BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
April 21, 2009
6:30 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman John Ciccariello at 6:30 p.m.
PRESENT: John Ciccariello, Joshua Ostroff, Carol A. Gloff, John Connolly. Absent: Kristine Van Amsterdam
ALSO PRESENT: Martha L. White, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on April 21, 2009 in the amount of $585,754.47. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $2,311,422.59.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Gloff, moved to enter into executive session to discuss matters pertaining to real property negotiations and compensation of non-union personnel. By roll call vote the motion passed on a 4-0-0 vote. At 6:31 p.m. the Board entered into executive session after announcing that the meeting would return to open session.
The open session was reconvened at 7:05 p.m.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Martin Kessel, Chair of the Open Space Advisory Committee, announced a chance for people to volunteer this Saturday to help complete the Henry Wilson Trail. The trail will run along Fiske Pond and end up in Del Park Cemetery. He noted that the trail was a great example of collaboration between a number of commissions, boards, and departments and credited Steve Evers of the Historical Commission as being instrumental in obtaining grant funds. For more information people could contact the Cochituate State Park.
LETTER OF RECOGNITION: Max Wallack
Max Wallack was recognized as one of the State’s top honorees in The Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program and was presented a Letter of Commendation. The honor was in recognition of Max’s efforts to collect jigsaw puzzles for distribution to nursing homes and facilities that care for patients with Alzheimer’s disease and dementia.
Max also recently won WGBH’s “Design Squad” Trash to Treasure contest with his entry being a full scale emergency shelter made entirely of used plastic bags.
Max thanked the Board for this honor.
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Mr. Joseph was running late and was interviewed later in the meeting.
David Shamoian stated that he was President of the Peabody Hotel that owned the Crowne Plaza as well as the Hampton Inn. His group has been in the Natick community for well over 40 years and developed the first Holiday Inn on Route 9. In this type of environment he felt nothing was more important than continuing economic development.
Mr. Ostroff thanked Mr. Shamoian for his interest in the committee and asked if he (Mr. Shamoian) had thought about some specific things the Town might do to attract appropriate businesses to Natick.
Mr. Shamoian responded that his company was a diverse real estate development company and had seen some redevelopment of a downtown, particularly in Memphis. Redevelopment of a downtown was particularly important to a Town’s or city’s success. In Memphis the redevelopment combined residential, retail and office and he thought all those pieces were important. He believed people need to live in downtown areas and needed to live in the Route 9 area and he would promote bringing more people to live, play and shop in the Route 9 and downtown area.
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE (contd)
Mr. Ostroff noted that this got to a concern on paper where the interests of this group would conflict with those of Mr. Shamoian’s group and he (Mr. Ostroff) was happy to hear Mr. Shamoian’s reference to downtown. He wanted to be sure Mr. Shamoian understood this was to benefit the community as a whole.
Mr. Shamoian assured Mr. Ostroff that he understood the conflict and noted that his group had enough development in Natick and didn’t plan on any further development in Natick, but he would like to see the area grow.
Mr. Connolly commented on the glowing resume and thanked Mr. Shamoian for his service to our country.
Rick Kiernan told the Board he was President of Integrity Fundraising specializing in fund raising for economic development initiatives for economic development organizations around the country. He has been that for about 13 years. He moved to Natick three years ago and thought this would be a good way to get involved.
At Mr. Ostroff’s request for him to talk about how he would approach the issue of economic development, Mr. Kiernan responded that he had seen economic development work well in a variety of communities and what worked well in San Francisco won’t necessarily work well in Natick. He felt it was a matter of looking at what was happening with the Route 495 corridor and in Natick.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if something like this (the committee) could be effective without any specific investment of public funds. Mr. Kiernan responded that it was tough noting that most efforts he had seen were public private partnerships. Typically it would take dollars to get results.
To Mr. Ostroff’s comment that obviously there was a pay back, Mr. Kiernan’s reply was, “absolutely”. Where there was the most success was demonstrating the economic impact by a direct return on the investment in the number of jobs created.
In his letter to the Board, Mr. Kiernan stated that he was a member of Northeast Economic Developers Association. Mr. Ciccariello asked if Massachusetts was a member and when Mr. Kiernan advised that it was, Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to what were some of the best practices. Mr. Kiernan responded that it was the public private partnership. He noted that very seldom do they (public private partnerships) exist here. There were a lot in the Southeast and West, but people were starting to talk about it and seeing other areas of the country that have explored the public private partnership.
Mr. Ciccariello explained there were three more candidates for the Board to interview and then make a decision. The candidates interviewed tonight were welcome to attend that second meeting, but did not have to.
EDWARD CARR, DIRECTOR METROWEST REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY: THE RIDE UPDATE
The Board’s representative to the MetroWest Regional Transit Authority introduced the discussion by noting the MWRTA would take over the provision of The Ride as of July 1, 2009. He then deferred to the MWRTA Director Ed Carr.
Mr. Carr explained that currently the MBTA provided The Ride service, but as of July 1, 2009 it would be provided by the MWRTA. Approaching the July 1 date was not without anxiety but everything seemed to be going fairly smoothly. He (Mr. Carr) did a public service announcement at Natick Pegasus and talked about a letter The Ride user would be receiving from the MBTA explaining the necessity for the user to sign a waiver that would allow the MBTA to transfer their information over on July 1 so they could be better serviced. If someone hasn’t done that they can still do it. If a letter wasn’t received and the individual thinks they were still registered they can call the MWRTA or the MBTA.
Mr. Ostroff asked if it was safe to say the service people receive would be the same after July 1 – that the quality of service The Ride users get today would be the same.
Mr. Carr responded that the MWRTA’s intent was to replicate the service received today. The telephone number would probably change and the logo
EDWARD CARR, DIRECTOR METROWEST REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY: THE RIDE UPDATE (contd)
would change and it would be called the MetroWest Ride. The service would be provided by Thompson.
