BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
May 4, 2009
6:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman John Ciccariello at 6:00 p.m.
PRESENT: John Ciccariello, Joshua Ostroff, Kristine Van Amsterdam, Carol A. Gloff, John Connolly.
ALSO PRESENT: Martha L. White, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on May 4, 2009 in the amount of $570,352.57. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $1,289,126.10.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Gloff, moved to enter into executive session to discuss matters pertaining to collective bargaining. By roll call vote the motion passed on a 5-0-0 vote. At 6:01 p.m. the Board entered into executive session after announcing that the meeting would return to open session.
The open session was reconvened at 7:10 p.m.
Along with the observance of a moment of silence in honor of the men and women serving in the Armed Services, a moment of silence was observed in honor of retired Police Officer Tom McEvoy who passed away at the age of 93, having served on the Natick Police Department for 30 years.
LETTER OF RECOGNITION: SENIOR WOMAN OF THE YEAR: WINOLA SINCLAIR
Winola Sinclair was named the 2009 Senior Woman of the Year and presented with a Letter of Recognition in appreciation of all of her community activities.
Ms. Sinclair thanked the Board and stated that she felt very fortunate to have chosen Natick as a place to raise her family.
LETTER OF RECOGNITION: SENIOR MAN OF THE YEAR: MYRON COPLAN
Myron Coplan was named Senior Man of the Year for 2009 and presented a Letter of Recognition in appreciation of his service to the community.
Mr. Coplan thanked the people who thought well enough of him to put him up for this honorarium and noted that the thing of which he was most proud was the Leonard Morse Hospital.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Interim Town Clerk Onorina Maloney urged residents to return the census forms by next Friday to the Town Clerk’s Office. Over 14,000 forms were mailed in January and to date about 52% have been returned. The forms were on line and in both the Morse Institute and Bacon Free Libraries or they may be filled out in person at the office.
If the census form was not returned, the resident would be placed on the inactive voter’s list and sent a card and if that was not returned when the voter went to vote the next time, they would be asked for identification and asked to fill out a form.
Ms. Maloney reminded everyone that the census form could not change a political party or register someone to vote. For voter registration questions people could call the office and both libraries had mail in registration forms.
Ms. Maloney also reminded residents with dogs to license their dogs. There were 837 unlicensed dogs.
- Police Fund Raising Event
Mr. Connolly announced that the Natick Police Department would be holding a bowling fund raising event to raise funds for the son of Officer Ryan Payne who was diagnosed with Leukemia. He asked that the notice be posted in the Town Hall lobby and on line.
ANNOUNCEMENTS (contd)
The Senior Woman and Man dinner was scheduled for May 19 at the Elks. Tickets could be obtained at the Council on Aging for $15.
The volunteer dinner was scheduled for the end of May at which members of the Board of Selectmen, Police and Fire Department would be serving the volunteers.
Council on Aging and Human Services Director Moira Munns noted these were some of the celebrations being engaged in May as part of Older Americans Month. May has been celebrated as Older Americans Month since the Kennedy administration and provided an opportunity for the entire community to come together to honor the achievements of the older residents.
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT/REAPPOINTMENT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: REGULAR AND ASSOCIATE MEMBER
Paul Mulkerron told the Board that he had been on the Zoning Board of Appeals for six years and would like to be reappointed. He felt he lent a segment of his expertise to the ZBA and always tried to be fair and open minded to everyone who applied. He has enjoyed his time on the Board and enjoyed the camaraderie.
Mr. Ostroff noted that the Conservation Commission had an informal time at the beginning of their meeting for people to float a balloon or ask a question and he wondered if the ZBA had something similar. People don’t know the process and were somewhat intimidated by it.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to reappoint Paul Mulkerron to the Zoning Board of Appeals as a regular member.
Interim Town Clerk Onorina Maloney was present and swore Mr. Mulkerron in.
b. George Miller
Mr. Miller was unable to attend the meeting. Currently he served as an Associate Member of the Zoning Board of Appeals and was requesting reappointment.
Based on his past history as an Associate Member, Mr. Connolly moved the reappointment of George Miller as an Associate Member of the ZBA.
PUBLIC HEARING: DISTRIBUTION OF FY08 HOME CONSORTIUM FUNDS
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to open the public hearing.
Joseph Merkel, Housing Planner noted that every year the West Metro HOME Consortium appropriates approximately $80,000 to Natick which needs to be used in two years or it gets sent back. Last year the 2007 funds were used by another community and those funds will be paid back in 2011 and 2012. This year two affordable housing lotteries were approved – Admiral Cove and Castle Courtyard with $24,850 allocated for the lotteries leaving $53,000 to be used.
The Affordable Housing Trust has met and discussed several great ideas. One was the down payment assistance program for individuals and families purchasing affordable units in Natick. Another possibility was participation in a renovation project at Natick Housing Authority owned properties. Also considered were the initiation of affordable housing building activities on property in Natick currently owned by the Trust or loaning the money again to another HOME consortium community for their project. The Trust recommends that the available Fiscal 2008 HOME Consortium monies be designated to establish a down payment assistance program for affordable housing in Natick and that the Natick Affordable Housing Trust be designated to manage this program.
Mr. Merkel continued that the Trust Fund put together draft guidelines for the program. A consultant would be hired to go over the program guidelines for qualifying for the program and in recapturing the funds at a later date. Approximately $7,500 would be needed to administer the program leaving about $47,500 for assistance. After this hearing there was a 30 day comment period. June 30 was the deadline for having the funds allocated.
It was Mr. Ostroff’s understanding that these were no interest loans that would not be repaid until the unit was sold or the applicant was no longer
PUBLIC HEARING: DISTRIBUTION OF FY08 HOME CONSORTIUM FUNDS (contd)
eligible. He asked if it was anticipated that a certain percentage of the loans would not be repaid.
Mr. Merkel advised that they were looking to have all the funds repaid and the Town would be paid first from the net proceeds of the sale. This would be discussed with the consultant.
As the Board of Selectmen representative on the Housing Trust Fund Board, Ms. Gloff stated that she was involved in the discussion of draft guidelines and recognized there were instances where the money may not come back. They recognized that many things they do through the Trust Fund would not necessarily come back to the Trust Fund. In most cases the money would be returned although years down the road.
Were the Board to approve this tonight, Mr. Ostroff inquired as to what point it would become finalized and the guidelines would come back to the Board for approval. Ms. Gloff responded that the Trust Fund proposed that the Board approve the program and designate the Trust fund to be responsible for finalizing and managing the program through a contractor. Someone had asked why the Trust Fund didn’t manage the program, but if they did that they would have to have all the individuals or families identified by June 30 and they didn’t have the direct experience.
Mr. Ostroff inquired as to what other uses of the $50,000 were contemplated and Mr. Merkel responded that consideration was given to assisting the Natick Housing Authority in redeveloping 6 Plain Street – a house currently not occupied, but there wasn’t a scope prepared for that type of work and there wouldn’t be by June 30. Another one was the Bacon Street property received through a Planning Board decision. That needs a considerable amount of up front study and evaluation and that wouldn’t be ready for June 30. The last consideration was a loan to another community, but the thought was that the down payment assistance was very timely for the Natick Mall off site and the six units coming up for auction at the Castle Courtyard and Admiral Cove.
Speaking for herself, Ms. Gloff was of the opinion that the Trust Fund had taken about a year to get organized and while they talked about the possibility of loaning out the money again, they felt they were ready for a project such as a down payment assistance. They chose to put that forward and spend some time on the guidelines.
Chair of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund Bruce Weisberg added that the Trust Fund had spent a year looking at the options and thought the down payment assistance program would get them off the ground and would introduce the Trust Fund to the public.
