BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
April 6, 2009
7:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman John Ciccariello at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: John Ciccariello, Joshua Ostroff, Kristine Van Amsterdam, John Connolly. Absent: Carol A. Gloff
ALSO PRESENT: Martha L. White, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on April 6, 2009 in the amount of $599,519.50. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $1,553,629.33.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
A press release was read announcing the Office of the Town Clerk would be sponsoring an educational seminar on the Open Meeting Law at the Natick Town Hall on Tuesday, April 7, 6:00 p.m.
METROWEST SCOOTERS, INC: APPLICATION FOR CLASS I LICENSE
Representing MetroWest Scooters, Inc. in its application for a class II license for premises at 721 Rear Worcester Road was the owner Morris Chalfin.
Mr. Chalfin stated that he was looking to open an appointment only showroom. There would be no signs, nobody there on a regular basis, and all the work would be done out of his Framingham location. The location (Natick) was downstairs from Fairway Bowling.
The Board was in receipt of amended comments from the Building Commissioner stating that if there was no outside activity as far as test drives, no retail sales on the premises, and no signage, MetroWest Scooters, Inc. would not have to go before the Planning Board.
Mr. Ciccariello asked Mr. Chalfin if he understood the conditions and Mr. Chalfin’s response was, “absolutely”. There would be no cash, no charging of batteries. It was strictly to show.
Mr. Connolly moved to grant MetroWest Scooters, Inc. a Class I license for premises at 721 Rear Worcester Road with the restrictions of no outside activity, no retail sales on the premises, and no signage. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
ANDREI SORAN: METROWEST MEDICAL CENTER CEO
Ms. Van Amsterdam disclosed that she was a member of the Board of Directors of the MetroWest Medical Center.
MetroWest Medical Center CEO Andrei Soran told the Board that he was there to report on the Newton/Wellesley opening a surgical center in Framingham and a location for Natick. The MetroWest Medical Center does 5,000 discharges each year with 30% Natick residents. 31% of the outpatients were Natick residents. MWMC paid real estate taxes in the amount of $183,000 and property taxes of $73,000. There were 2,500 employees of which 230 were Natick residents. He believed their efforts in trying to be a good corporate resident were showing and he believed competition brought the best in people and was good for the customers, but he had a problem with unfair competition.
Partners Health related hospitals had an unfair advantage in pricing. Everyone had the same expectation in health care no matter where they went and if there were different prices it was very hard to sustain. A surgical center in Framingham will affect Natick. It would take business away from Natick. The surgical center was not geared toward the west but between Framingham and Newton Wellesley which made Natick the prime target. There was plenty of capacity in both the Framingham and Natick campuses.
Mr. Soran advised that at his request the Board of Selectmen in Framingham wrote a letter to the CEO of Partners urging them to withdraw their application and he would love to have the same support from Natick.
Mr. Connolly noted that he met several times with the nurses union and asked if Mr. Soran had any thoughts as to why Newton Wellesley wouldn’t sublease property at Leonard Morse Hospital. Mr. Soran’s reply was, “no”, adding that it never came up. They have not had this kind of discussion. He wasn’t saying it was possible, but they hadn’t had this dialog.
Many years ago Mrs. Morse made promises to the Town of Natick and Mr. Connolly thought it was important that whatever promises the Town made be kept. He wondered if Partners would get a letter from the Board and say they didn’t care what the Board thought.
Mr. Soran responded that there was an inquiry from the Attorney General into the Partners’ organization’s pricing. The estimates for the surgical center to be opened in Framingham were $18 million. Mr. Soran noted that he was a clinician but also a businessman. He had opened centers in his career and non have approached those figures. Spending over $18 million didn’t sit right. To him it was a waste of capital.
Asked by Mr. Ostroff if he had strategic alliances pending, Mr. Soran responded that there were a couple of great developments. Two months ago they signed an affiliation with Floating Hospital and will become a full fledged alliance by July. A letter of intent was signed with Beth Israel for a clinical affiliation where clinicians will practice at both here and at the Beth Israel.
MetroWest was a community hospital and it was right here. He thought those two affiliations would put them on par with any facility.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if it would affect the rates, and Mr. Soran said he believed having care provided in the right setting would end up providing higher reimbursement. Initially no, but in time it would.
In response to Mr. Ostroff’s query as to whether the nurses had made any formal statement regarding this plan, Mr. Soran thought the nurses had appeared before the Framingham Planning Board.
Mr. Ostroff then inquired as to the timing of this planned investment and when Newton Wellesley would seek approval to go forward. Mr. Soran believed Newton Wellesley would like to proceed as soon as they got approval from the Framingham Planning Board. From what he had heard their (Newton Wellesley) timetable was in months not in years.
It was Mr. Ciccariello’s understanding that the construction costs and total capital expenditure was less than the Department of Public Health (DPH) would require for a determination of need approval. Mr. Soran confirmed that it was under the $25 million cap.
Mr. Ciccariello questioned if anybody had looked at the $18 million to make certain it could be built at that cost. Mr. Soran stated that he had asked Framingham several times for a review of the true cost of the project.
Asked if the DPH had been involved, Mr. Soran advised that the DPH could not intervene because of the $25 million cap. A bill was being submitted to lower the cap. He believed support from the communities MWMC served to the Partners organization would carry weight.
Fire Chief James Sheridan told the Board that the viability of the MetroWest Medical Center was critical to the service his department provides.
Wally Sopher and John Blanchard noted they were signatures when the hospital transferred ownership. It was the third time the ownership transferred and they were very active in building a coalition for all the services the hospital provides. They were supportive of the unions and stood with the nurses and the four unions that represent the hospital. They felt strongly the support was good and want to keep the hospital in our community. The CEO has made good faith efforts over the last couple of years to do the right thing.
Town Meeting member Jerry Pierce encouraged the Board to show support for the community of Natick. If the Board didn’t there would be the merger all over again. It was important for the officials in Natick to show support. For him being just below the $25 million was too coincidental. Newton Wellesley was running out of room, but there was ample room closer than Framingham. Why they were expanding there was also questionable and he would caution the Board on Newton Wellesley’s motives.
Mr. Ostroff commented on Newton Wellesley not including an emergency facility and Mr. Soran responded that an emergency room was a benefit to the community not really a profit line. If an orthopedic surgery center was opened in Framingham and the amount of current orthopedic work was insufficient to sustain the two, the practices may leave. When someone shows up in the ER, they may not have an ortho condition.
Mr. Ostroff noted that the concern he had was on what grounds would the Board write a letter to the Framingham Planning Board. Mr. Soran thought a letter to the Planning Board was an additional step in supporting the MWMC, but he believed a more important step was addressing the leadership of Partners. He believed Partners cared about their image in the community and thought that was an effective tool.
Mr. Ciccariello was of the understanding that through a Planning Board process, you didn’t necessarily have to be a resident to be impacted. Given that Natick may be impacted, he didn’t see it being inappropriate to send a letter.
Ms. Van Amsterdam suggested mirroring a letter on the one the Framingham Board of Selectmen sent to Partners and copy the Framingham Board of Selectmen and the Framingham Planning Board.
A motion was made by Mr. Connolly, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, to send a strong letter of support regarding the Leonard Morse Hospital to Partners and the Framingham Board of Selectmen and the Framingham Planning Board. Unanimously voted.
Mr. Connolly stated that he was concerned about the Town’s promises to Mary Ann Morse and was even more concerned for our citizens. He questioned if the letter was enough. Mr. Soran saw it as a step in the right direction. He thought the leaders of Partners, Natick and Framingham had to take into account the financial implications.
Mr. Ostroff proposed that the letter reference the agreement that established the hospital; talk about the inequities of reimbursement; and broader community implications.
THE WINE NETWORK, INC. D/B/A NINE EAST WINE EMPORIUM: PLEDGE OF LICENSE
Representing Nine East Wine Emporium in their application for a pledge of license were the owner Austin Moran and his attorney William Garrahan.
Mr. Garrahan explained that he had appeared before the Board previously for a pledge of license. The loan has been rewritten and he was back for a new pledge of license.
On a motion by Mr. Connolly, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to release the pledge of license to the North Shore Bank.
On a motion by Mr. Connolly, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to accept a pledge of license to Vincent Trunfio.