Asked if he had a sense of the responses to the letter, Mr. Carr estimated that of the 2,100 sent about 800-900 had responded.
As to publicity, Mr. Carr noted there was a public service announcement on Pegasus and two information seminars would be done in Framingham and two in Natick. He had asked the Senior Center Director to allow them to use the Senior Center. The vital piece was signing over the information.
Mr. Ostroff suggested having it mentioned in the Town Administrator’s newsletter. Mr. Carr liked the idea and also noted that it was on the web site. Ms. Gloff added that the Friends of the Seniors put out a newsletter every month and they may be willing to have a little article.
Mr. Carr thanked the Board for its efforts. So many people relied heavily on this service and it was a comfort to know a lot of the drivers would be the same. Mr. Carr also noted that the MWRTA’s other service was accessible and he encouraged people if they could to look at using the other service. It was wheelchair accessible and could get someone as far as the Solomon Pond Mall.
Mr. Ciccariello requested an overview of what was happening and Mr. Carr responded that it was going pretty well. A new service was started in March using federal funds and it has been extremely successful. They hoped to get 100 riders a day using it as the service matured and already there were 90 and it was only in the third week. The service went from Framingham to Woodland on the green line. The next phase was to try to incorporate the Charlie Card.
Senior Center and Human Services Director Moira Munns noted that the transition for The Ride was something a number of people had a great deal of anxiety over. The MBTA has done a great job and a lot of information was posted. A session was scheduled for June 22 at 10:00 a.m. at the Senior Center about the transition.
Tim Kelley of JFK Transportation noted that in the past The Ride had not provided service to Wayland and questioned if the service would get better or worse.
Mr. Ciccariello was of the opinion that it would get better. Mr. Carr stated that he hoped it would get better. He confirmed that service was not provided to Wayland.
Mr. Kelley inquired as to who would be the liaison that would monitor the service and was told by Mr. Ciccariello that the Board had appointed former Selectman Charles Hughes to do that and as long as Mr. Hughes was comfortable in that role and willing to do it he would continue.
Asked if the MWRTA was open Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, Mr. Carr advised there were three routes on Saturday. They were not open on Sundays but open most holidays except Christmas, Thanksgiving and Patriots Day.
PUBLIC HEARING: GRUPPOSO SQUARE
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to open the public hearing.
The public hearing was on the request to dedicate the square at Morse Street and Garfield Street in honor of the four Grupposo brothers who served in World War II and Korea.
Pat Young of the Natick Veterans Council advised that all letters had been sent out to the respective boards, committees. The dedication was scheduled for Memorial Day after the parade. They were working on getting the signs.
Mr. Ciccariello referred to memos from Stephen Evers of the Historical Commission and Community Development Director Patrick Reffett in favor of naming the Morse and Garfield Street square in honor of the Grupposo brothers.
Mr. Ostroff thanked the Veterans Council for putting this forward.
PUBLIC HEARING: GRUPPOSO SQUARE (contd)
Ms. White inquired if the placement of the sign was within the right-of-way or on a private yard. Recreation & Parks Superintendent Dick Cugini explained that at this particular site there were two sidewalks and one abuts a home. The decision would be whether to drill into the sidewalk or put the sign down a little further.
Mr. Ciccariello asked Ms. White to check with the DPW on the placement of the sign.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to close the public hearing.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to dedicate the square at Morse and Garfield Street in honor of the Grupposo brothers. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
PUBLIC HEARING: ARENA SQUARE
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to open the public hearing.
The request was to dedicate the square at Farwell and Cottage Streets in honor of the five Arena family brothers who served in World War II and one brother who served in the Korean War.
Pat Young of the Natick Veterans Council told the Board that the dedication was scheduled for May 30 and the Council had talked to the DPW about the sign.
The Board was in receipt of memos from Steve Evers of the Historical Commission and Patrick Reffett Community Development Director in support of the request and a letter from Recreation & Parks Superintendent Richard Cugini on the installation of the sign in the proper location.
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to close the public hearing.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to dedicate the square at Farwell and Cottage Streets in honor of the Arena family brothers. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
Mr. Connolly thanked everyone involved, commenting that these dedications were some of the nicest events he had been to.
MINUTES
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the September 22, 2008 meeting.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the April 1, 2009 meeting.
NATICK LITTLE LEAGUE: PARADE PERMIT
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, to approve the Natick Little League’s request for a permit to hold the annual Opening Day parade on April 25, 2009 beginning at the South Natick Gulf station, proceeding down Eliot Street to Pleasant Street and marching to the Hunnewell Fields. Unanimously voted.
Both Mr. Ciccariello and Mr. Connolly volunteered to represent the Board at the event.
LFNR SUPERVISOR JOHN CUNNIFF: MUTT MITTS
LFNR Supervisor John Cunniff noted that due to the financial crisis there was a cut back of supplying the plastic bags for pet owners to clean up after their pets. A local resident Kathryn Doran approached him and asked if she could approach vendors to see if they would donate money. There was one vendor willing to sponsor with a little advertisement. He (Mr. Cunniff) was looking for the Board’s support and if given he would continue to negotiate with the company and come back to the Board for acceptance of the donation.
Ms. White thanked Ms. Doran for approaching the vendor and Mr. Cunniff for putting the process together. She thought this would be the first of many occasions when the community rises to the occasion. When a need was identified often times a business or a person responds to that need. There were a number of individuals that called about the monument on the Common.
LFNR SUPERVISOR JOHN CUNNIFF: MUTT MITTS (contd)
Mr. Ostroff also thanked Ms. Doran and noted that the Revenue Expense Control Task Force had been looking at sponsors as a way to maintain services as well as recognition to the companies that make these opportunities available. The Board would need to make sure the donation when accepted mesh with applicable law.
Mr. Connolly thanked Ms. Doran and Mr. Cunniff and applauded everyone’s efforts.
A motion was made by Mr. Connolly to approve the request. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.