A member of the audience John Magee told the Board that having applied for a unit he had some expertise. One thing was lining up the financing and one problem that could be encountered with the down payment assistance was that the bank might not count that as your money. If the local banks could get involved, it would be helpful.
Mr. Weisberg advised that Middlesex Savings had funded a lot of affordable housing programs. He discussed the down payment assistance and they didn’t have a problem with it and would work with those buyers. He pointed out that some commitment was needed from the buyer and the assistance program wouldn’t give them 100%.
On a motion by Mr. Connolly, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to close the public hearing.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to authorize the expenditure of the Fiscal 2008 West Metro HOME funds for the down payment assistance program. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
Mr. Ostroff then moved to delegate the finalization of the guidelines and the administration of the program to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
Mr. Connolly commented that it was real refreshing to see Trust fund active in the Town and extended his thanks to everyone.
- Award Contract: HOME Lottery Agent
Mr. Merkel advised that part of the FY08 funding was allocated for an affordable housing lottery for Admiral Cove and Castle Courtyard. The lotteries were required because of a Planning Board decision. There was a requirement to hire a DHCD certified consultant to run the lottery. Packets
PUBLIC HEARING: DISTRIBUTION OF FY08 HOME CONSORTIUM FUNDS (contd)
were sent to three consultants and three bids were returned. The low bid to conduct the affirmative marketing and lottery for the six units was Watertown Community Housing, Inc. in the amount of $24,750. If approved the contractor would start immediately.
Ms. Gloff thanked Mr. Merkel for moving this forward. The two units at Admiral Cove have taken awhile.
Asked about the other bids, Mr. Merkel responded that Sudbury was actually the lowest but they required a number of changes to the contract that Town Counsel could not approve. SAB was about $8,000 per unit while Watertown Community Housing was approximately $6,000 per unit.
A motion was made by Ms. Van Amsterdam to award the affirmative marketing contract for affordable housing units at Admirals Cove and Castle Courtyard to Watertown Community Housing, Inc. in the amount of $24,750. The term of the contract to run from May 4, 2009 to December 1, 2009.
VIN’S LIQUORS, INC. D/B/A VIN’S LIQUORS: PLEDGE OF LICENSE
Representing Vin’s Liquors of 257-259 Worcester Street in their petition for a pledge of license to Vincent Trunfio was Attorney William Garrahan.
Mr. Garrahan told the Board that Vin’s Liquors was looking to pledge the license to complete a loan transaction.
A motion was made by Mr. Connolly, seconded by Ms. Gloff, to approve the pledge of license to the lender Vincent Trunfio. Unanimously voted.
JON’S CAR SERVICE: LIVERY SERVICE – ONE ADDITIONAL CAR
Jon Goldstein, owner of Jon’s Car Service, noted that he operated a livery service and would like to add one more car. In March the Board had approved a permit for a 2005 Malibu Sedan. The vehicle was a 2003 Dodge Caravan that had been inspected by Safety Officer Lieutenant Brian Lauzon.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to where the second vehicle would be stored and Mr. Goldstein responded that it would be in his driveway. He would have both vehicles there.
A motion was made by Mr. Connolly to grant Jon’s Car Service of 31 Centre Street a permit for one additional car – a 2003 Dodge Caravan. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
PUBLIC HEARING: FISCAL 2010 WATER & SEWER USE RATES
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to open the public hearing.
Ms. White opened the hearing by stating that Deputy Town Administrator Michael Walters Young would take the Board through quite a lot of
information and the administration was not expecting the Board to make a decision tonight. The Board may wish to continue the hearing to June 1 because there wouldn’t be a full Board at the next meeting.
Mr. Walters Young did a power point presentation on the administration’s proposal for the rate setting of water & sewer rates for Fiscal 2010. The presentation covered the rate setting process, rate setting model & methodology, rate proposal, and alternatives.
Rate Setting Process
Rates were set by the Board of Selectmen in their role as the Water & Sewer Commissioners for the Town. The Mass Department of Revenue requires that revenues must match appropriated expenses in order to approve tax recapitulation in December for all funds including an enterprise. This budget must be balanced by December.
The water & sewer enterprise funds were driven by an expense-first model – that is operating & capital expenses were developed, discussed and voted upon, and revenues were raised to meet those expenses. The process began last winter with the development of the water/sewer enterprise budget. Expenses were discussed at length from January to their final approval at Town Meeting in late April 2009.
Rate Setting Model & Methodology
- FY2010 rates were based on a model which uses actual usage data from FY2006, 2007 and 2008
PUBLIC HEARING: FISCAL 2010 WATER & SEWER USE RATES
PUBLIC HEARING: FISCAL 2010 WATER & SEWER USE RATES (contd)
- Staff averaged the usage for the three years and then applied the rates as proposed in each option to every one of the 51,000+ reads to obtain purely rate-driven model for rate revenues
- All rate options were shown at 93.2% of that was billed. This reduction factor was to account for the average amount that was not collected in the same Fiscal Year in which it was billed.
- The FY2010 expense budget (operations and capital) requires 3.5% more than FY2009. 98.4% was attributed to fixed costs – debt service and MWRA
- Alternative funding sources, including retained earnings and prior capital article closeouts, will pay for the FY 2010 costs of proposed capital projects.
- FY 2009’s significant rate increase has achieved desired effects – a) funded operations and b) provided for a nominal amount of retained earnings. This was painful but an effective step and stabilized the fund.
Rate Proposal
- Rates are increasing in FY 2010, but significantly less than in FY 2009
- Usage has stabilized over the course of three years
- Additional Enterprise Revenue, including investment income, betterments, liens, and new growth (totaling over $1,200,000) have been accounted for and added to the rate proposal.
- Proposed Rate Increase: 1.15%
The impact of a 1.15% increase on the normal single family home would be $2.75 per quarter or $11.02 per year.
The goals of the rate proposal were to:
- Hold average water/sewer user to average rate of increase – 1.15%
- Promote water conservation
- Guarantee rates cover the costs of operations
Alternatives
- Implementation of Fire Connection Fee:
Summary: Implement Fire Connection Fee to Natick businesses who have suppression systems at the rate of $100/1 inch diameter of trunk line annually
- Additional Revenue Generated/(Lost): $75,000
- Impact on Rates: Decrease of 0.65%
- Resulting rate Increase if implemented: Increase of 0.5%
- Recommendation: Implement the Fee
- Averaging of Apartments
Summary: Average bills sent to apartment complexes similar to how condominium developments are currently averaged.
- Additional revenue generated/(reduced): ($422,000)
- Impact on Rates: Increase of 3.5%
- Resulting Rate Increase if Implemented: Increase of 4.65%
- Recommendation: Do Not Average Apartments
Mr. Walters Young noted there were several concerns with how apartments and single family homes were treated. Apartments were viewed as businesses. Condos were assessed on a market approach where apartments were assessed on an income approach. When expenses go up it takes away from your income and your assessed value will drop. When expenses go up, the tax bill goes down. Condos did not have that option. Apartment owners can’t charge people directly for water and any breaks can’t necessarily be handed to the tenants. Averaging of apartments would affect approximately 1,300 customers.
Summary: Average bills sent to out-of-town customers currently using pit meters similar to how condominium developments are currently averaged.
- Additional Revenue generated/(Reduced): ($75,000)
- Impact on Rates: Increase of 0.65%
- Resulting rate increase if implemented: Increase of 1.8%
- Recommendation: Do Not average out-of-Town customers at this time, but continue to work towards formalization of agreements for FY11.
