BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
June 1, 2009
5:30 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman John Ciccariello at 5:30 p.m.
PRESENT: John Ciccariello, Joshua Ostroff, Carol A. Gloff, John Connolly. Kristine Van Amsterdam did not attend the executive session. Ms. Van Amsterdam was present for the open session meeting.
ALSO PRESENT: Martha L. White, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on June 1, 2009 in the amount of $2,528,2246.43. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $639,294.59.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, moved to enter into executive session to discuss matters pertaining to litigation and executive session minutes. By roll call vote the motion passed on a 4-0-0 vote. Ms. Van Amsterdam was not in attendance of the executive session. At 5:30 p.m. the Board entered into executive session after announcing that the meeting would return to open session.
The open session was reconvened at 7:05 p.m.
Mr. Ciccariello announced that today was a sad day for Natick. A great individual in the community was lost. Sebastian Grupposo passed away and everyone’s thoughts and prayers went to his family.
Ms. White reported that she had contacted HRD at the state and they had been very responsive. She explored the assessment center option with them, but did not have an opportunity to speak to them about any alternative scenarios.
To do an assessment center, the Board would apply to the state for a delegated authority to hold the assessment center. Once the form was sent to be approved and recalled it would be within 7-10 days. The procedure then would be to procure a consultant to conduct the assessment center and analyze the results. It would then proceed to the appointment process.
Ms. White noted that she had former Personnel Director Elizabeth Dennis’ RFP when the Town went through the process with the fire chief and had worked to make it be applicable for the Police chief. When the Town went through the process for fire chief it took awhile but she thought lessons were learned and templates developed. From the time the Board voted to pursue the assessment center on October 1, 2007 it took two months to award a contract to a consultant and then another four months before an appointment was made. Using the previous process as a template, Ms. White believed that process could be cut down.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if the Board received authorization from HRD for an assessment if there would be an expiration date. Ms. White was not aware of any timetable.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the assessment center relied on civil service and Ms. White explained that it was a civil service process. Because the Police Department was a Civil Service Department, everyone had to comply with the civil service process.
Mr. Ostroff noted that should the Board request a delegated authorization it would need to specify whether an assessment center would be used as the sole device. Ms. White said that it could request a combination of an exam and an assessment center. The last time the Board went with an assessment and that seemed to be the direction of most communities.
Mr. Ciccariello asked about doing an assessment center for in-house candidates only or an open process, but Ms. Gloff pointed out that an assessment center could be done for an open process, but anybody who wanted to do it would have to be accepted and if there were 200 applicants, 200 people would have to go through the assessment center. Ms. White added that when the delegated authority was requested there would need to be a specification of whether it was open competitive or promotional.
Mr. Ostroff stated that he intended to move that the Board request a delegated authority from HRD to use the assessment center as the sole ranking device.
Given the information provided and the interview with the candidates, Ms. Van Amsterdam put forward the idea that the Board put a term on the interim period of time and make it a year from July 1, 2009-July 1, 2010.
Mr. Ostroff respected that, but questioned how that would affect the timing of the assessment center. Ms. Van Amsterdam felt that if she put her thought in a motion and it passed, it would give the Board a little more latitude on when to hold an assessment center.
From the appointment of the Fire Chief, it was Mr. Connolly’s recollection that if all five deputies signed up, it locked out anybody from another rank. Was that the same with the Police? Ms. White advised that if all four lieutenants signed up, then the sergeants would not be able to sign up. Mr. Ciccariello added that if only two lieutenants took the exam the Board could decide not to select from those two.
As one lieutenant would become Acting Chief, Mr. Connolly asked if that individual was still considered a lieutenant. Ms. White advised that he would be.
Mr. Ostroff moved to authorize the Town Administrator to request the use of an assessment center as the sole ranking device for an in-house promotional examination for the Chief of Police. Seconded by Ms. Gloff. Discussion continued and Mr. Ostroff withdrew his motion with the request that the item be at the beginning of the agenda for June 15.
Speaking to the motion, Ms. Van Amsterdam stated that she was in favor of an assessment center but didn’t know if she was prepared to vote this evening. She would like to see everything written down so she would know that it
wouldn’t tie the Board to a date certain. She would like to see a timeline before voting.
Mr. Ostroff offered to amend his motion to request the Town Administrator to only request delegated authority if it provides for an assessment center that may be held as late as spring 2010.
Ms. Van Amsterdam didn’t know why it couldn’t wait two weeks. Most of the Board members have spoken in favor of the assessment center so why can’t it wait until the next meeting to get something in writing that described the process and have every question answered.
Mr. Connolly stated that he was in favor of an assessment center although he didn’t think it was a bad thing to wait for two weeks. The Town had five chiefs over 100 years and the Board could take its time to look at this.
Ms. Gloff noted that she was just about prepared to make a tabling motion for two weeks, but wanted to know if there were other questions. If there was a time limit should the Board request a delegated authority was a good question.
Ms. White told the Board that, to the extent she could, she would be happy to get answers from HRD and would try to get the timeline to the Board as soon as possible.
A motion was made by Ms. Van Amsterdam to set the term for the interim chief’s appointment for July 1, 2001-June 30, 2010. Seconded by Mr. Connolly. Following a lengthy discussion the motion passed on a 3-2-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Mr. Connolly voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ostroff and Ms. Gloff were opposed.
In the discussion of the motion, Mr. Connolly felt that given what Fiscal 2011 was known to be like from an economic perspective and the union contracts up on July 1, 2010 and the potential timeframe of six months (to appoint a permanent chief), it seemed to him that the Town as a whole would be better served if the interim chief held that position for a full year. It still allowed the Board to proceed with an assessment center and have a permanent chief in place by July 1, 2010. It also afforded an opportunity of an overlap with Chief Mannix and from a public perception it provides stability as opposed to putting an interim in for six months. People may be reluctant to follow the lead of that person because he would only be there six months. He felt a year provides more than sufficient time for an interim
person to be extremely productive.