SUPERINTENDENT OF RECREATION & PARKS
- Golf Carts – Award Contract
Richard Cugini, Superintendent of Recreation & Parks, referred to a memo from the Procurement Officer outlining the bidding process for the golf carts. The bid was for a three year period starting this upcoming year. Six bid packages were sent out, prices were received from two and after looking at the golf carts and demos, the recommendation was to award the contract to the low bidder – New England Golf Cars. Sassamon Trace Golf pro Peter Meagher demoed the carts and spent an incredible amount of time talking to the vendors.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that in the future it would be nice to have a copy of the proposal or the contract so the Board can see what was being awarded.
With respect to the three years, Mr. Ciccariello inquired if there was a termination clause if the financing wasn’t available. Mr. Cugini advised that it was in the bid specifications. If the lease was terminated, Mr. Ciccariello asked if it was subject to any additional cost. Mr. Cugini responded that it was below $1,000 to return the golf carts.
Asked about a performance bond, Mr. Cugini noted there was a bid bond. Mr. Ciccariello wasn’t worried about a bid bond and re-asked if there was a performance bond. Mr. Cugini didn’t know if that was required. Ms. White noted there would be a critical component ensuring the right number of carts were delivered by the specified date, but beyond that she didn’t see what a bond would do.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to whom was responsible for the maintenance of the carts and the warranty if something failed during the one year lease. Mr. Cugini responded that the warranty fell to the company from which they were being purchased. There was a maintenance specification for which the Town was responsible, but beyond that the carts were totally warranted outside of damage to the tires.
Mr. Ciccariello then inquired if the vendor would provide some training to Mr. Meagher for the use of the carts. Mr. Cugini was sure when the carts were delivered they would go through what needs to be done to keep the warranty in place.
Mr. Meagher added that the warranty was 36 month bumper to bumper other than tires. Basically the Town would be getting the same vehicle as we now have but from a different vendor. Mr. Meagher noted that he was familiar with the daily routine of these carts.
Mr. Ostroff asked if the low bid was under budget, but Ms. White advised that Town Meeting hadn’t voted on any budgets. The revolving fund was no longer in place. Those funds were in retained earnings and the intent was to draw about $6,000 from retained earnings per year and the operating budget would make up the balance.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to award the contract for the lease of golf carts for Sassamon Trace Golf Course to the low bidder New England Golf Cars in the amount of $50,488.32. This was a three year lease covering the period of July 1, 2009-June 30, 2012.
- Schedule Joint Interviews to Fill Vacancy on Recreation & Parks Commission
A letter of resignation had been received from Recreation & Parks Commission member John Lambert. The vacancy would be filled jointly by the remaining Commission members and the Board and Mr. Cugini requested a joint meeting be held on June 1.
SUPERINTENDENT OF RECREATION & PARKS (contd)
Ms. Gloff moved to schedule the joint interviews for the meeting of June 1. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
Mr. Ostroff inquired as to what skills may be the most beneficial and Mr. Cugini responded that the time commitment involved a Commission meeting the first Monday of every month with various special meetings with different boards. They would like to have a person that liked to get involved with the community, wanted to see the recreation resources enhanced, and made sure the voices of the people were brought forward.
Mr. Ciccariello asked about experience in the recreation or parks area and Mr. Cugini acknowledged that would be a jump up.
DPW: AWARD CONTRACT TREE REMOVAL
Mr. Ciccariello commented that it would be nice to have something in the packet to look at so the Board would know what it was awarding. DPW Business Manager William Chenard assured the Board that in the future a description of the work would be given and added that all the contracts he prepared were reviewed by Town Counsel. This work – the removal of 48 trees – was advertised. There were eight responders ranging from $17,986 to $28,500. The low bidder was Phil Mastroianni Corp. References were checked and all responded favorably. He (Mr. Chenard) was requesting the Board’s approval and award of the contract for Fiscal 2009.
Mr. Ostroff inquired as to what was budgeted and was told by Mr. Chenard that for this portion the budget was $29,000.
Mr. Ostroff assumed these were trees that had been identified and went through the process of notifying the public. Tree Warden John Cunniff explained that when a tree was identified an orange dot was put on it. People will call when they see the dot and he explains it to them. The tree warden can identify a tree as a public hazard and does not need to have a hearing to have it removed. Mr. Cunniff noted that he gets many requests to remove trees that he didn’t consider hazardous. He refuses to remove them and tells the people to come to the Board of Selectmen for a hearing.
In follow-up Mr. Ostroff inquired if Mr. Cunniff published a list of trees to be removed. Mr. Cunniff responded that he never did. He has been doing this for 13 years and never had a problem.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if notices were sent to people that abut these trees. Mr. Cunniff said he never sent notices but he did have discussions with the people. Mr. Ciccariello inquired if it would be possible to send a notice to warn people there would be a tree cutter showing up. Mr. Cunniff said he could try but sometimes it was difficult to find out who owned the home. Most of the time he got calls from people wanting to know when it would happen.
Mr. Ostroff suggested some kind of notice that could be nailed into the tree for people that may not know what the dot may man. Mr. Cunniff said he could do that.
Mr. Ostroff noted that he heard from people asking about the process. When the trees were removed were the stumps grinded and then replaced with a sapling? Mr. Cunniff advised that his department went out and removed as many stumps as they could. The replacement with a sapling was the intent but budgetary restraints prevented that.
Asked about people wanting to donate a sapling, Mr. Cunniff responded that people must contact his office. State law prohibited any planting without the Tree Warden’s permission.
Continuing, Mr. Ostroff inquired if any of the 48 trees were on unaccepted ways. Mr. Cunniff’s reply was, “no”. According to Town Counsel unless the tree fell and blocked the public way the Town couldn’t touch it. Mr. Connolly wanted to take a hard look at that policy and thought there should be a discussion with Town Counsel. If the tree was going to fall eventually maybe it would be better to take it down.
Mr. Connolly then asked if there was a contract bond and insurance and Mr. Chenard’s response was, “yes”. As to the timing, Mr. Chenard advised that this contract terminates May 31 of this year so the work must be completed by then.