Mr. Walters Young recalled that last spring there was considerable discussion. At that time the Board was advised not to average out-of-town customers and the administration would continue to work on it. There has been a meeting with a neighboring Town Administrator, but as of this date an agreement has not been reached. The offer was to average once a method was
PUBLIC HEARING: FISCAL 2010 WATER & SEWER USE RATES (contd)
established to separate irrigation use. The administration wanted to be sure water used for irrigation was not averaged as that was anti-conservation. They also wanted to be certain that something not available to Natick customers wasn’t available to anyone else. Agreements must be in place with municipalities, neighborhood associations, or both. As this takes time, the recommendation would be not to average at this time but to continue to work on agreements for FY11 or sooner.
Alternatives Not Considered
- Expansion of discounted rate programs. About 300-400 elderly were taking advantage of the elderly discount. It was a clear method, but a proposal hasn’t been developed for how to expand it on an equitable level. It was complicated and the hope was to review this with the Board at mid-year review.
- Averaging of irrigation meters. Mr. Walters Young pointed out that the system was designed to encourage conservation and when using it for a non-primary use, it seems appropriate that a premium should be paid.
- Averaging of Laundromats. The basic point was the more you use the more you pay. Laundromats were very water intensive and the belief was that at this they should not be averaged.
Mr. Walters Young referred to page 15 of his May 4, 2009 document and pointed out that it was a snap shot for Fiscal 2011 and beyond. The initial projection for the MWRA for Fiscal 2011 was $4,660,000 or another $300,000 higher than the current budget, but that was subject to change. He thought it was unlikely to see rate relief restored.
He also noted that if all projects were approved for FY 2010 by Town Meeting, the debt service in FY 2011 would be at most $130,000 higher than FY 2010.
The third item was higher pension costs. A new actuarial will be used as of January 1, 2010 that will take into account any changes. Looking at the down turn over the next few years, if the State didn’t change the mandate for full funding for 2028 it was likely to see much higher costs.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if any consideration had been given to applying any proposed changes simply to the sewer side. Mr. Walters Young responded that when the changes were applied there was a higher increase in sewer than water, but it was barely noticeable because the increase was very small. Mr. Ostroff commented that the increase didn’t seem to be all on the sewer side. Mr. Walters Young noted that the MWRA was all sewer but the debt was both water and sewer.
Mr. Ostroff then commented that should the Board vote no change in the rates at this time that would mean the projected budget would be out of balance by $60,000-70,000 but that could be made up with retained earnings. Mr. Walters Young responded that should Town Meeting be done and budgets approved that (out-of-balance) would have to be rectified by the end of Fall Town Meeting because an enterprise fund had to be balanced and the use of retained earnings would need to be increased.
Mr. Connolly thought that Dover had a responsibility to its citizens to provide water, but Ms. White explained that Dover didn’t have the infrastructure to do that and Natick agreed to provide water for this neighborhood association. Mr. Connolly believed it was Dover or Wellesley’s responsibility to provide the water and the onus should be put on them, but Ms. White didn’t see that all. The homeowners were responsible for paying for their utilities and it just happens their water came from Natick. Mr. Connolly explained that he was just looking for an option to assist those residents without impacting Natick citizens.
With regard to page 15 and the focus on Fiscal 2011 and beyond, Ms. Van Amsterdam noted the discussion about higher MWRA assessments and no control, but she pointed out there was control over the higher debt service moving forward. There wasn’t control for those projects already undertaken, but the moving forward debt service was an area on which the Board should focus. With respect to the higher pension, Ms. Van Amsterdam noted personnel currently assigned to water & sewer and those persons whose salary dollars
either direct or indirect were already vested the Town already had to pay their pension. If looking to reduce pension costs, the Town may look at how it allocates staff.
PUBLIC HEARING: FISCAL 2010 WATER & SEWER USE RATES (contd)
Ms. Van Amsterdam noted there were some items not listed, i.e. health care costs. She understood that would come up within negotiations but that was really where the potential savings could take place. She then noted that indirect costs were $2.5 million and although she understood those costs need to be covered, the Board may decide not to cover as much under the indirect. She clarified that she wasn’t saying any of the $2.5 million was not acceptable. It was legal but she believed the Board should look at the indirect costs moving forward to see if some of those costs could be moved out of water & sewer and back into the departments. There were further ways to look at the cost of water moving forward.
Mr. Ciccariello recalled that the handouts a couple of weeks ago indicated the MWRA assessment would be 5.3% higher, but Mr. Walters Young used an increase of 7.5%. If the MWRA assessment came in at 5.3% was it the intent of the administration to recommend any money be paid back to the ratepayers.
Ms. White responded that Ms. Van Amsterdam found some items that may help mitigate future costs, but she (Ms. White) thought we would still be looking at significant increases. Her suggestion would be not to make an adjustment. If the MWRA assessment was lower than budgeted, she thought the Board would be glad to have that money next year so it wouldn’t have to impose significant rate increases.
Mr. Ciccariello asked for confirmation that the early retirement and union COLAs had been taken out of the budget. Ms. White’s reply was, “yes”.
Regarding the recommending of the implementation of the fire connection fee, Mr. Ciccariello noted that was pretty much for existing businesses and he wondered why no consideration was given to any new business looking to bring in new fire lines. There were several communities that charge for new fire protection lines coming from the street into their building. Last time the Board met with DPW Director Charles Sisitsky, Mr. Sisitsky indicated he would look into this.
Opening the hearing up to comments from the public, Earl Sidman, the owner of a four family property at 27 Cochituate Street told the Board that he was confronted with a dilemma. Last quarter his water bill for the four apartments was $2,114 or $8,000 a year. If that were divided by four the bill would have been $1,500 or $600 less. He felt the Town had reached into his pocket and stolen his retirement fund and he needed some help. He recommended averaging for four family housing and didn’t think he should make up the $422,000 that would be lost if the Board did the fair thing. He didn’t use excessive water. There were four families. This property was supposed to help him in his retirement, but right now he couldn’t afford to have the house.
Attorney George Richards stated that he was representing KCN Realty and the Franchi family. He felt the last speaker couldn’t have put it in better terms because that was what the Franchi family has experienced. They pay about $600,000 in water. The property assessment went down last year minimally but the water bill went up 40% and the use went down 5%.
Mr. Richards reminded the Board that he was here several months ago and his letter of February 26 indicates the averaging of water for condos and not apartments was unfair. An apartment complex may be a business that generates income, but there were 200 units at Natick Village owned by one entity and rented out. Condos can pass the cost on in condo fees. Apartments had no way to increase other than to increase the rents. It was penalizing apartment owners for owning apartments. These were good tax paying citizens that were being squeezed. If the apartments were averaged it was estimated that revenue would decrease by $422,000 but essentially they were paying more and why should they be subsidizing.
Mr. Richards recognized averaging apartments would be painful but it was the right thing to do. Why should his client and similar apartment owners be asked to pick up that cost. The condos were a business with management fees. The argument of staff requirements was hardly an enormous amount of work. One bill could be sent.
Mr. Richards continued that the Town was trying to keep more affordable housing and apartments were one of the highest percentages of affordable housing, but this was increasing the cost and making it less affordable. North Andover and Newton average both condos and apartments. The benefit would be passed onto the renters and if the water rates were kept lower it would keep the rents lower.
PUBLIC HEARING: FISCAL 2010 WATER & SEWER USE RATES (contd)
In conclusion Mr. Richards stated that it was a matter of equity and fairness and he requested the Board’s consideration of some way to average the apartments. He added that his client has indicated he was pursuing legal options of exploring the inequities. That was not a threat. It was a reality that relief was needed.