Mr. Ostroff wasn’t sure why that (a year’s appointment) needed to be done. It wasn’t known how long the assessment center would take, but there was a lot of flexibility and he didn’t know why the Board would want to tie its hands that way when the ultimate goal was to get someone in place. The interim would be at least 4-5 months. The important thing was to provide long-term stability. Having an interim appointment for one year didn’t necessarily buy stability. Everyone knew it was an interim appointment and if the permanent appointment were made in January or February, would the Board really want the new chief to go to July 1 before assuming the duties.
Mr. Ciccariello believed that if a new chief were selected, the interim could be relieved of his responsibilities at any time. Ms. White did not expect the interim chief to be under a contract.
Mr. Connolly was of the opinion that the year gave it a tangible amount of time and a rock solid date.
To Ms. White it was important for the new permanent chief to be put into place as soon as possible as hopefully that would be the person that would be here for many years to come. That would be the individual to set direction for the department. The interim was meant to be a holdover not the individual that would change direction.
Ms. Van Amsterdam disagreed with that philosophy. Given the caliber of the lieutenants and longevity, it would be entirely different if someone new were brought in. She cited the accomplishments of the interim Comptroller. An interim person could make significant contributions to an organization.
Mr. Ostroff felt making a year’s appointment distorted the process. It changed the rules for everyone that participates in good faith. The interim chief may be there for a year, but he wasn’t sure it made sense to rush into a one year pre-nup.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to Mr. Ostroff’s timetable and Mr. Ostroff responded that in the interest of the department and community he thought it was important to have a permanent chief as quickly as possible. The men and women need to know who was boss. When the candidates were interviewed last Wednesday they were asked about being interim and how they would deal with it. He (Mr. Ostroff) would like this to take its natural course. If the Board was going to proceed with the delegated exam then proceed with it and if the Board was in a position to make an appointment next January or February, let’s do it. These (candidates) were four highly qualified professionals and they will work with whoever the interim person was and will work with each other.
Mr. Connolly again asked Mr. Ostroff for his timetable and Mr. Ostroff replied that it would likely be 6-8 months. In follow-up Mr. Connolly questioned if a year was a stretch. Mr. Ostroff thought that if the Board could appoint a new Chief for February 1, that (making the interim appointment for a year) was five months of time that the new chief could spend learning rather than deferring it. It didn’t make sense to him.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that when the Board talked about the interim chief there was no suggestion to anybody that this was 1,2, or 3 months. The Board said it would be bringing on an interim chief and never talked about a timetable. Given the interviews with each candidate he thought whether it be 8-9 months or a year, the candidates would not have answered any differently. He thought each candidate wanted to know the timetable. If it was going to be short, 1-2 months, they may do some things differently than a long term.
One consideration should be the budget cycle. The Board had talked about starting the budget cycle earlier rather than later and he (Mr. Ciccariello) thought it was important that somebody be in that position to help move forward the budget cycle.
APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM POLICE CHIEF
Mr. Ciccariello noted that he met with each candidate personally and told each when the process first started that one thing he wanted to know was whether there were truly some candidates within the Police Department that were qualified to be considered for the future chief. Not knowing all of the candidates he had some concern. Having gone through the process in the Fire Department three times and knowing how difficult the process was, he wanted to feel confident there were the type of individuals in the department who were capable of being chief. This process has clearly told him that moving forward he personally would not have any problems with the four candidates being considered as the Police Chief. Each of the candidates was extremely professional and well respected in the department.
Mr. Ciccariello thanked the four candidates for participating.
Mr. Ostroff thanked Chief Mannix and the four candidates, Lt. Mabardy, Lt. Grassey, Lt. Pagliarulo, Lt. Lauzon - noting the Board was privileged to have four well qualified candidates. He acknowledged the men and women who were concerned about this period of transition and gave assurance the Board would come together to help support the individual chosen to lead the department.
Mr. Connolly stated that he was impressed with the knowledge, the intelligence, and the ideas that each of the candidates expressed and hoped everyone would share their ideas with whoever was appointed.
Ms. Gloff seconded the comments of the previous speakers, adding that unfortunately only one could be the interim chief. She thought all were qualified. All expressed some interest in the permanent position and stressed that those not chosen should not assume anything from that. She encouraged all four to work together because they had to work as a team to lead the department over the next year.
By paper ballot, Lieutenant Nicholas Mabardy received three votes and was selected as the interim chief for the period July 1, 2009-June 30, 2010.
Mr. Ciccariello voted for Lt. Mabardy
Mr. Ostroff voted for Lt. Brian Lauzon
Ms. Van Amsterdam voted for Lt. Mabardy
Ms. Gloff voted for Lt. Steven Pagliarulo
Mr. Connolly voted for Lt. Mabardy
Mr. Ostroff moved to make Lt. Mabardy’s appointment unanimous. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
Lt. Mabardy found this to be truly humbling but a great honor to be appointed as interim chief. He noted that he did not reach the position on his own but because of the encouragement and help of a long list of people over his whole life. He thanked the honorable Board and Town Administrator and vowed to do the best job he possibly could in the time he was there.
A recess was called at 7:50 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 7:55 p.m.
THE MATHWORKS: TIF AGREEMENT
Town Meeting had authorized the Board to enter a Tax Increment Financing Agreement with The MathWorks with regard to their proposed expansion.
Ms. Gloff inquired if the agreement had changed in any way, shape or form from the previous draft the Board saw or was presented to Town Meeting. Ms. White advised that the only change was to fill in the date of Town Meeting.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to approve the TIF between the Town of Natick and The MathWorks. 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 abstained.
JOINT INTERVIEWS WITH RECREATION & PARKS COMMISSION TO FILL VACANCY
The Board was joined by members of the Recreation & Parks Advisory Commission.