DPW: AWARD CONTRACT TREE REMOVAL (contd)
In response to Mr. Ciccariello’s inquiry as to the work under the contract, Mr. Cunniff advised that the tree would be cut as low as possible and the contractor would take away everything unless the abutting property requests the wood to be left. Asked what happened if the root systems were protruding through the sidewalk, Mr. Cunniff said he would contact the DPW Highway Supervisor when the stump was done and he (Highway Supervisor) would send the crew out to repair the sidewalk. 7
Mr. Ciccariello questioned if there were any local contractors from Natick that bid. Mr. Chenard’s reply was, “no”. Most of the contractors were within 15 miles and all but one were within 25 miles.
A motion was made by Mr. Connolly to award the contract for tree removal in Fiscal 2009 to the low bidder, Phil Mastroianni Corp in the amount of $17,986. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
DPW: AWARD BOILER CONTRACT
A copy of Town Counsel’s opinion was distributed.
Ms. White reminded the Board that at the last meeting a couple of questions were raised with respect to the contract. One was the warranty issue. The specification for one of the buildings specified a 10 year warranty and the other did not and the question was can a 10 year warranty be applied to the site not specified. The second issue was with respect to the use of proprietary specs in the bid document. The net result was that she would ask the Board to consider a vote to reject the bids and perhaps rethink the project. Given the favorable bid climate thought may want to be given to a scope of work that may be more comprehensive.
Mr. Ciccariello added that they talked about looking at what was approved at the Fall Town Meeting to determine whether it would be more prudent and feasible instead of repairing the existing boiler to consider taking an alternate bid to replace them entirely. If funding was sufficient that may be a better direction to go. Putting in new boilers the Town may be in a position where it could specify a long-term warranty. The problem with the 10 ten was that it was up to the contractor. It was pretty difficult to get a manufacturer to warranty it for 10 years when it was going into an existing boiler. The idea was to look at the budget appropriation and talk to the engineer to see if the Town should consider replacing the boiler entirely. He would like to bring it back to the Board at another time.
Mr. Ostroff inquired as to how long, and Ms. White responded that it may be awhile. The specifications may have to be adjusted – probably a couple of months. Mr. Ostroff asked if it was reasonable to expect the work to be done before the heating season. Ms. White thought it would be well within that timetable.
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to reject the bids received March 12, 2009.
Following a five minute recess, the meeting was again called to order at 8:30 p.m.
FISCAL 2010 BUDGET
Ms. White reported that the administration received information in an e-mail last week when the House Ways and Means budget was issued. The House Ways and Means has further projected cuts in local aid.
An assessment of the impact of the announcement regarding local aid was done and the cuts come in three categories:
- Reduction in Lottery Aid and Additional Assistance (revenue loss: $178,314
- Elimination of revenue projected by the Governor to be realized through increases state-wide tax on meals and lodging (revenue loss $538,869). The understanding was the House was still considering those increases, but it was revenue that cannot be counted on.
- Elimination of funding for Police Career Incentive (Quinn Bill – revenue loss: $172,506).
Ms. White noted that for the Quinn Bill category this was a reduction in the state’s portion of the Quinn Bill payment to the officers; the Town does not need to make up this amount. Accordingly, revised budget information will reflect a reduction in this revenue source accompanied by an equal reduction in the Police budget.
FISCAL 2010 BUDGET (contd)
The effective resulting deficit was $717,183 and according to the agreed-upon split methodology with the schools, 61.6% of the deficit would be attributed to the schools and 38.4% to the general government, resulting in the following required budget reductions:
School $441,785
General Government $275,398
Ms. White continued that the budget information released by the House Ways and Means Committee clearly encouraged communities that were receiving federal stimulus money to use those funds to offset local aid cuts. Staff and she met this afternoon with the Superintendent of Schools and the School Committee Chair to discuss the local aid cuts and the stimulus monies. Although they couldn’t speak for the entire committee, consensus was reached among those present that the stimulus funds may be used to close the general government deficit of $275,398. It was critical to note that this proposal was not even presented to, let alone voted by, the full School Committee. It was also important to note that what initially sounded like a substantial amount of federal stimulus money (over $1.7 million), it was being
chipped away pretty quickly – i.e. $115,770 initially allocated to the schools for trash bag revenue and the total local aid impact of $717,183.
She (Ms. White) felt it was also important that consensus be developed that the school department base budget moving forward towards Fiscal 2011 not reflect this local aid cut; that was, while further reductions may be necessary in FY 2011, the school’s starting point should not reflect this shared deficit.
The School Committee Chair indicated this would be discussed by the School Committee at their meeting of April 27. The Finance Committee was scheduled to meet on April 29. A proposal was reviewed with the Town Moderator whereby a notice would be sent to Town Meeting members that they should expect to receive a handout with revised budget information at the Town Meeting session on April 30. The notice would advise them that, if they were unable to attend the April 30 session, copies of the handout would be available on line and at locations in Town such as the Morse Library. At the Moderator’s urging, it will go a step further and a copy will be sent to those that did not attend the April 30 session.
Ms. White noted that she continues to push the unions to vote favorably with respect to COLA deferrals or similar measures. With the help of the unions and the federal stimulus funds the Town will be able to absorb these state aid reductions without further impact. Representative Linsky has advised her that the House will take up the budget during the week of April 27 and may well consider the meals and hotel tax issues as part of their deliberations. While we certainly do not want to count on those revenues at this point, there may yet be hope for them to materialize. The House will release its budget by the end of that week.
The budget remains a moving target but Ms. White assured the Board that the administration was doing the best it could working with the information available.
Should the legislature provide additional revenue, Mr. Ostroff asked if it would just accrue to free cash or would it just be banked in anticipation of 9C cuts.