EVREN FIRAT, CASH FOR GOLD: APPLICATION FOR JUNK DEALER LICENSE
Evren Firat told the Board that he planned to open a kiosk in the Natick Collection to buy precious metals, gold, jewelry.
Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired as to the requirements and Ms. Challis explained that the licenseholder would be required to keep a record of purchases and make that record available to the Police Department.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the length of time and Mr. Firat responded that his lease agreement was for three months but if everything went right he planned to extend it to a year. Asked if he was looking for a three month approval, Mr. Firat said he would like to apply for one year.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to grant Evren Firat, Cash for Gold a junk dealer’s license for premises at the Natick Collection. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
SPINDLE CITY PAWN BROKERS: APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO PURCHASE PRECIOUS METALS
Representing Spindle City Pawn Brokers in their application for a permit to purchase estate items (watches, jewelry, silver, coins, diamonds, gold, etc) from the public at a location in Natick Collection for the period of April 14-April 19, 2009 was Jeffrey Neballa.
It was pointed out that the agreement with Natick Collection listed the dates as April 16-19, 2009. Mr. Neballa believed that was just a typo and he could have the document corrected and resubmitted. The correct dates were April 14-19, 2009.
Mr. Connolly moved to grant Spindle City a permit as requested with the condition that a letter with the corrected dates be submitted prior to the event. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
MACRITCHIE ENGINEER: BOILER REPLACEMENT – TOWN HALL & POLICE/FIRE
Facilities Director Cory Lovett advised that this began when boiler failure was experienced prematurely about eight years ago. Some repairs were made but the problems resurfaced. The Finance Committee was approached and a request was made for services of an outside engineering firm to do recommendations. That’s been done. The first phase of repairing the boilers went out to bid and MacRitchie Engineering’s design was incorporated as an extra. When that came back the extra exceeded the allowed amount. It went out again and the second round came back for boilers at l/2 the cost.
Bruce MacRitchie advised there were three projects. One was the replacement of one boiler in Town Hall and one in the Police/Fire. He was asked to investigate the reasons the boilers failed and came up with one reason. That work was treated as a potential change but because it was over a certain dollar value the decision was that it had to be rebid. The rebid came in about half which he (Mr. MacRitchie) thought was indicative of the times.
Mr. MacRitchie continued that the other two projects – one was the replacement of air conditioning equipment for the IT room and the replacement of equipment in the 911 room in the Police. Those documents were completed. The Town was reviewing the documents and he expected to go out to bid two weeks from Wednesday.
The last project was the update of temperature controls for Town Hall and Police/Fire. It would be changing to a modular control and CO2 system. Those drawings were complete and the Town was reviewing. He expected comments back in the next couple of days and the plan was to bid two weeks from Wednesday with a three week bid period.
Mr. Ostroff noted that this was something that was voted by Fall Town Meeting and was less than estimated in October. Mr. MacRitchie agreed that this was a tremendous savings. The original bid was approximately $49,000 in each building to add the temperature controls.
Mr. Ostroff believed that an investigation into whether there was any claim against the supplier found that road did not lead to riches. Mr. Ciccariello responded that there was only a one year warranty from the contractor and the fact that nobody was notified of the problem killed any opportunity to recover anything.
Ms. Van Amsterdam was curious about the reasons identified for why the boilers failed and Mr. MacRitchie explained the issue of thermal shock and the reaction of the boiler.
Mr. Connolly expressed his frustration for the taxpayer having to take it on the chin and the Board was going to roll over. It sounds like fundamental simple things that weren’t done and he wanted to know why.
Mr. MacRitchie responded that he didn’t design the original system. Ms. White understood there was a design problem, but Town Counsel looked into it and the Town had no recourse.
When asked if tax dollars were used wisely, Mr. Connolly found this to be the case where he would have to say no. It was a hard pill to swallow that a boiler malfunctioned in eight years. The Town should have gotten 20 years.
Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that the Town got less than 8 years. The boilers failed within two years of installation. The problem was the architect was never notified. There was a construction management firm overseeing the project and they were never notified. He (Mr. Ciccariello) didn’t know who uncovered the issues at that time, but the burden was on the Town to notify them. If this was an issue that was unforeseen and the Town was not aware, the Town probably could have tried to seek some recourse.
Mr. Connolly questioned if somebody was negligent and Mr. Ciccariello’s response was, “absolutely” – the engineers who designed it. The general contractor and filed sub-bid were out of business. From what he heard it was more of a design issue than an installation one.
Mr. Connolly found it hard to swallow that the taxpayers got slammed and had to grin and bear it with no recourse.
Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that there was nothing that precluded the Board from asking the Town Administrator to have Town Counsel advise these two firms that there were serious problems with the boilers and the Town wants to discuss and for them to participate. Beyond that the Town would have to sue. Mr. Connolly thought that would be the minimum the Board should do.
Mr. Connolly asked about inspections and Mr. Ciccariello assumed the Plumbing Inspector had signed off. Mr. Lovett advised that the state inspectors did so as well.
If it was such a simple thing, Mr. Connolly didn’t see how it could be missed. Mr. Lovett explained that it was a design issue and not simple to see. Three other Towns have had similar problems with similar boilers under similar conditions. It was all because of circulation problems. The other towns have asked if Natick was willing to participate in action against the parties responsible, and his answer was yes.
Ms. Van Amsterdam asked Mr. Lovett to talk about the specification reference to warranty cover. How long was it good for and if someone from the Town notified the old boiler manufacturer would the warranty have covered design flaw.
Mr. Lovett noted that the failure or symptoms were not experienced for two years. When it was first noticed the boiler manufacturer was contacted and the representative made a determination to give the Town the parts at no charge. They were installed and were still working to this day. When the specifications were put together for this replacement, it was for parts and labor and from discussion among the contractors bidding the labor guarantee was one year.
Procurement Officer Christopher Bradley added that the specifications called for a 10 year warranty on the boilers. Mr. Ciccariello noted that the specifications said repair in Town Hall but didn’t say anything for boiler repair at the Police station.
Mr. MacRitchie responded that generally on all mechanical systems because maintenance was required, typically the warranty was one year. For refrigeration you could buy an extended five year and if it was a new technology a 10 or 20 year warranty may be offered. These were Burnham boilers and that was a good company.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to what guaranteed a 10 year warranty. The contractor posted a performance bond but how would you get the manufacturer to respond. Mr. MacRitchie responded that at the time of the bid he would have expected each contractor to have spoken to the sales rep for the boilers and they would realize there was an extended warranty. It was not uncommon for a manufacturer to give extended warranties. A cast iron boiler should last 25 years or more.
Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that in the specifications there was nothing about a warranty for the Police. Mr. Bradley advised that was an oversight but there would be a requirement when the contract was given that there be a 10 year warranty. Mr. Ciccariello inquired if that had been discussed with the contractor as it would impact his price. Mr. Bradley responded that in general conversation the question was brought up. It didn’t get into the specifications, but the contractors knew.
Mr. Ostroff suggested that it could be a condition of the award that it include a 10 year warranty for both sides, but Mr. Connolly didn’t see how a contract could be awarded when there was nothing in writing in front of the Board.
Ms. White explained that if the Board voted a motion as suggested by Mr. Ostroff that boilers for both sites have the 10 year warranty that would prevent Mr. Bradley from awarding a contract if it didn’t have a 10 year warranty.
Mr. Connolly remained unconvinced.
Assuming the two existing boilers were Burnham, Mr. Ciccariello noted that Burnham was specified on both projects but there was no approved equal.
Mr. MacRitchie advised that his firm didn’t put together the spec for the boilers. The Town put together the spec for the replacement of the boiler. Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that this was a proprietary spec which you could have but there had to be a vote by the awarding authority prior to putting it out to bid.
If the Board required the 10 year warranty that was not in the spec for the Police/Fire building, Mr. Ostroff asked if the second lowest bidder had grounds to appeal. Mr. MacRitchie noted that he couldn’t speak for the low bidder. He may have made an assumption that he was required to have a 10 year warranty on both.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the specs were passed through Town Counsel before going out to bid. Mr. Lovett advised that they were not.
Mr. Ciccariello preferred to pass it through Town Counsel and asked if this was something that could wait.