Bruce Weisberg told the boards that having been involved in Natick Center Associates, a downtown business, and other non-profits, he thought it would be a nice honor to serve on the Recreation Commission. He realized the importance of bringing the business community together with Recreation and how they both could contribute to the quality of life.
Ms. Gloff inquired if there was any danger of Mr. Weisberg withdrawing from one or another boards on which he currently served if he were appointed to the Recreation Commission. Mr. Weisberg’s response was not at this time.
Mr. Connolly disclosed that Mr. Weisberg was a friend of his and they had a business relationship.
Chair of the Recreation & Parks Commission Wayne Szretter inquired as to Mr. Weisberg’s vision for the department. Mr. Weisberg reiterated that he thought it was important to bring the business community into the Recreation Department to tie the whole community together to realize how important it was to the vitalization of the Town.
Commission member Ronald Ordway inquired if Mr. Weisberg’s position with the bank conflicted with the Recreation Commission. Mr. Weisberg managed the bank’s facilities and saw no conflict. Most of his job was real estate.
By paper ballot the Board of Selectmen and members of the Recreation & Parks Commission unanimously voted to appoint Bruce Weisberg to the Recreation Commission until the March 2010 election.
INTERVIEWS FOR NOMINATION TO LEONARD MORSE GRANTS PANEL
Mr. Ostroff disclosed that he had filed a Form 23B and would be deliberating on whether to nominate his campaign manager Betsy Boggia to a non-profit board. There was no financial interest. His business occasionally seeks grant funding, but they had explicitly not sought funding from the Leonard Morse Grants Foundation.
Although she did not have an active campaign at the moment, Ms. Gloff advised that Jay Ball with his wife had served as Co-Chairs of her last campaign in 2008. There was no financial benefit for her.
Mr. Ciccariello noted there were four candidates. Jay Ball was not available due to another commitment, but was requesting nomination.
Jane Williams stated that she had served on the grants committee for five years and found it very interesting to review the grants that have come in to help meet the unmet health needs. It was very enlightening in what people hoped to do.
Ms. Williams noted that she had a background as a nurse and a former school nurse leader. She was also in Alliance and Substance Abuse and the MetroWest Medical Center Advisory Board and would like to be on the grants panel for another three years.
Mr. Ostroff thanked Ms. Williams for her past service on the grants panel. The work of the panel was very important to the community.
Being on the Board and having heard many times that Natick didn’t go after the grants that were out there, Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how Ms. Williams would try to get out to the community to let them know there were grants available and how they could apply.
Ms. Williams responded that by meeting people in the community they could be encouraged to apply.
Asked if the grants panel was in a position to fund grants given the economic times, Ms. Williams advised they were – carefully.
Maureen Nguyen thanked the Board for the opportunity, stating that she was interested in the position because serving on the Distribution Committee of the Foundation had given her a broad view of the unmet health needs in the 25 towns at large. Serving on the Leonard Morse Grants Panel would be a great opportunity to address her focus on Natick’s needs where she was raising her two daughters. She looked forward to collaborating with the schools and the VNA and continuing to develop creative sustaining solutions and seeking new entities.
As to how she would raise awareness to organizations to submit proposals, she thought it was important to meet with individuals and organizations and invite them to participate in the bidder’s conference that trains organizations to write the proposal and match needs. There was a lot of partnership and collaboration that could be done and her professional experience was steeped in that dialog looking for evidence based outcome and efforts to reduce racial and ethnic health disparities. She felt her experience and passion and time with the Foundation had prepared her to turn her attention toward the Natick community specifically.
Mr. Ostroff inquired as to what she meant by new entities and Ms. Nguyen responded that some 501c3’s haven’t capitalized on the grant process. She thought the panel had an opportunity to better some of its education programs. She only saw one modest grant come forward and she thought she could work with the panel to be a little broader and more open minded.
Betsy Boggia thanked the Board for the opportunity and noted that professionally she worked in fund raising and development for non-profits. She did a lot of grant writing and would like an opportunity to be on the other side of the fence and be able to evaluate folks. She did this as a
consultant to an organization that gave grants to small organizations and it was gratifying.
Ms. Boggia stated that she would welcome the opportunity to review grants that would impact the community in which she lived and raised her children. Her background wasn’t in health care. She worked on youth grants, violence prevention, and the arts but would welcome the opportunity to expand her knowledge.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if Ms. Boggia had any commitments that would prevent her from attending meetings. Ms. Boggia’s reply was, “no”.
Mr. Ostroff asked about her experience on the Friends of the Children Trust Fund, and Ms. Boggia responded that it was a quasi public private organization. The Friends Board was the private piece. It was a limited role in the past and they were expanding that role. What she did was co-chair the annual auction gala event.
In her past duties presenting grants, Mr. Ciccariello inquired if she ever applied for a grant from the MetroWest Foundation. Mr. Boggia’s response was, “no”.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how she would encourage groups to apply for grants. Ms. Boggia replied that as long as the Board was comfortable with people on the panel being spokespeople, she would attend meetings in the community and talk to individuals and organizations.
It was Mr. Ostroff’s understanding that the Board could nominate no more than two for each vacancy so there could be 3-6 nominees.
A motion was made by Mr. Connolly to nominate all four candidates – Jay Ball, Jane Williams, Maureen Nguyen, and Betsy Boggia to be considered for appointment to the Leonard Morse Grants Panel. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
INTERVIEW FOR APPONITMENT TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
The Board tabled the item pending Mr. Harmon’s arrival.
SCHOOL FEASIBILITY STUDY: DETERMINATION OF TOWN CONTRIBUTION
Mr. Ciccariello informed the Board this was no longer required and was being removed from the agenda.
PEGAN COVE CLEANUP: DRAWFT RESPONSE TO COMMENT PERIOD
Appearing before the Board was Environmental Compliance Officer Robert Bois.