Representative of Meadowbrook Water District, Robert Coates told the Board the Trust consisted of 26 homes and had received Natick water for 20 years. He had been here many times and made the same argument the other two gentlemen have made for some form of averaging. The Trust was paying approximately 2-1/2 times what the average Natick resident was paying and they would like to request as opposed to waiting yet another year that progress be made during the year as opposed to taking it up in June. Last year the Board said they would look into it and may do something this year. He understood all the agreements hadn’t been finalized and was encouraged by this presentation as it sounds like progress was being made but asked the Board to please consider reaching the agreement and implementing it in real time.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if Meadowbrook had individual meters. Mr. Coates advised that they did but they were not Natick’s standard. They were billed by one master meter. Mr. Coates added that these negotiations were started with Mr. Conley (former Town Administrator) in 1997 and they were getting close to an averaging agreement.
Bob Zokoff of Glen Ridge Trust stated that Glen Ridge has been a customer for 50 years and he had been attending Selectmen’s meetings for many years particularly when rates started increasing around 2003. Each year there has been significant improvement in the quality of information being received. The staff was doing a job he didn’t envy.
To Mr. Connolly’s comment on other Town’s governments taking responsibility for some of the cost, Mr. Zokoff advised there was an agreement put in place
50 years ago to serve their particular trust of 41 residences and a follow-up agreement which was Elm Bank that gave Natick the right to drill wells within the corporate boundaries of Dover. There was a contractual agreement to allow that to happen in exchange for providing water to residents in addition to other things, i.e. putting in a pressure pump in Glen Ridge and he saw that was in the capital plan for FY 2011.
Mr. Zokoff continued that there were 21 residents in Dover that were billed individually on individual meters not part of the Trust. Those 21 individuals have Natick meters. He didn’t know of a contractual agreement but it was an equity issue between Natick charging one resident down the street from him one price and he was getting charged another because a master meter was used. Since 2003 Glen Ridge Trust residents have been paying 3 to 4 times the cost for water. The rate increase last year was punitive for the highest users because the Town didn’t want people using 40 units per quarter, but they (Glen Ridge) were averaging 26 hcf a quarter the same as Natick residents and that includes some irrigation, pools and others. The intent was to force conservation, but for anyone on a master meter
the effect was to penalize. The problem was rectified for the condos but not for the other residents. Mr. Zokoff hoped the Board would try to correct that quicker and not wait another year.
Mr. Connolly questioned why the master meter couldn’t be averaged by dividing by 41. Mr. Walters Young agreed that it could be once there were rates on the irrigation usage. The best way the administration knew was to have the users install irrigation meters.
Mr. Zokoff noted that today they were paying much higher than any irrigation rate. He also noted that in 2003 with the first major increase, the Trust installed meters. They spent the money to put in exactly the same meters as Natick minus the electronic read but they could be upgraded.
In response to Mr. Zokoff’s claim to be paying 3-4 times what Natick residents were paying, Ms. White pointed out that the rate for consumption of 26 hfc was $3.27 for water only but Glen Ridge was $5.05 per unit so it wasn’t even twice the amount. She also noted that the irrigation rate for 40 units was $8.15 so Mr. Zokoff wasn’t paying the irrigation rate either.
Louis Franchi read a letter written by Pasquale Franchi dated December 3, 2008 expressing disappointment to the exclusion of apartments on cost averaging and requesting an appeal of that decision. The condos were granted an appeal but the apartments were not and he found the argument for
PUBLIC HEARING: FISCAL 2010 WATER & SEWER USE RATES (contd)
the decision to be without merit. To say there may be a change in future years was not acceptable and he felt was unfair.
Mr. Franchi noted that there had been no response from the Town and he hired an attorney to voice their displeasure and through a letter sent in February requested a meeting. He understood and appreciated that the Town had an
enormous budget to balance but they (Franchi family) struggle to balance their own budget. Many residents have been there since the day. The Town didn’t pick up Kendall Crossing’s trash and the burden on the school system was very minimal. They were being burdened with extra cost arbitrarily and he questioned if there was a reason.
Mr. Ciccariello explained the Board was having these meetings to discuss these issues and noted that part of the equation was the loss of $400,000 of income.
Mr. Franchi stated that the residents of Kendall Crossing did not use any more than the normal usage and he had taken painstaking efforts to curb the usage. Over the last two years he reduced water usage but was being charged more.
Mr. Ciccariello told Mr. Franchi he understood what he was saying and reiterated that was why the Board was having the meeting and the Board would discuss what to do. If there was additional documentation Mr. Franchi wished to provide, it would be accepted.
Mr. Ostroff noted that one thing that happened a year ago was that the Board raised rates by an average of 23% but that was not true across-the-board. The increase affected the upper tier and lower tier the most and was far most heavy for people who use the most. That was why Mr. Franchi saw such a spike.
Mr. Franchi responded that comparing condos and apartments and not lumping them together was the issue.
Mr. Connolly emphasized that the vote was by the majority of the Board, not the entire Board.
Condo owner and Town Meeting member John Magee questioned why have an increase in rate tiers. It was said it was to promote conservation, but there wouldn’t be a need for averaging if there were flat rates. It may be smarter to take a step back and look at the reason for the tier rates. The tiered rates have unintended consequences. The average resident use was around 18 hcf with a median of 16 hcf. Looking at the increased rate, those using 18 hcf saw a decrease. Large water users saw an increase approaching 50%.
Mr. Magee told the Board he was grateful the Board did the averaging for the condos last year, but if that hadn’t been done he would be here saying his water cost three time as much. For a Town Meeting member he thought it would be helpful to have a budget that was recommended by the Board of Selectmen. If the Board could not come up with one, he would like to have an idea from each member.
Mr. Magee encouraged the Board to listen to the administrator when they said to plan long-term and don’t use up reserves. Think about what can be borrowed responsibly instead of borrowing every cent because there will be long-term costs for the enterprise.
With respect to the $5 billing fee, Mr. Magee stated that he reviewed the DVD and the Board was told the fee would be charged on a per bill basis and not a per meter basis.
Mr. Sidman wanted to get across the burden on him personally. He has empty apartments and had to borrow $2,000 to pay the water bill. If the rate went up he would have to let the building go and the Town would lose the taxes and the water.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if Mr. Sidman qualified for an exemption. Mr. Sidman advised that he lived in Framingham and rented the building to four families. He didn’t think he would qualify for an exemption. He added that this was his retirement and it was a killer.
It was Mr. Ostroff’s understanding that a descending tier vs flat rate was the policy of the State with the Town’s withdrawal permit. Mr. Walters Young was of the understanding that there had to be at least two tiers.
PUBLIC HEARING: FISCAL 2010 WATER & SEWER USE RATES (contd)
There was no state statute that mandated having multiple tiers, but there couldn’t be declining or descending tiers. There was no regulation that says there must be inclining to a certain degree, but it was only a matter of time.
To Mr. Magee’s comment on the $5 billing charge, Mr. Ciccariello asked if the $5 was billed per meter and if that was the vote of the Board. Mr. Walters Young explained that the vote was not clear. He believed the vote was to treat condo units as single family.
When the Board agreed to average the condos, Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how much the Town lost in income. Mr. Walters Young estimated between $750,000-$800,000 under the rate proposal.
To the assertion of approximately 200 units at Natick Village being rented and owned by one person, Mr. Ciccariello asked the administration to look into it. Mr. Walters Young advised that had been done and it was confirmed that was the case.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to continue the public hearing to June 1. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
At 9:40 p.m. a recess was called. The meeting was reconvened at 9:45 p.m.
SAMER ALMAARI D/B/A ALMAARI JEWELERS: JUNK DEALER’S LICENSE
Samer Almaari told the Board he had his own jewelry repair business in the Natick Mall and would like to purchase precious metal.
A motion was made by Mr. Connolly to grant Samer Almaari d/b/a Almaari Jewelers a junk dealer’s license for premises at the Natick Collection, 1245 Worcester Street. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam. As the maker and seconder of the motion Mr. Connolly and Ms. Van Amsterdam agreed to amend the motion to include the license being contingent upon Mr. Almaari keeping a log of the purchases. Unanimously voted.
