BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
August 10, 2009
5:30 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman John Ciccariello at 5:35 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 August 10, 2009 in the amount of $610,930.11. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $$2,186,539.72.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, 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 5:35 p.m. the Board entered into executive session after announcing that the meeting would return to open session.
The open session was reconvened at 7:00 p.m.
ATTORNEY DAVID DELUCA: QUARTERLY TAX TITLE REPORT
Attorney David DeLuca of Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, special counsel for tax title work, noted that almost a year ago the decision was made to provide the tax title work to his office. He came on board September 1, 2008 and has been back before the Board on two other occasions to review the status.
Mr. DeLuca recognized that tax title work was very difficult for everybody concerned. The Town needs to have the revenue and the population by and large paid faithfully. Nearly 98% complies, but even a 2% loss can be substantial and he has seen those numbers rise over the course of the last two years and the Town had to move aggressively. Over the course of the year he thought there had been substantial progress.
Mr. DeLuca continued that he obtained some figures and over the last five years the average tax title collection was a total of $220,000. This year alone it was around $500,000. There has been a substantial improvement in this fiscal year. In September 2008, there were 142 properties referred. 103 were resolved by redemption, 8 have entered into agreement, and 31 properties remain unresolved and likely there will need to be a petition filed with land court. It was likely another 140 properties would be referred from Fiscal 2009.
Mr. DeLuca advised there were a few noteworthy cases in the past year. Ingleside Road collected approximately $107,000 but that was done entirely by the Collector’s Office. They (Collector’s Office) do a remarkable job. There were two other cases – the Nickinello properties were ballooning to an amount owed of over $150,000 and over $100,000 was collected. The Mary Ann Morse Nursing Home was in dispute and in the last month recovered $100,000. There were a few cases in Land Court and there was actually a trial a month ago where a disputed tax amount was brought to the court and there was a trial. He was awaiting a judgment from the court.
Two properties were currently poised for default judgments to be filed by the Town. These were residential properties that were occupied. No taxes have been paid and there were no prospects to be paid. These were difficult cases and a decision needs to be made on how the Town would take that property.
In conclusion Mr. DeLuca stated that he was looking forward to continuing to work with the Town. He thought it had been a successful arrangement.
Mr. Connolly remarked on the impressiveness of the numbers and expressed his appreciation for the efforts. He then asked if the two
difficult cases Mr. DeLuca spoke of were owner occupied. Mr. DeLuca advised they were but not in the familiar sense. It was not a landlord/tenant situation, rather a family generational issue.
ATTORNEY DAVID DELUCA: QUARTERLY TAX TITLE REPORT (contd)
In follow-up Mr. Connolly inquired if those families would be evicted. Mr. DeLuca advised they would be otherwise the Town would be in a landlord/tenant situation which he wouldn’t recommend. The Town has tried everything and he commended the Collector’s Office on being creative, persistent, and trying to work with anyone that wants to work with us.
Mr. Ostroff inquired as to how much the Town had expended and was told by Mr. DeLuca that since the beginning of September 2008 through the end of July the legal work was $40,600. When cases were resolved legal fees were recouped. Mr. DeLuca didn’t have that figure but thought probably 25-35% had been collected in the resolution of tax title and redemption figures.
When asked if he expected the tax title work to continue indefinitely or if it would reach a point where there would be diminishing returns, Mr. DeLuca responded that with the improvement of the economy he expected to see some drop. However, he heard from the Collector’s Office to expect about 150 cases for FY09 and he hoped to resolve the 150.
181 SOUTH MAIN STREET, INC. D/B/A AUTO DRIVE 1: APPLICATION FOR CLASS II LICENSE
Representing Auto Drive was the owner Joseph DiBiasio. Mr. DiBiasio told the Board he was seeking a Class II license for premises at 119 Worcester Street.
Mr. Ostroff thought this would be a temporary use since the property was going to be developed into a salon, but Mr. DiBiasio advised that that was not being done. The property would be a used car lot. Although much of Route 9 had been rezoned, Community Development Director Patrick Reffett confirmed that a used car lot was still an allowed use for the property.
Mr. DiBiasio noted that it wouldn’t be a typical used car dealership. It would be streamlined and good looking. Auto Drive did business a little differently. They concentrate on the financing first. It was a much better process.
Mr. Ciccariello asked about repairs and Mr. DiBiasio responded that they would be doing minor repairs at the site, but the bulk would be done at Meineke and Midas with whom they had negotiated an agreement.
Mr. Ciccariello then asked if the applicant had a building permit. Mr. Reffett advised that they did not. Auto Drive had not as yet come to the Planning Board. There have been some internal improvements that have taken place and the owner was made aware those had to be permitted.
Eugene DiBiasio, co-owner, advised that they had a building permit for inside and on Thursday they were going before the Planning Board for store fronts and signage. The permit he applied for went through the Fire Department.
Mr. Ostroff inquired as to the maximum number of vehicles and Mr. DiBiasio responded 30-35. That seemed intensive to Mr. Ostroff who noted that typically the Board would award a license to sell up to a certain number. Mr. DiBiasio was open to whatever number the Board felt was necessary.
Mr. Ciccariello counted 27 parking spaces with some customer parking. He noted that he was a little concerned about taking action without feedback from the Planning Board on parking requirements vs the number of cars there could be on the lot.
Ms. Challis advised that the previous license didn’t stipulate the number of cars and typically that kind of restriction would come from the Planning Board process. Mr. Reffett agreed.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the Board wished to take action on the application conditioned upon the approval of the Planning Board or ask the applicant to come back after receiving Planning board approval.
Mr. Connolly asked Mr. DiBiasio how that would affect his plans going forward and Mr. DiBiasio responded that he had a timeline and was hiring people. If the Planning Board wanted to set a number of “x” he would be happy to comply with it.
181 SOUTH MAIN STREET, INC. D/B/A AUTO DRIVE 1: APPLICATION FOR CLASS II LICENSE (contd)
Without going through the Planning Board process, Mr. Ciccariello questioned if the applicant could get a certificate of occupancy. Mr. Reffett didn’t believe they could. Mr. Connolly pointed out that Auto Drive was meeting with the Planning Board on Thursday and the Board’s next meeting was August 17.
Ms. White wasn’t sure the applicant would get through the Planning Board in one evening and asked if it would be reasonable for the Board to grant the license with the stipulation that the number of vehicles on the license would be restricted through the Planning Board process. Mr. Ciccariello didn’t have a problem doing that as long as the Community Development Director understood there needs to be a certain amount of parking for individuals running the business, parking for customers, and the rest for used cars.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to grant 181 South Main Street, Inc. d/b/a Auto Drive One a Class II licenses for premises at 119 Worcester Street with the number of spaces for parking and the sale of used cars to be determined by the Planning Board. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
JEWEL TIME, INC. D/B/A TIME SQUARE: APPLICATION FOR JUNK DEALER’S LICENSE
As no one was present to speak to the application, the matter was not discussed.