The Board was in receipt of a draft letter commenting on the Army’s plan to clean up Pegan Cove with the focus on reducing the PCP contamination. The points raised in the letter were:
- The removal and backfilling of contaminated sediments should comply with the performance standards set in both the state Wetland Protection Act and Natick Wetland Protection bylaw. The Natick Conservation commission was committed to working with the Army to develop detailed plans and specifications for the Proposed Project that were protective of the entire Lake Cochituate environment and its many uses.
- Further field work to define the sediment removal areas needs to be completed as part of the preconstruction work for the Proposed Project. Post removal sediment sampling should also be completed to assure that the removal action level (1 part per million of Polychlorinated Biphenyls) is met in the removal areas.
- Special care should be given to monitor all discharges resulting from the Proposed Project to assure that water quality of the Lake was not further impacted.
- The long-term effectiveness and performance of the Proposed Project should include ongoing fish sampling, particularly the American eels and large mouth bass. The purpose of the future fish sampling should be to monitor the anticipated reduction of containment concentrations found in the Lake’s native fish population in hope of some day removing the necessary health ban on eating native fish caught in the Lake.
- Permanent signage to prohibit the eating of native fish caught in the Lake should be posted until the native fish are safe for people to eat.
Mr. Bois recommended that the Board sign the letter as drafted, noting this was good news and it was the last step in the cleanup plan.
Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired if after the letter was sent Mr. Bois had a role working with the Army in terms of making certain the recommendations were being followed. Mr. Bois advised that he did, adding that the residents had a role and there was the existing RAB. Another vehicle was correspondence back to the Labs.
Mr. Ostroff asked about putting permanent signage in various languages, and Mr. Bois noted that could be done. He could communicate that without specifying it in the letter.
Mr. Ostroff thanked the Board of Selectmen and the members of the RAB (Restoration Advisory Board) for the many years of work to get to this point.
Ms. Gloff moved to authorize the Chair to sign the letter and have it sent. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING: FISCAL 2010 WATER & SEWER USER RATES
Deputy Town Administrator Michael Walters Young reminded the Board that tonight represented the third evening for the Fiscal 2010 rate setting process. In tonight’s packet were a memo dated May 29, 2009, follow-ups to the water & sewer rate setting questions, and the original packet received on May 4.
The administration had been asked to answer a series of follow-up questions and Mr. Walters Young noted the major outstanding unresolved question was how to legally distinguish between apartments and condos. Can the Town more clearly identify or break down how averaging would be implemented so the difference between condos that were owned vs rented could be characterized. He noted that after further review by Town Counsel there was new information and the information presented in the memo was insignificant for tonight’s discussion. Town Counsel cited the case of Brand vs Billerica and the belief was there couldn’t be a distinction between an owner occupied vs rented condo. Customers were receiving the same service. In an apartment
someone was receiving water through a master meter and in a condo someone was receiving water through a master meter.
The rates set tonight should be inclusive of averaging that would average apartments and condos or not average anything. Because of this change, there was now a revised matrix with 9 options but 5& 6 could be crossed off because of the new information.
Mr. Walters Young continued that the budget had been voted by Town Meeting and the Board had a series of options with a series of potential rate increases. If nothing were done tonight the rates stay where they were, but if action was delayed until fall there would only be 2 or 3 bills left in FY10. The recommendations of the administration remained as in the previous month.
Ms. Van Amsterdam asked Mr. Walters Young to expound on the case cited and he responded that even the common law generally recognized that discerning of rates was permissible within reasonable limits except where customers receive the same service under similar conditions.
Ms. Van Amsterdam noted that out-of-town customers received the same service and questioned if there was a difference between out-of-town homeowners vs a homeowner in Natick. Mr. Walters Young advised that given the language the belief was there was still a difference regarding irrigation and he would argue conditions were different when it was known there was usage other than essential.
Ms. Van Amsterdam asked if out-of-town customers separated out the irrigation. Mr. Walters Young responded that he wasn’t town counsel but if there was a mechanism to track irrigation it would be a similar condition because there was a master meter with water flowing through just like a condo. Case law showed one exception. It was permissible for the Town to force condos to install individual meters but not apartments. Mr. Walters Young clarified that he was not advocating that but it was legally acceptable.
Mr. Ostroff thought it went to an issue of fairness and equity for those whose rates have been higher. It could be seen as a subsidy toward single homeowners when the rates increase because the rates applied a year ago haven’t been a high hit on the average user.
Ms. Gloff pointed out that that was in the past. This assumed all would be increased by the same percentage.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired about a clarification on the $5 administrative fee – whether to divide it by the number of units or one. The decision was made by the administration to bill by the units.
Mr. Walters Young responded that there was a lot of correspondence back and forth between the Town Meeting member and the administration regarding this. When he (Mr. Walters Young) had a similar question posed to him a year ago, his response was if it was documented in the minutes, the Town would bill by meter. That was not done. The Board did not officially vote one way or another and his interpretation was going by meter. Others interpretation was by unit. The aim of averaging was to make it as equitable and equal to how a single family home would be treated and doing that would be charging
per unit. To treat a condo similar to a single family house the decision was made to apply the administrative service fee to each unit. Should the Board wish to take a vote on that it was the Board’s prerogative.
Mr. Connolly asked what the Board had voted and Mr. Walters Young responded that at the time he stated the administrative fee would be instituted per meter, but with that was the understanding that condo units were being averaged to treat them as fairly and equally as any other single family home and if other single family homes got a fee the decision was made to average the bill to every con and the administrative fee was applied.
Where the Board didn’t take a vote, Mr. Connolly thought there was no right or wrong answer and he would have felt more comfortable if the administration came to the Board and sought a clarification.