POLICE CHIEF APPOINTMENT PROCESS
With Chief Mannix announcing his retirement as of June 30, Ms. White noted there were some important decisions to be made. She expected a two step process. The first would be the appointment of an interim Chief and then an appointment for the long-term. Lieutenant Mabardy was the second in command and appointing him as the interim may be a consideration. A viable alternative may be interviewing each of the lieutenants.
Ms. Gloff inquired if it was known how many of the lieutenants would be interested in the position. Ms. White did not know, noting that she only spoke with one. Chief Mannix added that he hadn’t polled the lieutenants collectively, but a few have indicated they would be interested. His guess was that all four would be interested.
If the Board was going down the path of interviewing all the lieutenants who were interested, Ms. Gloff requested that the lieutenants be asked to officially notify the Town Administrator or the Chief.
If any of the lieutenants were interested, Mr. Ciccariello thought a letter of interest to the Town Administrator would be appropriate. He thought the Board had to set up an interview process as the hope was to get somebody on board at least 30 days in advance of the Chief’s last day.
Noting that in public safety usually there was a hierarchy of command, Ms. Van Amsterdam as to what the rank second in command meant in reference to a lieutenant’s status. Chief Mannix advised that all the lieutenants were equal in rank, but one was designated as the executive officer and he had the staff authority to oversee and direct the operation. Asked if the lieutenants chose the executive officer, Chief Mannix responded that the executive officer was appointed by the Chief. Lieutenant Mabardy had been the executive officer for over a year since Lieutenant Mason left.
Mr. Ostroff didn’t think the Board knew how long the interim appointment would be and thought it should be made clear that the appointment may be a short-term or a long-term. He also didn’t know if there was anything to restrict the Board from making the interim appointment from ranks other than the lieutenants and he thought that was something the Board would want to qualify.
POLICE CHIEF APPOINTMENT PROCESS (contd)
Mr. Ciccariello believed there was nothing that restricted the Board from interviewing anybody and agreed that a decision should be made whether to restrict it to the lieutenants.
Mr. Ostroff moved to invite the lieutenants in the Natick Police Department to submit a letter of interest for the interim Police Chief position. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
The Board agreed to schedule interviews for May 27 and requested that letters of interest be submitted by May 8. They asked that the letters contain telephone numbers where they could be reached out of the station, personal background information and/or resumes.
Mr. Ostroff asked about the process and if Board members could individually interview the candidates. Mr. Ciccariello responded that once the letters were received each member could meet the candidates individually on their own, but there could be no discussion of the candidates among the Board members.
Mr. Ostroff offered to work with the Chair to come up with a standard set of questions for the interview.
Moving forward Ms. White noted there were three different paths: 1) Wait for the next civil service examine that was not scheduled until Spring 2010 and the Board would need to decide if it was going to be internal or open
state. She didn’t recommend that choice because of the long wait. 2) Could seek a lateral transfer; 3) Request a delegated exam from Civil Service. This option was her recommendation and the Board would need to decide on whether to have a traditional exam or assessment center or weighted between the two. She viewed the assessment center approach to be a good one and would recommend using the assessment center as the sole measuring device.
Mr. Ostroff too thought the Board would be best served by that process (assessment center only).
With regard to the internal process, Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired as to the rank of persons that would be eligible. Ms. White explained that where there were four lieutenants if all four signed up it would just be that rank. If three lieutenants signed up it would be open to the next rank which was sergeant.
In follow up Mr. Ciccariello asked what would happen if four lieutenants signed up but only three showed up to take the exam. Ms. White advised that three would take the exam and that would be the pool. Ms. Gloff added that if two showed up the Board would have the right to reject that list. Chief Mannix confirmed that to be correct.
Mr. Ciccariello then asked about the timeframe, but Ms. White said she hadn’t started looking into that as of yet. There were folks that would conduct the assessment center. Asked if proposals would be sought from consultants, Ms. White said, “yes”.
Ms. White noted that if the Board went with the third option and did an assessment center the first thing was to request a delegated exam. She asked if the Board wanted her to look into the assessment center more thoroughly and report back on the timing and cost.
Mr. Ciccariello thought it was the only option. He didn’t want to wait until the spring of 2010 and didn’t want to preclude anyone from the lateral transfer, but he was not at the point of deciding whether it should be limited to lieutenants.
Mr. Ostroff stated that he would be glad to make a motion to request a delegated exam as he didn’t think it bound the Board to a process. Ms. Gloff, however, thought the request would have to state if it was going to be promotional or open competitive.
Mr. Ciccariello asked Mr. White to come back to the Board with more information on the assessment center. He had no problem with the assessment center. He would just like to get more information on the pros and cons.
Chief Mannix requested that the Board move as quickly as possible in appointing an interim as he would like to have time to meet with the appointee.
LOCAL BUILDING INSPECTOR POSITION
In a memo to the Board, Ms. White advised that Local Building Inspector David Gusmini had resigned his position to accept the position of Building Inspector in Southborough. Ms. White sought the Board’s authorization to proceed to fill this vacancy and included a document prepared by Community Development Director Patrick Reffett outlining the need to maintain the full
staff of inspectors. Given the impending construction at MathWorks, South Natick Hills and other significant projects a qualified inspector to fill this vacancy was critical.
Having spoken to Ms. White about this vacancy, Mr. Ciccariello noted that in all likelihood by the time the position was advertised and a qualified person found, the individual wouldn’t be hired until July 1 which means
whatever salary savings there were from the 2009 budget would revert back to the Town.
Ms. Connolly asked if the Housing Planner could do this job and his, but Ms. White advised that Mr. Merkel was not qualified for the Local Inspector’s position.
A motion was made by Ms. Van Amsterdam to approve the filling of the Local Inspector position. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
FISCAL 2008 AUDIT UPDATE
Comptroller Charles Panagopoulos informed the Board that he had some bad news and some good news as well. The Fiscal 2008 was a little behind. Last Thursday Finance Director Robert Palmer and he met with the auditor to go over the outstanding issues and there were quite a few. Outstanding receivables have not been reconciled for a couple of years.
Mr. Panagopoulos assured the Board that his office, the Treasurer and others have been working diligently in getting the information and he expected the Fiscal 2008 audit to be completely finished within two to three weeks. Work on the Fiscal 2009 audit has started. There were a lot of things that needed to be implemented for FY09 and have a leg up. Mr. Palmer and he were trying to implement good internal controls and were trying to have good systems in place that were not in place prior.
Another piece of bad news was that the FY08 will have some material weaknesses and significant deficiencies. Going forward he asked the auditor to review any potential material weaknesses/significant deficiencies with himself, Mr. Palmer and Mr. Walters Young or Ms. White. It was too late for FY08 and the weaknesses/deficiencies will be published.
In conclusion Mr. Panagopoulos stated that he had been very blessed to have a good staff working with him and Mr. Palmer and his staff. Ms. White and Mr. Walters Young have been very supportive and helpful. Without their efforts it would have been a lot worse.
Quoting from Mr. Panagopoulos’ written report to the Board, Mr. Ciccariello asked if the statement “To date Account Receivables adjusting entries for any period in FY07, FY08, FY09 and, more importantly, June 30, 2008 have not been finalized” was accurate. Mr. Panagopoulos advised that it was.
Mr. Connolly questioned why that hadn’t been picked up by someone before Mr. Panagopoulos. Mr. Panagopoulos responded that he believed there were a lot of miss-postings in the general ledger. The FY08 audit was started late and in the final stage of the (previous) Comptroller, it fell by the wayside. The auditors told him there was never a true reconciliation in place. MGL says receivables should be reconciled monthly. These have not been done by the Comptroller’s position. The Treasurer and Collector’s office have done
a good job presenting a monthly balance but the former Comptroller was not reconciling.
