BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
June 22, 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, Kristine Van Amsterdam, John Connolly. Carol A. Gloff arrived at 6:35 p.m.
ALSO PRESENT: Martha L. White, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on June 22, 2009 in the amount of $777,096.36. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $149,241.70.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, moved to enter into executive session to discuss matters pertaining to collective bargaining and compensation of non-union personnel. By roll call vote the motion passed on a 4-0-0 vote. Ms. Gloff had not as yet arrived and did not 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 7:15 p.m.
RECOGNITION: POLICE OFFICER OF THE YEAR: TOAN NGUYEN
Police Chief Dennis Mannix expressed his pleasure to come before the Board to formally name the Natick Officer of the Year for 2009. This year the award was presented to Officer Toan Nguyen.
The citation read as follows: “Officer Nguyen was appointed a police officer by the Board of Selectmen and was graduated from the Municipal Police Academy at Boylston in January 2007. Since then, Officer Nguyen has been assigned to the Operations Division in Patrol Services both on the midnight to eight and the four to twelve shifts. Throughout his brief tenure on this department Officer Nguyen has consistently demonstrated an extraordinary impressive work ethic, evidenced by his having been named the department’s employee of the month on two occasions. Officer Nguyen performs even the most difficult tasks in a calm and confident manner, beyond traditional expectations for officers with relatively minimal experience in patrol operations. Officer Nguyen consistently delivers a work product
that is high quality, seldom requiring follow-up corrections. His investigations are thorough and his reports are a clear and concise description of the incident being investigated, allowing follow-up investigators to begin their investigation where his preliminary investigation left off without having to retrace steps to gain an understanding of the events that transpired. While on patrol, his success in discovering suspects wanted for previously committed crimes is enhanced by his particularly keen observational skills while patrolling his assigned area. Additionally, Officer Nguyen has not used any sick leave during the
entire 2008 calendar year, further evidence of his strong work ethic and sense of responsibility for his profession.
During the background phase of Officer Nguyen’s application process, investigators were impressed with the positive comments that were pervasive in statements from employers and peers while an active member of the U.S. Marine Corps as well as those from civilian employers and friends. Officer Nguyen has carried over his exemplary military bearing, work ethic, impeccable appearance, and sense of duty to his responsibilities as a police officer in the Town of Natick. His service thus far with the Town of Natick reflects credit on himself and the Natick Police Department.
Officer Nguyen was presented with a plaque and given a standing ovation.
Officer Nguyen expressed his appreciation noting there were a lot of outstanding officers that were considered for this award and to be chosen was very humbling. He thanked his fellow officers, Sergeants and Lieutenants on whom he relied heavily. He also thanked his parents for their love and support over the years.
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE NATICK CULTURAL COUNCIL
Julie Vician told the Board that she has lived in Natick for 15 years, has two small children entering the school system, and has a degree in film. The arts have been important to her and she wanted them to continue to be important to the community.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if she had experience in awarding grants or evaluating proposals. Ms. Vician advised this would be her first experience but she had years of business experience and was intelligent.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, to appoint Julie Vician to the Natick Cultural Council for a two year term to expire June 30, 2011. Unanimously voted.
TOWN MODERATOR; SPECIAL MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEE STATUS
Town Moderator Frank Foss requested to have the Moderator position be designated as a special municipal employee. He was employed by Comcast who was the holder of a cable license and he had interaction with Town administration and officials.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to why Mr. Foss was applying at this juncture and he (Mr. Foss) explained that he has sought this designation over the last 6-8 years as a Finance Committee member to allow him to act as an agent before another body.
In follow-up Mr. Connolly asked if this had to be done every year and Mr. Foss advised that the Board has granted one year terms.
Mr. Ostroff was of the opinion that the Moderator had kept a clear line between acting as Moderator and acting on behalf of his employer and he appreciated him coming forward seeking this status.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to grant special municipal employee status to the position of Moderator. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
DANIEL KAPLAN: REQUEST ABATEMENT OF WATER & SEWER BILL
Daniel Kaplan of 1 Katie Path told the board that his average water & sewer bill was $211.52 and he just received a bill in the amount of $4,292.77. He lived in a house with four people and was trying to understand why he got this bill. He felt there was an error. The Water Department said he used 197,000 gallons, but he didn’t think that was possible without evidence of a massive leak. In the beginning of April the Water Department contacted his neighbor saying they noticed a high reading and a few days later they left a note with some test pills.
As a general contractor, Mr. Kaplan said he knew when things were leaking. He had his plumber come out and investigate with food color and there were no visible signs of a leak. The water was then turned off for thirty minutes and no sign of the meter moving.
Mr. Kaplan continued that he would be happy to write a check for the average bill and would like to see his meter replaced.
The Board was in receipt of some correspondence from Water & Sewer Supervisor Jack Perodeau indicating that he had no explanation for Katie Path. A note was left two months before Mr. Kaplan got the bill saying the use was high, but nobody contacted the DPW until they got the bill.
Mr. Kaplan responded that the note was left at his neighbor’s and then a note with some tablets. The spike was mostly from one month and the amount of money said to be used literally couldn’t happen. It would be 10-20 swimming pools. This was his inside meter – not the irrigation.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the Board had had some interesting water bills come before them and they were always told there was nothing wrong with the meter. The Board had no idea if the manufacturer was having problems with the meters.
Ms. White advised that she was hoping to get that information from the water meter manufacturer, but she had always been told even in other communities that the meter didn’t turn unless water was flowing through it. It was impossible for the meter to over read.
Mr. Kaplan noted that his plumber told him that an inside fixture couldn’t have used that much water in the timeframe. It would be like a garden hose running full force for 20 days. Again Mr. Kaplan stated that he wanted his meter replaced with his 7 year average bill being $211, he was willing to work something out that was fair and reasonable.
Looking at the past seven years, Mr. Ostroff said he would support an abatement so that instead of the 263 hcf charge 25 hcf which was the average of the seven previous years for the same period of time.
Mr. Connolly asked about granting Mr. Kaplan’s request to replace the meter, but Ms. White said she would first like to talk to the DPW. She didn’t know the cost.
Asked if he has been monitoring his use since this, Mr. Kaplan advised that this was the most recent bill. His plumber and the Water Department have both said the meter was fine.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to abate Mr. Kaplan’s May 1 2009 water & sewer bill by 238 units so that Mr. Kaplan would be charged 25 units. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
Commenting on the motion, Ms. Gloff couldn’t image how that much water could have been used. Although bills only came out every three months, the Water Department does a read once a month. In addition to this she felt there had to a further look with the manufacturer to try to understand what could possibly be going wrong.
MIDDLESEX PARKING GARAGE UPDATE
Deputy Town Administrator Michael Walters Young provided the Board with an overview of what had been done in this project. He noted that also present was Wes Wilson of Desman Associates with some schematics and options, Community Development Director Patrick Reffett, and representatives of the Natick Center Associates.
As background, Mr. Walters Young noted that at the October 17, 2008 meeting the Board of Selectmen directed the Town Administrator to proceed with negotiating a contract with Desman Associations for floor plans, elevations, preliminary schematic designs and cost estimates of two variations of a three tiered parking structure to rest on the site of the former Middlesex Garage facility.
Staff has met with Desman in person and over the phone multiple times to measure progress and set a final time when deliverables could be ready. Those items, including schematic design, and cost estimates, were made available to Town staff in early January and revised in March. Cost estimates were made available on January 22, 2009.