If the Board felt that administrative decision should have been brought back, Ms. White said she wanted to take responsibility. Once she sat down and thought it through, it seemed a logical alternative to do it this way. Billing each meter would have been discounting the condo cost and it didn’t seem equitable. However, she understood Mr. Connolly’s point and perhaps it should have come back to the Board for advice.
Mr. Connolly responded that it was the Board that was elected by the citizens as the Water & Sewer Commissions so why wasn’t the Board asked.
Ms. White explained that she didn’t recall the statement having been made that it would be on a per meter basis. This was brought to the administration’s attention in March as the new rate setting process begin. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Connolly on when there was a discussion on what was clear and unclear, Ms. White stated that she didn’t perceive the discussion on the applicability of the $5 fee being contrary to the Board’s thought.
Again Mr. Connolly inquired as to when this was brought to her attention, and Mr. Walters Young replied in March. Ms. White added that the discussion in front of the Board stated $5 fee per meter. She did not recall that statement and the Board didn’t vote one way or another. When she administratively decided to bill per unit, she didn’t perceive it to be doing anything contrary to the Board’s knowledge. It wasn’t contrary to the Board’s vote.
Mr. Connolly pointed out there was no vote and Ms. White chose to do it. Ms. White preferred to characterize it as doing it the only way that was equitable. To do it any other way would be discounting the condos and she did not see it (billing per unit) as contrary to the Board’s vote.
Mr. Connolly didn’t understand if there was a question why Ms. White didn’t ask the Board, but Ms. White stated that she didn’t think there was a question.
Asked by Mr. Connolly when this (decision to bill per unit) took place, Ms. White advised that it was two months ago. Mr. Connolly questioned why this was just coming to the Board now, but Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that it had been in the briefing books and Mr. Magee had brought it to the Board. Mr. Magee believes it was unfair to charge $5 for each condo. He (Mr. Magee) believes having a master meter, they shouldn’t be treated as a single
household on the other hand they were getting the same advantages as a single family home.
Mr. Ostroff asked Mr. Magee if he had a preference between the $5 administrative fee or doing away with the average. In his (Mr. Ostroff’s) mind the intent was clear to have an individual charge.
Mr. Magee noted that in the Board’s packets was a lengthy analysis he put together. He thought there was some information that hadn’t been presented or wasn’t thought about when the rates were discussed. He looked at the fee study and looked at the water rates charged in most of the towns and looked at the highest tier vs the lowest in towns that tier the rates. Natick’s was the highest tiers and significantly higher than most towns.
Referring to the chart he prepared, Mr. Magee noted that in Natick the low user was generally lower than the other towns and the higher user cost more than the other towns. That went back to last year’s discussion where the increase left the average homeowner harmless and shifted the cost to the larger user. It was a question of whether the Town wanted to be charging those users more. It was kind of a side effect of the tier structuring and he (Mr. Magee) wasn’t sure it was the best way to go about it.
In response to Mr. Ostroff’s question, Mr. Magee said he would rather keep the averaging than push the $5 fee. He explained that he wasn’t trying to say the $5 fee per condo unit was unfair. The problem was the people at the lower level in the billing did not know what was going on. The first bill the condo association called and said the bill was to be averaged, but the billing people had no idea. He didn’t know what happened with the $5 fee, but somewhere down there (in billing) it got taken out and came up to a higher level. It was not something that had to be pushed but it was said one way and happened another. The fee was set to cover specific costs. With the condos it was still one meter, one bill, and one check returned.
Mr. Magee urged the Board to cross off consideration of not averaging. If the bills were not averaged the cost for the condos would triple. He further urged the Board to include averaging for apartments.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if after the vote to average took place if the condo fees went down. Mr. Magee was hesitant to answer the question, advised that the condo association was able to keep fees level this year. Every other year they had an increase. He pointed out that the Board didn’t ask a single family homeowner what they did with their money.
Mr. Ciccariello then inquired if it were possible for water flow meters to be put in each unit so the condos could get a flow reading of each unit as opposed to a master. Mr. Magee believed that had been looked into and there was an issue with how the pipes were constructed although he didn’t actually know the answer.
Mr. Ostroff thanked Mr. Magee for his time and the effort put into the analysis. He commended him for his civic spirit.
Mr. Ostroff believed the Board had formed a subcommittee, but he didn’t know if any of the work from that subcommittee had come out. Mr. Walters Young advised that the subcommittee committee was represented by the Chair and the Clerk of the Board. They met, reviewed the materials put together for last
year’s rate setting process, looked at all concerns and complaints and in March 2009 a presentation was made to the Board of the findings which talked about certain things to look at which was included as a follow up for the FY10 budget and things on the list for guiding the Fiscal 2011 budget and beyond.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that one concern heard from a lot of people was the $5 administrative fee. The billing was part of the indirect cost and a lot of people felt the indirect cost was still being charged and the $5 fee was another way of making more money. One thing that came out of the research was finding a mistake in the DOR certification of the retained earnings and that was cleared up.
The subcommittee also talked about condo vs rental and was it fair to give the condos the breaks when some condo units were being rented vs multiple family rental units, but they came to the conclusion at that time that a recommendation couldn’t be made because it hadn’t been studied enough. They also talked about planning for the future budgets’ capital.
A member of the subcommittee, Ms. Van Amsterdam noted that at the point they were talking about indirect costs, it was well along in Fiscal 2010. If they stay intact for FY11, the indirects would have to be looked at much earlier. For the subcommittee there wasn’t much in terms of capital being put into the budget. With the exception of the MWRA capital was a cost driver. The subcommittee came to the conclusion that capital had to be looked at much earlier in the budget process.
Mr. Ciccariello asked about the fee structure for fire service and in response to his questions Mr. Walters Young advised that Framingham was the main nearby community using it, the proposal was to adopt the policy of charging for fire pipe services on existing installations. The proposal was to charge $100 per inch. As to new installations businesses were required to pay for all the connections before. If they want to hook up to water & sewer they had to pay. There was some question as to whether the Board wanted to add an additional fee on top of that for the purpose of connecting.