Ms. White noted that would have to be discussed. The increase in the meals tax was about $538,000 and she thought it was important to bank it for future years for inevitable challenges. Given the good partnership and collaboration with the School Department she would want to discuss that with them as well. They (Schools) have the good fortune of this year and next year receiving the stimulus money although this year’s was being chipped away.
Mr. Connolly commented that he didn’t like it when the state nickels and dimes everyone. They just cut state aid and say there was nothing you can do about it. Was there something the Town could do?
Ms. White noted that everyone was frustrated and one of the greatest frustrations was that there was a municipal relief bill that has been floating around for weeks and none of the ideas have been acted on. There were a number of ideas that would provide the Town with flexibility.
Mr. Ostroff suggested that anyone on the Board or any citizen should contact the Town’s legislators. It was not just a question of the revenue or state
FISCAL 2010 BUDGET (contd)
aid but, i.e. taking health care issues out of collective bargaining or the reimbursement of charter schools. There were a number of things that could be done that don’t have to hit the taxpayers that could still provide benefit to the Town.
b.Early Retirement Update
Ms. White provided the Board with an update of the early retirement program. She reminded the Board that one of the principal objectives of the Early Retirement incentive program was to maximize flexibility given to departments in balancing their reductions as a result of limited resources in FY2010.
Nine retirees in two departments were awarded early retirement – five in the Fire Department and four in the DPW. In the case of the Fire Department the retirement of 5 personnel allowed the Chief to meet his budget reduction target while keeping 4 of the most cost-effective personnel with lower salaries rather than laying off more newly hired paramedic personnel. The fifth retiree’s position was moved from salaries to overtime, allowing for greater flexibility in the ongoing management of the department in FY2010.
In the case of the DPW the same principal was employed. The final reduction-in-force in the DPW was 6 positions although a ½ time administrative person was being added. The RIF was achieved partially through a combination of early retirement, layoffs, and attrition as follows:
- An LFNR employee was scheduled to be laid off. That division already has one vacancy that was not planned to be filled.
- A full-time Administrative position took the early retirement. This position will remain vacant; however as previously discussed with the Board the intent was to hire a part-time non-benefits-eligible clerical worker at a lower pay grade.
- Two employees from the Water/Sewer Division took early retirement. Those vacancies will be filled by transferring Highway personnel who otherwise would have been laid off. A vacancy already exists in the Water/Sewer Division and the intent was to leave one vacancy in that division.
- There was an early retirement in the Highway Division and two employees were scheduled to be laid off. Those were the employees who will be transferred to Water/Sewer. The resulting impact was that the Highway Division would be down three employees.
- There was a temporary Mechanic/Welder Vehicle Maintenance employee who was hired in August 2008 to fill in for an employee out on long-term disability who was recently approved for disability retirement. Ms. White noted that she was seeking the Board’s authorization to make this employee permanent.
In conclusion Ms. White stated that the shifting of personnel allows the principal objective of the Early Retirement Initiative to be achieved allowing departments to have maximum flexibility in closing their respective budgets for FY2010. Hopefully the ongoing dialog with the unions will enable some positions to be retained that were scheduled to be eliminated, notably in the Highway and the LFNR divisions. The unions have been asked to conclude their deliberations by April 28.
Noting that she saw one individual who would be laid off and some other positions to be left open, Ms. Gloff asked if the unions decided to forego their COLA’s if the person in LFNR would be retained and would other people be hired to fill some of the other openings. Mr. White’s reply was, “no”, adding that the savings would be used to prevent layoffs.
Ms. White referred to an analysis of the gross costs related to the short-term, medium-term and long-term early retirement costs and noted in the short-term the analysis did not show any cost savings. The analysis was done in response to questions from members.
In a memo to the Board, Deputy Town Administrator Michael Walters Young pointed out that the analysis was an analysis of the gross cost and did not take into account any of the offsets resulting from the non-replacement of individuals who were retiring. It was also important to reiterate that 7 of the 9 members who were granted early retirement were at 80% currently meaning they could have left at anytime, and the lion share of the $128,500 under the “Contractual Buy-outs” would have had to be paid in FY2009 regardless to the offering of this program. Consequently pensions would have been paid out as well starting in FY2011 for those members.
FISCAL 2010 BUDGET (contd)
One question raised was if the Fire Department salary savings took into account offsets for both promotions and overtime used to fill the firefighters as they leave effective May 1st. Mr. Walter Young’s reply was yes and no, noting that he added approximately $2,700 as an offset for the anticipated costs of two months worth of promotions of up to 4 individuals to higher ranks within the Fire Department. The promotion of those individuals was contingent upon joint approval of the Town Administrator and the Board of Selectmen with the Fire Chief.
As far as overtime was concerned, it was Mr. Walters Young’s belief that the answer must be “no”. Although the vacancies created by the reduction in force of 5 individuals from the Fire Department naturally created the need to expend overtime, the budget as it was built for FY09 did not include additional overtime for this purpose. The Fire Chief will be forced to manage accordingly thus the need to reduce minimum and close stations should start as soon as May 1, 2009.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the Board had tried to stress to the Fire Chief that before taking any action he should talk to the Town Administrator and Board of Selectmen even though he can still do the promotion even if the Board and Town Administrator disagree. Mr. Ciccariello recalled there being a discussion that because of the five retirements the Chief was going to run short on funds and he claimed to understand there would be no additional funds for the Fiscal 2009 budget and it wouldn’t come from a reserve fund transfer.
Ms. White responded that she wouldn’t state unequivocally that the Chief did not intend to speak with the Finance Committee to meet an overtime shortfall.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if there was a timetable by which this issue would be resolved. Ms. White advised she would move fast on getting a resolution on the Chief’s intent to promote and what he has characterized as a shortfall in the overtime budget and his plans to resolve. She would keep the Board apprised.
WATER & SEWER FISCAL 2010 RATES: PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION
In a memo to the Board, Deputy Town Administrator Michael Walters Young outlined a timeframe for setting the Fiscal 2010 water & sewer rates. The proposed timetable was to present a preliminary overview tonight (April 21), hold the hearing on May 4, skip May 18 because Ms. Van Amsterdam will be absent, and a decision made on June 1.