In addition, Natick Center Associates have been greatly interested in the subject matter and results of this project. As the Community Development Director was a member of the Board of Directors of this group, they have been apprised as to the finding and have participated in requesting a third Option C which was essentially a re-construction of the previous garage. Given the difficult economic times and recognizing the relative cost efficiency of Option C, the Natick Center Associates are recommending Option C as their preferred option.
Mr. Walters Young then reviewed the findings noting that as explained at a special meeting between the Board of Selectmen and the Planning Board on December 22, 2008, Desman worked on two concepts –
Option A A 72,000 square foot garage
229 approximate parking spaces
Access off Middlesex & Summer Street
Uniform elevation of upper deck along Middlesex Avenue
No ability to expand
Cost: $4,105,075-$5,765,963
Option B A 71,400 square foot garage
219 approximate parking spaces
Access off Middlesex & Summer Street
Sloped elevation of upper-deck along Middlesex Avenue
Expansion of one deck is possible
Cost: $3,776,482-$5,316,700
In consultation with Natick Center Associates, Option C was developed.
Option C A 30,240 square foot garage
186 approximate parking spaces
Access off Middlesex and Summer
One deck garage accessed by Middlesex with at-grade parking
Beneath
Further analysis would be needed to determine if this
Scenario was expandable
Cost: $1,750,000-$3,250,000
Mr. Walters Young pointed out there were two variables in the pricing structure. The first was a difference in façade materials. For example, one of the costs Desman was asked to investigate was a mix of concrete and pre-form brick façade and that costs more than a simple poured concrete mix. The other reason for the uncertainty in the pricing was with respect to the condition of the existing footings and the ability to re-use them or not. A structural analysis and assessment on the footing conditions was needed to narrow this range down closer.
Recommended Action(s):
The recommended action(s) was to review options and if a preference was found, recommend staff to pursue further analysis of that option, starting with a structural analysis to evaluate existing foundation members to better determine garage cost.
Wes Wilson, Senior Project manager with Desman an architectural engineering firm that specializes in design structure analysis of parking garages, noted that the scope of their work involved a three level parking structure that would tie the structure into the Middlesex, Summer Street area. They came up with Option A a 220 space structure off Middlesex and Option B a 207 space structure with a continuous ramp that would allow for future expansion.
Mr. Wilson advised that part of the study was to evaluate a number of rendering options from putting metal incorporating glass or a traditional brick. Through the course of the process Desman met with Natick Center Associates and through the discussion the issue they brought up had to do with the cost. Based on the economic situation, the discussion went back to the original structure. The original garage only had a 20 year service life and they talked about things that could be done to extend the service life to 50 years and came up with Option C which was similar to what was there now. Option C would appear to be a level surface until Union Court and then driving down to grade level. He had a conversation with Mr. Reffett and understood the
foundation may not be there. He (Mr. Wilson) looked at it today and it looked like there was fresh asphalt where the footings may have been.
Mr. Wilson continued that a cost analysis was run for a one level super structure. They came up with some pretty firm costs, but the big gap had to do with whether there was a foundation there or not. Now that he had a better understanding that the foundations were not there, he could tighten the range.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if a roof would be covering the structure in Options A,B, and C. Mr. Wilson’s reply was, “no”. Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that the upper deck always being exposed was one of the reasons the last deck failed, but Mr. Wilson noted that it also had to do with the drainage patterns and how they were designed and he wasn’t sure how well they were maintained. If the garage were to be built, there would be a number of drains on the interior of the garage which would be the first step of the durability matrix.
To Mr. Ostroff’s query as to how Option C would be expanded, Mr. Wilson noted that it would have to be designed similar to Option B where there was a single threaded helix, but it hadn’t been fully evaluated.
Mr. Connolly inquired if the footings were there or not. Mr. Wilson advised that he believed they had been removed but he didn’t have confirmation.
Community Development Director Patrick Reffett explained that at the time the parking garage was demolished there was some demolition more than pulling out the garage, but he didn’t know if the footings had been pulled out. The former Deputy Town Administrator was managing the property at the time and he (Mr. Reffett) would like to chat with him about his recollection and then speak to the procurement officer.
Mr. Connolly thought it would be documented and Mr. Wilson responded that 2006 demolition documents called for the footings to be removed and it appears there was some demolition work, but whether the footings were removed remained to be seen. If the Town paid to have it done, Mr. Connolly expected that it had been done, but Mr. Wilson noted that during construction there could have been a change order and paved over to save money.
Mr. Connolly felt the biggest question was where the money would come from to build the garage. Mr. Walters Young reminded the Board that staff’s charge was to evaluate the site and was given $10,000 left from the balance of the article that demo’d the site to get the number. Where the money came from was still to be determined.
Benjamin Greenberg, a member of the Natick Center Associates and Economic Development Committee, advised there was an official vote of the NCA to study and see what was realistic. The NCA has volunteered to be a partner but wanted to see what was doable. He (Mr. Greenberg) would love to see this as the start of a parking solution forgetting what the MBTA wants to do. He would also love to see the Pond Street lot with a second level and the Town Hall lot with a second level to see a distribution throughout the Town.
If the Town wanted to grow its tax base, parking had to be spread out. There were 700 employees in the downtown and there was a parking shortage. There were 419 Town employees taking up these spaces and the Town paid nothing. All the money being taken in was from the businesses.
Mr. Greenberg continued that if the Town could come up with some money the businesses would come up with some money. The idea of a $5-6M garage he didn’t feel was doable at least in the near future. An application has been put in for $6 million in stimulus funds and if that came through, the plans could be changed quickly, but if the funds didn’t come we would need to figure out how to finance the garage. Again Mr. Greenberg stressed the need to scatter the parking throughout the Town.
Mr. Ostroff stated that he was a member of the Natick Center Associates and had a statement on file in the Town Clerk’s office plus he bought a couple of permits at whatever fee the Board set. He requested that active consideration be given to a DIF for the downtown only to identify what tax revenue may be realized should the Town address in part the parking in the Town. If the DIF could turn over some money it could go toward financing the debt service.
Mr. Ostroff asked that the Board direct the administration to explore a DIF as soon as possible. If the Board wanted to put it on the warrant for Fall Town Meeting there would be two months. He thought some time had been lost, but the economy gave us a breather. There wasn’t the same demand as a couple of years ago, but if this (DIF) could be identified as a solution that could be on the table, The Board would know how close it could be to the $2.5 million price tag.
Mr. Greenberg noted that Steve Wolf had 12,000 square feet undeveloped because of no parking. He (Mr. Greenberg) had 2,000 sq. ft. undeveloped and Stan Winter’s building at the corner of Washington and South Avenue had capacity. The tax base could be increased, but more parking was needed.
Mr. Greenberg noted that on the parking assessment survey the last item said the business owners would offer $1.250 million towards the project. They were looking to overcome a little inertia and were ready to move.
With 186 spaces, Ms. Van Amsterdam questioned if Option C addressed the issue of capacity not yet utilized. Mr. Greenberg responded that it didn’t address it but it was doable. Everyone has been talking about parking for the last 18 years and they wanted to start.
Ms. Van Amsterdam noted that the DIF had been discussed in the past and she wanted to discuss how it was originally talked about and the true feasibility of some of the other options given the fiscal reality and other things being worked on.
Mr. Reffett explained that the DIF was an effort to use growth and expansion of revenue coming from the Mall, but those funds were not targeted to a DIF. There were now other options such as a Business Improvement District (BID) where a district would be created where you
want to do something specific, i.e. Buffalo has constant snow removal and has merchants pay into a fund. However, there had to be about 80% within the geographic district paying into this fund and that was in addition to ordinary taxes. The BID was specific to the items you choose to undertake. He thought it was a good approach but it was a lofty one.