Robert Coates of Meadowbrook Water Trust asked for a clarification of which options were not being considered. Ms. Gloff advised that option 1 (base proposal only), 2 (base and add the fire connection fee), 5 (base and average out-of-town customers), and 6 (base and add the fire connection fee and average out-of-town customers)
Mr. Coates asked about a decision as far as the out-of-town treatment. It seemed like if the Board decided to average the apartments and condos, they should be treated the same. Mr. Ciccariello noted that the Board hadn’t made a definitive decision on out-of-town or apartments and Ms. Gloff added that there was a legal opinion that the apartments and condos couldn’t be treated differently.
Mr. Coates believed there was case law that people receiving like services couldn’t be treated different and he thought that would apply to the two out-of-town condo associations. Mr. Ciccariello didn’t think Town Counsel had been asked if it would apply for users out of Natick. Ms. Van Amsterdam noted that she had asked the question and to Mr. Walters Young’s credit he had said that he was not giving a legal opinion. She requested that the
Board find out from Town Counsel if the out-of-town associations put in separate irrigation meters if they became like customers to Natick.
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to close the public hearing.
Mr. Ostroff moved to implement the fire connection fee as proposed. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
Speaking to the motion, Ms. Gloff noted that as much as she would like to say let’s do option x,y,z, she felt the Board probably wasn’t there yet, but this one (fire connection fee) made sense to her.
Mr. Ciccariello asked about the fees and Mr. Walters Young referred to subsection A of the May 4 handout. Ms. White added that the fee was essentially in lieu of charging them for water in testing the system. These systems were not metered.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that he was in favor of doing this but he would also like to see any money collected under fire connection to be set aside for capital improvements if that was possible or legal.
If the fee were implemented it was estimated to generate $75,000 in capital and Ms. Gloff inquired if $75,000 was being spent in capital. She didn’t know if the money would be spent in FY10 or FY11 and if $75,000 wasn’t being spent in capital projects then the rate had to be further altered to cover the operating expenses.
Ms. White thought the fee made perfect sense but she had envisioned the annual recurring revenue as helping to minimize fee increases.
Mr. Walters Young advised that $350,000 was being spent on capital but the Board had already dedicated and Town Meeting appropriated that $350,000 from a designated source. The money from the connection fee couldn’t be set aside as it came in. It would have to fall out to a capital reserve and be appropriated by Town Meeting.
Mr. Ciccariello explained that he was suggesting that in the future setting aside these revenues would minimize how much the rates had to be increased.
It seemed reasonable to Ms. Gloff, but realistically it would take awhile to build up. Mr. Ostroff agreed that applying the money to debt service would be reasonable, and it could be said that the money was being allocated to capital, but all the money came from one place.
Mr. Ostroff moved to affirm the $5 per residential unit or customer charge retroactive to FY09. There was no second and no vote taken.
Speaking to Mr. Ostroff’s motion, Ms. Gloff said she would like to hold off until there was a discussion on whether the Board was going to continue to average. If the Board decided not to continue to average, then the Board may want to discuss having a $5 fee per unit. If everybody were averaged, there would be some increase in the overall rate and that was a discussion the Board would have to have.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that one reason the rates had increased was that since he had been on the Board there has been a very aggressive maintenance program on most of the water & sewer lines in the Town. The process started in 2001 and the Board was constantly told by DPW this was a program they were going to undertake over a period of years. It had been said that once these programs were done, there would be no major water relining or repairs to be done. He expected that in the upcoming years there would be very little underground work to be done on Natick’s water & sewer system other than normal maintenance and there should be declining debt over the next several years because the Water & Sewer Department shouldn’t be taking on any major projects.
Ms. White thought that was a reasonable expectation. She didn’t know what year to expect the completion of the relining project, but given the life expectancy once the whole town was completed it would cover decades.
Ms. Gloff noted there was a prediction of debt in the handout and it looked like declining debt started kicking in 6 to 7 years. Mr. Walters Young pointed out there was a spike in 2016 with a prediction for a Phase VI in the 3-5 year horizon. Considering this was a community that was 350 years old, he wouldn’t be surprised if some work would need to be done in sewer.
Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired if there was a document that showed the plan for all the water relining. Ms. White noted there was the five year capital plan, but Ms. Van Amsterdam was looking for the totality. Mr. Ciccariello thought DPW Director Charles Sisitsky and Town Engineer Mark Coviello had a plan similar to the street paving plan.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if the members were ready to vote on the rates tonight or if they wished to hold off until there was an opportunity to assess some of the things just talked about.
In light of the new information learned from Counsel this afternoon, although she regretted having to make this suggestion as it had been hoped that the rate setting would occur this evening, Ms. White thought it would be prudent to take a step back and analyze the information. Hopefully that would enable the Board to take a vote at the next meeting.
A recess was called at 9:45 p.m. and the meeting resumed at 9:50 p.m.
APPOINTMENT OF COMPTROLLER
Mr. Ciccariello noted that initially the Board appointed Charles Panagopoulos as the Interim Comptroller with Mr. Panagopoulos’ appointment to expire June 30, 2009. Under consideration now was the appointment of a new Comptroller for a term of July 1, 2009-June 30, 2012.
Ms. White prefaced the interview with Mr. Panagopoulos by noting that she had asked Mr. Panagopoulos to focus on the accomplishments he was able to make to date and his goals.