REQUEST FOR WATER BILL ABATEMENT: CONNIE BAUMAN
Connie Bauman of 160 Union Street stated that she was there to discuss the unexpectedly high water bill that resulted from a pipe that was broken underground during the winter months. The March bill was $586.65 and she assumed there was an error in the reading because she didn’t have any water problems.
She was traveling on business and when she saw the bill she asked the DPW to come and check the meter. The DPW said there was no meter problem and she was told to check the toilet. She did that and there was no problem with the toilet. The DPW tried to find the problem. There was an old waterline outside to a water pump and when she turned it off, the meter stopped spinning. The problem was remedied but the homeowner’s coverage didn’t cover it because it didn’t cover anything underground.
Ms. Bauman noted that she paid $100 on the bill in April and hoped to see if a portion could be forgiven because it was a financial hardship for her. She has lived in Natick for 17 years and has been a soccer coach and a good citizen.
It was Mr. Ciccariello’s understanding that the Finance Director had already eliminated the sewer bill, but Ms. Bauman said no. She didn’t have a sewer bill. Because there was a three month billing cycle this happened at the beginning of the new billing cycle. It started off as a small leak and over time became a bigger leak.
Mr. Connolly disclosed that Ms. Bauman and he had a previous business relationship.
Ms. Van Amsterdam asked about a payment plan, but Ms. White explained that payment plans were typically done through discussion of the affected property owner and the Collector. Maybe it wasn’t pursued because Ms. Bauman was coming before the Board but a payment plan was available and could be worked out with the Collector.
Mr. Connolly recalled Finance Director Robert Palmer introducing a process where penalties and fees could be eliminated. If Ms. Bauman
had a sewer charge, the sewer portion could be reduced but in this case the water was used.
Ms. Bauman stated that she would appreciate the elimination of penalties and fees. There was a $17.55 penalty on the most recent.
Mr. Ostroff was personally inclined to waive a portion of the bill. There was a citizen in the past where the homeowner was notified when there was a spike. Although it wasn’t the Town’s obligation to do so, it appears as though that didn’t happen in this case. It looks like the most elevated use occurred in March and April.
REQUEST FOR WATER BILL ABATEMENT: CONNIE BAUMAN (contd)
Ms. Van Amsterdam stated that she was in favor of the payment plan.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to reduce Ms. Bauman’s March 2009 and June 2009 water bills by 50% of the average use. Mr. Connolly seconded for discussion. Following a brief discussion the motion failed on a 1-4-0 vote. Mr. Ostroff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ciccariello, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff, Mr. Connolly were opposed.
A motion was made by Ms. Van Amsterdam to have the Collector’s Office work with Ms. Bauman on setting up a payment plan with no penalties or fees to be accrued. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
Addressing Mr. Ostroff’s motion, Mr. Connolly questioned how it could be justified. Mr. Ostroff felt that Ms. Bauman had made a good faith effort to repair it as soon as notified.
Mr. Connolly expressed concern with the Pandora’s Box it could be opening up. It was a courtesy not a mandate for the Town to notify the homeowner. An attempt was made and the Town worker did assist her where he could.
Ms. Van Amsterdam was of the opinion that if the Town could aid persons with situations where a pipe broke or a toilet leaked by not assessing penalties and fee, it was a good faith effort on the part of the Town.
Ms. White advised that she would have someone from the Collector’s Office get in touch with Ms. Bauman.
UTILITY SURCHARGE EXPLANATION
Ms. White explained that the issue arose because some residents brought to the Board’s attention the surcharge was being added to the Verizon bill. While she thought the Board was familiar with the surcharge, she thought it would benefit the public to go through it and had asked Community Development Director Patrick Reffett to provide information. Planning Board member Julian Munnich was probably the most familiar with and he could fill in any other questions.
Mr. Reffett advised that during Spring Town Meeting in 2006 an article was approved by Town Meeting for the undergrounding of existing and future utility systems. The amount of utilities to be reconstructed was based upon the amount of funding that the utility companies have accrued from new charges they have placed upon ratepayers. Both Nstar and Verizon have already added these new charges to Natick ratepayers and were accruing these funds at present.
Mr. Reffett noted that a lot of communities have done this. The aesthetics of the overhead utilities leave a lot to be desired and the number of utility disturbances caused by weather could be cut down substantially (with the lines underground).
The article requires the creation of underground utilities, and the amount of work that can be undertaken was predicated on the amount the utility can charge over that time. The Town would like to target this approach to the reconstruction of North Main Street. It was the gateway to the Town and there was a desire to clean it up, have it look better, function better and one element was to underground the existing overhead utilities.
Mr. Ciccariello advised that he had attended a recent meeting with Ms. White, Mr. Munnich, Mr. Reffett and many individuals from Nstar and Comcast to discuss Route 27. The Town was trying to get the utility companies to sign cooperation agreements. Some indicated they had no interest. A couple of utility companies have already started to
collect but some cable companies have not. Some said they would not start collecting surcharges until a specific project was identified and the cost to their company known. No headway has been made in determining the cost (of doing Route 27).
Mr. Reffett advised that the plans have been submitted to Mass Highway. These were 25% which includes a good conceptual understanding of the possible land areas that need to be acquired. Fortunately the majority of the right-of-way was a good consistent 50 foot width that allowed for bike lanes, sidewalks, curbs. Where there were turning movements, i.e. Bacon Street, some turning lanes would be pursued to allow the
UTILITY SURCHARGE EXPLANATION (contd)
corridor to work better. Once Mass Highway was comfortable with the plans, there will be a public 25% hearing. He didn’t have a date.
Mr. Ostroff asked if there was anything the Board could or should do and Mr. Reffett suggested that the utilities should be reminded there were penalties and it would behoove them to work with the Town. There were many details that need to be worked out.
If a letter were needed, Mr. Ostroff said he would be glad to make that motion, but Mr. Ciccariello didn’t think it was necessary at this point. He didn’t think it was a matter of the utilities not being cooperative. Some have contracts with the Town that may expire in one year and to do the surcharge the cable bill may be three times normal.
Mr. Connolly inquired if any projects had been done since 2006. Mr. Reffett’s reply was, “no”, and Planning Board member Julian Munnich added that no projects could have occurred prior to January 1. Since that time the Town has been talking to the utilities. For overhead utilities such as telephone service the surcharge by state statute was limited to 2% of the total bill. For utilities in electrical distribution, there was a 7% cap of delivery or 2% of the bill.
Mr. Munnich continued that the Town had a by-law in place prior to 2006 that was limited to East Central Street and that was now expanded. The cable companies were utilities in some manner but not in this and they have to recoup their costs within the contract period.
Mr. Connolly asked if the amount held as a surcharge was held in escrow and Mr. Munnich responded that absent any language in a cooperation agreement it was kept by the utility company in a segregated account. In follow up Mr. Connolly asked if anyone in Natick would have that number. Mr. Ciccariello was not aware of anyone. Mr. Connolly felt if there was a surcharge to the citizens, the Town should be aware of how much money was in the account. Ms. White believed she would be able to find out and could report back. Mr. Ostroff thought it would be useful to have an update maybe in the annual town report.