Mr. Connolly asked about the possibility of getting money from the MBTA, but noted that the MBTA parking garages were an animal that needs to provide for commuter parking and if a host community wanted parking in addition to the commuter the community had to pay for it.
Referring back to the DIF, Mr. Ostroff recognized there may be some uncertainty whether it was practical to create a new district prior to building a garage and realizing tax revenue that could be applied for the debt service, but questioned if there were reasons it couldn’t be done.
Mr. Reffett responded that it was a good idea if the businesses within the district were willing to tax themselves. Mr. Ostroff pointed out that was the BID. The DIF didn’t require action of the businesses. The DIF allowed the tax revenue above and beyond what the Town was now getting to be applied for the debt service.
Mr. Reffett was asked for his opinion on the DIF and responded that he didn’t see the extra income from the growth being enough to pay for the garage. The two statements he heard relative to future growth was an increment of $14,000 which was not enough to accrue to underwrite the expenditure of a garage.
Mr. Ostroff asked if deeded parking to existing structures would not increase the rents enough, but Mr. Reffett thought that was dealing with a lot of hypotheticals and it would be helpful to have some hard numbers to project.
Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired as to Mr. Reffett’s opinion on where to go from here, and he responded that he thought it would be useful to have the ability to understand if the foundation was there and if so did the footings have the structural integrity to allow something to be built on the property.
Assuming Natick Center Associates was interested in Option C, Mr. Ciccariello asked if a cost analysis could be done of what the parking permit fees would be if Natick Center Associates provided funds to support this and the parking fees if Natick Center Associates did absolutely nothing.
Mr. Walters Young understood the request was for a matrix if “x” was provided by “y”. It would be relatively easy to do but not finite.
Mr. Ciccariello added that the analysis should include looking at whether to sell spaces instead of selling permits and who might have an interest in buying them.
Mr. Ostroff inquired as to what would be a reasonable time to do the cost analysis so that if the Board needed to take some action for the
Fall there would be time to discuss it. Mr. Walters Young advised that he would target having a report back to the Board for the meeting of July 27.
- Natick Center Associates, Inc.: Parking Assessment Survey Study
Craig Consulting, LLC had been hired by Natick Center Associates to do a parking assessment study. A copy of the study had been given to the Board.
Mr. Greenberg reviewed the results of the parking study with the following highlights:
- Overwhelming sense that parking was the single most significant problem in Natick Center
- Over 700 employees, including municipal employees impact the parking situation in Natick Center
- Interviewees pay approximately $187,712 in real estate taxes each year
- Rental cost per square foot is an average of $14.40 per square foot, generally agreed, this could be increased with adequate parking
- Landlords turn potential tenants away because of the lack of adequate parking
- Over 800 permits were available each year and this breaks down as follows; 419 municipal, 104 commuters (94 St. Patrick and 10 West Central) and 320 for downtown business employees.
- Downtown businesses pay over $50,000 per year for parking permits, but due to contractual constraints municipality pays nothing.
- Town favors the leasing of the Middlesex Ave property to a nonprofit organization
- Business owners interviewed stated they would collectively contribute $1,250,000 towards the project.
Mr. Greenberg added that there had been a discussion about leasing Middlesex to Natick Center Associates and let them do something on their own and Natick Center Associates was amenable to that. They would need the revenues to pay. For two years he went around to see if he could sell spaces and at $600 to guarantee a space he sold just under 500 spaces. There were all sorts of financing packages and what was needed was a little push from the Town.
SULLIVAN, ROGERS & COMPANY: FISCAL 2008 AUDIT
Representing Sullivan, Rogers & Company was partner Chris Rogers
Ms. White introduced the presentation by noting that the audit had been previously been discussed a number of times and tonight was the formal presentation.~ She told the Board that this audit was not flattering to the Town’s Fiscal 2008 internal controls and financial management but she was sure Mr. Rogers would explain about improvements already put into place and others being designed going forward.
Mr. Rogers recalled that about a year before the Board hired Sullivan, Rogers to be the Town’s independent audit firm.~ The Fiscal 2008 audit
was complete and unless the Board had another preference he would go through a summary of the financial statements and then the reports on internal controls, compliance and federal awards programs and then discuss the management letter.~
Mr. Ciccariello asked if the management letter impacted some of the things being presented in the other two reports. ~Mr. Rogers advised that it did not, adding that the most critical was the report on internal controls, financial compliance and federal awards.~ That would supersede the management letter.
Before going into the numbers, Mr. Rogers wanted to highlight a couple of issues and referred to the prior year’s balances from the previous year’s financial statements where a restatement had to be made.~
- There was an increase in capital assets previously reported of approximately $910,000
- There was a re-classification of outstanding debt between the golf course enterprise fund and the governmental activities of $590,000
- Apportioned special assessments, i.e. betters had to be accounted for.~ Those were the ones that weren’t due on a current bill but would be over the next 15-20 years
- An accounting for the landfill closure liability as required under GAAP.~ That was $680,000
- An adjustment to outstanding debt of about $300,000
Mr. Rogers pointed out there were a few other changes resulting from a couple of changes to GAAP (General Accepted Accounting Principles) one being pension disclosure.~ It increased the disclosure as it relates to the retirement system.
Mr. Rogers advised that the only pieces of these reports owned by Sullivan, Rogers were the opinions.~ The rest of the documents were the Town’s.~ Their (Sullivan, Rogers) opinion was unqualified on the Town’s financial statements.~ The Morse Institute statements were included in the financials but they were audited by other auditors and were prepared on the cash basis of accounting which was not in accordance with GAAP.~ There was a notation made.~ Other than that all other statements were unqualified which was the best opinion available.~
Getting into the numbers, in looking at the general fund Mr. Rogers noted the current year balance was approximately $10 million as compared to a prior year balance of $16 million.~ The $10 million was made up of three components.~ 1) the encumbrances and continuing appropriations total $2.750 million; 2) the designation for subsequent year’s expenditures.~ That was free cash that was voted to fund the FY09 budget - $3,050 million; 3) Undesignated fund balance of $4.2 million.~ That amount was substantially lower than the prior year.~ The main reason was because approximately $6 million was used between free cash and overlay to fund the FY08 budget that wasn’t designated in the prior year.
One of the percentages that they like to look at was the total in undesignated fund balance compared to total expenditures and transfers out of the general fund.~ This year that was approximately 4%.~ The
other thing they like to look at was the stabilization fund.~ The total in undesignated and stabilization was a little over $7 million or 7.2%. The recommendation was that there always be at least 5% with the optimal 10%. In comparison to other clients for FY08, Natick’s reserves were rather healthy.
Regarding the enterprise funds, Mr. Rogers reported that the enterprise funds were presented on the full accrual basis. In the water & sewer fund there was an unrestricted net asset of about $8.5 million. That was a net change of about $2.5 million. The golf course enterprise fund had a net asset of $464,000 with unrestricted funds of about
$150.
The pension account had just over $88 million. The change in assets was about $7.1 million with a net investment gain of $8 million. As of January 1, 2008, the Town was about 69.2% funded.
The debt service was $43.9 million with approximately $6.8 million to be paid by the MSBA. The water & sewer enterprise fund had an outstanding debt of $13.3 million. The total debt service compared to total expenditure for Fiscal 2008 was approximately 6.5% of the total general fund budget. Taking out the MSBA, it was about 5.2%.
Mr. Ostroff didn’t want people to come away with the impression that the Town misplaced $6 million. The policy boards of the Town went into Fiscal 2008 without seeking an operating override and spent down the reserves and that represents the decrease in cash. Less was available because some of the reserves were spent. It was not as if the money was squandered.