Mr. Panagopoulos referred to a memo outlining what he had undertaken to date and the FY10 goals he had in mind. He had implemented many internal controls and procedures that included:
- Creation of a journal entry log book (electronically and a hard copy) for every single entry entered by any staff in the Comptroller’s Office. Every entry was to have supporting documentation attached, checked, and double-checked. This will assist both the Comptroller’s
- Office and the independent auditors with recapping transactions during the fiscal year
- Creation of a prepared-by-client checklist as a helpful tool to better help the Comptroller’s Office deal with audit items requested by the independent auditors. The PBC list will help providing information to the auditors in a timely manner by assigning due dates, responsible parties, and completed ate for each audit item.
- Creation of a periodic requirement log/listing showing different reconciliations, major projects, etc. during the course of a fiscal year. It shows who within his department was assigned/responsible, frequency of reconciliation/project and proposed time of year to be done.
In his memo Mr. Panagopoulos also advised that along with the Finance Director/Treasurer they had begun to look at implementation items for the FY09 audit. There were Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) requirements for FY09 that need to be addressed and he had created a GASB matrix of any and all requirements that need to be addressed and implemented for the upcoming year’s audit and subsequent years’ audits.
Since his arrival, Mr. Panagopoulos noted that he also completed Schedule A, attended the annual MMAAA Education Conference in Amherst, brought forward all required fund balances and processed seven months of recurring journal entries. He also had interdepartmental meetings with a number of department heads and held internal staff meetings. He had been working almost exclusively on the FY08 audit with Sullivan, Rogers but has provided monthly, quarterly, and on an as-needed-basis, timely and accurate reporting of funds, accounts, revenues, and expenditures.
Mr. Panagopoulos told the Board that he was a firm believer in keeping communication open and thought that was the key and vital for any operation. The audit had been a huge focus since his arrival and he was in almost daily contact with the auditors and so far things have been working out wonderfully in that area. There was a lot of catching up to do and he was getting himself and his staff up-to-speed. He was ecstatic with the progress made as a department with the help of the administration and the Board.
Mr. Ostroff inquired as to the status with making the best capacity of the Munis software system. Mr. Panagopoulos’ predecessor did a lot to bring departments up to speed and did Mr. Panagopoulos see it being where it should be?
Mr. Panagopoulos responded that about a month ago he approached Mr. Walters Young and Mr. Palmer with the thought that it would be a good idea to have department heads have a session or two on educating them on how to use Munis. He didn’t mind department heads contacting his staff to have them look up information, but it made things more efficient for the department heads to be able to do it on their own. He was informed by Mr. Walters Young that that was done last summer. There was a manual and he (Mr. Panagopoulos) wanted to make it more available to departments.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to the status of the draft audit and Mr. Panagopoulos advised that he had a lot of good news to report. This
morning he received an e-mail from Chris Rogers of Sullivan, Rogers & Co. saying they had all the information and would be completing the paper analysis today and the Town was to look for a draft this week or even as early as tomorrow morning.
Ms. Van Amsterdam requested that the Board be notified as soon as the draft came in. Ms. White reminded the Board that it was a draft document so it was not public, but she would notify the members of its availability.
Having gone through the FY08 audit and the detail in which he participated, Ms. Van Amsterdam asked if Mr. Panagopoulos felt the Town
would be better prepared in responding to the audit firm for next year. Mr. Panagopoulos’ response was, “absolutely”, adding that the quicker the Town got a response from the audit firm the quicker a plan could be implemented for the next fiscal year. He noted they were in great shape for FY09.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if the part-time department assistant was on board. Mr. Panagopoulos advised that the person had been chosen and would start on July 1.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to appoint Charles Panagopoulos as Comptroller for a three year term beginning July 1, 2009-June 30, 2012. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
Speaking to his motion, Mr. Ostroff stated that he had been impressed by Mr. Panagopoulos’ diligence and hard work. He knew funds would be properly accounted for and if there was an issue or concern he wanted Mr. Panagopoulos to feel comfortable approaching the Board. If Mr. Panagopoulos accepted this appointment, he (Mr. Ostroff) looked forward to working with him.
Mr. Ciccariello felt the Board had seen some significant changes and would continue to see changes for the better. Personally over the next 3-4 months he would like to see the Board get a summary update from the Comptroller as to what was occurring.
Ms. White noted that the Board had previously set up quarterly presentations and that may not be a bad idea going forward.
APPOINTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Mr. Harmon had not arrived. As Mr. Harmon was also applying for the Open Space Advisory Committee, Mr. Ciccariello preferred to see the Board proceed with the appointments. Five candidates of which two were members of the local business community had previously been interviewed.
Ms. Gloff moved to appoint Benjamin Greenberg, David Shamoian, Rick Kiernan, Paul Joseph, Joseph Kiggen. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
Mr. Ciccariello moved to appoint Mr. Ostroff as the Board of Selectmen’s representative. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
Both the Town Administrator Martha White and Community Development Director Patrick Reffett were ex officio members.
On a motion by Mr. Ciccariello, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, Mr. Ostroff was appointed as temporary chair to get the committee mobilized.
Mr. Ostroff asked about setting terms for the newly appointed members and Ms. Gloff suggested doing a one year term for now and next year stagger the terms.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff all appointments made to the Economic Development Committee to expire June 30, 2010. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
To have an odd number of voting members, Mr. Ostroff raised the possibility of adding another member as he wasn’t sure the ex officio members would be voting. Mr. Ciccariello didn’t think ex officio members usually voted. Ms. White thought that ex officio members would generally have voting rights, but it was not a big deal.
Mr. Ostroff noted that Mr. Reffett may come back to the Board and suggest that he be advisory and non-voting as projects may be coming before the Planning Board.
NATICK FIRE DEPARTMENT: ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION – VENTILATION FAN
Fire Chief James Sheridan requested the Board to accept a $2,139.00 gift from Walnut Hill School for the purchase of a ventilation fan for the Natick Fire Department. Usually around this time of the year Walnut Hill would reach out to donate something to the Department and this was an item requested by the shift commanders.
Ms. Van Amsterdam disclosed that her father was the Director of Walnut Hill School and she would be recusing herself.