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE OFFICER
Ms. White introduced the subject by noting there were a lot of opportunities out there these days with respect to energy efficiencies and the greening of communities and buildings. There were a tremendous amount of programs available, but at this time it was kind of a confusing morass. She compared it to after 9/11 when there were so many security and public safety programs available that it was hard to keep track of and the same thing was happening now with energy efficiencies and greening. Thankfully the Town had Bob Bois, the Environmental Compliance Officer.
Ms. White continued that the objective was to position ourselves as best as possible to be available for any money out there.
Mr. Bois told the Board that this was about putting ourselves in a position to get money when money became available. The money hasn’t come forward as of yet into the communities. There were a lot of activities with Town government and he had selected 9 things to talk about.
- Solar Power Purchase Agreement
Mr. Bois advised that this was the next step in energy progression. It was about renewable energy meeting solar. What was given to the Board was a contract between the electrical provider and the host site. The provider of the electricity would be responsible for operating and maintaining it and there would be a contract. The Town would get energy out of the contract and would negotiate a rate that was conservative and stabilize the energy cost in any building. That was
how the PPA worked. You use the value of the energy we have and take the money to pay back the money borrowed to build the facility.
Mr. Bois continued that the goal was to positions ourselves so when money was available the Town can have it. That time was getting closer. There was some federal money of about $150,000 that could be used if there was a shovel ready project. To start the process, solar panels have been evaluated on all the roofs in Town (buildings) and an excellent solar potential was found on several. If the Town had to pay to put up the panels on its own there was no way the Town could do it.
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE OFFICER (contd)
Two buildings were selected that could come under the money and kilowatt threshold – Kennedy Middle School and the public safety building. For Kennedy the cost would be almost $1 million, but with rebates the total capital cost would be about $400,000. The electricity saved would be about $26,000. If there was a lease to purchase and the money borrowed up front and the savings used to pay back the bond, renewable energy can make up a portion of the power needs. In the case of Kennedy it was about 32%. Public safety would save about $19,000. The cost would be $700,000 and after repayments a capital expense of $233,000.
Mr. Bois noted that an RFP had been drafted and was being discussed. DOER who ran the Green Communities program had a template and he would get a copy of that. A decision needed to be made whether the Town wants to buy the power or a lease/purchase agreement but that was in the future.
Mr. Ostroff asked if the solar panels would have a life of 30 years about utility savings over the 30 years. Mr. Bois thought it would be 20 years. The Town would be responsible for maintaining and would be setting ourselves up as a third party utility but we would be doing the maintenance.
If the Town entered the agreement with a power company, Mr. Ciccariello was of the understanding that the power company would put the solar system on the roof and be responsible for maintenance and if it failed the power company would be responsible for replacement. Mr. Bois thought the Town would have some obligation.
Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that at a cost of $981,000 and after rebates of $368,000 there would be a 10-15 year pay back before the Town started to see a savings.
Deputy Town Administrator Michael Walters Young advised that state law for energy improvements had a maximum term of 10 years for borrowing. Depending on how it arose, the $981,000 would be borrowed up front. The interest associated with it and the savings in utilities and energy credit would probably result in a cost of over $100,000 over 10 years. Then the Town would start having a quite sizable savings of about $40,000 a year.
To Mr. Ciccariello’s comment that there would be no actual savings in the first 10 years because of paying off the debt, Mr. Walters Young advised that was correct.
Ms. White pointed out that that was one scenario in which we owned the equipment. Perhaps more favorable would be that the solar vendor owned the equipment. It was slightly more favorable for the vendor because of tax credits and the Town would be buying power at a consistent and predictable cost. The RFP would ideally go out for different scenarios and do some comparison.
Mr. Ciccariello asked about the installation and Mr. Bois responded that the biggest problem with solar was putting it on a room that needs to be replaced. In follow-up Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the RFP included an evaluation of the roof structure. Mr. Bois noted it would get in there. The RFP was for the option for how the Town was to go. Either way whether buying the power or leasing it, panels would be put up. Ms. White added that the RFP was still in progress. What Mr. Bois was describing was more geared toward which scenario would be more beneficial to the Town and planning would come subsequent to that.
- DOER Energy Audit Grant Program
- Nstar Municipal Program
Mr. Bois noted that b and c were similar. The Town was trying to evaluate the state of existing building facilities. DOER has an energy audit program and Natick was in the queue. They look at everything. Nstar would most likely be doing most of the improvements and they have a rebate program.
- Green Communities Planning Assistance Grant
Mr. Bois advised that this had been completed and submitted. Applications close August 15.
- Diesel Waste Collection Vehicle Retrofit Grant Program
- Diesel Hybrid Truck Purchasing Grant Program
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE OFFICER (contd)
Mr. Bois advised that the Energy Task Force working with DPW Equipment Maintenance Supervisor Tom Collins was looking to secure two grants. One for $10,000 to retrofit two remaining packers to run cleaner.
Mr. Ciccariello questioned if that was sufficient or if the Town would have to put in money. Mr. Bois noted that the grant would pay for repairs and the Town wouldn’t get the bill.
The second grant was for a hybrid truck which was federal money given to the State for communities with a population under 35,000. This was to pay the difference between buying a diesel and a hybrid. The application was submitted and he expected to hear in September.
- Energy Efficient Street Lighting Proposal
Mr. Bois noted there were was a meeting scheduled for Wednesday with the street lighting vendor to talk about turning lights into more efficient units and he would report back.
- Update Solar Panels – Sassamon Trace
Mr. Bois advised that there had been several starts and stops with respect to landfill renewable energy. DOER was meeting with DEP to figure out a way of promoting landfills for sources to place renewable energy sources on. Natick had a landfill that was being re-used as a golf course and would qualify for some type of look.
A while back a meeting was held and the approach was two phase. 1) A regulatory phase involving a permit used by DEP and most likely MEPA review; 2) The final phase through DOR through the Green Communities program. There were still a lot of loose ends and he would continue to follow the effort.
Mr. Ostroff clarified that the proposal was not to close the facility and install solar panels. Mr. Bois confirmed that was correct.
Mr. Bois advised that Natick had been named by the Climate Group as a model city for recycling. There was a cost savings in recycling. Natick was selected because of its excellent recycling program with a rate over 40%. Natick recycles the equivalent of about 800 pounds per household.
This was a wonderful achievement and talked the language of being green.
CITIZENS CONCERNS
As the post commander of the Jewish War Veterans, Fern Street resident Arnold Pinsley invited the Board to attend the memorial service on September 13 at 2:00 p.m. He noted this would be a special service with the Israeli consulate in attendance.
LLA ACTION UNITS APPLICATION
Ms. White explained Admiral’s Cove and Castle Courtyard were permitted under the Natick Zoning bylaws in the HOOP area and as such were required to provide affordable housing upon completion of the projects. The Castle Courtyard has 23 units of which four were to be affordable and Admiral’s Cove has 12 units of which 2 were to be affordable. There was approval from the State indicating these units will be designated as affordable and help maintain the 10% affordable goal, but to make that official required a submission of Local Action Unit applications to the Department of Housing and Community Development.