Mr. White stressed that the key tonight was that the administration walk away with items of concern so they can be addressed during the hearing.
Mr. Walters Young handed out an update of the adds and deletes in the Water & Sewer enterprise fund that would affect Fiscal 2010 rates. He noted that the rates for FY 2010 were being driven by two primary factors: 1) MWRA Assessment with an increase of 10% from Fiscal 2009 or roughly $405,000; 2) Debt Service with an increase of 6.6% from Fiscal 2009 or roughly $150,000.
Mr. Walters Young thought it was important to note that a significant cost decrease may be available to the Town regarding its MWRA Assessment. A report received from the MWRA last Thursday indicated that the base forecast MWRA assessment would be only $4,267,993 or 5.3% higher than FY 2010. The administration believed taking the middle ground or an increase of 7.5% over Fiscal 2010 was appropriate. This would mean that the total rate increase necessary to fund operations prior to the Board’s consideration of averaging and other options would be about 1.15% for Fiscal 2010.
Mr. Walters Young advised that since the Board of Selectmen last looked at the water & sewer budget the following adds/deletes have occurred:
Increase in indirects to account for Engineering Aide $56,416
Increase due to formula error in Water 52,000
Decrease of 1.0 FTE position (currently vacant) (36,796)
Decrease of salaries due to Early Retirement positions* ( 5,711)
Decrease of salaries due to union COLA’s (14,400)
Decrease of Water Operations utilities (this is conservative) (30,000)
Decrease of MWRA Assessment (101,322)
$ 79,813)
All things being equal and the operating and capital budget proposals approved as they have been submitted, Mr. Walters Young advised the rates would go up approximately 1.15% in FY 2010. For the normal average user of
WATER & SEWER FISCAL 2010 RATES: PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION (contd)
water/sewer services (26.57 HCF/quarter), the annual bill would increase from $958.20 to $969.22. This was a prospective increase of $2.75/quarter or $11.02 annually.
Mr. Walters Young stressed that this was a preliminary look prior to any commissioner action which would change or modify current billing practices or procedures and there may be more adjustments.
If the MWRA assessment only went up 5.3%, Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the administration’s position about collecting more money than the assessment. Would the recommendation be to give it back to the ratepayer or use it for future projects?
Ms. White noted there were two choices. From conversations with the DPW and MWRA the final assessment wasn’t expected until June long after a decision had to be made. There could be mid-year adjustments although that could be problematic. The alternative would be that the operation would not be spending as much as projected and retained earnings would be more favorable than projected. That would help fund capital items and create a more favorable earning position. She would not necessarily recommend the Board use retained earnings to positively affect rates.
Looking at this budget and considering the water & sewer policy provided, Mr. Ostroff inquired as to what it meant for the budget to have operating and capital reserves such as being recommended. If the intent was to approve these policies it looks like the budget did not meet the policy.
Mr. Walters Young noted that the budget met 1. The goal was to maintain a minimum reserve of $1 million in retained earnings. There was a balance of $440,000 based on the current certified amount and what would be left in ’09. He believed that was important because there was no way of knowing what would happen. This Town was very good in doing preventive capital and it was saving money. As much as a reserve was needed, he recognized that in this day and age it was difficult to be asking for more resources. He thought this was a practical approach.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to where the $34,725 from the early retirement came from and was told by Mr. Walters Young that it was from the 2009 operating budget. Asked if there were sufficient funds, Mr. Walters Young responded that based upon multiple calculations he believed the answer was “yes”. In response to Mr. Ciccariello’s follow-up, Mr. Walters Young said at this time he didn’t believe it would be necessary to dip into the reserve fund to pay for it (early retirement).
Mr. Connolly asked about the MWRA fluctuations and Mr. Walters Young advised that the MWRA would give the Town three numbers. They gave a preliminary planning number in February and would then come out with a revised analysis looking at flows. Natick has done very well with the I&I work and reducing the flow and the MWRA has pegged us at 5.3% but the MWRA didn’t vote for a final budget until June.
Mr. Ciccariello questioned how doing away with the MWRA rate relief would impact the citizens of Natick. Mr. Walters Young noted that it was not in the Governor’s budget and the House Ways and Means had carried forward that reduction of $20 million. He (Mr. Walters Young) believed the assessment included that reduction. For Fiscal 2010 he believed it would not have an impact on Natick, but it would be interesting to see in Fiscal 2011.
b.Water & Sewer Budget Fiscal 2010
Ms. White recalled that the last time the Board voted on the Fiscal 2010 budget it was a 2-2-0 tie. As the Board was the Water Commissioners she would like to see the Board have a recommendation. If there were any other scenarios the Board would like the administration to look at she asked that the Board let her know as soon as possible. She added that she would be more than happy to review the proposed policies because they fit into all the other activities.
Mr. Ciccariello commented that if the Board voted this budget, the water & sewer rates would automatically go up 1.15%. Mr. Walters Young confirmed that was correct, but pointed out that it would also depend on how the board directs use and applicability of things. If the Board voted not to increase the rates, expenses would still have to be met and that would have to be made up somehow. Most likely it would go into Fall Town Meeting or come to the Board prior to the tax capitulation.
WATER & SEWER FISCAL 2010 RATES: PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION (contd)
Mr. Ciccariello noted that that was his point. There was no option but to raise rates unless the decision was made not to proceed with some of the capital or use more retained earnings. Mr. Ciccariello asked if there were retained earnings to make up the 1.15%. Mr. Walters Young advised there were but said he would encourage the Board not to do that. The goal was to have $1 million in retained earnings.
Ms. Gloff pointed out there were a few potential options to get the $140,417 (which represented the 1.15% increase in rates) from another source. One possibility was if the MWRA assessment did not increase by 7.5% but by 5.3%
Mr. Connolly noted that last year he felt Town Meeting made the decision and as the Water & Sewer Commissioners he appreciated this opportunity.