Mr. Connolly remembered when he was first on the Board pushing for this reconciliation and he thought the Board was led to believe it was getting better.
Mr. Ciccariello had the same recollection. The previous Comptroller on several occasions indicated the reconciliations were being done a little behind schedule but not as far back as 2006 or 2007. To read this report over the weekend was very discouraging and disappointing. He was amazed at the mess this was in.
If a citizen were to ask him what was going on, Mr. Connolly asked what he should tell them. Mr. Panagopoulos noted if there was a small variance from
FISCAL 2008 AUDIT UPDATE (contd)
one year it would carry over the next year. It was a domino effect. That was what he would tell anyone. The ledger had not been reconciled. That was why it needed to be done on a monthly basis.
Mr. Connolly stated that he would love to know why this wasn’t done and why the Board was just hearing about it now. Why didn’t the auditor tell them?
Mr. Ciccariello advised that he spoke with Ms. White about that and perhaps she could explain in more detail. She has had discussions with the previous Comptroller over quite a period of time.
Without intending to minimize the information being discussed and the surprise many felt at what Mr. Panagopoulos just reported, Ms. White said she wanted to focus on the positive. All of this has been identified and a plan of corrective action put in place going forward. Her understanding was that the audit would not be looking at the reconciliation but rather looking at interactional activity.
Mr. Panagopoulos noted that it was both activity during the year and what the Collector had on their side.
Ms. White asked if it seemed odd that past auditors hadn’t brought it to the Town’s attention. Mr. Panagopoulos’ response was, “yes”, noting he was appalled this had not been brought to the Board’s attention. It fell through the cracks. With different auditors there may be information that was never transferred. The new auditors may not have been informed.
Mr. Connolly countered that that was what the auditors got paid to do and didn’t do it. He was inclined to ask for the Town’s money back because they didn’t do what they were supposed to do. He felt the citizens got kicked around again. While he was for moving forward and identifying the problem, he couldn’t stand that this went back and the Board was never told.
Mr. Ciccariello didn’t think Mr. Connolly was over reacting, noting that he (Mr. Ciccariello) had expressed his opinions to Ms. White today. This was not a good situation. The Board has been through several audits and with the issue of account reconciliation and getting reconciliations done a lot of things weren’t being done that the Board was being told were being done. He couldn’t understand why past accountants never brought it up.
Ms. Van Amsterdam was curious that no one in the organization saw any of this. At the end of his report Mr. Panagopoulos says he was pleased with the way the staff was working with him. When he first walked into the department, she asked if the staff helped alert him to some things not being done.
Mr. Panagopoulos responded that they would talk about things not done or done differently. He had no quarrels from them when he asked them to do anything.
Ms. Van Amsterdam felt that every organization should have persons that would alert to not doing something correctly. If the Comptroller wasn’t telling the Board things weren’t being done, was there someone that would tell the Board it wasn’t being done. Did the staff go to him and these were things that because of their expertise they knew weren’t being done or did Mr. Panagopoulos identify the problems.
Mr. Panagopoulos responded that it was a little bit of both. The staff would say this was never done, etc. His staff said they brought this to different members of the Board’s attention about the issues of the audit and the functionality of the office. The staff has expressed their concern to the Board and the administration.
Mr. Ostroff voiced concern about impugning the former Comptroller. Not having heard a 360 perspective, he didn’t know if the Board wanted to go this far down the road with a lot of hearsay. He thought Mr. Panagopoulos was capable of doing great things but he wanted to keep the conversation in perspective. As far as the reconciliations it almost sounded like an allegation of malfeasance. His preference was to keep some perspective and not amplify private conversations to public debate.
To some extent Mr. Ciccariello thought Mr. Ostroff was right. There were some issues that may be personnel issues that may be discussed more in executive session but on the other hand there were some very big concerns.
FISCAL 2008 AUDIT UPDATE (contd)
Ms. Van Amsterdam stated that she was interested in the controls in place such that the Board was hearing from a variety of individuals. What were the checks and balances moving forward?
Ms. White responded that she would come back to the Board with a system of checks and balances.
Mr. Ciccariello proposed having the Comptroller come before the Board with a two week update. One thing that disturbs him was that Schedule A wasn’t submitted and that could have risked the Town getting state aid money which would have had drastic repercussions on the finances.
Mr. Panagopoulos responded that going forward he would keep the Board updated. For FY09 it wouldn’t be a bad idea to give the Board and the administration weekly updates. He agreed it should not turn into a public debate and defacing public policy. This was about the matter at hand and that was Fiscal 2008 and that was close to being put to rest. From what he has seen the two departments (Comptroller and Treasurer) work well together and he saw a great future with the FY09 audit. Free cash could be certified by mid September and Schedule A would be done at the latest in November.
Ms. Van Amsterdam appreciated the fact the Comptroller wants to come before the Board more frequently, but she would be interested in Ms. White’s broader perspective on checks and balances. She would like both.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if the Comptroller believed the Office was in a position where he felt the staff he had could handle the work load or should
the Board be looking to assist the Comptroller’s office with some outside help.
Mr. Panagopoulos responded that currently they weren’t (in a position to handle the work load), but for FY10 a part-time position was being hired. Interviewing just started. Once a part-time accounts payable person was in place that would free up the Assistant Comptroller to assist him with the audit and higher end things. Right now they were OK but once the part-time person was here and trained it would be smoother.
Mr. Connolly wanted to get to the truth. He felt the taxpayers deserved it and he wouldn’t let this roll away. He wanted to get the auditor in here and separate the hearsay and get the facts.
Mr. Ostroff suggested that Mr. Connolly sit down with the Town Administrator, Treasurer, and Comptroller in order to understand the issues. It looks alarming and it was but it had to be remembered that the Town had a comptroller for 29 years and then Mr. Witte. It wasn’t Mr. Witte’s background, but he modernized the department. Now there was Mr. Panagopoulos and this was his strength. It didn’t mean it was mismanaged before. Mistakes were made. He (Mr. Ostroff) had concerns if the auditors didn’t uncover things they should have. There were limits to what you would get on camera and Mr. Ostroff again strongly suggested that Mr. Connolly get together with the administration and follow that up with a report to the public on what was right and what was wrong and the public can
have confidence.
Mr. Panagopoulos pointed out that there was 1/2 staff in the payroll office over the past years and less staffing over the years contributed to the problem. With the new auditors maybe some information fell through the cracks from one firm to another. He would like to work with the Board. He understood the concerns and gave assurance that going forward things would be in much better shape.
DISTRIBUTION OF BAA MARATHON FUNDS
Appearing before the Board was Superintendent of Parks & Recreation Richard Cugini.
Mr. Cugini proposed the following expenditure of the $29,000 received from the BAA for the 2009 Boston Marathon:
Race Administration
- DPW $ 6,600
- Fire Department $ 3,100
- Police Department $ 8,800
Program Supplies for Recreation Department
- Lumber/hardware for piers & diving platform $ 1,500
- Beach rescuing equipment with boom poles and chain 1,000
DISTRIBUTION OF BAA MARATHON FUNDS (contd)
Recreation/Parks capital repairs
- Rebuilding of 2 beach piers $ 2,500
- Court repair $ 2,500
Town Administrator’s Budget $ 3,000
- Miscellaneous downtown projects (cable over Main Street)
Mr. Ciccariello observed that more and more of the contribution was being spent on the race administration as opposed to the original intent of what the money was to do which was to improve recreational facilities of the Town. Now more than half was being spent on the DPW, Fire, and Police. In the past those numbers were pretty low and they have grown substantially. He felt the Town should be pursuing more money as the original intent of the money was being lost.