Upon final approval of the application and marketing plan, the Town may complete the lottery process for these two developments.
A motion was made by Ms. Van Amsterdam to authorize the Chair to sign and submit the LLA applications for Admiral’s Cove and Castle Courtyard.
FLSA JUDGMENT EXPLANATION
Ms. White prepared a public statement regarding the Fair Labor Standards Act judgment.
She noted that the judgment was a little over $646,000 and a request to make payment would be included in the warrant for Fall Town Meeting. The $646,000 was not the full liability. The Town was still liable for
FLSA JUDGMENT EXPLANATION (contd)
the plaintiff’s legal fees plus the additional back pay to the patrol officers for the period between the date of judgment and the date the Town began paying FLSA overtime. That date was July 22, 2009. The legal fees have not as yet been determined.
Ms. White told the Board that she would recommend that a portion be paid from the Stabilization account and a portion from what she hoped would be declared Overlay Surplus by the Assessors. There would be some additional costs in this year’s fiscal year budget to fund the new methodology of determining overtime. The estimate was that it would be a minimum of $60,000. It appears it will be a bit higher but the administration was still trying to get a handle on the number.
BUDGET OVERVIEW: FISCAL 2009, FISCAL 2010, FISCAL 2011
Ms. White advised that during these difficult financial times, the financial team of herself, the Deputy Town Administrator, Finance Director, and Comptroller have been meeting very regularly regarding budgetary issues and she thought it would be appropriate to update the Board on the end of the year Fiscal 2009, where Fiscal 2010 was at, and what Fiscal 2011 was looking like.
Ms. White referred to Fiscal 2009 as a year of stark contrast. When the year began the community had generously voted an override to allow sustained government services and everyone believed those services could be maintained through at least FY2010. But given the worldwide economic downturn and the resulting impact on state aid and other revenues, by the end of the fiscal year the administration was happy simply to be closing the year with a positive balance.
Whereas property tax receipts were a relatively predictable source of revenues, state aid and estimated receipts have been particularly volatile over the last year. Mid-year state aid reductions reduced impacted our anticipated revenues by over $900,000. Estimated receipts made up that difference.
For Fiscal 2009 the general fund operating revenues were as follows:
Estimated Actual Difference
Tax levy $73,083,995 $72,696,077 $(387,918)
State Aid $12,341,007 $11,419,582 $(921,425)
Estimated Receipts $10,801,500 $11,735,232 $ 933,732
Other Local Receipts $ 6,357,196 $ 6,605,193 $ 247,997
Total $102,583,698 $102,456,084 $(127,614)
In her memo to the Board dated August 7, 2009, Ms. White provided a breakdown of the estimated and actual receipts for 2009. While there was a significant drop in investment income other categories were higher than expected – payment & interest taxes/excise, motor vehicle, payment in lieu of taxes, ambulance fees, Chapter 59. Ms. White noted that rather unexpectedly real estate tax payments were made on the Natick Collection condominium units presently in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.
With respect to Fiscal 2009 expenses, Ms. White noted that throughout the fall and winter of FY2009, as state and local revenue projections began to decline, a series of cost containment measures including voluntary work week reductions, hiring limitations and purchasing reductions were implemented by the administration. These measures were critical to ensure at a minimum a positive end of the year balance and ideally a healthy level of resulting free cash.
For the municipal departments, education, and shared expenses the balance remaining at year’s end was $2,056,553, but Ms. White stressed there were some expenses that cannot be continually deferred. She believed the combined result of the administration’s efforts and the near break-even results of revenues should position the Town reasonably well for end-of-year free cash, all things considered.
In her memo Ms. White provided a very preliminary and unofficial estimate for Free Cash and emphasized that this was at best an educated guess. Official Free Cash certifications were only made by the Department of Revenue and were the product of a series of calculations which can alter this estimate considerably.
Preliminary Estimated Free Cash
Certified Free Cash as of 7/1/08 $2,415,060
BUDGET OVERVIEW: FISCAL 2009, FISCAL 2010, FISCAL 2011 (contd)
Less appropriations (2,247,667)
Plus expense turnbacks 2,056,553
Plus revenues in excess of estimates ( 127,614)
Plus Major Changes TBD
$ 2,06,332
Although sufficient Free Cash should be generated to meet revised FY 2011 targets, Ms. White told the Board that the fiscal concerns were not over as of yet.
Fiscal 2010
Ms. White advised that fiscal outlook had changed since Town Meeting approved the spending plan in May. A series of potential positive and negative impacts were identified. The FY10 budget remained in balance but given the precarious outlook for FY2011, staff efforts from now until the Fall Town Meeting would be focused on identifying the areas in which spending could be reduced, i.e. the unemployment line item and the administration would propose that such funding be re-appropriated to the Stabilization Fund, thus making these funds available for the FY2011 budget. The downside of this plan was the resulting negative impact on Free Cash at the close of FY 2010 thus reducing available Free Cash for the FY 2012 budget. This was a short-term solution designed to shepherd the Town through these difficult
times on a year-to-year basis until the economy improved.
Known/potential positive impacts for FY2010:
- (Known) Higher than originally anticipated new growth with the successful completion of the Natick Collection Condominiums – at least $400,000 more.
- (Potential) Local Option taxes, if implemented effective January 1, 2010 have projected value of $176,661 (meals tax) plus $191,768 (2% room tax) = $368,429 using DOR data. These estimates may be optimistic and could be lower.
- (Potential) Savings in certain line-items which may be eligible for re-appropriation – unemployment insurance
Known/potential negative impacts for FY2010:
- (Known) implementing the FLSA pay methodology for Police Department going forward will cost a minimum of $60,000 in FY 2010
- (Known) Courthouse closure is a loss of approximately $163,000
- (Potential) Quinn Bill – If the Town has to pay full amount the cost will be over $180,000 above and beyond the already budgeted costs.
- (Potential) State Aid and Future 9C Cuts – certainly possible going forward throughout FY10 as state revenue collections have continued to underperform even revised estimates for the last 8 months
Fiscal 2011
In previewing Fiscal 2011, Ms. White advised that the most recent three-year projections for the period FY2010-2012 attempted to balance conservative revenue estimates with reasonable expense forecasts to illustrate the relative level of balance/imbalance of future years. At that time, the forecast showed a potential deficit of $2,926,461 for FY2011. That deficit has grown to $3,338,155 as of today. The major drivers for this change were lower state aid amounts since the production of the forecast.
Attached to her memorandum was a projection reflecting these revised state aid projections. In highlighting the projections, Ms. White pointed out that if negotiations were successful with the unions that would cause a significant swing in savings because not only won’t there be a 10% increase but there will be the savings. That would go a long way in balancing the FY 2011 budget.
Known/potential positive impacts for FY 2011:
- (Potential) Local option taxes, if implemented, have projected full year value of $423,987 (meals tax) plus $460,245 (2% room tax) = $884,232 using DOR data. These estimates may be optimistic and could be lower.