Mr. Rogers agreed, noting that anytime free cash or the stabilization fund was used as a revenue source, there would always be a decrease.
Mr. Ciccariello asked for an explanation of the fund deficit and Mr. Rogers responded that there was no evidence of the CIRRIP Natick Mall federal grant having been collected. Ms. White didn’t know what the grant was and Mr. Ciccariello asked that she find out and let the Board know.
Also listed as a fund deficit was the rental of the Eliot School. Ms. White advised that was a revolving fund so that was resolved. The final deficit was the Natick Mall mitigation receipts and she believed the Mall had caught up.
Mr. Rogers moved onto the internal control reports. The first was the internal control of the financial reports which was required any time an audit was performed. There was no opinion. They were just reporting on what was termed as significant deficiencies and material weaknesses. One important thing to be remembered was that the internal auditor could not serve as an internal control mechanism. That could be problematic.
The second internal control report was the report on compliance with requirements applicable to federal grant awards. This provides an opinion on compliance.
Mr. Rogers continued that two years ago a new auditing standing came out that specifically defined what had to be reported as a material weakness or significant deficiency. It took a lot of the auditor’s judgment out of the equation. The first year for that to be implemented was FY07.
As it relates to reporting internal controls, nine material weaknesses were identified and one material non-compliance. Mr. Rogers reviewed the material weaknesses:
- Financial Statement Preparation: The Town did not have an employee who had the qualifications and training to prepare financial statements in accordance with accounting standards generally accepted in the United State of America (GAAP). Proper internal controls require the town to have the resources to prepare financial statements in accordance with GAAP.
Mr. Rogers noted that a lot of municipalities didn’t have this employee. It has always been this way. Independent auditors have historically put together municipalities’ financial statements and it really hadn’t changed.
- Capital Assets: The following deficiencies were identified related to the Town’s procedures for capital asset accounting:
a)The Town did not reconcile capital asset additions to the general ledger. Capital expenditures recorded in the general ledger were not compared to the asset additions report provided by the contract third party.
b)The Town did not perform an annual physical inventory of its capital assets to reconcile with their perpetual inventory records. The performance of an annual physical inventory of capital assets may have detected errors and/or irregularities with the perpetual inventory. It may have also detected asset activity that was not reflected in the general ledger
c)The Town does not maintain its capital asset balances in fixed asset account groups. Instead, capital assets were recorded directly in the general fund, water and sewer enterprise fund and golf course enterprise fund. These balances have not been updated for several years.
Mr. Rogers explained that the effect was that capital assets additions identified by the Town were materially understated by approximately $2.5 million. An adjustment had to be made and that was automatically a material weakness.
By having this issue, Mr. Ciccariello asked if that could throw the various accounts like water & sewer and the golf course enterprise fund to be misstated or incorrect. Mr. Rogers questioned on which basis of accounting. The actual disbursement took place appropriately but in going to the GAAP financials if that capital article wasn’t picked up on the GAAP statement there was a material weakness. On a cash basis everything looked and was appropriate.
- Direct Entries to Fund Balance Accounts: Many journal entries were recorded directly to fund balance accounts. This process does not accurately reflect beginning fund balance and current year activity, which inhibits accurate financial reporting.
- Transfers between funds: Procedures were not in place to properly record transfers between funds. Sullivan & Rogers identified many instances whereby a transfer in(out) was recorded as a transfer in(out) in one fund and as a revenue, expenditure or fund balance account in the other fund. This method did not balance transfers in and out between funds and inhibits accurate financial reporting.
- Bond Anticipation Note Pay-downs and Balances: Procedures were not in place to properly record BAN pay-downs. Currently, BAN pay-downs were recorded as expenditures in the general fund, without regard to the financing of the pay-down in the applicable capital projects fund. As a result BAN balances were overstated and the activity related to the transaction was not recorded property, which inhibited accurate financial reporting.
- BAN’s Payable: One instance was identified whereby a water and sewer enterprise fund BAN payable, totaling $450,000 was recorded to a governmental funds capital project.
- Special Assessments: Special assessments (i.e. water and sewer betterments, street betterments, etc.) were typically payable by taxpayers over a 20 year period. The Town apportions/bills these amounts annually and appropriately accounts for the activity on the general ledger. However, the un-apportioned amounts due in future years was not recorded on the general ledger, which inhibits accurate financial reporting.
By not doing this Mr. Ciccariello asked if the Town could have an employee here for 10-15 years, they leave and the next person could be looking at this and not know what’s going on. Mr. Rogers agreed it was possible.
- Long-term debt: the amount originally reported as long-term debt did not include all of the fiscal year 2008 activity, which inhibits accurate financial reporting.
- Landfill postclosure care liability: Generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) requires that a liability be established and maintained for the post-closure care (e.g. monitoring) of a closed landfill. The Town closed its old landfill site approximately 10 years ago. However, the Town has not historically calculated or reported its post-closure care liability, which inhibits accurate financial reporting.
- Special Education Cluster: The Town does not maintain the required documentation to the support of salaries and wages related to the Special Education Cluster major programs as prescribed in OMB Circular A-87, Cost Principals for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments. The questioned costs related to the program resulting from the lack of required documentation total $873,946 which was material to the financial statements.
Mr. Rogers noted that the Town didn’t have to pay back the $873,000. It just meant it didn’t follow the grant. Mr. Ciccariello questioned
if the Town ran the risk of losing a grant in the future and Mr. Rogers’ reply was, “sure”. He added that over the last 3-4 years the federal government started auditing the audits and didn’t have a lot of nice things to say. The amount of money they felt didn’t have the appropriate documentation was in the billions and the federal government started having a watchful eye. The government could audit the grant at any time. He further noted that the Recovery Act funds available would be the most highly scrutinized funds to hit the streets and whomever was managing must have a total knowledge.
Given that the Town received a material non-compliance, Ms. Van Amsterdam asked if Mr. Rogers was required to report this any further. Mr. Rogers advised that it was the Town that was required to file and Sullivan & Rogers would work with the Town to make the filing. It had to be filed with the federal clearing house and then to the oversight agency. They will review and take any action they chose to take.
Findings 11, 12, and 13 related to federal grants.
11)Special Education Cluster – CFDA No. 84.027 and 84.173; Fiscal year ended June 30, 2008. Condition and Criteria: Program management does not maintain the required documentation related to the support of salaries and wages related to its major programs as prescribed in OMB Circular A-87, Cost Principals for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments. Procedures to ensure accountability for authorization of federal grant charges must be in place to determine allowable costs and cost principles.
12)School Based Medicaid Reimbursement Program-CFDA No. 93.778; Fiscal year ended June 30, 2008. Condition and Criteria: Two of the thirty student files tested did not have documentation supporting the health related services provided. As part of the Municipal Medicaid Agreement with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Medical Services, the Town of Natick was required to document all Special Education health-related services provided to the students who were included in the Direct Service claims submitted for reimbursement.
13)School Based Medicaid Reimbursement Program-CFDA No. 93.778; Fiscal year ended June 30, 2008. Condition and Criteria: Five instances were identified where students were not in attendance but were included in the Direct Service Claim submitted to the Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services. As part of the bundled rate methodology, days reimbursed must relate to students who were Medicaid eligible, have an Individual Education Plan, and were in attendance.
Mr. Connolly asked Mr. Rogers to elaborate on the five instances where students were not in attendance and he responded that certain eligible medical costs were reimbursed, but when the claim was filed students were included that weren’t in attendance. When asked if that was oversight or fraud, Mr. Rogers responded that he didn’t think it was fraudulent. He thought it was oversight. The controls weren’t horrendous, they just needed to be tightened.
