the State, coming down to Mr. Fusco, they have nothing to do with fences, the Building Inspector, as of today.

Ms. King: As of 2 weeks ago you had go have a Building Permit if you were building a fence more than 6 feet high, and now you're saying we don't?

Mr. LeBlanc: Now I'm saying I went to see Mr. Fusco today, and knowing me as he does, he said I better call the State Inspector, which he did, and he said Bob, I was wrong.

Ms. King: Then there can't be any problems because there are no rules, Bob.

Mr. LeBlanc: There is a rule if a fence is in disrepair and it's alongside your property. How do you adjudicate to fix it? The Fence Viewer comes in and he views it and he says it must be repaired within 15 days or the Town does it.

Mr. Rinaldi: Are we just talking about fences in general?

Mr. LeBlanc: Fences in general, not a fence on top of a wall.

Mr. Rinaldi: What brought you to this?

Mr. LeBlanc: Someone was having a problem with a fence with a neighbor, and they came to me and asked for help. I said gladly.

Mr. Rinaldi: According to what you just read, a Fence Viewer can go out there and say a fence has to be fixed?

Mr. LeBlanc: Yes, or the Town fixes it and they bill the person that owns it.

Mr. Rinaldi: Well that's the solution to all the baseball fields, right?

Mr. LeBlanc: It's just a simple question. Who is the Fence Viewer in Town?

Mr. Archer: We don't have a Fence Viewer.

Mr. LeBlanc: So when we have a problem, the State Statutes go out the window?

Mr. Primini: You need a job description first though, don't you?

Mr. LeBlanc: There is a job description here. It's all set out. People think it's being facetious, but there are people with problems with fences and they want to know what to do, and I went all over.

Mr. Archer: Bob, humor aside, I don't think anyone decided to take the State Statutes and throw them out the windrow, but something from 1946, apparently (inaudible) even when it was passed in 46 we probably didn't appoint a Fence Viewer.

Mr. LeBlanc: Well the only thing that I see that might be a little facetious it says like if a house is within 100 rods of the property line, a rod is 16.5 feet so that's 160 feet, I mean a lot of houses don't have 160 feet frontage, but that's the way it was written. It was revised in 1949 and 1956, it's not that old. Our Constitution was written a long time ago and we still go by that too.

Mr. Archer: It's a lot shorter than the State Statutes.

Mr. LeBlanc: If you want a copy of the Statutes I'll gladly give them to you. Thank you.

Mr. Archer Closed Public Participation at 8:35 p.m.

Mr. Archer: I'd like to take a 5 minute recess to discuss something with the Town Manager.

Mr. Archer, Chairman, Called a 5 minute recess at 9:24 p.m.

Mr. Archer, Chairman, Reconvened the Regular Meeting at 9:32 p.m.

None

Mr. Valenti: I think it's fitting that we're sitting here in Polk today that we recognize that this school was recognized as the Outstanding Elementary School of the Year and I think that's something that this Town should be proud of, both the teachers and the administrators here.

Mr. Archer: Absolutely, thank you.

A. Code of Ethics (referred to Ordinance Subcommittee)

B. Main Street Sidewalk Construction - Request for Legal Opinion

Mr. Archer: A question had come up about the Sidewalk Fund and requesting a legal opinion as to whether or not the monies in that Sidewalk Fund could be used for new sidewalks versus repairs, and that request was made of Mr. McHugh, Town Attorney, and Randy, I wonder if you could sort of give us a quick overview of your response on that.

Randy McHugh, Town Attorney

Atty. McHugh: The first thing that struck me after reading the Statutes and some of the cases, that this fund is not authorized by law to be exacted from subdivisions. The money that we have currently in there is money that was either donated at the suggestion of the first developer Nick Tedesco, in 1995 or 1996, that's when the issue was going back on the Regency Estates Subdivision, you know, where he was going to put the sidewalks, that's right off Middlebury Road, and it was the opinion of the Planning and Zoning Commission that he should be putting the sidewalks on the other side of Middlebury Road, and there was some wetlands there, and he tried to get a wetland approval and the Wetland Commission denied his application so he couldn't put them exactly where the Planning and Zoning Commission had wanted them, so as a compromise he came up with the idea, well why don't I just give money in lieu of putting the sidewalks in and you guys can put them wherever you want, and there's where our Sidewalk Fund came from. However, unlike Open Space fees which is authorized specifically by statute, this is not. Also unfortunately, unless, since the Planning and Zoning Commission is a creature of Statute, they only have those powers that are expressly authorized by the Legislature. So if it's not in the Statute, they don't have the power.