Ms. White stated that the contract would only be awarded to the lowest bidder and she didn’t feel that troubled by the Board imposing the 10 year warranty because she thought there was a sense the bidders knew it was for both at the pre-bid meeting and the contract would not be awarded if the bidder did not accept the terms at the price provided.
Ms. Lovett explained that no other manufacturers were called in the specifications because in an effort to save money, the controls were to be re-used and the indication was no other manufacturer’s product could go inside the Burnham jacket.
Mr. Ciccariello understood but stressed that the Board would have had to have been asked to issue a proprietary spec. He reiterated that he would rather wait the two weeks and pass this by Town Counsel. The bids were taken on March 12 so the apparent low bidder could be asked to hold their number until it could be reviewed.
If this was being held for another two weeks, Ms. White asked if the Board anticipated there being further questions for Mr. MacRitchie. Mr. Ciccariello didn’t think there would be any. Mr. MacRitchie presented to Town Meeting the reasons the boiler failed and summarized it again.
With regard to potential action joining with several communities, Mr. Ostroff asked if there was anything Mr. MacRitchie may need to do or if there was any action the Board may wish to have. Mr. MacRitchie advised that he had no role in that. Mr. Lovett noted that any action was still in its infancy and hadn’t gone that far.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if Mr. MacRitchie was being retained to oversee the installation to make sure it was installed properly. Mr. Lovett noted that the boiler was just a boiler, but Mr. Ciccariello felt that somebody had to monitor it to make sure it was installed correctly, site visits, and reviewing the shop drawings. Mr. Lovett agreed.
Mr. Connolly reiterated that somebody had stiffed the ratepayers and he would like to know who and what was going to be done about it.
As he had previously suggested Mr. Ciccariello moved to request the Town Administrator and Town Counsel to send a letter to the parties originally involved – the engineer, the architect, and the construction manager. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
A motion was then made by Mr. Ostroff to table to April 21. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
Town Meeting member Ed Johnson told the Board that he was opposed to the operation because 10 minutes before Town Meeting a piece of paper was handed out with showing $410,000 for the boilers, but he was out voted. In December he called and was told it was already done by Fraser Engineering. At that time he (Mr. Johnson) questioned why Fraser didn’t find the problem because they had been servicing the boilers for 9 years. The end of February Mr. Johnson said he got a telephone call about a boiler replacement and when he called, Mr. Bradley said he had the specs for boiler replacement for the Police and Town Hall. Before he had been told that it was done.
Mr. Johnson continued that he mentioned it to Mr. Connolly and Mr. Connolly said the walk through would be March 4. Although he wasn’t going to bid, Mr. Johnson said he went over to the walk through and asked Mr. Lovett how much change there would be in the price for the installation. Mr. Lovett’s reply was that since he (Mr. Johnson) complained it had gone up about $15,000. It went out to bid and he was told 10 people bid. The next day Mr. Bradley faxed him a copy of the bids and the low was $61,000. Fraser who had the job last fall was $126,000. In discussions he (Mr. Johnson) was told that Fraser brought Mr. MacRitchie in as a consultant which was a conflict.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that those bids weren’t used. They were rejected. Mr. Lovett added that the first round was the Court House, Town Hall and Police, but the only bid awarded was to Fraser for the Court House. The Board did not award the Police and Town Hall job.
Mr. Johnson responded that he called and complained and he would like to do some investigating to see if the rest of that money had to be spent. The $410,000 appropriated at Town Meeting wasn’t for the court house. He noted that Ms. White said that she would be back for $210,000 for the roof boiler.
Ms. White explained that to complete the job would require a subsequent phase and that was part of the design work that’s been authorized.
Mr. Johnson stated that he would like to have other people check that out and he would volunteer.
A recess was called at 8:30 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:40 p.m.
JOHN MERRITT: PAY-AS-YOU-THROW REPORT
John Merritt thanked the Board for the opportunity to investigate his concerns regarding the setting of the bag prices and expressed his appreciation for the tremendous help of DPW Business Manager William Chenard.
Mr. Merritt presented the Board with his analysis and provided a summary report. In the summary report he stated that historically the PAYT bag fees have been consistent with fair and transparent waste system fee setting practice through FY09. The FY08 recycling rate was in excess of 40% which was robust indicating that the fee program had been successful in motivating recycling.
The reason for his initial concerns have not, in fact, actually been an issue during recent fiscal years because the tipping fee for each ton disposed of during those years had been in excess of $100. For FY08 the actual was about $111 and currently in FY09 the rate was about $112.50. FY10 was precisely the right time to raise the issues he had because the tipping fee per ton will drop nearly 40% to an at or below market rate of $70-71 at the Millbury WTE facility.
Clearly, this dramatic drop in tip fee rate resulting in annual savings of at least $250K has not been reflected in the Board’s fee setting vote of February 23. Not only, has the reduction in tip fees not been calculated into the bag fee, but the vote also increased the fee on each bag by $0.25. There was no way to justify this increase in light of the actual tip fee to begin in July, based on fair, transparent and environmentally sound waste system fee setting practice.
Further an estimated tonnage of 7,500 tons was being used for FY10, a full 25% higher than the actual 6,000 tons experienced in FY08. Using this high number further increases the estimated expense for total disposal, further reducing any savings being passed on to resident users.
In his summary Mr. Merritt strongly urged the Board not to depart from what has been a fiscally fair and environmentally effective approach to bag fee setting through FY09 by implementing the $0.25 bag increases previously voted. It was difficult to understand what justified substantially higher waste system fees at all in the fact of a $250K reduction in disposal cost with no offsetting increases in expense of similar magnitude. Adding an additional $250K on top of the $250K reduction not factored in, would result in a total of about $450K in fee charges to residents that were difficult to justify. In an ideal world, bag fees should be reduced to $1.15 and $0.60 shown in the analysis based on actual weights being disposed in bags.
However, if the judgment of the Board was that more fee funds must be raised against the sanitation budget it should certainly be done by way of a flat fee charged to each using address and not an increase in bag fees. Whether actually warranted or not, flat fees would at least be fair to all residents. The analysis he provided showed the dramatic amount of waste system expense that would be covered by bag fees in FY10 if the Board’s vote were implemented. That analysis also delineates how the placement of that very large fraction of non-disposal expense on the bags was grossly unfair to some residents who would be asked to pay 2,3 or more times what their neighbors pay for exactly the same recycling and waste collection and hauling services.
Mr. Ostroff thanked Mr. Merritt for volunteering his time and expertise and inquired as to why philosophically why the recycling service wouldn’t be considered part of the variable cost. The recycling was about $1/2 million for a service the Town provides.
Mr. Merritt responded that every resident gets the same service and it should be the same for everyone. The fees were created at Mass DEP to show people what was used and the recycling was one of the best parts of the programs. That drives the system.
Mr. Ostroff then asked about the debt for the landfill and Mr. Merritt replied that that would be something for which everyone was liable. It could be in the fee piece but if that were the case the Board needs to take more money off the table for sanitation. It should be equal to everyone.
Mr. Connolly thanked Mr. Merritt for his efforts.
Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired as to why tonnage was expected to go up and Mr. Merritt responded that it was not out of line. Mr. Chenard noted that a 14% increase was seen from FY08-FY09 which was why the estimated increased.
Asked about the tipping fees dropping to $70-71, Mr. Chenard confirmed that to be the case. There was a significant savings and that was put in the budget.
Mr. Ostroff felt that it had to be kept in mind that 1/3 of the total cost to operate trash and recycling disposal was paid by the taxpayer and that included many people that don’t receive the benefit of curbside trash pickup. The Board set a policy 10 years ago. That was to be revisited but it has not been. He was interested in what kind of policy could be devised that would extend recycling service to more households and not cost more money. Anything that could be done to extend it to others was a good thing.
Mr. Ostroff found the implementation of a two tier pricing system intriguing, but wondered how practical it would be to bill user addresses and know who had paid and who didn’t. That got the Town in the same situation as when there was a trash fee, but the Town didn’t have the staff it did in years past.