Mr. Ostroff was intrigued with how standards had changed over time and wanted a sense of what was unique to Natick.
Mr. Rogers said he didn’t necessarily think Natick was unique. From a GAAP reporting Massachusetts was behind the times and that was where the education needs to occur. GASB standards were up to 56. The standards implemented were complex. Natick wasn’t unique, but in the same ballpark as a lot of other communities. He had two clients that prepare their financial statements and all together there may be 10 communities in Massachusetts that prepare their own financial statements. If you go south or west that didn’t happen. The problem was resources.
A lot of the issues that came up were easily fixable. This (preparation of financial reports) was one finding that may or may not stay around. The Town could make a decision not to prepare its own financial statements and leave the status quo. He could have the Town fill out a disclosure check list and it could stay like it was and the Board could make the decision to accept it. He couldn’t tell the Board what the ramifications would be. The only worry would be with the rating agencies. If the status quo were left, the comment would be there for the remainder of time.
Mr. Ostroff noted that the role of the auditor had changed as well from a couple of years ago and he wondered which of the material weaknesses Mr. Rogers considered the most serious.
Mr. Rogers’ reply was all of them, adding that his wholehearted belief was every entity should understand how to prepare GAAP financial statements. They were used for bonds. It was an important function and one thing in which he believed strongly. They were all important or had an impact on what was important and a control issue.
Mr. Connolly thought having an AAA rating seemed inconsistent with what Mr. Rogers just said. Mr. Rogers noted that he was not a financial adviser, but the bond rating wasn’t just based on internal controls. Part of the equation was the financial stability.
Mr. Connolly referenced a report from the Comptroller dated May 4 regarding a meeting with Mr. Rogers and other individuals and wondered what was going on with some of this confusion. What did he say to citizens when they said they had concerns?
Mr. Rogers asked if Mr. Connolly was referring to the delay. Mr. Connolly thought that was a good point, but he meant the whole FY08 mess – the delay, the confusion, the things that were lacking. Mr. Rogers explained there was a lack of controls related to some external GAAP reporting issues. The delay involved getting the documents ready for Sullivan, Rogers to do the audit.
Mr. Rogers then reviewed the Management Letter. The management letter contained eight comments:
1)Concentration Bank Account
Sullivan, Rogers identified the following deficiencies related to the maintenance and reconciliation of the concentration bank account, which accounts for all vendor, payroll and workers’ compensation cash disbursements:
- The Comptroller’s Office was currently responsible for maintaining the concentration bank account and, as a result the Treasurer’s Office did not include this account as part of its cashbook. This account was used to record significant transactions initiated by the Treasurer’s Office and should be included and maintained in the Treasurer’s cashbook.
- The June 30, 2008 bank account reconciliation was not completed and provided for the audit until April 2009. The lack of timely reconciliations inhibits the Town’s ability to detect and correct errors and/or irregularities in a timely manner.
- There was no evidence that a supervisor had reviewed the bank account reconciliations. Supervisory review of the reconciliation would provide greater assurance that the reconciliation was performed correctly and a signature indicating the review took place would provide evidence that the control procedure was performed.
- There was currently an unidentified variance between the book balance and the reconciled bank balance totaling approximately $13,000.
Mr. Connolly expressed great concern over this comment and questioned why the June 30, 2008 bank reconciliation was not provided until April 2009. Mr. Rogers indicated that he did not know and couldn’t answer. Mr. Connolly directed the question to Ms. White, and she reminded the Board that she had talked about some items not being handled timely and that it was a problem audit.
Mr. Connolly wanted someone to step up and take ownership and Ms. White noted that she told the Board when this first started that she took responsibility for the flaws in the system. She also reminded the Board that they appointed one of the positions responsible for this.
Mr. Connolly asked if she was suggesting that the onus was on the Board, but she didn’t see how practically the Board could oversee that position.
To Mr. Connolly’s comment that he felt the Board’s trust was betrayed, Ms. White countered that several members of the administration worked with Ms. Van Amsterdam and then came to the full Board about a realignment of some financial positions. The Board agreed with the plan. Well in advance of the auditor identifying a problem, the administration identified there was an internal control that needed tightening and that plan was aimed at the concentrated bank account.
Mr. Connolly then asked about the $13,000. Ms. White couldn’t provide an answer but assured the Board the Comptroller would work to identify the variance. Asked if there was any clue as to where it was, Ms. White noted that this had just been brought to her attention.
Mr. Rogers pointed out that the variance didn’t mean money was lost. The accounting just needs to be taken care of. He agreed with Mr. Ciccariello that someone may find it quickly or spend an inordinate number of hours on it.
Management’s response to a number of the comments simply said that action to correct had been taken and Ms. Van Amsterdam thought it would be helpful for management to provide more detail. Mr. Ciccariello explained that his thought was to get through the report tonight and then ask the management at the next meeting to explain their response and be more specific. Ms. Van Amsterdam agreed with that approach.
2) Accounts Receivable
Sullivan, Rogers identified the existence of many immaterial variances between the detailed accounts receivable records of the Collector and the accounts receivable control accounts maintained by the Comptroller on the general ledger. Although immaterial from an audit perspective, the fiscal year 2008 financial statements were potentially misstated by these variances. In addition one instance was identified where an accounts receivable reconciliation identified the reconciling items, but the adjustments required to be made to the general ledger had not been made as of June 30, 2008.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if this was a case of the two departments (Comptroller and Treasurer) working together. Mr. Rogers advised that it was, and then it was execution.
3) Ambulance and Parking Tickets Account Receivable
The town’s ambulance and parking tickets accounts receivables were not recorded or maintained on the general ledger. As a result, there was no process in place to reconcile the detailed accounts receivable balances as maintained by contracted third parties to a control account on the general ledger. This was a weakness in internal control.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to where ambulance receivables went and Treasurer/Collector Robert Palmer explained that the checks came into the Treasurer. A billing process was initiated with the Fire Department and sent to a billing company. They maintain and submit to the Comptroller an outstanding balance. The Fire Department makes any adjustments to the invoices. The revenue from Coastal goes back to the Town’s bank account.
4) Chapter 90 Funds
The Town maintains a Chapter 90 Fund on its general ledger to account for roadway construction projects approved and paid for by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Chapter 90 Fund was a reimbursement grant program in which the Town was required to expend funds first, and was subsequently reimbursed based on requests submitted to the Massachusetts Highway Department.
Sullivan, Rogers identified that reimbursement requests were not being submitted timely to the Massachusetts Highway Department. At June 30, 2008 the Chapter 90 Fund had a cash deficit of approximately $290,000 of which approximately $250,000 was incurred through January 31, 2008. In addition, the funds related to this cash deficit weren’t requested for reimbursement until October 2008. The current condition negatively
impacts cash flows and the amount of free cash that was certified by the Department of Revenue.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to who was responsible, and Ms. White advised that it was between the DPW and the Comptroller. She noted that this too was something identified internally in advance of the auditor. This audit represents a fiscal year that was a year old and a lot of improvements had been made and this was one area where there had been improvement.
5) Sassamon Trace Golf Course
Sullivan, Rogers evaluated the systems of internal control related to the financial activities of the Sassamon Trace Golf Course and identified the following deficiencies:
- The cash register was used by multiple employees during the day; therefore any variances identified in the cash count at the end of the day cannot be traced to a single employee
- Any employee that has access to the Jencess system (the Pro Shop’s accounting and inventory system) has the ability to make a fee adjustment. As a result, unauthorized and/or erroneous adjustments could be applied and go undetected.