Ms. White advised that herself and fellow managers in Wellesley, Framingham, and Ashland met with the Executive Director of the BAA and a commitment was made to meet again this summer to look toward the future and to do better by the host community.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to allocate the BAA funds as recommended in the memo from Mr. Cugini dated April 29, 2009 (proposed breakdown listed above). Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
TOWN MEETING:
Ms. White informed the Board that the Finance Committee had recommended six months funding for the HR Director position with the concept that it would take the general government and Schools time to determine if a plan could be put in place for a consolidated department and how it would be structured. The Board had recommended a full year of funding. She had asked the Finance Committee to reconsider and fund for nine months but was unsuccessful and she would ask the Board’s reconsideration for the six months to be consistent.
Ms. Van Amsterdam noted that the Board had had a discussion about having a full-time HR Director and she didn’t think that precluded the discussion of the schools. She thought the Board’s discussion had been clear that there should be a full-time position and funded as such.
Ms. Gloff seconded Ms. Van Amsterdam. With all the contracts coming up for negotiation, she didn’t think it was in the best interest of the community for the general government side to purposefully be in a position where there was already no HR position for six months and then go another six months. She too did not support reconsideration.
Ms. White advised that the Board’s recommendation and the FinCom’s recommendation for the legal budget were also different.
Mr. Ciccariello was of the understanding that if a strong HR person were brought in legal services would not have to be used to help negotiate contracts moving forward. In his opinion the legal budget should not be reconsidered.
The other members of the Board agreed.
- Fiscal 2010 Water & Sewer Operating Budget
Mr. Ciccariello reminded the Board that the last time there was a 2-2 vote.
Ms. Gloff inquired as to any changes since the last meeting and was told by Mr. Walters Young that from the last time it took into account one vacant position, the effects of the COLA givebacks, and the lower MWRA. It matches what was presented earlier in the evening for the rate discussion.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to support favorable action on the water & sewer budget as present. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff. Following some discussion the motion passed on a 3-2-0 vote. Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ciccariello and Mr. Connolly were opposed.
A motion was made by Mr. Ciccariello to not support the Town Administrator’s water & sewer budget. Seconded by Mr. Connolly. No vote was taken as after some discussion the motion to support passed.
TOWN MEETING: (contd)
In the discussion, Ms. Gloff asked Mr. Ciccariello if he had an alternative or if he was just saying he didn’t support it. Mr. Ciccariello responded that he would reduce the budget by an amount so as not to have an increase in the water & sewer rate.
Mr. Walters Young noted that the problem was the dollar amount would have to come from somewhere. If there was no change in the rate, $140,316 was needed, but if the Board were to add averaging for apartments the rate would go up. Mr. Ostroff added that the $140,000 assumed the Board would not vote the fire connection fee. It was impossible to know what action the Board would take. The Board may decide to average apartments. He (Mr. Ostroff) was fine with knowing things may need to be adjusted in the fall.
Going with the support motion, Ms. Van Amsterdam asked if the Board locked itself in completely with no latitude of addressing all the issues that came up earlier. Mr. Walters Young’s reply was, “no”. Asked to elaborate on what was available if the Board wanted to keep rates the same, Mr. Walters Young responded that assuming no changes were made and the Board wanted to keep the rates as is, $140,316 would be needed. Expenses could be lowered or the amount Town Meeting needs to appropriate under retained earnings could be increased. If the Board chose to do alternatives, you weren’t locked in you just had to rectify it in the fall. A budget would be approved that was out-of-balance now if a higher level of expenditures was approved than revenue. It would be 1/3 of
the way through the fiscal year and the 4.5% increase would double for the remainder of the year if the Board chose to add everything in and not reduce expenses. The budget had to be rectified by the first of December.
Ms. White pointed out that if the Board adopted the fee for the fire suppression system and the budget before you, the rate increase would be 1/2%. She realized some members were aiming for 0%, but she would suggest that the actions the Board was forced into were precisely because of not looking ahead and in looking forward at the kind of issues facing the Board this can keep a stable cost structure and rate structure. She would ask the Board to try to avoid having to shift the costs and avoid layoffs.
Ms. Gloff commented that she would rather not raise rates. Looking at the budget and discussing it, she didn’t see a responsible place to cut $140,416 from the budget. As the water & sewer commissioners, the Board had an obligation to put forth a proposal that can be defended.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR’S REVIEW OF TOWN COUNSEL SERVICES
Ms. White noted that per the terms of the Charter the Board of Selectmen appoints a Town Counsel for a one year term. Historically, the term coincides with the fiscal year and accordingly, the Board should consider appointment of Town Counsel at this time.
As she did last year, Ms. White urged the Board to reappoint the firm of Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane for the coming fiscal year. She noted that her reasons for this recommendation did not differ from last year, specifically:
- MHTL has agreed to retain the existing fee structure. The rate of $125 was extremely competitive.
- The changes implemented last year with respect to Labor Counsel services have proven to be very beneficial and given that all of the general government collective bargaining agreements will be negotiated and we were working toward changes in employees’ health care benefits, consistency in counsel services would be important.
- Town Counsel and she have been working on improving the firm’s review of contracts and have made progress in this regard. If MHTL was retained, Counsel and she would continue working on these improvements.
Ms. White suggested that these changes combined with the very cost effective service that Natick enjoys justify retaining the existing firm. Based on the survey of area communities, it was very unlikely the Town would get better pricing and it would take considerable time to bring new counsel up to speed on the issues.
Ms. White concluded that she would be hard pressed to think of anything that would be more disruptive than changing Town Counsel. She wasn’t saying there wasn’t time to do it, but this was clearly not a system that was broken.
Ms. Gloff’s personal view was that the Town got good service from Mr. Flynn and MHTL and Mr. Flynn provided the institutional memory.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR’S REVIEW OF TOWN COUNSEL SERVICES (contd)
Mr. Ciccariello was of the opinion that the change in Labor Counsel to Mr. Lehane had worked very well and Mr. Lehane had given some good opinions and advice. He saw no reason to do anything now and just wait for the reappointment in June.
Mr. Connolly said he didn’t feel the same warm sentiments.
TCAN: FOUR (4) ONE DAY BEER & WINE LICENSES
Mr. Ostroff disclosed that he was a member of TCAN with a statement on file at the Town Clerk’s Office.
Both Ms. Van Amsterdam and Ms. Gloff stated they too were members of TCAN with no statement on file.
A motion was made by Ms. Van Amsterdam to approve The Center for Arts in Natick’s request for four (4) one day beer & wine licenses for performances at their 14 Summer Street location on May 15, May 29, June 19, and June 25, 2009. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
ELIOT SCHOOL DISPOSITION
Ms. White had provided the Board with a draft RFP and a draft lease for a short-term lease of the Eliot School. As previously indicated, she noted that the Eliot School was interested in remaining in the location beyond the current lease term and anticipates responding to the Town’s RFP for a long-term lease or sale of the property when such RFP was issued. In the meantime, they were in a quandary as they do not know if they will be the entity selected through the RFP process and need approximately 2 years to
find a suitable alternative location. They were presently developing contingency plans for a scenario in which they were able to remain in the Eliot School as well as for a scenario in which they must relocate all operations.
Ms. White believed a short-term lease benefits the Town as well. Absent such action, the Montessori School would have no choice but to relocate and the Town would lose the one certain bidder for a longer term solution.
The draft RFP solicited proposals for a one-year lease with the option of two one year extensions. Further the current lease would be modified to, at a minimum, ensure that the tenant paid the cost of all utilities. Once this process was completed, the Board could then move forward with undertaking a comprehensive analysis, with a committee as envisioned by the Board, for developing the longer term RFP. Ms. White reminded the Board even if such a committee were to exist now and they were able to expedite the preparation of an RFP, it could not be issued until the necessary legislative authority had been granted for the long-term lease.