Ms. White noted that Mr. Merritt’s analysis had been food for thought sparking discussion and debate in the office. Implementation of a flat fee was problematic administratively. In the past it was done in conjunction with the water bills, but that was problematic because sometimes people would pay something other than two separate checks and it was difficult for the office staff to determine to which account to apply the revenues. She had been told by Treasurer/Collector Robert Palmer that he had never received as many complaints as when the flat trash fee was implemented. She also didn’t think the administration was as clear as Mr. Merritt’s message implied that the bag prices should be strictly on disposal and asked why Mr. Merritt felt the full cost of the service should not be attributed.
Mr. Merritt acknowledged that there would be logistical problems, but communities all over the state do it and he was sure Natick could. He thought the text of his summary explained where he was. Pay-as-you-throw was to motivate people to understand disposal costs and when taken off the tax base, the tax base was to be reduced. What made it unfair was when somebody putting out three pieces were paying three pieces of that bill and somebody putting out one bag was paying one piece. Some residents were paying 2,3,4 times the amount for receiving precisely the same service.
Ms. White pointed out that if there was a flat fee, the person utilizing one bag per week with the extra 25¢ per bag came out to $13.00, where Mr. Merritt’s fee would charge that person more. Mr. Merritt responded that people should be charged appropriately for what they put out, but they shouldn’t be charged more for the same service.
Mr. Ciccariello commented that some of the Sanitation budget came out of the tax base and everyone paid taxes of which a portion was trash. He (Mr. Ciccariello) didn’t use trash service and didn’t do anything, but was being taxed to pay for trash when he didn’t use the service. Mr. Merritt was saying there would always be some trash support paid by the tax base but some of it was supported by PAYT. Some people recycle to death and the point being made was that if you throw 10 bags out, you pay for it.
The flat rate trash fee was only for one year. It was done for one year for a committee to study PAYT and then the Board got rid of the flat fee. Mr. Merritt noted that from his perspective that was a good thing.
The members were asked where to go from here and Ms. Van Amsterdam stated that she was not prepared to vote the flat fee. She understood the logic behind the flat fee. When the administrative fee was first put in with the water bills there was a discussion and education to explain what it covered. Instead of implementing the two tier system she would like to reserve the opportunity for Fiscal 2011 to look into the flat fee.
With regard to the bag fees and the number where the calculation of those fees would cover disposal costs, for Fiscal 2010 Ms. Van Amsterdam said she would be inclined to keep the fees where they were now at $1.00 and $1.75 and for Fiscal 2011 look into the two tier approach. It was somewhat of a compromise. She asked if the vote taken two weeks ago allowed for her to put forward a motion regarding leaving the bag fees at the rate of $1.00 and $1.75.
Mr. Ciccariello advised that two weeks ago the Board voted to reconsider the PAYT vote and based on that vote the Board could reconsider a change in fees.
Mr. Ostroff questioned if the Board would want to imperil the additional revenue. It was his understanding that the Schools incorporated $122,000 into their budget. If the fees were left as they were now (with the increase), it would put the Schools out-of-balance and throw a wrench into the free cash revenue.
Mr. Connolly stated that he was under the impression it was revenue that had to be raised to support the PAYT. Based on Mr. Merritt’s information that wasn’t the case. Regardless of whether somebody already had it spent, if you don’t have to hit the ratepayers, why should we.
Ms. White responded that it was never represented that the bag fees had to be raised to fund cost increases of the program. The bag fees don’t come anywhere near the total cost of paying for the program. Subsequent to that vote (to raise the bag fees) and pursuant to a discussion of the Financial Planning Committee, the School Committee built into their revenue an additional $115,000. This (keeping the fees at $1.00 and $1.75) would be very problematic for the Schools.
Ms. Van Amsterdam stated that she was aware of how the money was split and at the time felt compelled to vote in the affirmative of that increase based on concern for the Schools. She didn’t know when the stimulus money would come in, but based on Mr. Merritt’s analysis and the stimulus money she was reconsidering her vote.
Mr. Merritt stressed that the statute was very clear about what waste fees could be charged for. There could be a charge for running the waste system. The Board and the Town was walking on thin ice taking money from bag fees and earmarking it for purposes other than waste.
If for clarity someone would like to make a motion to reconsider, Mr. Ciccariello advised that he would accept the motion.
Ms. Van Amsterdam moved that the Board reconsider the pay-as-you-throw trash fees. Mr. Ostroff seconded for discussion. The motion passed unanimously.
Speaking to the motion, Ms. Van Amsterdam thought it was very important that Mr. Merritt put the analysis together. She went back through the data provided and was not inclined at this time to put forward a recommendation to adopt the two tier system, but would like to consider it for the Fiscal 2011 budget. Based on Mr. Merritt’s analysis the cost for disposal was lower. She was not recommending the bag fees be reduced but would like to keep them at the Fiscal 2009 level.
Mr. Ostroff stated that there were a handful of things he was concerned about. He didn’t know if the Board needed to wait until Fiscal 2011 to do something more comprehensive. He would like to work with Mr. Merritt and the administration and come back with a more comprehensive approach. Taking a vote to reduce the bag fees now, he was concerned would put the budget out of balance. He didn’t want to send the message to consumers that the price may jump around. To him it was hasty to forego $115,000 for the Schools to pay teachers. He would rather deal with it comprehensively.
Mr. Connolly countered that he thought it was hasty to hammer somebody for $115,000 if it wasn’t needed.
Ms. Van Amsterdam moved to set the pay-as-you-throw bag fees for Fiscal 2010 at $1.00 for the small and $1.75 for the large. Seconded by Mr. Connolly. The motion passed on a 3-1-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff, Mr. Connolly voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ostroff was opposed.
Mr. Ostroff stated that he thought it was inappropriate for the Board to throw the budget out of balance and deal hastily with such a comprehensive situation. He felt more time was needed to study it and he could probably get a lot done in two weeks. He saw no need for the Board to be bouncing around when there were volunteers and staff willing to work on this.
Ms. White felt compelled to respond to Mr. Merritt’s statement on the use of the money. $200,000 of new revenue was being produced and then earmarking some for the Schools. It was new money for the Town and not directly the pay-as-you-throw that went to the Schools. She also agreed with Ms. Van Amsterdam about the expectation of the stimulus money. It could be potentially sizable and the Schools would have to revisit their budget.
It was clear to Mr. Ciccariello that the reason the trash bag fees were raised was for the Schools to take advantage of the additional money. No one talked about the money coming to the Town and then giving it to the Schools. Ms. White pointed out that it was all one pot of money.
Mr. Ostroff asked if it was OK for him to work with Mr. Merritt and the administration to do the analysis. Mr. Ciccariello wasn’t sure he was ready for that right now. Mr. Merritt advised that he would be gone for three weeks, but upon his return he was ready, willing and able to work with whomever and whenever.
Ms. Van Amsterdam said she would be happy to work with Mr. Ostroff and Mr. Merritt. To her it was in preparation of Fiscal 2011.
SASSAMON TRACE BUDGET PRESENTATION
Appearing before the Board were Richard Cugini, Superintendent of Recreation & Parks and Bob Healey, a member of the Golf Oversight Committee who was in the business of irrigation.
Mr. Cugini advised that the Town had been approached by Dowse, the landowner on which a portion of the golf course sits, and the owner of the agricultural property adjacent to the property. Mr. Dowse was looking to have a water resource line put in for his agricultural purposes that would be designed in such a way that Natick would put in a line going to the irrigation pond for a pump house that draws water. Natick was being asked to put in the water line and the electrical line where an additional pump would be put in. This particular plan, i.e. 1,000 gallons pumped from the resource area into the pond, through a meter and send 1,000 gallons through the existing line into a holding tank on Dowse land. Funds for the water line would be provided by the Friends of Sassamon Trace.
Asked for a further explanation, Mr. Cugini advised there would be a pump installed to go into the irrigation pond and a pump in the pump house that sends water out. When Mr. Dowse needs water, it would go through a meter so the amount of water being drawn from the resource area would be tracked. The benefit was Dowse drilling a well to provide that resource. The Department of Agriculture was being asked to design what they felt was appropriate which was probably some type of pond, but that remains to be determined.
Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired as to why, and Mr. Cugini explained that for the farmer the situation was that water on his property didn’t have electricity to send the water off that large area. He needs electricity which the golf course has at the existing pump house and needs it brought across that large area.