- Daily deposits were made by numerous golf course employees, which increase the susceptibility to asset misuse or loss.
- A reconciliation of cash receipts between the starter’s records to the Jencess system was not performed.
- The Head Golf Professional was responsible for the purchase of goods, updating inventory in the Jencess system and performing the physical inventory. The current design of internal control does not properly segregate duties.
Mr. Rogers noted that this was about decision making. There was a Golf Head and then a lot of part-time people. Sometimes you could come up with some type of multiple control.
Ms. Van Amsterdam requested that at the next meeting the administration look at the recommendations and come back and say these can be utilized as described or tweaked.
6) Journal Entries
Sullivan, Rogers selected a sample of 30 journal entries recorded to the general ledger and identified 15 instances where there was a lack of documentation supporting the entry. All transactions posted to the general ledger must be supported by appropriate documentation.
Mr. Ciccariello was bothered by 50% of the entries looked at not having documentation. Mr. Rogers advised that when they did that kind of testing with a high percentage, they went much further than 30. It was determined to be reasonable, but it increased the risk. There should always be documentation for an entry.
7) Risk Assessment and Monitoring
When internal controls were initially implemented, they were usually designed to adequately safeguard assets. However, over time, these controls can become ineffective due to changes in technology,
well as the addition of new programs and services, can add risks that previously did not exist. As a result, all municipalities must periodically perform a risk assessment to anticipate, identify, analyze and manage the risk of asset misappropriation. Risk assessment which includes fraud risk assessment was one element of internal control.
The risk assessment should be performed by management level employees who have extensive knowledge of the Town’s operations. Ordinarily, the management level employees would conduct interviews or lead group discussions with personnel who have knowledge of the Town’s operations, its environment, and its processes. The risk assessment process should consider the Town’s vulnerability to misappropriation of assets. It should also address operations that involve heightened levels of risk.
Mr. Rogers explained that this was an element of internal control that didn’t exist in a lot of local governments. If you went through the process, there would be activity you didn’t even know existed. It gave the Town the ability to identify the activity, evaluate the controls, and make a decision on cost benefit.
8) Establish an Audit Committee
The establishment of audit committees was recommended by the Government Finance Officers Association, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and other organizations concerned with financial reporting and fiduciary duties of organizations.
By establishing an audit committee, the Board of Selectmen may achieve an increased understanding of the role of the independent auditors and the nature and limitations of their work and the importance of accounting, financial, and operating controls to the successful management of the Town and reliable financial reports. The audit committee’s objectives, authority, and responsibilities should be set forth in a written document approved by the Board of Selectmen.
Mr. Rogers noted that he thought an audit committee could be effective and beneficial to both the Town and the auditors. It assists the auditors because it created a buffer between management and the auditing firm. It could be a real facilitator of the audit. A lot of things go on during an audit and it was difficult for a Board that had to deal with a lot of other things. The main thing was to approve the independent auditor.
Other duties would be to review the audited financial statements and consider the comments from the independent auditor including those with respect to weaknesses in internal accounting control and the consideration given to such comments, or corrective action taken by management; discuss matters of concern to the audit committee, the auditor, or management relating to legal or ethical concerns, the Town’s financial statements, or other results of the audit; review internal accounting procedures and controls with the Town’s financial and accounting staff; review the activities and recommendations of the Town’s financial personnel.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if in Mr. Rogers’ opinion he believed an audit committee should be independent of the Board with no member of the
Board of Selectmen or Finance Committee – that it be an independent group of individuals with the expertise. In a perfect world Mr. Rogers said the answer would be yes, but he has found it difficult to achieve that in a municipal setting because municipal accounting was so different. The most effective audit committees were a partial make up of 1-3 people from the outside who have an understanding of financial statements, GAAP financial statements, internal controls, and a member of the Board of Selectmen. There could also be some members of management although not voting members and when the audit committee wanted to speak independently with the auditor, they would be asked to leave the room. He has only seen one committee made up of all outside people and that worked because one person was a
municipal auditor.
From what he has seen, Mr. Rogers thought less was probably the way to go. He recommended a committee of 5-7 members be adopted, but calls could be made to other towns to see how it went for them.
Mr. Ciccariello commented that this was the worst audit he had seen since he had been on the Board. Hopefully, there was a lesson to be learned. One concern was if the Town was not getting these things done because there wasn’t the expertise or training or was because the departments didn’t have the resources. He asked the Town Administrator to give some thought to that question. He always thought training of staff was critical and if the issue wasn’t training was it because of the individuals or because the resources weren’t available.
Mr. Ciccariello thought he had heard Mr. Rogers say there were no major errors in the financial statements and that was good news.
Ms. Van Amsterdam pointed out that in looking back at the minutes of March 3, 2008 and the FY07 audit presentation, there was mention of setting up risk assessment but by and large those items mentioned and documented in this report were never highlighted. The auditing firm the Town was using didn’t take advantage of the report and identify where there may have been weaknesses.
Mr. Rogers thought one reason some things weren’t reported was because Sullivan, Rogers was part of the internal control last year. Some of the findings that related to the accounting side that may have existed last year were caught by them being the Town’s consultant.
Ms. Van Amsterdam thought that tied into the discussion training and management had a responsibility to have many conversations of what internal controls were wanted for the Town and the type of training for the future.
Mr. Rogers told the Board that he was always available.
Ms. White advised that it was her intention to re-introduce the recommendation of an audit committee as part of the follow up report at the July 13 meeting.
TREASURER ROBERT PALMER: BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES
Treasurer/Collector Robert Palmer informed the Board that Natick had maintained the AAA bond rating and was one of 23 communities in the Commonwealth with the rating.
Mr. Palmer advised that bids had been received on June 18, 2009 for bond anticipation notes in the amount of $3,520,000 for the following purpose. The notes to mature June 30, 2010.
Kennedy School Roof Repair $ 850,000
Police Station/Town Hall HVAC $ 410,000
Memorial School DDC System $ 375,000
Memorial School Kitchen $ 350,000
Kennedy School Kitchen $ 350,000
High School Feasibility Study $ 280,000
Equipment – Trash Packer $ 175,000
Equipment – Sidewalk Tractor $ 130,000
Water Main Relining $ 600,000
Four bids were received with Jefferies & Co the low bidder at a rate of 1.75% with a premium of $38,474 and NIC% 0.657.
Mr. Connolly requested an update on the status of the police/Town Hall HVAC for $410,000 – had the project been approved. Mr. Palmer advised that it had not. The only thing committed to was MacRitchie for his engineering work. Ms. Gloff noted that Town Meeting had authorized the money.
Mr. Connolly questioned why the money was being borrowed if there wasn’t a plan and Mr. Ciccariello explained that after reviewing the original bids they were rejected and the administration and the Building Maintenance Supervisor were asked to look at the alternative that might be more expensive but in the long run may be better. There hasn’t been any feedback. The $410,000 was authorized but not connected to any contract.
Mr. Connolly again questioned why borrow the money until it had to be spent. Ms. White noted that the cost to borrow money was fixed so the Treasurer lumped as many things together as possible. Mr. Palmer added that the cost for a BAN was very expensive, a statement had to be prepared, bond counsel gets it rated. This BAN would probably cost $30,000.
Asked what happened if the money was borrowed and not spent, Mr. Palmer advised that the unused proceeds could be used to pay down the BAN.