Ms. White advised that as reported in her memo of July 2008, it was determined that the only critical capital need anticipated during the term of the lease involved improvements to the heating system. The estimated cost for all recommended work was $15,000. She noted that the need for this capital improvement was detailed in the RFP and the method of cost sharing for this and other repairs needed during the term of the lease was detailed in the lease.
Referring to the draft lease, Ms. Van Amsterdam asked what was meant by “mutual agreement” for the two year extension of the lease. Ms. White explained they would submit a proposal for each of the three years even if those two additional years weren’t utilized. If the tenant wants to stay and the Town wants them to stay, this would allow that to happen.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if there were any conditions in the existing lease that stipulates when notice was given or did it just expire that specific date. Ms. White didn’t recall.
If approval were received from the State and the Board wanted to move earlier with the long-term, Ms. Van Amsterdam asked if there was language in this draft short-term lease that would allow that to be done. Ms. White’s reply was, “no”. It would be at the end of one of those years.
With respect to the $15,000, Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the source of funding and Ms. White responded that the DPW had a line item for this building. In follow-up Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the Town was proceeding with any of this work. Ms. White’s reply was, “no”. She noted that the draft lease mirrored the current lease with the East School.
ELIOT SCHOOL DISPOSITION (contd0
Mr. Ciccariello then asked about the capital moving forward and the responsibility for the heating, roof, etc. Was it the same – the Town’s share not to exceed $10,000 and the School would pick up the difference. Ms. White advised that would be negotiated.
Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired as to what the evaluation criteria related to, and Ms. White responded that if a few proposals were received the Board may want to form a small committee. If there was only one response, it would be a committee of one.
Mr. Ciccariello suggested letting potential bidders know what uses were permitted, and Ms. White indicated that the section of the Zoning By-Laws could be attached to the RFP.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Gloff, to authorize the Town Administrator to issue the Eliot School RFP with the addendum discussed (zoning). Unanimously voted.
VERIZON CAPITAL FUNDS DISTRIBUTION
Ms. White informed the Board that the Verizon capital payment of $90,000 required under the terms of their cable license had been received. The $90,000 was to support the production of local PEG Access Programming and/or other cable related purposes. The funding can only be used in support of PEG Access (Pegasus) programming or the Town’s INET system.
Last year the Board voted to utilize a portion of the capital funds ($22,000) to purchase backup equipment for the INET system and provided the balance of$68,000 to Pegasus.
To complete the backup of the INET system the Director of Information Technology has requested $41,317 of the capital funds and Ms. White recommended approval of that request. She further recommended the balance of $48,683 be transferred to Pegasus.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to allocate $41,317 of the Verizon $90,000 capital payment to Information Systems to complete the INET and to transfer the balance of $48,683 to Pegasus.
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION: NOMINATIONS
Not knowing which communities were interested in being nominated, the Board took no action.
LOTTERY COMMISSION: KENO LICENSES
The Board was in receipt of a letter from the Massachusetts State Lottery Commission advising that KENO was being offered to the following establishments in Natick:
Tedeschi Daily Mart The C Store
54-58 E. Central St. 2 Mill Street 319 North Main St.
If the Board wished to object to these establishments having KENO the objection would have to be filed with the Lottery Commission in 21 days.
No objections were raised by members of the Board.
ACCEPTANCE OF EMPLOYEE DISCOUNT: FITNESS TOGETHER
A letter was received from Fitness Together wishing to offer all Town employees 10% off any personal training package along with a complimentary health and fitness assessment.
Mr. Ciccariello questioned if this was legal and Ms. White advised that it was. She had polled some of the other managers and one element was that it couldn’t be unique to only Town employees. This business was offering discounts to other businesses in the area. One colleague suggested that it be treated as a donation which indicates the Board was assenting to it and that authorized her to disseminate information to the employees.
Ms. White disclosed that she goes to this establishment.
A motion was made by Mr. Connolly, seconded by Ms. Gloff, to accept Fitness Together’s offer. Unanimously voted.
Mr. Ostroff stated that he too worked out at Fitness Together.
MINUTES
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the October 16, 2008 meeting.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Gloff, to approve the minutes of the April 16, 2009 meeting. The motion passed on a 4-0-1 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Gloff, Mr. Connolly voted in favor of the motion. Ms. Van Amsterdam abstained.
NATICK ROTARY: REQUEST PERMIT
Mr. Ostroff disclosed that he was a member of the Natick Rotary.
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to approve the Natick Rotary Club’s request to use the Natick Common and to conduct the Tour de Natick bike ride along the public ways of Natick on June 21, 2009. The Board further voted to approve the request to hang a banner across Main Street for the period of June 15-June 22, 2009 in advertisement of the Tour de Natick.
FRED & STEVE BIKE RUN: REQUEST PERMIT
A motion was made by Mr. Connolly to approve All-Pro Productions, Inc.’s request to hold the Fred & Steve Run, a charity motorcycle ride, through Natick on May 17, 2009 subject to approval by Safety Officer Lieutenant Brian Lauzon. The ride would begin and end at the Amvets Post 79. Unanimously voted.
KATHLEEN DEMKO: BLOCK PARTY – BEAVER DAM ROAD
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Connolly, the Board unanimously voted to approve the request of Kathleen Demko to close Beaver Dam Road from #44-49 on May 17, 2009 from 12:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m. for a block party subject to compliance with the conditions imposed by Safety Officer Lieutenant Brian Lauzon.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
- Telecommunication Tax Exemption
Mr. Ostroff advised that hearings would be held a week from tomorrow and as a MMA Board member he had been asked to testify on removing the exemption for telecommunications and to remove the health care from collective bargaining and he would ask for the Board of Selectmen’s support in favor of the change in legislation. The Board was on record in voting to see the telecommunication loophole end.
Ms. Van Amsterdam recalled the Board voting on the MMA recommendations and included in that was the health care.
- West Natick Parking Garage
Mr. Ostroff reported that the MBTA would be providing a draft plan for costing out the West Natick parking garage.
- MetroWest Growth Management Committee
Mr. Ostroff informed the Board that the Executive Director of the MetroWest Growth Management Committee had left and there would be an interim director until the position was filled. When the new person was brought on board he would like to give them an opportunity to come before the Board.
Mr. Ostroff requested the Town Administrator to provide the Board with an update on the 2009 departmental goals and objectives at an upcoming meeting.
- West Natick Fire Station Study Committee
Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired as to what the Board would like to do with the West Natick Fire Station Study Committee. The Committee hadn’t met since last spring.
The Board had been contacted about marching in the July 4 parade. Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Gloff, and Mr. Connolly agreed to march.
Mr. Connolly called attention to concerns raised by a Curtis Road resident. DPW Highway Supervisor Tom Hladick dealt with the concerns and the citizen was happy.
Mr. Ciccariello questioned what was going on with the repairs being made at Station 4 and who was complaining. The list of repairs seemed to be way in excess of what was anticipated.
Ms. White advised that some of the repairs were not completed before the Building Maintenance crew had to work on a higher priority project but indicated their intent to go back as soon as they could. The maintenance crew was able to squeeze out (from the appropriation) a lot more than was originally envisioned.
Mr. Ostroff noted the Spelling Bee was scheduled for May 12 and it was possible that Town Meeting would be meeting.
Mr. Ostroff acknowledged DPW Highway Supervisor Tom Hladick and his crew for getting the new crosswalk on Marion Street done so quickly.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 a.m.
____________________________________
Kristine Van Amsterdam, Clerk
| 