In follow-up Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired as to the benefit to the town and Mr. Cugini responded that the Town would get 50% of the water that went into the pond which went into the irrigation and would save the golf course money. For every 1,000 that goes in, 500 gallons would go to Mr. Dowse and 500 to the Town.
Mr. Ciccariello asked about the financial analysis. Mr. Cugini noted that he sat down and figured out how much water was needed for the course. If this line produced 75 gallons a minute and ran for 10 hours, it would produce the amount of water needed.
Mr. Ciccariello stressed the need to develop some financial analysis to present to the Board for the Board to determine if it was an appropriate thing to do. He understood the concept and if it works in likelihood it would save money, but he didn’t know the cost or how much it would benefit the Town.
Ms. Van Amsterdam agreed with the need of a financial analysis.
In response to a series of questions posed by Mr. Ostroff, Mr. Cugini advised that the average annual water bill for the golf course was $68,000 and this would be about half. The estimate being worked with to do the work was $12,000, but until the Department of Agriculture advises what was permitted, the actual cost won’t be known. Those numbers won’t come until late Spring.
Mr. Ciccariello emphasized that the group studying this had no authority to cut a deal with Mr. Dowse or talk about financial decisions with Mr. Dowse. That comes back to the administration and Board of Selectmen and any negotiation needs to be between the administration, Board of Selectmen, and Dowse.
Mr. Cugini interpreted late spring as late May, early June. Mr. Walters Young proposed that the administration come back at that point with the financial analysis and at the same time provide an update for how the course was performing. The budget decision made an assumption for a savings in water and he would advise the Board support that budget knowing there were retained earnings not yet allocated that allowed a buffer and provides an outlet for a non-tax issue.
Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired if the retained earnings took into consideration the issue of golf carts. She noted that she was looking for a contingency should the irrigation plan not go through. Mr. Walters Young said there were retained earnings to cover the cost of the water, but if they were used for water did it impact the golf carts.
Mr. Ciccariello preferred to deal with the irrigation update first and then get into the other issues. He asked Mr. Cugini and the administration to come back with a financial analysis as soon as possible.
As to the timeframe to complete, Mr. Cugini estimated 5-6 weeks on the golf course end, but he couldn’t speak for Mr. Dowse.
- Revolving Fund & Retained Earnings
Mr. Walters advised that it came to light that at the end of FY07-08 the balance in the Sassamon Trace revolving fund was not carried over and by not carrying it over under MGL the dollar amount falls to the retained earnings of the fund. Between $18,000-19,000 was anticipated to be used to fund golf carts, but the funds thought to be in that account were not. Those monies were part of the certified retained earnings and $12,000 needs to be set aside for the cost of the cart. That left about $20,000 unallocated assuming all went well and so far so good.
Noting the mistake was made in FY08, Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how that impacted the budget in FY09 because there was a revolving fund in FY09. Mr. Walters Young responded that there was a small amount of dollars that was charged to the revolving fund that have been reclassified because the revolving fund didn’t exist. The amount was in the magnitude of $1,600-$1,900.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to who didn’t carry the revolving fund forward and was told the Comptroller’s office. It was the Comptroller’s responsibility.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the amount the Board was being asked to vote on and Mr. Walters Young responded that it was $926,430 with $350,000 to be funded from the tax levy and $41,430 in retained earnings.
A motion was made by Ms. Van Amsterdam to support the Sassamon Trace budget for Fiscal 2010 in the amount of $926,430. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
If the water project continued to be pursued and was delayed, Mr. Cugini requested the Board’s consideration to look at reducing the water fees for the golf course during the temporary period of time when the Town was trying to see if an agreement could be reached.
RECREATION & PARKS: AWARD TRANSPORTATION BID
Recreation & Parks Superintendent Richard Cugini reported that four bidders took out specifications for the FY2010 transportation but only one returned. Their price was 1% over the last year and was covered by 100% user fees.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if the fees being charged would be able to absorb the increase. Mr. Cugini’s reply was, “yes”.
Mr. Connolly asked if everyone affiliated with First Student had been CORI checked. Again Mr. Cugini’s reply was, “yes”.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if the Procurement Officer had put it out to bid and Mr. Cugini advised that he worked with the Procurement Officer and Town Counsel.
On a motion by Mr. Connolly, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to award the following contracts for the Recreation Transportation FY10 program:
Section I: 65 passenger school bus driver $ 3.33/mile
September 2009- June 2010 $ 32.32/hour Layover Cost
First Student (Westboro) $278/Day Trip (min/day)
Section II: 65 Passenger School Bus w/Driver $ 3.33/Mile
September 2009 – June 2010 $ 32.32/hour Layover Cost
First Student (Westboro)
CITIZENS CONCERNS
- Town Meeting Recommendations
Town Meeting member Jimmy Brown complimented the administration and the Finance Committee on the comprehensiveness of the Town Meeting recommendation book. Given the tough year ahead he encouraged as much participation as possible.
Mr. Ostroff too found it to be a great document and a well organized budget and noted that it was available through the web site.
Timothy Kelley inquired about the pedestrian shelter at the bus stop – if it was gone for good or just being repaired.
Mr. Walters Young said he would find out and report back.
FISCAL 2009
- Revenue & Investment Income 2nd Quarter
Mr. Walters Young reported that to date the Town was doing all right. It was just under 50% but that was normal because the motor vehicle excise hasn’t been billed out. The other positive was that the investment income totaled about $280,000 which was about $80,000 more than thought. If that played out rather than the projected $400,000, there may be $550,000 or $600,000. That was a far cry from where it was but that was the world we live in. There will be a hit because State Aid will be reduced and that wouldn’t hit until the 3rd and 4th quarter.
Mr. Walters Young advised that the Town Administrator was recommending no action at this time. She believed any issues could be resolved between a reserve fund transfer or the 3% allocation law.
FISCAL 2010
- Update Early Retirement Program
In a memo to the Board, Ms. White provided an analysis of the costs and savings associated with the Early Retirement Incentive Program along with copies of letters sent to applicants who were approved for participation in the program. There were nine employees – 5 in the Fire Department and 4 in the DPW. It was noted that once final applicants were approved the costs for Fiscal 2009 and Fiscal 2010 were not as great as initially projected and the savings in the outlying years were more favorable than initially projected. For the 7 participants who were already at their maximum allowable retirement allowance, the buy-backs to which they were entitled were a potential liability for the Town with or without the ERI program.
Mr. Ciccariello noted the analysis assumed none of the nine positions would be hired back until after 2013. Mr. Walters Young confirmed that was what the chart said but he didn’t know whether that was realistic. The goal was to show apples to apples.
Ms. Van Amsterdam recalled being given a chart on March 2 showing no hires and the questions to that related to benefits. The change in the footnotes for the latest update assumed benefit savings but was not capturing cost. Since it didn’t reflect the costs for the benefits, it was somewhat misleading. When an update was requested she would like to have something produced that showed the cost from FY09-13. The benefits for persons being laid off were allusive. She would like to see the costs the Town will incur from FY09-13 for the persons who retire who won’t hit 65 for a number of years. She was looking for a document that said these were all the costs that would be incurred. Ms. Van Amsterdam also pointed out that the salary savings didn’t take into account the latitude the
Fire Chief had to promote.
Mr. Walters Young responded that it would assume the promotions occurred prior to FY10. Ms. Van Amsterdam agreed, adding that the assumption in this analysis was that there would be no promotions. If a promotion took place the amount needed may exceed the $144,000 and if so where would that money come from. Mr. Walters Young advised that it would have to come from another source. This assumed those promotions wouldn’t be filled until July 1.
With regard to the merit reserve account, Ms. Van Amsterdam asked if those dollars were set aside for merit payments or persons achieving goals. Mr. Walters Young responded that that was his understanding. Ms. Van Amsterdam then asked if the Board voted not to award merit dollars to persons as the result of a performance evaluation. Mr. Ciccariello didn’t recall that being done.