So what do we do with the money that we have? Well all appeal periods have expired so if nobody complained about the fact that they were putting money in at that point, then they don't have the right to do so now. I wouldn't continue to take money for the sidewalks, unless of course, it's a voluntary contribution, but what I would do would be to use the .. . . I see I've piqued interest there, voluntary contribution, I mean voluntary contribution, from anybody I suppose, not just the developer that's seeking an approval before the Planning and Zoning Commission, but in any event, the money they have there now, since it certainly was the intent of the Planning and Zoning Commission to use that to construct sidewalks throughout the Town where needed for safe pedestrian traffic, but there's no ordinance and there's no other guidance as to what you can use it for. You are the fiscal body of the Town so I don't see anything that would prohibit you from using that money to fix sidewalks as well as creating new ones. That was one of the suggestions, I believe, Phil Deleppo talked about a proposal where perhaps you use some of the money, a small portion to repair and then a larger portion to create new sidewalks, but that's up to you. Are there any questions?

Mr. Valenti: Does that mean then that pursuant to your opinion that as the fiscal body of this Town by rights the sole determination as to what happens to that money now collected resides with this Council?

Atty. McHugh: That's correct because there's nothing that tells me otherwise, and there's no guidelines as to how to use the fund because in fact the fund is not authorized by law to begin with.

Mr. Valenti: Is this something that we either have or will communicate to our Planning and Zoning Board?

Atty. McHugh: I can copy this to Mary Barton for distribution to P & Z.

Ms. King: We aren't the only Town to have been doing something like this. Are you saying that all the other towns that do this are not doing it legally?

Atty. McHugh: I'm not the only one who's ever speeded before either, am I?

Ms. King: I find it interesting that we come along with this and . . .

Atty. McHugh: There are a lot of things that municipalities do. Fortunately for us we don't record motor vehicle tax bills on the land records, and some municipalities to. How that's a lien on land records I'll never know and how they have the authority to do that I'll never know. But in any event, to answer your question, just because other municipalities have done it, doesn't mean that it's legal. That's clear; there's no authority to do this.

Ms. King: So the only thing that Planning and Zoning can do is to deal with the Open Space?

Atty. McHugh: Yes, 10% fee for open space, and that is expressly given by State Statutes. So if they spoke about doing a fee in lieu for one thing, if they want to include this, the Legislature would have, but they didn't. If we want to do this, then the next step would be to go up to the Legislature, but then what we're doing is, then isn't this more of a tax for people who have subdivisions when there's no, if they're not requiring the sidewalks within the subdivision and requiring them to pay for improvement outside of their subdivision, they're really, in a sense, exacting a tax to pay for other improvements in Town.

Ms. King: Aren't we then setting policy for Planning and Zoning, which is outside of our purview?

Atty. McHugh: We're not setting policy; this is the law.

Mr. Archer: Is it your opinion that P & Z would be the wrong, it would be inappropriate for P & Z to be the people who are suggesting the voluntary contribution to this?

Atty. McHugh: I wouldn't say that they should suggest anything. If anybody wants to come up with it on their own, because if you suggest things while you're in a Public Hearing and you have the applicant there with his application and he gets a suggestion from P & Z, the same body that's going to decide his application, I think that might be . . . .

Mr. Archer: It sounds like a quid pro quo to me.

Atty. McHugh: Exactly, and I think that's a dangerous thing to be doing, but again, I will send a copy of this over to Mary Barton and be happy to talk with P & Z if they have any questions of me about this issue.

Mr. Valenti: I have one more question, because I know the whole intent behind this was to have sidewalks built where it makes sense, as opposed to a subdivision possibly where it doesn't, so under the existing law as you understand it and relayed it to us, would it be fair to say that P & Z could just require, as a matter of course, that subdivisions have sidewalks which then may prompt some developers to say, well it doesn't make sense here, how about I . . . . that would be them coming forward voluntarily?

Atty. McHugh: That's right, and P & Z can require them to have on site improvements for sidewalks. If they voluntarily give it up and make a contribution, they can do that, but we can't make it a condition of the approval.