- (Potential) Negotiations with collective bargaining units on health care changes could net savings in the range of $1M plus
Known/potential negative impacts for FY 2011:
- (Known) Permanent loss of $217,000 in Natick District Court rental receipts
BUDGET OVERVIEW: FISCAL 2009, FISCAL 2010, FISCAL 2011 (contd)
- (Known) State land values have been reduced and this will negatively impact cherry sheet/state aid. This was not huge money but FY 10 receipts were $194,742 and this will be reduced by about ½ in FY 2011.
- (Potential) Anticipated lower than originally estimated new growth for FY 2011 (only 0.5%).
- (Potential) Uncertain nature of recurring Federal Stimulus resources for the Natick Public Schools – so called funding cliff.
Ms. White pointed out that as was the case this early in the fiscal year, this list was only partial and the projections for next year were designed to be realistically conservative so as to guide the most prudent budget process in these difficult times. Staff will continue to monitor all budgets and revenues and regularly update the Board and Finance Committee on changes.
With a Fiscal 2011 deficit of over $3M, Mr. Connolly asked if Ms. White anticipated an operational override to help with the deficit. Ms. White responded that it was not part of her current strategy.
Ms. Van Amsterdam requested a breakdown of where the source of the turnbacks were from so there was a sense of which departments were doing what. Beyond using the spending freeze, she asked Ms. White to talk about what structural changes she (Ms. White) saw the Town having to grapple with even if the economy improved. The economy may improve for different segments but not all.
Ms. White responded that there were a number of different strategies in mind. The energy report highlights an area where the administration was trying to focus attention, but she didn’t want to answer Ms. Van Amsterdam’s question tonight because it deserved a more thoughtful response.
Mr. Ostroff inquired as to the timing for labor negotiations. Ms. White preferred not to comment with respect to a specific timetable, but she had started to put forward some specific information not through the collective bargaining process but through the Insurance Advisory Committee – rolling out some cost and benefits of different scenarios and beginning a dialog with union members.
Mr. Ostroff then inquired if a charge had been established for the Financial Planning Committee for Fiscal 2011. Mr. Ciccariello advised that there was nothing at this moment.
REQUEST FOR WATER & SEWER BILL ABATEMENT: INA SHATZ
The Board had previously discussed a request from Ina Shatz of 58 Westlake Road for an abatement of her water & sewer bill. Mr. Ciccariello noted that the Board had heard a lot of information on the meters and the way they worked and if no action was taken tonight essentially the Collector’s Office would seek to collect all the money due. If Ms. Shatz wished a payment schedule could be arranged.
Ms. Van Amsterdam requested a running tally of all the abatements given.
No action was taken.
FALL TOWN MEETING WARRANT ARTICLES
The Board discussed possible articles for inclusion in the Fall Town Meeting warrant.
In the discussion Ms. White advised that she didn’t expect to have the gasoline storage ready.
Mr. Ciccariello asked about the meals and hotel local option taxes. Ms. White believed the next meeting would be focused on the warrant and they would be discussed at that time.
Mr. Ostroff had three articles he was looking for the Board to sponsor: 1) A public information by-law which he noted he would be talking to the Charter & By-Law Review Committee after the close of the warrant; 2) Transferring the custody of the Town Forest to the Conservation Commission. The Conservation Commission would be talking to the Chair of the Town Forest Committee this week so at the next meeting he (Mr. Ostroff) would be asking the Board to sponsor an article. The transfer would provide more accountability for the objective of the committee and may provide funds for the care and maintenance of the forest; 3) Restaurant parking. Natick’s parking requirements were somewhat strict and Mr. Ostroff said he was speaking with Community Development Director Patrick Reffett on how to modify. The two of them would work on it and come back to the Board of Selectmen and the Planning Board.
FALL TOWN MEETING WARRANT ARTICLES (contd)
Ms. Gloff stated that she spoke with the Town Clerk about the public information by-law and she (Town Clerk) was extremely concerned about putting this into a by-law. She felt it was quite restrictive and not something the staff in her department could handle any time in the near future. The Town Clerk also said that she surveyed other Town Clerks and the vast majority said don’t put in the by-law. They applauded the goal but didn’t think putting it in a by-law was the right way to go at the moment. There has been extensive discussions at the Charter & By-Law Review Committee and although these things were important the belief was that people’s hands shouldn’t be tied by putting it into a by-law.
Mr. Ostroff responded that he wasn’t sure a by-law was the best way and knew some towns had a sunset clause. For members of the public it was agonizing to try to find out what was going on with boards and committees. Having struggled with this issue he wasn’t sure what was the best way to resolve it. He too spoke with the Town Clerk and knew she was concerned, but he wanted to get the ball rolling and look to see how to get it resolved. Without the force of Town Meeting saying this was how they want local government to be run, he felt the problem wouldn’t get resolved.
As a potential alternative, Ms. Van Amsterdam raised the possibility of the Board being more vigilant in having the chair of a committee the Board appoints come to a meeting and have them explain why the committee wasn’t doing the notifications and postings.
Mr. Ostroff pointed out that the Board’s meetings were already long enough.
Mr. Ciccariello suggested sending a letter to each committee appointed by the Board with some directives.
Ms. Gloff wanted an opportunity to think it through.
Mr. Ostroff reminded his colleagues that if the Board sponsored something a member put forward, it didn’t mean the Board supported it. He wanted to get a sense of where the members were at.
Mr. Connolly thought all three articles mentioned by Mr. Ostroff were great ideas. Sponsoring was different than supporting and he would sponsor all three.
Ms. Gloff didn’t think it was the Board’s job to sponsor what any member came up with and having had extensive discussions about the public information by-law she thought the by-law was premature.
Ms. Van Amsterdam stated that she would be willing to sponsor the Town Forest and restaurant parking articles. Mr. Ciccariello felt the same as Ms. Van Amsterdam. He was willing to sponsor 2 out of the 3, but was not ready to do the public information by-law.
Ms. Gloff advised that she anticipated the Charter & By-Law Review Committee submitting around 25 articles.
Ms. Van Amsterdam told the Board she had two articles that she would be asking the Board to sponsor – removal of the Chief of Police from Civil
Service and the second would be to change Article 24 of the by-laws adding a specific section for the appointment of a police chief. She provided the members with excerpts from the Board of Selectmen’s meetings of 3/21/05, 8/8/05, and 10/6/05 in discussion of the article to remove the police chief position from Civil Service that was on the 2005 Fall Town Meeting warrant. She (Ms. Van Amsterdam) would be happy to work with the administration and would contact the Personnel Board who sponsored the articles in 2005. They (Personnel Board) did a lot of work to respond to Town Meeting’s concerns. The articles were originally on the 2005 Spring Town Meeting warrant and were referred back and were put back on the 2005 Fall Town Meeting warrant. Article 17 (2005 FTM) was defeated and Article 18
was referred. It has been four years and she (Ms. Van Amsterdam) thought it was time to address again.
Mr. Ostroff was concerned with what was trying to be resolved by taking the position out of Civil Service. He also wondered how the appointment of an interim chief played into the timetable as he didn’t know that HRD would wait forever.