Mr. Walters Young explained that the merit reserve was a vote by Town Meeting to be used at the discretion of the Town Administrator to promote individuals based on merit. It was to be used by the Town Administrator through the personnel evaluation tool to make a determination of merit warranted increases.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if in the FY10 budget the Town Administrator had given anybody a merit increase. Mr. Walters Young’s response was, “no”. No money exists in FY10. $50,000 was appropriated in FY09 and there was about $45,000 left. The plan was to use that $45,000 to help pay for the early retirement.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that Town Meeting voted for a specific use and questioned if the administration had asked Town Meeting if the money could be used for another use. Mr. Walters Young believed the administration’s point would be that it should be left to the discretion of the Town Administrator, but he would seek clarification.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if it was the Fire Chief’s intent to promote before July 1. Chief Sheridan advised that he may have a contractual obligation to make those promotions. Nothing was off the table, but he wanted to make sure he could delay. If he (Chief Sheridan) had the latitude to promote after the start of the fiscal year, Mr. Ostroff asked if he (Chief Sheridan) was going to promote. Chief Sheridan responded that he was willing to discuss it.
Ms. Van Amsterdam stated that she would have hoped those salaries would have been used for the purpose intended. She suggested that on Town Meeting floor the focus be on management of reduction with no new hires vs saving money. In the Town Administrator’s proposal the advantage was the Town’s ability to manage and she (Ms. Van Amsterdam) requested that the administration refrain from promoting the early retirement program as saving the Town money.
Mr. Ciccariello recalled that the Board’s vote for the early retirement program stated as part of that vote that nobody would be hired back for a minimum of one year without the approval of the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Walters Young believed that was the vote.
Mr. Ostroff stated that he did not vote to support the ERI because he thought it would save money but that it would help manage better particularly in the Fire Department they would be able to maintain the recent hires and give flexibility.
B. Fiscal 2010 Budgets
1.) Water & Sewer Enterprise Fund
Mr. Walters Young reported there was an increase of 5.99% in the budget driven in lions share in operating expenses in the sewer operation in which all but $7,000 was from the increase in the MWRA assessment of almost 10% and $150,00 in debt service.
In past history Mr. Ciccariello believed part of the indirect costs were to offset the preparation of water & sewer bills by the Collector’s office. Now a $5 fee was being charged for that service and he wondered why the indirect costs didn’t drop accordingly.
Mr. Walters Young advised that the service fee covers the direct cost of producing the bills. It did not affect the indirects. Mr. Ciccariello responded that in all of his years on the Board that was his understanding of what it was about. Mr. Walters Young noted that the indirects still controlled the oversight and the service fee paid for the direct cost of the billing.
Mr. Walters Young confirmed Mr. Connolly’s statement that this was the only department with no cuts.
Mr. Ciccariello pointed out there was an anticipated 1.8% increase in the water & sewer rates. Since the Board hadn’t discussed an increase in rates, Mr. Ciccariello questioned what happened to this budget if the Board voted against the increase. Mr. Walters Young advised that it would mean dipping into retained earnings.
Mr. Ciccariello commented that by Town Meeting voting the budget, it automatically reduced the retained earnings because some was being used for capital. That gave the Board no flexibility in discussing the water & sewer rates. Mr. Walters Young respectfully disagreed. The vote taken on capital left a balance of over $400,000 to be matched hopefully with $600,000 from the next fiscal year. If the Board set rates at a certain level we would have to go back to Fall Town Meeting and increase the appropriation of retained earnings in advance of setting the tax rate.
From Ms. Van Amsterdam’s perspective voting the capital and this budget the Board was committing itself to a 1.8% rate increase.
Mr. Walters Young agreed that it would be in that ballpark, adding that the philosophy was to: a) maintain the safety and viability of the system; b) the rate increase was incredibly modest; c) keep retained earnings in the ballpark of $1 million assuming it wasn’t used to lower the rates further. It was securing the fund so rate increases were stable as opposed to the wild spikes.
Given that other divisions in the DPW got whacked, Mr. Ciccariello questioned if there was some way to reduce the work force in the Water & Sewer. DPW Director Charles Sisitsky’s response was, “no”.
A motion was made by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Mr. Ostroff that the Board support the Water & Sewer budget in the amount of $10,819,178 for Fiscal 2010. After some discussion the motion failed on a 2-2-0 vote. Mr. Ostroff and Ms. Van Amsterdam voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ciccariello and Mr. Connolly were opposed.
Speaking to the motion, Mr. Ostroff stated that he would welcome the opportunity to hear a different priority for how to fund the enterprise.
Mr. Ciccariello responded that in his opinion until there was the opportunity to look at water & sewer rates, he believed some of the capital items should wait for Fall when there was a better feel for the revenues and the retained earnings. He preferred to hold off on moving too fast and only do the projects that were absolutely needed as opposed to we should do it.
To Ms. Van Amsterdam it didn’t appear as though the capital for Water & Sewer had been tiered in the same way as the capital plan for the town. As such the capital for Water & Sewer was not presented in a manner in which you could say the safety of the system depends on these five projects being done now and the others were levels of safety. She couldn’t present any logical argument against the safety of the system. At some point, and she wasn’t certain the Board would get to it for this year’s budget preparation, she would like to see it delineated that this was what it would mean to have a safe system so the Board could understand why all these projects must be done and how to quantify how the system was kept safe. For her to vote the capital projects in the future, she needed to
understand that these things needed to be done to maintain a safe water system. She was prepared to vote this budget tonight because she didn’t see any alternative.
Mr. Ostroff stated that he felt satisfied the administration and DPW set the priorities and the items requested were needed.
Mr. Connolly thought that the three things driving the Water & Sewer increase was the vacuum, higher tech security, and the software upgrade. Having looked at each, he believed the water system would be just fine if those things weren’t done. If there was an increase in rates it would be the third time in the last 14 months.
Mr. Walters Young wanted to make sure the Commissioners understood that the way the budget was being proposed and going to Town Meeting the capital costs for FY10 were being funded through retained earnings and proceeds of prior capital projects. No rate increase would be necessary to fund those, but it will take away retained earnings for another purpose. The driver of this year’s Water & Sewer increase was the MWRA.
Mr. Connolly asked if what Mr. Walters Young was telling the Board was that the whole reason for the rates going up was the MWRA. Mr. Walters Young responded that he was saying the lions share was the MWRA. It was a $400,000 increase over which the Town had no control. That was the driving force. If the Board chose to pull the capital projects it didn’t impact the rates because sources other than the rates were being used to fund the projects.
2) DPW
Ms. White noted that the Board had voted a number of the DPW budgets. There had been a discussion about the Engineering Aide with a shifting in the funding approved. At one time it was proposed that the Engineering Aide be funded in the Water Department but the position was being put back into Engineering and covered through indirect costs. It was still the same cost just a different funding.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how it was determined that the position would be funded by Water & Sewer and Ms. White explained that virtually all of this position has been an indirect cost to Water & Sewer. Mr. Ciccariello questioned if the Aide spent 100% of his hours on Water & Sewer. Mr. Sisitsky’s response was, “yes”. Asked if that could be documented, again Mr. Sisitsky’s response was, “yes”.
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, the Board unanimously voted to support the DPW Engineering budget in the amount of $406,985 for Fiscal 2010.
Energy
Ms. White advised that the difference was in the natural gas contract.
Mr. Ciccariello felt that reducing the budget because of an article in the newspaper was a big mistake, but Ms. White noted that the DPW believed there would be a significant savings in natural gas costs during the summer months.
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to support an energy budget of $1,479,170 for Fiscal 2010.
Building Maintenance
Ms. White advised that the painter position was approved by the Finance Committee and added back in.
Mr. Ciccariello recalled the painter being added a year ago to save money and the question was why a position that supposedly was going to save money was going to be cut.
Mr. Connolly noted that in FY09 a crew chief was eliminated but a custodian was added and the same thing in 2010. Mr. Walters Young advised there was a shift. There was no loss of personnel but the position changed. In follow-up Mr. Connolly inquired if the crew chief pay scale was higher. Mr. Walters Young advised that it was, adding that having them as custodians saved money. DPW Business Manager William Chenard believed the crew chief left the department. The position was not filled but added as a custodian.
A motion was made by Ms. Van Amsterdam to support the Building Maintenance Division budget of $857,551 for Fiscal 2010.
DPW Administration
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to support the DPW Administration Fiscal 2010 budget in the amount of $314,987.
Equipment Maintenance
Mr. Walters Young reminded the Board that this was where the working foreman was dropped and became the mechanic. The working foreman was also eliminated in LFNR.
Mr. Connolly found it strange that only two individuals took a cut in pay and needed to understand why.