Mr. Connolly moved to accept the donation from the Walnut Hill School on behalf of the Fire Department and follow-up with a thank you note. Seconded by Ms. Gloff. 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.
UPDATE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF FINANCIAL CONTROLS AND AUDIT
Ms. White believed that the subject had been largely covered during the discussion of the appointment of the Comptroller. The auditor has received all the information he needs and the draft audit was expected any day. She would let the Board know when it was received.
Mr. Connolly noted that he wasn’t at the last meeting and assumed the Town Administrator shared the reasons as to what happened. It seemed to him that every politician talked about transparency and accountability and he thought there was an injustice here. The citizens have a right to know and he would continue to ask questions until he got the answer. If he didn’t get the answer he would contact the State Auditor’s Office. He (Mr. Connolly) wanted to know who knew what and when. This didn’t come out of left field and while he was all for going forward, somebody didn’t do what they were supposed to be doing and they should be held accountable.
Mr. Ciccariello advised that at the last meeting the Town Administrator took responsibility for what occurred and the accountability. He noted
that if individuals personally were going to be talked about that person had to be notified and it would be done in executive session. He thought when the audit was received the Board would know why it happened.
Mr. Ciccariello believed that a different audit report would be seen than in the past and he hoped there would be answers in that report. Looking back at the minutes of the times when presentations were made, it was clear that perhaps there weren’t reconciliations being done that the Board thought were being done, but he thought it went back further than the previous Comptroller and this audit would bring a lot of things to the table.
LETTER FROM FRAMINGHAM BOARD OF SELECTMEN: NEWTON WELLESLEY HOSPITAL PROJECT
A draft letter in support of the Framingham Board of Selectmen’s request for a Determination of Need process regarding the proposed Newton Wellesley Hospital facility at 500 Cochituate Road in Framingham was read.
Mr. Ciccariello advised that he had a business working relationship with Joan Gorga, the Director of Determination of Need for the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. Many of his health care clients have filed for a DON over the years and in the past she had been the staff that analyzed and made the decision regarding those submittals. There was no monetary exchange. As an architect he was required to help, but he felt it would be better for the Vice-chair to sign the letter instead of himself.
Ms. Gloff suggested having the other four members sign the letter and copy Mr. Ciccariello.
Ms. Van Amsterdam advised that she was on the Board of Trustees for the MetroWest Medical Center, but she would be signing this letter as a member of the Board of Selectmen.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to send the letter of support. Seconded by Mr. Connolly. The motion passed on a 4-0-1 vote. Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff, Mr. Connolly voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ciccariello abstained.
TAX CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEE
The Board had voted to establish a Tax Classification Committee to do a study and analysis of the impacts of a single tax rate vs split rate. Only one response had been received and Mr. Ciccariello proposed that the Board continue to advertise the position and maybe get it on Pegasus.
CONFIRMATION OF TOWN ADMINISTRATOR’S APPOINTMENTS TO PERSONNEL BOARD
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to confirm the Town Administrator’s reappointments of Kenneth Goldman and Steven Levinsky to the Personnel Board.
MPO ELECTION
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to vote for Braintree as the city representative to the Metropolitan Planning Organization. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to vote for Westwood as the Town representative to the Metropolitan Planning Organization. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
Ms. Gloff moved to designate Terri Evans, Natick’s representative to the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, to represent the Town of Natick at the election and cast the votes.
MINUTES
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the October 16, 2008 meeting.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to approve the minutes of the October 27, 2008 meeting. Seconded by Ms. Gloff. 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.
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the November 3, 2008 meeting.
FARMER’S MARKET BANNER
The Board had approved hanging a banner across Main Street the first two weeks in June in advertisement of the Farmer’s Market. In an e-mail to the Board, Deb Sayre Event Coordinator for the Farmer’s Market offered to relinquish that time in favor of a banner for the Art Walk.
Ms. Van Amsterdam moved approval. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR NOTES
- Naming of Public Places Policy
The Board was in receipt of a memo from Deputy Town Administrator Michael Walters Young suggesting some changes to the Naming of Public Places policy.
Ms. White explained this was in response to an issue that arose when a recent sign for a dedication of a square was installed. Although the sign was installed on public property, it was without notification. Mr. Walters Young handled the situation successfully and he then worked on some changes to the policy: The recommendation of a specific location and the notification of abutters.
If the Board was in agreement, some specific amendments to the policy would be put forward.
Mr. Ostroff proposed including a timeframe and suggested stipulating that the process should start six weeks in advance of any dedication.
Ms. Gloff agreed with a timeframe, but would like to see an exception if there were an emergency.
Ms. White reported that Town Engineer Mark Coviello met with Mass Highway again as well as with the State contractor doing the repair work and the engineering firm preparing the specifications. Mass Highway was negotiating a price and schedule and Mr. Coviello was working with the Historical Commission to get the approvals. The state will fund the design and repair
work. The Town may be on the line for some materials, and that would qualify for a transfer.
Mr. Ostroff suggested sending a letter of appreciation to the Lieutenant Governor and Representative Peisch.
Ms. White advised that the Natick Healthy Community team was holding a Natick Together Event to kick off Phase II of this initiative. It was lead by Senior Center and Human Services Director Moira Munns and involved a large variety of community leaders.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
- Health Care Collective Bargaining
Mr. Ostroff asked the members to consider calling the Senate President and Office of the Speaker to request support in the legislation that would remove health care from collective bargaining. The more voices the better.
- 495 Partnership Conference
Ms. Gloff reminded the Board of the 495 Partnership conference scheduled for this Thursday on the topic of suburban development.
Mr. Connolly asked about a public hearing update for the Route 27/North Main Street project.
Ms. White advised there was a hearing about a month and a half ago and nothing else was scheduled.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
_________________________________
Kristine Van Amsterdam, Clerk
| 
