Residents press Chelsea board over MB Contracting plowing; motion to terminate fails for lack of second

The Chelsea Select Board spent a lengthy portion of its meeting reviewing performance under the third year of MB Contracting’s plowing contract after multiple residents reported inadequate clearing, equipment shortfalls and safety concerns.

Board members opened the item by describing repeated resident complaints and asking MB’s representative (identified in the record as Mike) what changes he had made. Mike said his company would have the same number of trucks operational as last year and that he planned to oversee operations personally this winter. He asked for tolerance and time and noted that some equipment (a loader) need not be staged until snow is imminent.

Several residents contradicted that account, citing observed gaps in coverage, incidents and accidents on local roads, and alleged instances of trucks stopping or leaving roadways during storms. One resident said she had video evidence showing a neighborhood left uncleared during a storm; another described seeing plow drivers stop mid-route. Concerns raised included whether the contractor’s loader and trucks meet state registration requirements, whether the contractor would be required to post a performance bond this season, and whether the town’s response chain for complaints should be centralized to the road commissioner.

Board members discussed enforcement options, contract language and oversight. At one point a board member moved to terminate the plowing contract and put it out to bid; the motion did not receive a second and therefore did not advance. The board agreed to revisit the chain-of-command for complaints—proposing an email-first record and a designated town contact (a separate phone or flip phone for the road commissioner was suggested) so that complaints are documented and routed uniformly.

What happens next: The contractor said he would be on-site more frequently and the board tasked staff and members with developing a clearer complaint intake and response process. The transcript records a motion to terminate the contract that lacked a second; no contractual termination or rebid was voted on at the meeting.

Clarifying notes: The transcript records multiple specific allegations by residents and responses by the contractor and board members; no formal performance-breach hearing, termination vote, or documented bond-issuance date was recorded in the public transcript.