TAX CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEE
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the Tax Classification Committee openings had been posted twice with only one applicant. At this point he felt the Board
TAX CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEE (contd)
should decide if it wanted to continue to post the vacancies or abandon the idea of forming a committee.
A motion was made by Mr. Connolly, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, and unanimously voted to not form the committee.
Following a five minute recess, the meeting was reconvened at 9:30 p.m.
FY 2010 WATER & SEWER RATES: TOWN COUNSEL’S OPINION ON AVERAGING
Deputy Town Administrator Michael Walters Young called attention to the opinion from Town Counsel as the key point. Town Counsel issued an opinion that all like property had to be treated similarly. He (Town Counsel) was asked to review that and to speak with other communities because there didn’t seem to be a consistent practice. Town Counsel stands by his opinion.
In light of Town Counsel’s opinion that any property with a master meter should be treated similarly, the Board was being presented with two options for consideration – not for a vote tonight or next week but at the next available meeting.
Referring to the handout, Mr. Walters Young noted that the total amount necessary to be raised was approximately just over $65,000. From a revenue standpoint the old rates were generating $65,000 less than what was needed to fund operations this year. Over three cycles instead of an additional $16,000 per quarter an additional $20,000-21,000 was needed.
He (Mr. Walters Young) explained that the options before the Board took into account Town Counsel’s opinion that either all master meters needed to be averaged or none. Option A was the status quo + Fire fee + averaging for all master residential meters. Option B was Status Quo + Fire Fee + No averaging.
Under Option A the net increase for the entire fiscal year was about 4.9%. Option B was a decrease of about 5.5% or a net rate drop just under 4%.
With an increase of 4.9% for Option A and a decrease of 3.9% for Option B, Mr. Ciccariello questioned how the $13M for the budget would be made up. Mr. Walters advised that in both cases the $13M would be made up. In Option A the increase would be over the year 4.9%. The apartments and out-of-town users will see decreases because they would be averaging. Option B was the opposite. Condos were already being averaged and that would be done away with and they will be billed at the meters and the rates can drop because there will be more money available.
Mr. Walters Young believed both A & B were fully compliant with the legal opinion.
Mr. Connolly asked if there were different property tax classifications for a single family home, condo, or apartment. Mr. Ciccariello advised the rates were the same. The assessed value was different. Several years ago when the economy went down the value of condos went down substantially more than any other type of real estate.
Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired if it was possible to create a table whereby under Option A it shows that homeowners will somehow be penalized while the opposite was true for Option B. The way it was presented was accurate, but it would be interesting to go out a year and then produce the table for A&B. For discussion purposes she would like not to look at a single year.
Mr. Walters Young wasn’t sure it could be done. In his opinion it would be better to look one year back than be speculative of FY11.
Mr. Ostroff wanted to vote to end this process tonight. To him it came down to whether the Board was going to go for fairness and reduce the subsidy of master meters. This has been using a lot of staff time and he would love to see the Board make a policy decision and move on. There will always be something flawed. He was comfortable voting for the principle of fairness understanding it may impact some users that may have been paying less than they should have been paying.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if the legal opinion included commercial. Mr. Walters Young responded that the administration interpreted it to believe it was residential. Legally the Town can’t set different rates for residential vs commercial. If it was on a master meter those bills would be averaged.
FY 2010 WATER & SEWER RATES: TOWN COUNSEL’S OPINION ON AVERAGING (contd)
Resident Philip Levine felt the rates were unfair. It was unfair at the top tier and the disparity was discriminatory. At one time the DPW had a different formula applied to irrigation meters. They indicated the change was for environmental considerations for people using a higher percentage of water to pay more. The Town uses a high percentage of water in their public buildings and the Board of Selectmen was concerned with the cost of the golf course because of the high cost of water and talked about a well, but the rates have increased and created a burden on the golf course and put a burden on the taxpayers.
To be equitable he thought the percentage of the tiers should not be discriminatory and the Board of Selectmen should look at these tiers to make a more equitable approach. He put in an irrigation meter to beautify the neighborhood and would hate to think he would have to pay a greater amount and no longer be able to keep his property looking nice.
Robert Coates of the Meadowbrook Water Trust pointed out that if the Board went with Option A single homeowners would go up 5%. If the Board went with Option B, the condo rates would go up about 250%.
Mr. Walters Young told the Board he couldn’t validate or invalidate that assertion. If 10 hcf were used and averaging was done away with, the 10hcf would be multiplied at the top tier and broken on down through the bill. If it were averaged you would take the same amount and only bill at the first tier.
Robert Sokoff of Glen Ridge Trust noted that he never complained about the rate increases and understood the need to fund the enterprise fund, but last year hit the trifecta. There was a large increase that affected the Trust by 38% at the highest tier where most of their water was billed and increased their bill by about $10,000. They have always been billed at the top step for their water and it was 2-1/2-3 times the rate of a single family or if it was averaged. If the issue of fairness was addressed, it affects the condos, apartments and the trusts in Dover which was about a third of the residential units in Town. He felt addressing the fairness issue across all master meters would be appropriate.
Mr. Ciccariello polled the members on their preference to wait or vote tonight. Mr. Connolly preferred to wait. Ms. Gloff and Ms. Van Amsterdam could go either way.
Mr. Ostroff questioned if September 8 would allow enough time if averaging was implemented to get out the second quarter bills. Mr. Walters Young’s response was not for all customers. The bills would go out on time for Section 1. Any property the Board voted to average that could not be averaged before (the bills went out), an abatement would be made on the third quarter bill. Until the Board voted to change the rates the bills would go out on time at the current rate structure.
Mr. Ostroff requested some clarity on the fire fee – to what extent was that based on actual volume of usage. It was pointed out that charging per inch diameter was not proportional to the actual use.
Mr. Walters Young didn’t have a defined answer. The fee was based on the exact same fee as in other communities. Those pipes were used once a year to run the tests. Mr. Ostroff noted that if there was a minimum amount of water it didn’t matter, but it was substantial the Board may want to consider something.
If Option A were voted, Ms. Gloff asked if averaging could be implemented for all groups for September 1. Mr. Walters Young’s response was, “yes”, adding there may be a couple that don’t get done but the Finance Committee believed it could be done.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to establish water & sewer rates for Fiscal 2010 based on Option A which involves averaging water used for all master meter properties. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam. The motion passed on a 4-1-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly was opposed.