Ms. White explained that it was an area the Finance Committee asked them to look into although she wasn’t sure the DPW management would agree. The Fincom’s perception was that the Division Supervisor, general foreman, and a working foreman made it a top heavy organization. The general foreman was required by contract. The administration was looking at all working foreman and the number of personnel they oversee and their job functions and it was felt two adjustments could be made without affecting the operation. That wasn’t saying there wasn’t a human effect.
Out of 70 employees to have two singled out for a cut in pay, Mr. Connolly believed that to be in error.
Mr. Sisitsky noted that this was Mr. Connolly’s idea. He (Mr. Sisitsky) sat in the Town Administrator’s Office with Mr. Connolly, and Mr. Connolly pointed out the organizational chart and raised the issue of eliminating the working foreman.
Mr. Connolly did not believe he said that. He found it strange there were two individuals. It was his understanding there was a contractual requirement for a general foreman and it was also his understanding from Mr. Sisitsky and Mr. Chenard there was a possibility there wouldn’t be anybody laid off. There would be a reduction in force through early retirement and one individual was on the fringe. If Mr. Sisitsky believed this was his idea, Mr. Connolly said he strongly apologized because that was not what he meant.
With all due respect to Mr. Connolly, Mr. Sisitsky recalled that at the meeting with the Town Administrator when the organization chart was reviewed, Mr. Connolly specifically asked why there was a supervisor, general foreman, and a working foreman and said it looked top heavy. An explanation was given as to why a supervisor and general foreman were needed and Mr. Connolly was asked if the intent was to eliminate the working foreman. They (Ms. White, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Chenard, Mr. Sisitsky) all agreed to do so and changed the budget in LFNR and Equipment Maintenance.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the difference in salary between a working foreman and mechanic and was told it was $2,000.
If that was what he said, Mr. Connolly apologized. He moved not to demote the working foreman and to support a Fiscal 2010 budget for Equipment Maintenance in the amount of $766,571. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the funding for the additional money and was told by Ms. White that it would dwindle the set aside going to free cash.
Highway
Mr. Walters Young advised that since the last presentation the Finance Committee took $100,000 from the snow and ice removal and restored the part-time summer help. This budget eliminates three major positions which would mean everyone would pick up trash during the summer. It was the only place where the Town Administrator recommendations and the Finance Committee differed. The Finance Committee recommended lowering the amount because they took the salary savings of individuals going out the door.
Ms. White told the Board that the administration supported the restoration of summer help. This division took a hit of personnel and would be pressed to do road projects.
Mr. Chenard noted there were four people out due to injury and sick leave and it would be hard this summer.
Mr. Connolly asked if three people were being laid off and was told by Mr. Chenard there would be two layoffs and one early retirement.
Mr. Sisitsky was asked to talk about the shift in hours at the recycling center and he responded that effective July 1 the proposal was to open the recycling center only on Saturdays and Sundays and man it with overtime and eliminate the two positions currently manning the center. The recycling center wouldn’t be open 52 weeks. In the winter it would be one weekend a month. Money was added to the overtime budget to do this so the net gain was one position.
Mr. Connolly asked if the Saturday and Sunday was chiseled in stone as a lot of seniors rely on Thursday and Friday. Mr. Sisitsky responded that the budget before the Board was approved by the Finance Committee and it had this plan.
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to support a Fiscal 2010 budget of $2,895,955 for the Highway Division.
LFNR
Mr. Connolly asked about the working foreman position and the flower ladies.
Being told they weren’t in the budget, Mr. Connolly said he understood times were tough and asked if there was any feedback on adopting a park kind of thing. Ms. White noted that it had been talked about but she couldn’t suggest that it could be pursued for this summer season. Summer help was added but she didn’t want to suggest that one person would make up for the loss of the flower ladies and she didn’t expect to see the same level of care and beautification to the Town.
Mr. Connolly again apologized for the miscommunication in keeping the working foreman as a working foreman.
A motion was made by Ms. Van Amsterdam to support an LFNR budget of $593,961 for Fiscal 2010.
3. FIRE DEPARTMENT
Ms. White reported that the Finance Committee had approved the Fire Department budget at $6,362,437. This was larger than the administration recommended, but she would recommend this number to the Board of Selectmen. A lot of departments were significantly impacted and Fire was certainly among them. This was a fairly significant increase that brought the department about half way toward full restoration of the amount of overtime the Chief requested. Five members retired through the early retirement. Four of the positions were eliminated and the salary for the fifth was plunked into overtime.
Ms. White continued that that she recommended the higher number but would ask if the Board was going to consider that higher number that it be done with the recommendation that the Chief work with the administration and the Board before moving to promote to fill the retirees grades. She would suggest looking at opportunities to re-engineer and look to see if there were different ways to administer the service the department provides and different ways to deploy the personnel.
Chief Sheridan told the Board that he would very much appreciate their support. Nothing was off the table and he was willing to work with the Board. Nothing stuck out that would make the department more efficient and still provide the same service, but he was open to any idea.
Ms. Van Amsterdam asked about the amount of the fifth salary and Mr. Walters Young provided a handout showing the changes to the budget over the past three months. He noted that the Finance Committee had added $132,716 to the overtime budget and the net effect of the 5th retiree was a shifting of $76,951 from what would have been budgeted for a position to overtime. Having it in overtime gave the Chief greater flexibility in how to staff and keep stations open.
Ms. Van Amsterdam stated that she raised the question because the chart on early retirement showed the offsets. If promotions took place, it would be less than the $55,000 shown. Were any of the salary dollars from the fifth person the savings? Ms. White noted that the fifth person was the only salary that was plugged into overtime, but Ms. Van Amsterdam pointed out that shifting the salary to overtime wasn’t a savings.
Ms. Van Amsterdam then inquired if any of the 5th person’s salary was being put into overtime for Fiscal 2009. Mr. Walters Young’s reply was, “no”, otherwise there would be a problem in funding.
To Mr. Ciccariello’s comment that the Chief may have to go back to the Finance Committee to close out FY09, Ms. White added or face the likely scenario of station closings.
Referring to the recommendation for the Board to support the budget with the stipulation that Chief work with the administration and the Board before moving to promote to fill the retirees’ grades, there seemed to Ms. Van Amsterdam to be a bias. Mr. Ciccariello explained that the Board did not have the right to stop the Chief from promoting, but the Board did have the right to ask the Chief to come before the Board with his plan for how he intends to use the funds and what stations he intends to close for what periods of time. He (Mr. Ciccariello) heard the Chief say that he was committed to meet with the administration and the Selectmen.
Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired if this would be tied into the administration looking into the privatization of the ambulance as well. Ms. White advised that it might well be. Ms. Van Amsterdam thought it may also be the time to bring back the MMA Study. Ms. White agreed noting that she dusted it off last week. Another related thing was the MetroWest Regional Manager’s Group looking for opportunities for collaboration.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to support the Fire Department budget for Fiscal 2010 in the amount of $6,362,437. Seconded by Mr. Connolly. The motion passed on a 3-0-1 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Mr. Connolly voted in favor of the motion. Ms. Van Amsterdam abstained.
4. LEGAL BUDGET
Ms. White reminded the Board that when the recommendation for the Human Resources position was put forward, the legal budget was reduced by $22,000. The Finance Committee recommended funding the HR position for about half the year on the presumption that by the time something was worked out with the School Department and somebody was on board, perhaps half a year would have passed. She asked the FinCom to restore the labor budget so the budget as now presented was increased by $22,000.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the Board could stay with its previous vote and did not have to agree with the Finance Committee.
In response to an inquiry from Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. White noted that the FinCom thought it would be January 1 before somebody was on board, but she hoped to have somebody on board before January 1 whether there was collaboration with the School Department or not.
Ms. Van Amsterdam supported staying with the budget last voted by the Board because the administration was going into contract negotiations and one reason to restore the funding for that position was to have that person on board for contract negotiations. She thought the meeting with the Schools was going to be set up in April and start rolling. Ms. White advised that her intent was to start that sooner rather than later and not wait for the new fiscal year.
5. POLICE DEPARTMENT BUDGET
Mr. Walters Young advised there was a $26,000 increase in the Police budget from the Board’s last vote due to the increase in crossing guards.