Mr. Valenti: But we can make sidewalks a condition of all subdivisions.

Atty. McHugh: Certainly, they could have had the subdivision within Regency Estates, and that's what the record points out. That it didn't make sense they thought it would be better on Middlebury Road, but it just didn't work out that way because they couldn't get the wetlands approval.

Ms. King: To follow that reasoning then, P & Z cannot establish a Sidewalk Fund, and should any developer decide to give them, voluntarily, that money, does it automatically then become under the fiscal purview of the Town Council?

Atty. McHugh: The Town Council.

Ms. King: In other words, there's no fund set aside anywhere else. If this happens again it comes to us and we get to decide what to do with it?

Atty. McHugh: Right. I don't know how many people would be donating to that at that point, but I would caution them not to suggest that.

Mr. Primini: The money that's in the Sidewalk Fund now, does it have to be used for sidewalks?

Atty. McHugh: Well it was collected for new sidewalks, and there's nothing that can really definitely point me to say that it has to be used for sidewalks because there is nothing in the law that says that they could require this money as was done, but some of it was given voluntarily. I think you might want to just, there's nothing that would require you to use it for sidewalks.

Mr. Primini: Are you suggesting, I agree it should be used on the sidewalks, but are you saying that we should basically use it as soon as possible, or is it something that could be used over a period of time?

Atty. McHugh: No, I think you could use it over a period of time. It's up to you. That's the thing. Because this was something that was not contemplated under the law, it's hard for me to give an opinion that it has to be used for sidewalks. In other words, that was the intention when it was collected.

Mr. Primini: But you're saying it could be used for sidewalk maintenance?

Atty. McHugh: I'm saying that there wasn't anything that would prohibit it from being used for sidewalk maintenance, but I guess there's nothing that prohibits it from being used for other purposes, but at what point do you say, well at least let's try to go along with the spirit of why it was collected. Especially if somebody made voluntary donations thinking perhaps that's where it was going. I don't know what else you had in mind as far as . . . .

Mr. Primini: I'm looking at if a portion could be set aside for maintenance so instead of waiting for different budget years or whatever to fix a sidewalk and somebody falls and breaks they're neck, or whatever, that we could go out and do the initial, have money aside that we could make the repair. I just find it amazing that we have over $200,000 in a Fund and we're having problems on how to spend it. Normally we're looking for sources of money, but we had a plan already coming up. I think we should just go ahead for the plan that we had as far as putting in the sidewalks, filling in the gaps, and get a plan of attack like that.

Atty. McHugh: Well it's up to this Council to decide how to use that money. My opinion is that there's nothing that requires us to use it to build new sidewalks. There's nothing to prevent you from using it to, for instance fix up, especially if you have sidewalks in disrepair, that may be more urgent than putting the sidewalks in, to take care of the old ones first, especially if they're dangerous or in any way impassable. There are some gaps, too, on Main Street, I know, sidewalks, but those would be new sidewalks, so maybe that would be a good place to look, use the money there first.

Mr. Primini: Right. Thank you.

Mr. Wick: Is there a risk, looking at it from the standpoint of an agreement between the donor and the Town, is there a risk if we violate that agreement where the intention was that it be used for new sidewalks somewhere?

Atty. McHugh: I don't believe so because the fund was not set up in a way where we would be bound to use it to build new sidewalks. Of course that was the intention, but Mr. Tedesco, through is attorney, said we would just give you the money and then you put the sidewalks in wherever you want. I don't think he was concerned about whether we were constructing new sidewalks or fixing old ones, he just wanted that issue to go away so he could get his approval, and Commissioner Wick said well as long as it's a voluntary contribution, then we'll take it and we'll decide, but she was of the opinion as well that maybe it should go to new sidewalks. That was the intent, to put them where they were needed, but frankly I don't think the developers were concerned so much about new sidewalks, or fixing, they just wanted to get that issue over with. That's what the Minutes I read indicated.

Mr. Archer: Anyone else on that point? Randy, thanks. Just and update on that - Phil is working diligently on doing the design specifications for the sidewalks that we discussed last time. A lot of people involved, the State D.O.T., the Fire District, the Water and Sewer Authority, as far as rights of way and property lines, and the first bid on the first section of the sidewalk is expected to be advertised in about 45 days.