Mr. Ostroff wanted to know the Board’s options if they voted not to increase rates. It sounds like capital would not have any short-term effect. It was a relatively small amount of capital out of cash and bonding wouldn’t hit in Fiscal 2010. The Board would likely overspend on the use of retained earnings and if nothing changed between now and June it would have to go to Fall Town Meeting.
Mr. Walters Young explained that the proper way to close the difference would be to appropriate more retained earnings to bring everything in balance. Everything would have to be in balance by the time Fall Town Meeting was finished so a tax rate could be set.
Ms. White felt compelled to provide some cautionary notes. She recognized water rates were increased substantially and then more modestly and now again there would be a very modest increase, but that was driven very much by debt service on capital items that have already been approved and the MWRA assessment. There were things beyond our control. She cautioned against planning on the use of retained earnings to mitigate the rate increase. That was a practice that can be pointed to as to why the Board was faced with such a large increase recently.
Ms. White further noted that if the MWRA issue was not resolved by the Legislature the Town would be facing a more significant assessment in future years and she would not want to spend down retained earnings when there could be some significant challenges ahead that will be beyond our control.
While he didn’t take issue with anything Ms. White said, Mr. Ostroff wanted the Board to feel comfortable in voting a budget and still having the flexibility to adjust rates and be fully aware of the implication. He didn’t support spending down retained earnings but wanted to look at the budget knowing it didn’t tie the Board’s hands the way it did a year ago.
Ms. Gloff commented that quite a bit of retained earnings had been spent. Many would argue that too much had been accumulated and the earnings were utilized, but that led to having to increase rates substantially. There was some flexibility, but she reminded everyone there were still other options the Board had asked the administration to look at such as averaging for the apartments. If the apartments were averaged the rate would go up because there would be less money collected.
Referring back to a previous comment by Ms. Gloff on the possibility of the MWRA assessment being 5.3% rather than 7.5% which would help make up the $140,417 accounting for the 1.15% rate increase, Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the difference between 5.3% and 7.5%. Mr. Walters Young advised it would be roughly $88,000. It would not offset the 1.15% but it would get it under 1/2%.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that a lot of time had been spent meeting with the DPW about all of these numbers and moving people from 1 position to another and he felt if he voted for this he would be forced to raise the rates. That may not be the case but that was the feeling he got. He heard two other members were saying the Board had some control. The Board could get this down to no rate increase and review it when all the information was provided for the rate hearing. If rates had to be raised that could be done in the Fall once the MWRA assessment was figured out. That would mean not having a rate increase for a period of more than six months.
Mr. Ostroff asked if Mr. Ciccariello would be looking toward a budget with a different retained earnings number and project to a lower level of retained earnings at the end of Fiscal 2010.
WATER & SEWER FISCAL 2010 RATES: PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION (contd)
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the Town wouldn’t hear from the MWRA until after June and if the MWRA cost more, it could be dealt with in the fall.
Ms. White pointed out that would mean having less than a full year to generate the revenue necessary and would mean a higher increase than otherwise required. She reiterated that she believed Fiscal 2011 and going forward would be difficult in terms of the MWRA over which the Town had no control. She didn’t think this was the year the Board would want to spend down retained earnings over a very modest increase. The Town was basically holding things level but the MWRA and debt service were increasing.
Based on what he saw to date for Fiscal 2011 and 2012, Mr. Ciccariello guessed that moving into the future there would probably be staff cuts in this budget which meant the service would get impacted because you couldn’t keep raising the rates to make sure there was 100% staffing.
Ms. Gloff wasn’t hearing any new suggestions for how to deal with the potential 1.15% and suggested the Board move on.
Regarding the rate structure, Mr. Ostroff thought two things would be beneficial. Rates may be applied to usage prior to the dates the rates were established. In the past the Board voted an increase that has affected some usage before the date the rates were set. That’s been the practice and he thought if the Board was setting policy it would be worthwhile to have that as part of the policy.
The other thing he had in mind was providing all possible opportunities for discount exemptions and other savings to need and eligible ratepayers. Was the Board limited by law and if not could the Board do something more generous and if so did the Board want to consider some set aside to account for it. He (Mr. Ostroff) also questioned if there was any risk based on the recent practice of abatements becoming an unanticipated expense. Was that something the Board may regret not having a set aside for?
Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that similar to the financial policies, there was no money to put into these funds unless areas of the budget were cut and a certain percentage was put in every year. That would mean something else wouldn’t get done.
Ms. White added that it would help create stability in the rates.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to approve the hiring of the temporary mechanic/welder in the DPW Equipment Maintenance Division as a permanent employee. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
Ms. Gloff suggested the Board not vote on the Water & Sewer budget until the meeting of May 4.
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Paul Joseph told the Board that he was interested in being appointed to the Economic Development Committee to build on the progress of the Revenue Enhancement Task Force. One outcome of the work of that group was to take steps on actionable recommendations and economic development was taking a more strategic look at attracting new growth and taking advantages of the resources we have. He believed strongly that this economy required an individual and separate look at looking at potential resources building on the strong base of three national corporate headquarters.
Referring to Mr. Joseph’s letter of interest, Mr. Ostroff asked about the reference to developing a sister city relationship. Mr. Joseph responded that one of the first thoughts he had was that it would be valuable for the Town to develop a sister city relationship to generate long-term economic development. Typically they start as cultural exchanges but it could develop into economic. It was his understanding there were some vacant places and he believed Natick was well situated to attract manufacturers.
Mr. Joseph added that he had been self-employed for about 1-1/2 years and was looking forward to starting a company in the next year which he expected to in Natick. Long term he was very optimistic about this area and the importance of this committee. Whether appointed to the committee or not he appreciated the opportunity to help.
Mr. Ciccariello explained there were six applicants. The Board interviewed three tonight and would interview three more at the next meeting.