If Town Meeting votes not to support the article on moving the Farm to the Conservation Commission, Mr. Ciccariello asked if the Police budget would get reduced by that amount. Ms. White responded that it wouldn’t necessarily because of the discussion between the Police Chief and the Superintendent where they came to agreement that the elimination of four positions wouldn’t jeopardize student safety but a consensus that three of the original ten should be restored. The School Committee in good faith voted to convey the property to the Conservation Commission. She wouldn’t necessarily eliminate the three positions the Superintendent and the Chief believe were necessary.
Mr. Ciccariello questioned where the $26,000 would come from and Ms. White responded that it would just keep whittling away from the safety net.
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to support the Police budget for Fiscal 2010 in the amount of $5,181,164.
6. EMPLOYEE FRINGE BENEFITS
Mr. Walters Young that the budget being requested was $14,395,784. Some key changes resulted in information received on the rates. 10% was budgeted for plan increases and overall it was 6.9% saving a quarter million. There was a higher cost for seniors of $136,278 and a lower number of benefits eligible employees due to the reduction in force. There was a higher unemployment number as the plan was to lay off 20-25 individuals. A cushion was built in for mid-year changes. Since the original proposal, the budget was decreased by about $100,000.
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, the Board unanimously voted to support the employee fringe benefits budget in the amount of $14,395,784 for Fiscal 2010.
RATIFICATION OF CONTRACT: POLICE SUPERIOR OFFICERS
Ms. White announced that an agreement had been reached with the Police Superior officers for the period of July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2010. Funding would be sought under an article at Town Meeting.
A motion was made by Mr. Ciccariello to ratify the contract between the Town and the New England Police Benevolent Association, AFL-CIO, Local 82 for the period of 7/1/07-6/30/10. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam. The motion passed on a 3-0-0 vote. Mr. Connolly was out of the room and did not vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, and Ms. Van Amsterdam voted in favor of the motion.
Mr. Ostroff thanked the Town Administrator and the union for resolving the contract.
TOWN MEETING WARRANT ARTICLES
Article 10 – Collective Bargaining Police Superior Officers
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to support favorable action for Article 10. Mr. Connolly had returned and voted.
Article 23 – Conveyance of 56 Everett Street to Affordable Housing Trust Fund
Having not heard from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, Mr. Ciccariello moved to ask for referral back to the Board of Selectmen on Article 23. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
Article 36 – Citizen Petition: Home Rule Petition – Open Space Funds
Ms. White informed the Board that she reviewed the situation with respect to the Town’s Zoning By-Law and operating with the understanding that it allowed the Town to deposit the FAR money directly to the Conservation Fund without Town Meeting appropriating the money into the fund with the DOR Chief of Municipal Finance Law. The sponsor of the article was correct except the Zoning By-Law was put into place and approved by the Attorney General prior to the way the department currently mandates the appropriation of such funds. Because it was approved by the Attorney General prior to the changes, Natick has operated properly and can continue to do it.
She noted that the Finance Committee recommended referral to the Planning Board and Board of Selectmen.
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to support referral of Article 36 to the Planning Board and Board of Selectmen.
Article 37 – Citizen Petition: Appropriation of Open Space Funds
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to reconsider Article 37
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to recommend referral of Article 37 to the Planning Board and Board of Selectmen. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
Article 38 – Restriction of Level 3 Sex Offenders
Mr. Connolly requested no action on Article 38 with the hope to re-visit it in the fall. He so moved. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
COMCAST, RCN CABLE LICENSE RENEWAL UPDATE
In a memo to the Board, Mr. Walters Young provided an update on the cable television renewal processes with Comcast and RCN.
He explained that a critical phase in this process was ascertainment which involves the collection of information from the community and interested parties by the Cable Advisory Committee concerning how the cable companies were performing as per their license agreement with the Town of Natick.
Since the Selectmen last received a briefing concerning Cable Ascertainment processes with Comcast & RCN in the Fall of 2008, the Cable Advisory Committee has been meeting to determine how best to solicit input from cable users through a combination of public hearings and surveys. To that end the Cable Advisory Committee was finalizing a survey to ask citizens how they feel concerning the service they receive from Comcast and RCN. Questions will focus on the areas of satisfaction with access to cable service, satisfaction with customer service, importance to customer of PEG access channels & service.
He noted that the most frequently asked question/issue raised within the ascertainment process was that of pricing of cable services. The renewal process prohibits municipalities from dictating pricing to cable companies and thus that question will not be asked on any survey.
Mr. Walters Young advised that the Cable Advisory Committee was also working to finalize hearing dates for the public to come and give testimony. Tentative dates were May 11 or May 20 for a separate hearing sponsored by the CAC, while May 18 was the tentative date to hold a joint hearing with the Selectmen should the Board wish to participate in the ascertainment hearing.
A page was created on the Town’s web site and publicized access to the survey in the Town Administrator’s Quarterly Newsletter distributed to all taxpayers. Paper copies of the survey once finalized will be available in most municipal offices.
Once the ascertainment phase was finished, a Request for Qualifications would be prepared and distributed by the CAC to both Comcast and RCN. This RFQ will include the Town’s requests for service and financial requests for the upcoming licensing agreement. The cable companies will respond with a formal document to the RFQ. Once those actions have been taken, then and only then would actual negotiations between representatives of the cable companies and the Town take place. When negotiations have taken place, the CAC will make a formal recommendation to the Board of Selectmen regarding award of new cable licenses to both Comcast and RCN.
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board agreed to schedule a hearing for May 18, 2009.
RAILBANKING EXTENSION
A motion was made by Ms. Van Amsterdam to request an 180 day extension to negotiate with CSX on the rail trail.
ACCEPTANCE OF GIFT: POLICE DEPARTMENT
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to accept a $25.00 donation from Philip and Adrianne Sharp for the Police Department coffee fund.
MINUTES
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the September 8, 2009 meeting.
FOURTH OF JULY COMMITTEE: REQUEST TO USE COMMON, PARADE
Ms. Van Amsterdam moved approval of the July Fourth Committee’s application for a parade permit to hold the annual fourth of July parade on July 4, 2009 forming at the Route 9/27 Shopping Center and following Route 27 to Natick Center. Also approved was the Committee’s request to use the Common on July 1, 2009 for Family Night and on July 4, 2009 for a flea market.
ONE FINE DAY EVENT PLANNING: REQUEST PERMISSION TO ERECT TENT
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to approve Jessica Weiss’ of One fine day Event Planning request to erect a tent on the public way in front of The Center for Arts in Natick at 14 Summer Street for an event on May 2, 2009. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
ACCEPTANCE OF RESIGNATION: CABLE ADVISORY BOARD
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to accept the resignation of Joseph Weisse from the Cable Advisory Board.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR APPOINTMENT: GOLF COURSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
Mr. Ostroff moved to confirm the Town Administrator’s appointment of Timothy Nihill to the Golf Course Oversight Committee. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR NOTES
Ms. White noted that an elderly couple had a high water bill due to a leaky toilet. They did not request an abatement but requested a payment plan. When she spoke with the Finance Director he took it a step further and said he could do a payment plan but would look to reduce the interest charges. She would request the Board to authorize the Collector to waive or reduce the interest for water & sewer bills that enter into a payment plan due to an excessively high bill that resulted from a leak.
If someone was delinquent because of a hardship, Mr. Ostroff asked about waiving those interest charges as well, but Ms. White responded that this was only geared toward when an extraordinarily high bill was received.
A motion was made by Mr. Connolly to authorize the Collector to reduce interest and penalties when there was an excessively high water & sewer bill and a payment plan was entered into. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.
Ms. White had provided the Board with a letter to the House and Senate on Municipal Tax Relief that was going to be debated tomorrow.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
Mr. Ostroff commended DPW Highway Supervisor Thomas Hladick for having resolved a number of road repair issues brought to his attention.
Mr. Connolly agreed to attend an Eagle Scout ceremony scheduled for April 24.
Since her daughter was graduating, Ms. Van Amsterdam volunteered to represent the Board of Selectmen at the Natick High School graduation.
The Board received notification that the Town would receive $750,000 in Chapter 90 funds. Ms. White advised that was about what had been expected.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 12:45 a.m.
___________________________________
Kristine Van Amsterdam, Clerk
| 