The rates adopted for Fiscal 2010 were as follows:
Combined Water & Sewer Rates
0-10 Water $ 1.53
Sewer $ 4.11
FY 2010 WATER & SEWER RATES: TOWN COUNSEL’S OPINION ON AVERAGING (contd)
11-20 Water $ 2.32
Sewer $ 7.35
21-40 Water $ 3.46
Sewer $12.15
40+ Water $ 5.33
Sewer $12.15
Water Only Rates
0-10 Water $ 1.53
11-20 Water $ 2.32
21-40 Water $ 3.46
40+ Water $ 8.69
Irrigation Rates
0-10 Water $ 2.73
11-20 Water $ 5.30
21-40 Water $ 7.09
40+ Water $ 8.69
Water Only Multi-Unit (Pit)
0-10 Water $ 1.53
11-20 Water $ 2.32
21-40 Water $ 3.46
40+ Water $ 5.33
Combined Elderly Rates
0-10 Water $ --
Sewer $ --
11-20 Water $ --
Sewer $ --
21-40 Water $ 2.60
Sewer $ 9.11
40+ Water $ 4.00
Sewer $ 9.11
Elderly Water Only
0-10 Water $ --
11-20 Water $ --
21-40 Water $ 2.60
41-100 Water $ 4.00
40+ Water $ 4.00
Sewer Only Rates
0-10 Sewer $ 4.11
11-20 Sewer $ 7.35
20+ Sewer $12.15
Speaking to her motion, Ms. Gloff noted that the net rate impact for the single family home was 4.91% or for this year 6.55% because it was dealt with over three quarters. She was not anxious to raise the rates for single family homes, but the Board has discussed this at great length and had a legal opinion. This needed to be settled and Option A would set up that
everyone was treated the same. From here on out the percentage increase would be much more manageable.
Ms. Van Amsterdam concurred with Ms. Gloff’s statements. She too did not relish raising the rates but she was in favor of a more fair approach. She would still like Mr. Walters Young to produce the table she mentioned earlier because she thought it would help the Board to explain to constituents.
Mr. Connolly stated that he had hoped to wait and wouldn’t vote in favor of this motion.
Mr. Ostroff didn’t think the Board needed a lawyer to tell them what was fair, but a lawyer was needed to tell them what was legal. He appreciated the members supporting what was fair.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that he was opposed to doing condos last year because he felt the Board acted very quickly on the matter. People in the administration couldn’t do it and two weeks later there was no issue. He heard some condo owner rents 200 units, heard the impact on apartment owners, and heard about the commitments made to Dover many years ago. He has voted not to increase the rates when he thought it was inappropriate to do so, but rather than treating certain users one way and others another way, he would support Option A even though he hated the increase.
ELIOT SCHOOL LEASE
Ms. White informed the Board that she met with representatives of the Montessori School again today. An agreement had not as yet been reached on the short-term lease and the request was for a 60 day extension. She asked that the Board authorize a 60 day extension to October 16, 2009.
Mr. Ostroff so moved. Seconded by Ms. Gloff. The motion passed on a 4-1-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly was opposed.
UPDATE POLICE/FIRE, TOWN HALL BOILERS
- Award contract: IT Air Conditioning Units
In a memo to the Board, Ms. White provided an update on the progress with respect to HVAC improvements at the Town Hall and the Police/Fire Station. She reminded the Board that the October 2008 Annual Town Meeting appropriated $410,000 for the work. There were three primary objectives associated with these projects:
- To repair or replace the boilers such that the need for costly and recurring maintenance and repairs could be alleviated
- To address the comfort issues in the larger building spaces such as the meeting rooms
- To install more reliable air conditioning in the computer room at Town Hall and the 911 room at the Police Station to better protect the valuable equipment in those locations.
Ms. White advised that to date $22,420 had been expended for engineering services, $8,840 for Town Hall controls, and $8,590 for Police/Fire Controls. Work on the air conditioning units has been put out to bid; the low bid was $89,700 and the recommendation was that the Board award this bid.
She further advised that at present a bid solicitation had been issued for the installation of one condensing boiler in each of the two buildings. Condensing boilers were more expensive than conventional boilers, but were more energy efficient. There was some concern that the cost of these boilers would not be within the budget. Accordingly the intent was to issue an addendum such that bidders would submit pricing for replacement of conventional boilers at each of the two locations; these boilers would be sized larger than the existing boilers that they would replace. Each of the two buildings have two boilers and in each of the bid options just one boiler in each building would be replaced and the better functioning boiler would remain in place as a reserve.
DPW Business Manager William Chenard reviewed the bids for the upgrades to the Natick Police Department IT Room and 911 room and the Natick Town Hall IT room. He noted that the invitation for bids was advertised in the MetroWest Daily News and the Central Register on May 27, 2009. Twenty-three contractors requested the invitation to bid and on July 1, 2009, four contractors submitted bids to the Procurement Office. Three of the bids were responsive. One responsive bid from ATC Mechanical Services contained a bid deposit of less than five percent as required per MGL Chapter 149.
Responsive bids were received from:
Base Bid Alternate
MM Environmental Engineering, Inc. $ 92,300 $(2,600)
Northeastern Mechanical, Inc. $118,800 $(1,800)
Essex County Craftsmen, Inc. $141,675 $(5,060)
The low bidder, MM Environmental Engineering was qualified, DCAM certified, produced a bid bond and will be producing a bond payment and performance bond.
Mr. Chenard explained that the alternate was to remove the cooling tower from the roof top. It can be on a pad on the ground on the perimeter of the building. There were mixed feelings as there would be noise.
Mr. Ciccariello didn’t know how Town Hall could be considered for the pad as there was no ground.
Asked about the size, Corey Lovett, Facilities Director responded that the proposed units consist of an evaporator and a condenser. The evaporator stays in the building. They were asking the condenser to be placed on the roof. It wasn’t very big. At Town Hall the placement would be on top of the IT server room. At Police several contractors asked to put it on the ground next to the electrical vault, but he (Mr. Lovett) strongly
recommended against it as it would be a constant maintenance issue with cutting the grass. It may be inconvenient for the vendor to run lines to the roof but he believed it was the way to go.
UPDATE POLICE/FIRE, TOWN HALL BOILERS (contd)
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to award the contract to MM Environmental Engineering Inc. in an amount not to exceed $92,300. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam. The motion passed on a 4-1-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly was opposed.
Speaking to her motion, Ms. Gloff noted that she wasn’t anxious to spend an additional $2,600 when having it on the ground presents some additional problems as well as aesthetic concerns. She thought it was worth having the cooling tower on the roof.
Mr. Ciccariello clarified that this was for the air conditioning only of the IT rooms and 911 dispatch.
Mr. Connolly stated that he was voting against this out of his frustration with the work done when it was built. He inquired as to the warranty and Mr. Lovett responded that the IT server room and 911 server room was initially cooled only by existing roof top units. The problem with the roof top existing unit was that during peak warm humid days the air conditioning maxed out and nothing cooled the server rooms adequately. That couldn’t be achieved. The equipment generated a lot of heat.
To resolve it quickly was to put a little foot system in. It recognized that wasn’t the proper way and it was a band aid for the last 3-5 years. Something was needed to take a day-after-day beating and the thought was that the only way to do this and make a long-term improvement would be to put a large commercial grade unit. The Town had a track record of this type of unit. There was one in the archive room at the library and it purrs like a Swiss watch. It’s been a good investment.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the warranty from the contractor was one year notwithstanding the manufacturer’s warranty of equipment which was a limited warranty. When these buildings were built the server rooms had a limited amount of equipment, but they have installed servers that generate a lot more heat than the ones initially installed.