Mr. Ciccariello anticipated putting the work out to bid soon because the work needs to get done. He questioned why the Board hadn’t heard anything as of yet. Ms. White said she made note of it and would follow up. Mr. Connolly commented that the money was authorized in October and it was sat on for six months and nothing done.
Mr. Connolly moved to remove the HVAC from the bond anticipate notes. There was no second and no vote taken.
Ms. Gloff moved to approve the sale of a $3,520,000 1.75 percent General Obligation Bond Anticipation Note (the “Note”) of the Town dated June 30, 2009, and payable June 30, 2010 to Jefferies & Company, Inc. at par and accrued interest, if any, plus a premium of $38,474.
It was further moved that in connection with the marketing and sale of the Note, the preparation and distribution of a Notice of Sale and Preliminary Official Statement dated June 11, 2009, and a final Official Statement dated June 18, 2009, each in such form as may be approved by the Town Treasurer, be and hereby are ratified, confirmed, approved and adopted.
It was further moved that the Town Treasurer and the Board of Selectmen be, and hereby are, authorized to execute and deliver a material events disclosure undertaking in compliance with SEC Rule 15c2-12 in such form as may be approved by bond counsel to the Town, which undertaking shall be incorporated by reference in the Note for the benefit of the holders of the Note from time to time.
It was further voted that each member of the Board of Selectmen, the Town Clerk and the Town Treasurer be and hereby are, authorized to take any and all such actions, and execute and deliver such certificates, receipts or other documents as may be determined by them, or any of them, to be necessary to convenient to carry into effect the provisions of the foregoing votes. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam. The motion passed on a 4-1-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly was opposed.
With respect to the boilers, Mr. Ciccariello thought this was an important project that needs to get done this summer.
Mr. Connolly didn’t think a boiler should go in 9 years and wanted to know where the accountability was. He thought the Board talked about having Town Counsel review. Mr. Ciccariello advised that it was referred to Town Counsel and the answer was that there was no way to go after any of these people. The warranties were gone. Some defects existed before the warranty expired and the Town could spend a lot of legal fees pursuing these people, but there was no money to be gotten. When he looked at the bids received, it didn’t make sense to him (Mr. Ciccariello) to put parts into the existing boiler that potentially could fail. To him it made sense to replace the boiler and get it done.
Ms. White added that part of the reason the decision was made to go back out to bid was because the bids were so favorable. They thought repair was the best they could do, but with the bids coming back so favorable, the thought was maybe there could be a long-term solution. It was taking a while but the objective was to redo the design to have a better solution.
CITIZENS CONCERNS
Arthur Lamont inquired as to the possibility of getting a grant for solar for this building (Town Hall)
Ms. White advised that a consultant had looked at every Town building, and Town Hall was not at all suitable. Police/Fire had some potential although it wouldn’t heat the entire building. Solar did seem to be applicable for one or more schools where a new roof was being put on.
Mr. Lamont thought it was something to think about with the new high school.
- MetroWest Regional Transit Authority – The Ride
Arthur Lamont told the Board that he used the MBTA to go to the Brigham for some treatment and the new MWRTA will increase his fare twice as much and he will have to transfer. He thought people taking The Ride should have had a chance to come and speak to the Board.
Mr. Connolly explained that a month ago Mr. Lamont would get picked up for a direct ride into Boston, but now he had to do a transfer in Wellesley and pay two fares instead of one. It was Mr. Connolly’s understanding from a presentation from the Board’s liaison to the MWRTA that there had been a risk of losing The Ride completely. This may be uncomfortable but it was better than the alternatives.
If that was the case, Mr. Lamont applauded the Board’s efforts.
Ms. White informed the Board of an e-mail from the Town’s representative to the MBTA Advisory Board concerning the transportation reform bill approved by the legislature. Included in the bill was that MBTA communities would no longer have a seat on the Advisory Board. She advised that she wrote a letter to the Governor asking him to veto certain sections of the bill.
- Water Bill – Donald Oulton
Sarah Oulton thanked the Board for the response to her March 2009 letter on behalf of her parents Donald and Carol Oulton of MacArthur Road. She requested that the Board take steps so that no other residents had to go through what they (the Oulton’s) were going through. She would like to put closure on the matter by writing a check in an amount determined in the March 2009 letter describing a situation her elderly parents had to go through.
Ms. Oulton noted that her parents were excellent taxpayers who fulfilled all their obligations. Their last water & sewer bill in ’08 experienced a tremendous spike in water and sewer use and shocked them. Her parents were experiencing some horrific health problems and felt bad that they had let the water leakage go on for so long.
In March 2009 she asked about pursuing an abatement and Mr. Connolly wrote back attaching a memo from Treasurer/Collector Robert Palmer whereby the Board adopted a new policy to allow people in a similar situation to get out from under a water bill. She was very grateful and thought it would relieve some of the pressure her parents were feeling. These were elderly people who were never in trouble and they want to get this bill cleared up.
When she received the letter from Mr. Connolly she called Mr. Palmer’s office and spoke with a secretary, but she wouldn’t put Mr. Palmer on the phone. She thought that was odd because Mr. Palmer was the author of the memo. Since she was acting as her parents’ agent, Beth Kelley asked that she (Ms. Oulton) draft an agreement that was comfortable for her parents and Mr. Palmer would review it. Mr. Connolly made it clear
that the Board had set up the policy as a result of the issues she raised.
Ms. Oulton continued that she sent a letter saying her parents would like to pay $50. Most likely they could pay more than $50 but since it was the first case under this policy, she thought they could establish an agreement they could live with in the future. Mr. Palmer was not willing to meet with her or her family and he has been difficult. This was a nightmare for her family.
Living in Framingham, a Town that has been nothing but wonderful, Ms. Oulton said she crafted the letter dated May 28 and believed she could send her naïve mother down.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the Board had ever taken this up, but Ms. White advised that the Board did not. Because the water went through the system the bill wasn’t abated. This wasn’t a matter for the Board’s vote. The concern was a payment plan that hadn’t been satisfactorily worked out. Mr. Palmer had the authority to enter into a payment plan and she thought effectively what the Board was hearing was a complaint against an employee.
Ms. Oulton clarified that her complaint was with two employees – Mr. Palmer and Ms. Kelley.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if Mr. Palmer had accepted Ms. Oulton’s agreement. Ms. White had no idea as this was the first she was hearing of this.
Mr. Connolly stated that Ms. Oulton was a friend of his and when Ms. White brought the change in policy to the Board’s attention he forwarded it to Ms. Oulton. He pointed out that the Oulton’s could have said there wasn’t a leak but they did the straight up thing. He also pointed out that on one had the agreement wasn’t acknowledged but the check with it was. He didn’t see why it was so difficult to acknowledge the letter.
Ms. White responded that she would speak with Mr. Palmer tomorrow and work it out with Ms. Oulton.
Ms. Gloff noted that the issues were that the Oulton’s hadn’t heard from Mr. Palmer and interest was added.
With respect to the interest, Ms. White noted that there wasn’t a payment plan in place so absent a payment plan the letter was dated May 28 and the interest was applied June 1. There was an obligation to put the interest on at that time.
Mr. Ciccariello thought the Board had a policy for a payment plan, but Ms. White noted that was the authority of the Finance Director. The Board allowed him some flexibility not to apply interest and penalties.
Ms. Gloff thought the Town Administrator needed to follow-up with Mr. Palmer and understand the status. She then made a motion to remove the $51.59 in interest. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
Based on what was presented to the Board tonight, Mr. Ostroff felt Ms. Oulton deserved an apology.
A recess was called at 11:00 p.m. and reconvened at 11:05 p.m.