LICENSE RENEWAL
Ms. Gloff moved to renew the following taxi licenses:
Jamms Auto Corp. d/b/a Natick Cab
18 North Main Street
8 cabs
Contingent upon payment of personal property tax in the amount less than $10 and the successful inspection of the cabs by Lt. Lauzon.
JFK Transportation
20 Spring Street
10 cabs
Contingent upon the successful inspection of the cabs by Lt. Lauzon.
Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to renew the following billiards licenses:
Amvets
Primeway Parkway
2 tables
American Legion
13 West Central Street
2 tables
On a motion by Mr. Connolly, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to renew the following junk dealer’s licenses:
Long Jewelers
323 Speen Street
Federated Retail Holdings, Inc.
Macy’s East
1245 Worcester St.
H. Brandt Jewelers, Inc.
31 Main Street
5 South Avenue
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to renew the following bowling license:
Fairway Sports World
721 Worcester Street
TOWN MEETING WARRANT ARTICLES: ARTICLE 23 – Conveyance of 56 Everett Street to Affordable Housing Trust Fund
Ms. Gloff noted that the Board had recommended referral of Article 23 to the Board of Selectmen as there were some open questions about the build ability of the lot. The Affordable Housing Trust Fund voted on April 7 to recommend favorable action on the article believing there was now adequate information on the lot.
Ms. Gloff moved reconsideration of the Board’s recommendation on Article 23. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
Ms. Gloff then moved to recommend favorable action with respect to Article 23. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
Mr. Connolly noted that he had asked for no action to be taken on Article 38 – Restriction of Level 3 Sex Offenders, but he had been approached by a couple of people about forming a committee.
Mr. Ostroff reminded Mr. Connolly that if a committee were formed it would have to be posted, minutes taken, but if it was just him (Mr. Connolly) working with a couple of people he could report back to the Board.
SELECTMEN’S OFFICE HOURS
As Town Meeting would be meeting on the date of the May office hours, Mr. Ostroff moved to move Selectmen’s Office Hours for May to May 6, 2009. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.
LEONARD MORSE GRANS PANEL VACANCIES
The Board received notification that the terms of Jay Ball and Jane Williams were expiring as of June 30, 2009. Staff was asked to post the vacancy for interviews to be held on May 18.
MINUTES
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the September 22, 2008 meeting.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the April 1, 2009 meeting.
NATICK LITTLE LEAGUE: PARADE PERMIT
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, to approve the Natick Little League’s request to hold the annual opening day parade on April 25, 2009 forming in South Natick and following Route 16 to the Hunnewell fields. Unanimously voted.
EXPENSE CONTROL TASK FORCE: RESIGNATION OF SCHOOL COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVE
The Board was informed that Dirk Coburn resigned as the School Committee representative to the Expense Control Task Force.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
- Sign By-Law Rules and Regulations
Noting he had received several inquiries/complaints, Mr. Connolly asked about the sign By-Law rules and regulations and Mr. Ciccariello suggested that if someone had an issue they should be referred to the Building Inspector.
Ms. Gloff raised the possibility of having someone come to a meeting to explain the sign by-law. Mr. Connolly thought that would be helpful because there were some inconsistencies.
In response to Mr. Connolly’s request for an update on the Pleasant Street bridge, Ms. White reported that Representative Alice Peisch was working on setting up a meeting with Mass Highway officials. It was her understandings the postings have been put up or would be shortly. Confirmation has been received that the ambulance would exceed the 6 ton limit and the fire trucks and schools buses would be affected. The detours would be 5-7 miles extra. The Fire Department averages one trip per day over that bridge.
As this was a huge concern, Mr. Connolly asked that Ms. White keep the Board in the loop.
Ms. White noted that she was trying to get a meeting and specifically get Mass Highway to agree to a second opinion. It is the Town’s belief that the assessment was incorrect and the structural status of the bridge was not as bad as they have characterized.
- McDonald’s Lighting Issue – Turnpike
Mr. Ostroff had prepared a draft letter to be sent over the Chair’s signature asking the Governor to work with McDonald’s to remove the light pollution at the Natick service plaza. Folks from McDonald’s came before the Board and agreed to work with him (Mr. Ostroff) and Representative Linsky to address this longstanding problem. There was a meeting with a couple of different neighbors, a site visit, and came back to Town Hall for a meeting. It went up the chain of command at McDonald’s which shows they were sympathetic but they weren’t going to do anything about it because they have a lease.
A motion was made by Mr. Connolly, seconded by Ms. Gloff, to send the letter as drafted. Unanimously voted.
- Building Inspector Resignation
Mr. Ostroff acknowledged the resignation of David Gusimini as the Local Building Inspector and noted that his work in Natick had been performed in a fair and even handed manner.
- Household Hazardous Waste Day
Mr. Ostroff announced that May 22 was the 23rd annual Household Hazardous Waste collection day. There was a $5 fee and people had to register at the Board of Health.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS (contd)
Mr. Ostroff reminded the Board of the Natick Education Foundation Spelling Bee on May 12.
- Abandoned Newspaper Boxes
Ms. Gloff noted there were some abandoned newspaper boxes on South Avenue. There was a by-law about getting rid of abandoned boxes but she wasn’t sure who was responsible.
Mr. Gloff advised that a citizen had complained that a pole had been installed on top of the sewer pump station at the end of their driveway and antenna put on top. The citizen was trying to understand why the antenna had been installed.
Mr. Ciccariello called attention to a request from Tim Kelley of JFK Transportation to again look at the taxi cab fuel surcharge.
- Coptic Church – Oak/Sunshine
Mr. Ciccariello noted there was a church on the corner of Oak Street and Sunshine Avenue that went through the Planning Board process to build a parking lot. It was discovered that their lot encroached on Town property and Mr. Ciccariello wanted to follow up on that. The church was now parking on sidewalks and he wanted to get a copy of the Planning Board decision and pursue the issue of where the real property lines were located.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
___________________________________
Kristine Van Amsterdam, Clerk
| 