UPDATE HIRING PERSONNEL DIRECTOR
Ms. White informed the Board that she met with the Expense Control Task Force, School Superintendent, and Mr. Ciccariello. Out of that meeting it was clear there was merit to consolidating the Human Resources functions between the school and municipal, but there was also some concern. It was agreed that the Superintendent and she should develop a plan for the desired consolidation and establish it as a three year goal. It was also agreed
that the general government side needs to fill its HR position as soon as possible.
The recommendation was to fill this position not necessarily with a top level human resource director, but perhaps a position such as a personnel manager. Desirable candidates would be advised of the planned consolidation and the expectation they would assist in and a part of the transition. $80,127 was appropriated for Fiscal 2010.
Ms. White noted that she had provided the Board with a draft job description for the position. The job description had not as yet been discussed with the Personnel Board but would be at the earliest possible opportunity.
Ms. Van Amsterdam clarified that the meeting was actually with two representatives of the Expense Control Task Force. Given that the goal was to attempt to put together a plan for consolidation, her one request was if looking for a candidate for general government that Ms. White try to envision the person in the role of HR Director should he/she assume that role in the consolidation. Ms. Van Amsterdam agreed the title would be Personnel Manager, but hopefully we would be looking for someone who could cross into a director’s position.
APPOINTMENTS: COCHITUATE RAIL TRAIL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to confirm the appointment of Harlee Strauss as the Finance Committee’s representative to the Cochituate Rail Trail Advisory Committee.
Mr. Ostroff noted the Finance Committee had previously had a non-member as their representative, Cheryl Byrnes, and she may be back before the Board for another appointment. He thanked her for her service.
APPOINTMENTS: COCHITUATE RAIL TRAIL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (contd)
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to confirm the appointment of A. Richard Miller as the Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee’s representative to the Cochituate Rail Trail.
APPOINTMENT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to reappoint Randy Johnson as the construction industry representative on the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
APPOINTMENT: BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Mr. Ostroff moved to reappoint Susan Geiser to the Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
VETERANS’ DAY DINNER: BOARD OF SELECTMEN SUPPORT
Mr. Ostroff noted that he had previously mentioned there were a number of different options for again holding a Veterans’ Day dinner to honor the service men and women and their families and he would like to come back to the Board at the next meeting or the one after with a plan.
MINUTES
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the January 12, 2009 meeting.
A motion was made by Ms. Van Amsterdam to approve the minutes of the January 20, 2009 meeting. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff. The motion passed on a 4-0-1 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Mr. Connolly voted in favor of the motion. Ms. Gloff abstained.
REQUEST FOR BLOCK PARTY: MORNINGSIDE ROAD
On a motion by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to approve Charlotte Bourhis’ request to close Morningside Avenue from the intersection of Woodleigh/Morningside Avenue on August 29, 2009 (rain date August 30) from 11:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. for a block party.
CROSSROADS SCHOOL: REQUEST FOR WALK/BLOCK PARTY
Ms. Challis advised that the office had received a call from the Crossroads School withdrawing their request.
DONCASTER ROAD AREA: REQUEST TO HOLD RUN/WALK, BLOCK PARTY
A motion was made by Ms. Van Amsterdam to approve the request of Frank Lombardo to hold the Sherwood neighborhood annual run/walk on September 13, 2009 on the following roads: Doncaster, Surrey, Sherwood, Nottingham,
Barnesdale, and Greenwood. In addition to approve the closure of Doncaster along with Surrey between 7-13 from 1:00-6:00 p.m. for a cookout. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
REQUEST FOR BLOCK PARTY: GROVE ROAD
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to approve the request to close Grove Road from Morses Pond Road to Jennings Pond road on September 5, 2008 from 2:00-8:00 p.m. for a block party.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR NOTES
Ms. White advised that notification had been received of final cleanup of the former Clean Harbors site on Mercer Road.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
- Registry of Motor Vehicles
When asked for an update on the Registry of Motor Vehicles, Ms. White responded that the RMV intends to close Framingham and in its place open an express registry at the last stop on the Mass Turnpike with access from Route 27. A number of concerns have been raised. Representative Linsky has been working to organize an onsite meeting with the Registrar. She (Registrar of Motor Vehicles) has been communicating with the Community Development Director and the hope was to meet with her tomorrow or Wednesday. There was some hope of maybe luring the Registry into the Natick Collection, but it doesn’t appear to be possible. The Registrar was very adamant that whatever location was chosen would have to be rent free.
Mr. Ostroff commended Community Development Director Patrick Reffett on his efforts to try to mediate a good solution.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS (contd)
Mr. Ostroff advised that the Revenue Enhancement Task Force had been exploring municipal sponsorship, i.e. dog bags provided on the Common. An opinion was received from Town Counsel that it can be done and that program will come forward. He hoped the Town would issue a Request for Interest.
Mr. Connolly moved to send a letter to the Legislators telling them the Board was unhappy with what they did regarding the Quinn Bill. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
Mr. Ostroff asked to see the letter before it was sent.
Mr. Connolly moved to issue an RFP for Town Counsel services. Mr. Ciccariello seconded for discussion. After some discussion Mr. Connolly withdrew his motion and no vote was taken.
Mr. Connolly noted that this had been brought up a couple of times. RFP’s were put out for trees, paper towels, etc. and he thought the Board owed it to the citizens to see what was out there. Every time he brought it up there was a reason why it couldn’t be done. That’s why he wanted to start now.
Mr. Ostroff thought that at least six months or more was needed and for the next contract the Board would probably want to start the process in the Fall. He would want to have a long discussion as part of a regular agenda item and would want to think about the process.
Mr. Connolly stated that he had heard some real concern with the blasting on Rockland Street and the affect on the infrastructure.
Mr. Ciccariello thought there were procedures the blasting company had to follow. If an abutter had a question they should speak to the Building Department because there were specific rules and regulations.
Mr. Connolly noted that last week he met with Ms. White about a pole problem on Speen Street. Ms. White allowed him to be the liaison with Nstar but he didn’t get anywhere and didn’t know if it was taken care of.
g.Lake Cochituate Pesticide
Mr. Connolly told the Board that he received a call from Ann Karnofsky concerning the pesticides used in Lake Cochituate and the method of removal of the Milfoil. The Conservation Commission voted 3-2 to go along with the State’s recommendation for the program. Ms. Karnofsky said the Board of Health was totally against this and she wondered why the Board of Selectmen didn’t have any input. He recall it coming before the Board for any input.
Ms. Karnofsky asked him if the Selectmen would speak with the Board of Health and Conservation to see if they would re-consider their position. He noted that one member could talk to the Board of Health and Chair of the Conservation Commission or a letter could be written in support of or against something, but the Board didn’t make the final decision. He would let Ms. Karnofsky know that he would speak to the other boards but there was no guarantee he could do anything about it.
h.Natick Paperboard
Mr. Ciccariello announced there was a public hearing tomorrow night on the environmental studies regarding the Natick Paperboard site.
i.High School Project
Mr. Ciccariello advised that there was a meeting scheduled for Wednesday night of the School Committee and High School Building Committee to interview three architectural firms considered to be model school architects. A week from today the School Committee would be making a final decision.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
______________________________
Kristine Van Amsterdam, Clerk
| 