PART-TIME DISPATCHER POSITIONS
Ms. White referred to a memo from Police Chief Dennis Mannix looking to hire three part-time dispatchers. The memo explained that with the resignation of Dispatcher Nigro and the likelihood of losing one of the existing part-time dispatchers to a full-time police officer position in another community, and the need to minimize mandatory overtime, it was critical for the dispatch function to have an adequate number of replacement dispatchers to cover not only for these absences, but also for those absences being covered for long-term illnesses of other dispatchers.
Since there was zero redundancy built into the dispatch complement, each absence must be covered either on overtime or with a part-time dispatcher paid at an hourly wage substantially less than the overtime rate that would otherwise be necessary. Since there total hours do not exceed 1040, part-time dispatchers do not accrue benefits.
Ms. White noted that this came to the Board’s attention previously and the Board agreed that hiring part-time people as needed was a cost effective approach.
Mr. Ostroff pointed out that what it didn’t say was that frequently situations were encountered where a dispatcher had to work an additional shift with little or no notice.
Ms. White acknowledged that it did happen where a dispatcher was required to stay beyond their normally scheduled work shift because the person scheduled to replace them didn’t come in.
Ms. Van Amsterdam asked Ms. White to talk about potential dispatch with Sherborn. Ms. White preferred not to comment at this point.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to authorize the Town Administrator to hire up to three part-time dispatchers. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
BUDGET LINE TRANSFER
Ms. White explained that this process came into effect in 2007 but was one she didn’t think Natick had utilized before. It allowed the Board of Selectmen with the concurrence of the Finance Committee within the last two months of a fiscal year to move money from one department to another. Tonight the Board was being asked to authorize transfers within departments and on June 30 the Finance Committee would be asked to do the same.
There were some restrictions. The amount to be transferred may not exceed 3% of the total annual budget of the sending department or $5,000, whichever was greater. Ms. White told the Board she thought this was an appropriate way to address budget shortfalls. In the past budgets would either be supplemented at the Spring Town Meeting or
through a reserve fund transfer and that could lead to over-appropriating the budget supplement as projects must be developed in April or earlier. The reserve fund transfer was intended to be used for extraordinary and unforeseen needs.
The transfers being requested were:
$49,500 from the Police budget to supplement the legal budget
$5,000 from the Information Systems budget to supplement the Town Clerk’s budget $2,000 from the Board of Assessors budget to supplement the Finance Committee.
Ms. White noted that the departments being drawn from had quite a large amount of money remaining the year end. A spending chill was put on and the municipal departments responded excellently. Training was held back in every department although the Comptroller was sent to the Accountant’s work shop. Money was saved but she would suggest it was not a sustainable model. A lot of expenses and purchases have only been deferred. There will be significant turnbacks this year but it was not sustainable.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to what would happen if the Board didn’t vote these transfers. Ms. White advised that the Town would be in violation of several state statutes.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to transfer $49,500 from the Police budget to the legal budget. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam. The motion passed on a 4-1-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly was opposed.
In discussion of the motion, Mr. Ciccariello questioned how long it was known there were over-runs. Ms. White noted that the legal budget always came down to the end of the year. We did better this year but it was always a challenge. Last year the legal budget was supplemented by $63,500 so it was coming down despite one specific litigation. The money was taken from the Police because of FLSA.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to transfer $5,000 from Information Systems to the Town Clerk’s budget. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to transfer $2,000 from the Assessors budget to the Finance Committee. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
PARKING CLERK POSITION
With Parking Clerk Sebastian Grupposo’s passing, Ms. White noted that a new parking clerk had to be appointed. She polled area communities and all but one assign these responsibilities as a component of a typically full-time position with no stipend provided.
Ms. White recommended that the Selectmen appoint the Procurement Officer Christopher Bradley as parking clerk effective July 1. She noted that she had discussed with Mr. Bradley and he was willing to accept the responsibilities. There were several advantages in making this appointment:
- It would save about $4,000 as funds would not be needed for the Parking Clerk’s salary
- It would allow the Town to provide better customer service as the Procurement Officer was here in Town Hall on full-time basis and could perhaps meet with individuals regarding their appeals at more convenient times.
When the Parking Clerk was on vacation the Collector has agreed to provide back-up services.
Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired as to the number of hours per week this entailed and Ms. White advised that office hours were 2-3 per week.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to appoint Christopher Bradley as the Parking Clerk effective July 1.
INTERIM POLICE CHIEF SALARY
Ms. White informed the Board that Interim Police Chief Nicholas Mabardy had been offered and accepted an annualized salary of $114.700.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to approve a salary of $114,700 for Interim Police Chief Nicholas Mabardy.
Ms. White advised that Interim Chief Mabardy would be sworn in on June 30 at 5:00 p.m.
CONSTABLE POSITION
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to advertise the vacancy in the position of Constable left by the death of Sebastian Grupposo. Interviews would be scheduled for July 27.
REQUEST FOR PERSONNEL EXEMPTION: RECREATION
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to exempt the following employees from the provisions of Article 41, Section of the Town of Natick By-Laws in order that in addition to their primary employment with the Town they may work part-time for the Recreation & Parks Department:
Employee Department
Ronda Garvin Conaway School
Lori Ross School
Kevin Cotter School
Andrew Rollins School
Adam Shute School
Andrea Shute School
Tricia Williams School
MINUTES
Ms. Van Amsterdam moved to approve the minutes of December 1, 2008. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
BREAST CANCER 3DAY: REQUEST TO USE SENIOR CENTER/COURT LAWN
The Breast Cancer 3Day requested the use of the Senior Center lawn to stage a grab & go area during their walk scheduled for July 24, 2009.
The Board was in receipt of a memo from Ms. White advising the Town Administrator had jurisdiction on the use of the Senior Center lawn.
NATICK ROTARY CLUB: REQUEST BANNER
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to approve the Natick Rotary Club’s request to hang a banner across Main Street for the period of August 24-August 31, 2009 in advertisement of the fund raising golf tournament.
CELEBRATION INTERNATIONAL: REQUEST TO USE COMMON
The Board was in receipt of a request from the Celebration International Church in Wayland to use the Common on July 17, 2009 from 4:00-8:00 p.m.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that he attended this church and would abstain.
Ms. Van Amsterdam moved approval of the request to use the Common. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR NOTES
Ms. White advised that on the advice of the attorney for cable matters, she sent a letter to Senator Spilka and Senator Brown. Verizon has filed legislation that would eliminate municipal control over cable franchising and limit the timetable to three months.
Ms. White asked that the Board consider scheduling a hearing on an alleged liquor license violation of P.W. Chang’s and the Met Bar & Grill that resulted in serious injuries to a family. She apologized for the last minute, but the report was just received today.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to schedule a hearing for both P.F. Chang’s and the Met Bar & Grill for July 14, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
Ms. White advised that information had been received about the budget released by the conference committee. There was some good news and some bad. The final numbers on local aid were no worse than budgeted with a couple of assumptions. The local option taxes have been approved and they will come up on a future agenda. Health insurance was neutral, the telecommunication tax loop was closed which may help the budget in future years, and the Quinn Bill was underfunded which won’t impact the municipal budget.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
Mr. Ostroff commended the Town Administrator and Deputy Town Administrator for an informative newsletter.
- Oak & Route 9 Intersection
Mr. Ostroff informed the Board that a public hearing was scheduled for tomorrow on the potential redesign of the Oak/Route 9 intersection.
Mr. Ostroff acknowledged the Board’s receipt of a plaque from the Natick Education Foundation for participating in the Spelling Bee.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
_______________________________
Kristine Van Amsterdam, Clerk
| 
